By Will Parry
At our deadline it appears that the so-called debt reduction plan emerging from the secret deliberations of Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will not get the 14-vote super-majority needed to send it to Congress for an up-or-down vote.
But hold the cheers. The plan is likely to get the support of a majority of the commission’s 18 members, and may become a blueprint for future action by Congress.
In any event, its destructive provisions will poison the political atmosphere as the nation grapples with stark economic realities: More than 25 million unemployed, and millions underwater in their mortgages or facing the prospect of losing their homes to foreclosure.
At the heart of the scheme released by commission Co-Chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles is its attack on the integrity of Social Security. As economist Dean Baker points out:
“It is striking that the co-chairs felt the need to address Social Security, even though it was not part of their mandate. The commission’s mandate was to deal with the country’s fiscal problems. Since Social Security is legally prohibited from ever spending more than it has collected in taxes, it cannot under the law contribute to the deficit.
“Their proposal would cut benefits for tens of millions of middle class workers who are overwhelmingly dependent on Social Security for their retirement income. It would also raise the retirement age for lower income workers who have seen little increase in life expectancy.”
This august body has earned a reputation as “the Catfood Commission,” in view of the impact of its plan on seniors’ living standards.
The Simpson-Bowles scheme did not go unchallenged. The progressive policy organizations Demos, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Century Foundation released a proposal that “stabilizes debt as a share of the economy without demanding draconian cuts to national investments or to vital safety net programs.”
A separate coalition of labor leaders, liberal groups and economists – the Citizens’ Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America’s Economic Future – released a similar plan.
Both plans were comparable to that submitted by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), the one commission member to emerge as a staunch champion of Social Security. (See story on Schakowsky’s plan.)
All three progressive proposals call for immediate additional stimulus spending, for financing additional unemployment benefits, for public works projects, and for substantial aid to state and local governments, both to prevent further layoffs of teachers and other public employees and to finance “pro-growth” investments in education, infrastructure, child care and scientific research.
Such stimulus spending is absent from the Simpson-Bowles scheme, with its misguided focus on the federal deficit.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Our annual gala Holiday Party is December 16!
At this time of year, we wish for our cherished members and supporters an especially enjoyable holiday season – and a New Year of daily engagement in humanity’s struggle for peace and social justice!
We’ll celebrate our hard work during 2010 and pledge our continued solidarity throughout 2011 at our gala Annual Holiday Party from 12:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. Thursday, December 16. This year we’ll be at Cannon House, 113 22nd Avenue South in Seattle.
Marilyn Watkins, policy director for the Economic Opportunities Institute, will bring us up to date on the critical nationwide campaign to preserve Social Security in the face of multiple attacks by its enemies.
As always, our Holiday Party is coupled with our winter Membership Meeting, with the election of our Executive Board members, and with the traditional tasty holiday potluck. Please join the very cream of the retiree movement at this year’s lively and enjoyable Holiday Party!
We’ll celebrate our hard work during 2010 and pledge our continued solidarity throughout 2011 at our gala Annual Holiday Party from 12:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. Thursday, December 16. This year we’ll be at Cannon House, 113 22nd Avenue South in Seattle.
Marilyn Watkins, policy director for the Economic Opportunities Institute, will bring us up to date on the critical nationwide campaign to preserve Social Security in the face of multiple attacks by its enemies.
As always, our Holiday Party is coupled with our winter Membership Meeting, with the election of our Executive Board members, and with the traditional tasty holiday potluck. Please join the very cream of the retiree movement at this year’s lively and enjoyable Holiday Party!
A life-and-death need for new state revenue
Eighty determined advocates will be meeting with their state senators and representatives this month, following through on the issues discussed and approved at the Fourth Annual PSARA Legislative Conference November 19.
Always essential, active citizen participation in the legislative process has never been more crucial than it will be in the 2011 session, to be gaveled to order January 11, charged with producing a budget in the context of a severe recession and a devastating decline in state revenues.
PSARA’s activists and allied organizations will focus on budget and revenue issues in a struggle to minimize the human toll resulting from deep budget cuts. To generate more revenue, they will urge legislators to submit to the voters in March a referendum that would close specific targeted loopholes.
They will also support legislation to create a State Bank, similar to the highly successful State Bank of North Dakota, to allow the income earned from state funds to be directed into programs that support education and human services.
And they will support legislation addressing two separate housing needs:
• A measure to require mediation in foreclosure actions, to provide a means of challenging foreclosures and reducing their number.
• Legislation that mandates a fair screening process for renters, assuring that renters get a copy of their credit and rental history if such information is required by the landlord; and assuring that the renter’s credit and rental history remains valid for at least 60 days after receipt by the renter to avoid the renter facing multiple fees for these reports.
The overall budget outlook is grim indeed. Some $4.3 billion in cuts have already been imposed on vital state programs over the past two years. Any additional cuts will come from essential services, including those relied upon by seniors.
The home and community based services that keep the elderly out of nursing homes are vulnerable, even though cutting those services is costly in the long run. Florida placed 69,000 people on waiting lists for home and community services in 2009, and 5,700 ended up in nursing homes.
Nursing homes cost the state an average of $5,900 a month; home and community services costs $1,500 a month.
Washington State’s funding crisis was deepened by the outcome of the 2010 election, where revenue-raising measures were defeated and Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053, requiring a two-thirds vote for any tax increase, was approved.
Governor Chris Gregoire has told state agencies to be prepared for cuts of 4 to 7 percent.. “We’re going to see…not the cutting of a program but the end of programs,” the governor said. “No more podiatry. No more dental services. No more vision services.”
Always essential, active citizen participation in the legislative process has never been more crucial than it will be in the 2011 session, to be gaveled to order January 11, charged with producing a budget in the context of a severe recession and a devastating decline in state revenues.
PSARA’s activists and allied organizations will focus on budget and revenue issues in a struggle to minimize the human toll resulting from deep budget cuts. To generate more revenue, they will urge legislators to submit to the voters in March a referendum that would close specific targeted loopholes.
They will also support legislation to create a State Bank, similar to the highly successful State Bank of North Dakota, to allow the income earned from state funds to be directed into programs that support education and human services.
And they will support legislation addressing two separate housing needs:
• A measure to require mediation in foreclosure actions, to provide a means of challenging foreclosures and reducing their number.
• Legislation that mandates a fair screening process for renters, assuring that renters get a copy of their credit and rental history if such information is required by the landlord; and assuring that the renter’s credit and rental history remains valid for at least 60 days after receipt by the renter to avoid the renter facing multiple fees for these reports.
The overall budget outlook is grim indeed. Some $4.3 billion in cuts have already been imposed on vital state programs over the past two years. Any additional cuts will come from essential services, including those relied upon by seniors.
The home and community based services that keep the elderly out of nursing homes are vulnerable, even though cutting those services is costly in the long run. Florida placed 69,000 people on waiting lists for home and community services in 2009, and 5,700 ended up in nursing homes.
Nursing homes cost the state an average of $5,900 a month; home and community services costs $1,500 a month.
Washington State’s funding crisis was deepened by the outcome of the 2010 election, where revenue-raising measures were defeated and Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053, requiring a two-thirds vote for any tax increase, was approved.
Governor Chris Gregoire has told state agencies to be prepared for cuts of 4 to 7 percent.. “We’re going to see…not the cutting of a program but the end of programs,” the governor said. “No more podiatry. No more dental services. No more vision services.”
Over the top in December!
One month to go: One month to reach and exceed our goal of 250 new members in 2010!
As this is written, we’re at 220, tantalizingly close to victory. One final burst of activity can bring us over the top.
It’s a happy coincidence that December is the season of gift-giving. There’s no better time to give a year’s membership, and with it twelve lively issues of The Retiree Advocate. It’s the gift that keeps on giving, month after eventful month, all year long.
To encourage that final surge, your editor has earmarked $75 from his December Social Security check for gift memberships for five dear friends. Do the math: Five new memberships brings us 2% closer to our goal!
Whether it’s a brother, a sister, a cousin, a grandchild or an aunt, a union brother or sister, a neighbor or someone who shares your religious faith – someone close to you will welcome this year-long gift of news, analysis and commentary.
As this is written, we’re at 220, tantalizingly close to victory. One final burst of activity can bring us over the top.
It’s a happy coincidence that December is the season of gift-giving. There’s no better time to give a year’s membership, and with it twelve lively issues of The Retiree Advocate. It’s the gift that keeps on giving, month after eventful month, all year long.
To encourage that final surge, your editor has earmarked $75 from his December Social Security check for gift memberships for five dear friends. Do the math: Five new memberships brings us 2% closer to our goal!
Whether it’s a brother, a sister, a cousin, a grandchild or an aunt, a union brother or sister, a neighbor or someone who shares your religious faith – someone close to you will welcome this year-long gift of news, analysis and commentary.
Dave Niehaus
For maybe a million people, and for 34 seasons, baseball in the Northwest has meant Dave Niehaus. His voice was the background music of summer.
Our region and its up-and-down Major League franchise have been blessed all these years with one of the supremely gifted sports broadcasters of all time.
From Diego Segui’s first pitch in the 1977 season opener, year after year, right up to Ichiro Suzuki’s fly ball to end the sorry 2010 season, Dave Niehaus has lived in our homes and in our hearts.
Dave was family, and it was as family that fans were stricken with the word of his death November 10 at the age of 75. It was as family that the spontaneous tributes poured forth – the notes and flowers at the gates to the ball park, the thousands who came to view mementos of his career and to sign memory books.
Whether he was describing a strike-out pitch, a crisp double play, or a great catch in the outfield, what came through, in Dave’s marvelous voice, unspoken but unmistakable, was, “What a great game baseball is!”
Dave broadcast about 2,500 games, and I was with him for maybe a thousand or so. Not once did I find him less than respectful to a player. African American, Latin, Asian and white players were invariably accorded equal dignity. In the most important sense of the term, Dave was an all-American.
In a couple of months, when Mariner pitchers and catchers once again report to Arizona for spring training. some other voice will be at the microphone. We wish the new broadcaster well, but it just won’t be quite the same.
-- Will Parry
Our region and its up-and-down Major League franchise have been blessed all these years with one of the supremely gifted sports broadcasters of all time.
From Diego Segui’s first pitch in the 1977 season opener, year after year, right up to Ichiro Suzuki’s fly ball to end the sorry 2010 season, Dave Niehaus has lived in our homes and in our hearts.
Dave was family, and it was as family that fans were stricken with the word of his death November 10 at the age of 75. It was as family that the spontaneous tributes poured forth – the notes and flowers at the gates to the ball park, the thousands who came to view mementos of his career and to sign memory books.
Whether he was describing a strike-out pitch, a crisp double play, or a great catch in the outfield, what came through, in Dave’s marvelous voice, unspoken but unmistakable, was, “What a great game baseball is!”
Dave broadcast about 2,500 games, and I was with him for maybe a thousand or so. Not once did I find him less than respectful to a player. African American, Latin, Asian and white players were invariably accorded equal dignity. In the most important sense of the term, Dave was an all-American.
In a couple of months, when Mariner pitchers and catchers once again report to Arizona for spring training. some other voice will be at the microphone. We wish the new broadcaster well, but it just won’t be quite the same.
-- Will Parry
An honest conversation about the crisis
By Robby Stern
Heading into the 2011 Washington Legislative session, we need an honest conversation about the crisis we face, who is responsible, and how PSARA can and should respond. Work in coalition with other groups to address the cuts at the state level and the attacks at the federal level will be at the heart of what we do.
A $6 billion deficit is projected for the budget that will take effect July 1, covering state expenditures through June 30 of 2013. Last session, the legislature went out on a limb and passed some tax increases and, in addition, sent a referendum to the ballot that would have created up to 30,000 jobs and extended the bottled water tax.
The voters slapped them down. Under the influence of huge spending by corporations and wealthy individuals, the voters took positions counter to their own interests. They repealed the candy and pop tax the legislature had passed; they defeated Referendum 53, which would have extended the bottled water tax and created tens of thousands of jobs; they passed Eyman’s initiative making it nearly impossible for the legislature to raise revenue; and they defeated a progressive income tax measure. In general. they made the situation in our state far worse.
It would simply be wrong to blame the legislature for what the voters decided.
On the other hand, the legislature bears full responsibility for the tax breaks they have handed out like candy to some of these same corporations and wealthy individuals. These tax expenditures are now coming back to haunt us and the legislature can only undo them with a 60% majority vote that will be impossible to achieve, given the ideology of the Republicans and what are now self-called the “road kill’ Democrats.
Gov. Gregoire and the Legislature face a devastating situation. A significant shortfall in the present budget cycle requires cuts that will seriously hurt thousands of the most vulnerable among us. Recently, a number of PSARA members attended a candlelight vigil in Olympia to protest the cuts to long term care and to the Medicaid program that are taking place at this very moment. With us were people who will suffer and some of whom may very well die as a result of these cuts.
Sen. Ed Murray, the new chair of the Senate Ways & Means Committee, spoke at our November 19 PSARA Legislative Conference. Surprisingly, his message was one of hope, mixed with a very somber appraisal of the human toll in Washington if we do not address the issue of revenue. He pointed out that in 2002, after voters defeated a revenue package for transportation by 20 percent, the legislature’s Democratic majority raised the gas tax by 5 cents. In 2005, the legislature raised it by an additional 9.5 cents and when John Carlson tried to overturn the revenue increase, the voters rejected the Carlson initiative by 10 percentage points. In other words, things can be turned around, and quickly. Our job is to engage our members in the fight, and to clearly explain what is at stake.
PSARA will do everything we can to make life a little less difficult for poor and working people. We will join with others to see that the corporate and wealthy interests that misled the Washington voters are exposed and held accountable.
We will also join with others to enact the following program for the 2011 legislative session, adopted at our spirited Legislative Conference:
• Work to minimize the human toll resulting from the cuts. We will encourage the Legislature to send a referendum to the people in 2011 to close targeted tax loopholes as a way to raise the revenue needed to mitigate the cuts
.• Support the creation of a State Public Investment Bank that utilizes income generated by state revenue to benefit the people of our state. These revenues are now primarily deposited in multi-state banks, with the largest share in the Bank of America. We are supporting legislation based on a model that has worked for decades in North Dakota.
• Support legislation requiring mediation in foreclosure actions. The object is to reduce the number of foreclosures, and to give home owners a chance to remain in their homes.
• We will also support legislation that mandates a fair screening process for renters, assuring that renters receive a copy of their credit and rental history if such information is required by their landlord. The legislation also mandates that the credit and rental history remain valid for at least 60 days to protect the renter from facing multiple fees for the report.
We have a lot on our plate. PSARA members will be asked to help fight the effort to shift the cost of the federal deficit onto the backs of seniors and poor and working people. We will fiercely organize to stop the effort to cut Social Security. At the same time, we will be calling on our members to help us in holding the corporate and wealthy interests accountable and also engage with us in this state legislative session with phone calls and turn out. We are a feisty organization. Together we can make a significant difference.
Heading into the 2011 Washington Legislative session, we need an honest conversation about the crisis we face, who is responsible, and how PSARA can and should respond. Work in coalition with other groups to address the cuts at the state level and the attacks at the federal level will be at the heart of what we do.
A $6 billion deficit is projected for the budget that will take effect July 1, covering state expenditures through June 30 of 2013. Last session, the legislature went out on a limb and passed some tax increases and, in addition, sent a referendum to the ballot that would have created up to 30,000 jobs and extended the bottled water tax.
The voters slapped them down. Under the influence of huge spending by corporations and wealthy individuals, the voters took positions counter to their own interests. They repealed the candy and pop tax the legislature had passed; they defeated Referendum 53, which would have extended the bottled water tax and created tens of thousands of jobs; they passed Eyman’s initiative making it nearly impossible for the legislature to raise revenue; and they defeated a progressive income tax measure. In general. they made the situation in our state far worse.
It would simply be wrong to blame the legislature for what the voters decided.
On the other hand, the legislature bears full responsibility for the tax breaks they have handed out like candy to some of these same corporations and wealthy individuals. These tax expenditures are now coming back to haunt us and the legislature can only undo them with a 60% majority vote that will be impossible to achieve, given the ideology of the Republicans and what are now self-called the “road kill’ Democrats.
Gov. Gregoire and the Legislature face a devastating situation. A significant shortfall in the present budget cycle requires cuts that will seriously hurt thousands of the most vulnerable among us. Recently, a number of PSARA members attended a candlelight vigil in Olympia to protest the cuts to long term care and to the Medicaid program that are taking place at this very moment. With us were people who will suffer and some of whom may very well die as a result of these cuts.
Sen. Ed Murray, the new chair of the Senate Ways & Means Committee, spoke at our November 19 PSARA Legislative Conference. Surprisingly, his message was one of hope, mixed with a very somber appraisal of the human toll in Washington if we do not address the issue of revenue. He pointed out that in 2002, after voters defeated a revenue package for transportation by 20 percent, the legislature’s Democratic majority raised the gas tax by 5 cents. In 2005, the legislature raised it by an additional 9.5 cents and when John Carlson tried to overturn the revenue increase, the voters rejected the Carlson initiative by 10 percentage points. In other words, things can be turned around, and quickly. Our job is to engage our members in the fight, and to clearly explain what is at stake.
PSARA will do everything we can to make life a little less difficult for poor and working people. We will join with others to see that the corporate and wealthy interests that misled the Washington voters are exposed and held accountable.
We will also join with others to enact the following program for the 2011 legislative session, adopted at our spirited Legislative Conference:
• Work to minimize the human toll resulting from the cuts. We will encourage the Legislature to send a referendum to the people in 2011 to close targeted tax loopholes as a way to raise the revenue needed to mitigate the cuts
.• Support the creation of a State Public Investment Bank that utilizes income generated by state revenue to benefit the people of our state. These revenues are now primarily deposited in multi-state banks, with the largest share in the Bank of America. We are supporting legislation based on a model that has worked for decades in North Dakota.
• Support legislation requiring mediation in foreclosure actions. The object is to reduce the number of foreclosures, and to give home owners a chance to remain in their homes.
• We will also support legislation that mandates a fair screening process for renters, assuring that renters receive a copy of their credit and rental history if such information is required by their landlord. The legislation also mandates that the credit and rental history remain valid for at least 60 days to protect the renter from facing multiple fees for the report.
We have a lot on our plate. PSARA members will be asked to help fight the effort to shift the cost of the federal deficit onto the backs of seniors and poor and working people. We will fiercely organize to stop the effort to cut Social Security. At the same time, we will be calling on our members to help us in holding the corporate and wealthy interests accountable and also engage with us in this state legislative session with phone calls and turn out. We are a feisty organization. Together we can make a significant difference.
An election drowning in money
By Will Parry
Hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions from billionaires and corporations, much of it anonymous, corrupted the 2010 elections and swept a clutch of corporate-friendly politicians into office.
The unlimited spending was the ugly fruit of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case, overturning a century of law by ruling that corporations have the same free speech rights as human beings.
“The activist reactionary majority on the Supreme Court…has opened the floodgates for oligarchs and plutocrats to secretly buy our elections and consolidate their hold on the corporate state,” Bill Moyers warned.
One example among many: Right wing funding sources poured a staggering $65 million into no fewer than 161,203 attack ads aimed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to research by the Campaign Media Analysis Group. Amazingly, Pelosi survived the assault.
“We face a Wild West campaign finance system that has degraded our democracy and shaken its foundations,” said Public Citizen President Robert Weissman. “Political insiders agree that the corporate and billionaire money spent in 2010 is just a warm-up for a much larger effort in 2012.”
Shadowy front groups with “patriotic” titles but no mass membership base were the funnels through which many of the millions poured: American Crossroads, American Solutions, American Future Fund, Americans for Job Security, Americans for Prosperity, American Action Network.
Many of these sham groups were organized under a section of the tax code that gives corporations and the wealthy a legal way to contribute anonymously. And anonymous contributions translate into zero accountability.
The hand of Karl Rove was prominent in the campaign through his links to two third-party groups, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS. The latter group is favored by wealthy contributors because it is set up as a 501(c)(4) corporation to keep its donor list secret.
Crossroads GPS funneled $14 million into ads attacking Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer as part of a concerted campaign to shift control of the Senate to the Republicans. The donors were not identified. Despite the attacks, the two senators won re-election.
The U. S. Chamber of Commerce “raised nearly $33 million in secret donations for political ads…almost all of which was used to elect Republicans who have vowed to repeal the health care law,” The New York Times reported. “Certainly the chamber, which lobbies Congress hard on behalf of big business, will make its demands known – health care repeal, no tax increases, reduced regulation and oversight.”
(In 2009, the health insurance lobby had given $86.2 million to the chamber to try to prevent enactment of the health care law.)
Apparently foreign money was also used in election spending. The Nation reports that contributions from U.S. based multinationals and from India and Bahrain were commingled and deposited “in the same 501(c) (6) account used to run an unprecedented $75 million attack campaign, mostly against Democrats.”
Operating from the shadows over the years have been David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries, a conglomerate with annual earnings estimated at $100 billion.
“The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry – especially environmental regulation,” Jane Mayer wrote in The New Yorker.
Mayer quotes Charles Lewis, founder of the Center for Public Integrity: “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money….They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”
Senior voters were not neglected. The so-called “60 Plus Association” spent $5,516,241 in pharmaceutical industry contributions for ads directed at older voters, spreading lies about the health reform law and supporting Republican candidates committed to its repeal.
The barrage of negative attack ads was effective. They began early in the campaign, battering Democratic candidates, helping to set the tone in key districts, forcing the Democrats into defensive spending. Even where the Democrats eventually won, the barrage was hardly wasted, since it diverted resources from other races.
In the first election after Citizens United, it has become clear that the big corporations, the Wall Street thieves and the bloated billionaires have been freed by the U.S. Supreme Court to spend whatever it takes to buy themselves a government.
Counter measures are in the works. The DISCLOSE Act would at least require that donors be identified, enabling the public to follow the money.
The House has passed this legislation (whose awkward title is “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections”). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is being urged to bring the DISCLOSE Act up for a vote in the lame duck session.
There will also be a renewed effort to enact legislation providing for the public financing of elections.
Vital as these immediate steps are, in the words of Public Citizen’s Robert Weissman, “We absolutely must overturn the Citizens United decision.” To this end, Public Citizen and other advocates have launched a long-haul drive for a constitutional amendment.
Public Citizen has already gathered more than 500,000 signatures of persons endorsing such an amendment, which would make it clear that our cherished free speech rights do not extend to corporations. Roughly 50 House members and ten senators have already indicated their support for such an amendment, Public Citizen reports, “and we’re going to get much more powerful, among the people and in Congress.” Public Citizen’s concluding statement is a clarion call to all of us:
“We refuse to sit back and watch our democracy be eviscerated.”
Hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions from billionaires and corporations, much of it anonymous, corrupted the 2010 elections and swept a clutch of corporate-friendly politicians into office.
The unlimited spending was the ugly fruit of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case, overturning a century of law by ruling that corporations have the same free speech rights as human beings.
“The activist reactionary majority on the Supreme Court…has opened the floodgates for oligarchs and plutocrats to secretly buy our elections and consolidate their hold on the corporate state,” Bill Moyers warned.
One example among many: Right wing funding sources poured a staggering $65 million into no fewer than 161,203 attack ads aimed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to research by the Campaign Media Analysis Group. Amazingly, Pelosi survived the assault.
“We face a Wild West campaign finance system that has degraded our democracy and shaken its foundations,” said Public Citizen President Robert Weissman. “Political insiders agree that the corporate and billionaire money spent in 2010 is just a warm-up for a much larger effort in 2012.”
Shadowy front groups with “patriotic” titles but no mass membership base were the funnels through which many of the millions poured: American Crossroads, American Solutions, American Future Fund, Americans for Job Security, Americans for Prosperity, American Action Network.
Many of these sham groups were organized under a section of the tax code that gives corporations and the wealthy a legal way to contribute anonymously. And anonymous contributions translate into zero accountability.
The hand of Karl Rove was prominent in the campaign through his links to two third-party groups, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS. The latter group is favored by wealthy contributors because it is set up as a 501(c)(4) corporation to keep its donor list secret.
Crossroads GPS funneled $14 million into ads attacking Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer as part of a concerted campaign to shift control of the Senate to the Republicans. The donors were not identified. Despite the attacks, the two senators won re-election.
The U. S. Chamber of Commerce “raised nearly $33 million in secret donations for political ads…almost all of which was used to elect Republicans who have vowed to repeal the health care law,” The New York Times reported. “Certainly the chamber, which lobbies Congress hard on behalf of big business, will make its demands known – health care repeal, no tax increases, reduced regulation and oversight.”
(In 2009, the health insurance lobby had given $86.2 million to the chamber to try to prevent enactment of the health care law.)
Apparently foreign money was also used in election spending. The Nation reports that contributions from U.S. based multinationals and from India and Bahrain were commingled and deposited “in the same 501(c) (6) account used to run an unprecedented $75 million attack campaign, mostly against Democrats.”
Operating from the shadows over the years have been David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries, a conglomerate with annual earnings estimated at $100 billion.
“The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry – especially environmental regulation,” Jane Mayer wrote in The New Yorker.
Mayer quotes Charles Lewis, founder of the Center for Public Integrity: “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money….They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”
Senior voters were not neglected. The so-called “60 Plus Association” spent $5,516,241 in pharmaceutical industry contributions for ads directed at older voters, spreading lies about the health reform law and supporting Republican candidates committed to its repeal.
The barrage of negative attack ads was effective. They began early in the campaign, battering Democratic candidates, helping to set the tone in key districts, forcing the Democrats into defensive spending. Even where the Democrats eventually won, the barrage was hardly wasted, since it diverted resources from other races.
In the first election after Citizens United, it has become clear that the big corporations, the Wall Street thieves and the bloated billionaires have been freed by the U.S. Supreme Court to spend whatever it takes to buy themselves a government.
Counter measures are in the works. The DISCLOSE Act would at least require that donors be identified, enabling the public to follow the money.
The House has passed this legislation (whose awkward title is “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections”). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is being urged to bring the DISCLOSE Act up for a vote in the lame duck session.
There will also be a renewed effort to enact legislation providing for the public financing of elections.
Vital as these immediate steps are, in the words of Public Citizen’s Robert Weissman, “We absolutely must overturn the Citizens United decision.” To this end, Public Citizen and other advocates have launched a long-haul drive for a constitutional amendment.
Public Citizen has already gathered more than 500,000 signatures of persons endorsing such an amendment, which would make it clear that our cherished free speech rights do not extend to corporations. Roughly 50 House members and ten senators have already indicated their support for such an amendment, Public Citizen reports, “and we’re going to get much more powerful, among the people and in Congress.” Public Citizen’s concluding statement is a clarion call to all of us:
“We refuse to sit back and watch our democracy be eviscerated.”
PSARA enlists in ‘Fair Trade’ battle
A breakthrough victory was achieved this year when the City of Seattle formally resolved to purchase only “sweat free” clothing, including the uniforms for its police and fire departments. The campaign was initiated by the Washington Fair Trade Coalition (WFTC). Councilmember Nick Licata sponsored the resolution and led the successful effort to pass it.
The PSARA Executive Board welcomed the opportunity to join the fifty organizations of the coalition in fighting for U.S. trade policies that foster labor and human rights, rather than promoting a race to the bottom for workers and the environment, while filling the corporate coffers of multinational corporations.
On November 30, the eleventh anniversary of the WTO, PSARA hosted a year-end wrap-up and fundraiser for the Fair Trade Coalition. Approximately 40 activists from organizations associated with the WFTC heard a review of the coalition’s accomplishments during 2010. WFTC Director Kristen Beifus eloquently reviewed the coalition’s work and spoke of the challenges ahead. These include stopping the Korea/US Free Trade Agreement (supported by the Obama administration) and continuing the effort to pass the Trade Act, which would help establish fair trade standards for all trade agreements to which the U.S. is a party.
Jeff Johnson from the Washington State Labor Council traced the policies that led to the current situation where corporate profiteers set the terms of trade agreements and workers, family farmers, and the environment suffer. Johnson spoke of the need to create a fair trading system but added that we also have to think beyond fair trade. We can escape the present economic vise, he said, if we commit our country to an industrial policy that creates incentives for investment in the production of goods that people around the world want and that also provide family-wage jobs.
Kathleen Story of the Sierra Club emphasized the need and the opportunity for labor, environmental advocates, and community-based groups to work together on fair trade issues.
The fundraiser was necessitated by a loss of revenue from the national Fair Trade Campaign. Impressed by the achievements of the WFTC, the audience took up a substantial collection to enable the coalition to continue its outstanding work.
The PSARA Executive Board welcomed the opportunity to join the fifty organizations of the coalition in fighting for U.S. trade policies that foster labor and human rights, rather than promoting a race to the bottom for workers and the environment, while filling the corporate coffers of multinational corporations.
On November 30, the eleventh anniversary of the WTO, PSARA hosted a year-end wrap-up and fundraiser for the Fair Trade Coalition. Approximately 40 activists from organizations associated with the WFTC heard a review of the coalition’s accomplishments during 2010. WFTC Director Kristen Beifus eloquently reviewed the coalition’s work and spoke of the challenges ahead. These include stopping the Korea/US Free Trade Agreement (supported by the Obama administration) and continuing the effort to pass the Trade Act, which would help establish fair trade standards for all trade agreements to which the U.S. is a party.
Jeff Johnson from the Washington State Labor Council traced the policies that led to the current situation where corporate profiteers set the terms of trade agreements and workers, family farmers, and the environment suffer. Johnson spoke of the need to create a fair trading system but added that we also have to think beyond fair trade. We can escape the present economic vise, he said, if we commit our country to an industrial policy that creates incentives for investment in the production of goods that people around the world want and that also provide family-wage jobs.
Kathleen Story of the Sierra Club emphasized the need and the opportunity for labor, environmental advocates, and community-based groups to work together on fair trade issues.
The fundraiser was necessitated by a loss of revenue from the national Fair Trade Campaign. Impressed by the achievements of the WFTC, the audience took up a substantial collection to enable the coalition to continue its outstanding work.
Health care law in peril in the courts
The federal health care law, enacted after a bruising battle in Congress, is now imperiled in the federal courts.
Republican officials in 20 states are challenging the constitutionality of the requirement that all Americans have health insurance by 2014.
Attorneys for the federal government argue that the commerce clause of the Constitution allows Congress to regulate “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,” including the health care market. They contend that the law’s provisions cannot work unless the requirement to be insured applies to everyone, because otherwise people will simply wait until they get sick to buy coverage.
Judge Henry E. Hudson in Federal District Court in Richmond expressed misgivings about the constitutionality of the requirement. He has promised to issue his ruling by the end of the year.
Enemies of the law in Congress and the insurance industry could be expected to exploit an adverse ruling in federal court to sow confusion and mistrust. Such a ruling might also delay or block the steps that insurers, government agencies and the medical professions are taking to implement the many provisions of the law.
It’s expected that any rulings at the district court level would be appealed, ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the 5-4 majority of conservative justices, the outcome there is also uncertain.
Republican officials in 20 states are challenging the constitutionality of the requirement that all Americans have health insurance by 2014.
Attorneys for the federal government argue that the commerce clause of the Constitution allows Congress to regulate “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,” including the health care market. They contend that the law’s provisions cannot work unless the requirement to be insured applies to everyone, because otherwise people will simply wait until they get sick to buy coverage.
Judge Henry E. Hudson in Federal District Court in Richmond expressed misgivings about the constitutionality of the requirement. He has promised to issue his ruling by the end of the year.
Enemies of the law in Congress and the insurance industry could be expected to exploit an adverse ruling in federal court to sow confusion and mistrust. Such a ruling might also delay or block the steps that insurers, government agencies and the medical professions are taking to implement the many provisions of the law.
It’s expected that any rulings at the district court level would be appealed, ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the 5-4 majority of conservative justices, the outcome there is also uncertain.
A new voice to defend Public Health
By Nancy Amidei
When the City of Seattle or King County takes up the budget, the hearing room is sure to be crowded. Lining up at the microphones are people angry about paying taxes, about the state of their roads or sidewalks, or about some personal issue.
Thanks to the Seattle Human Services Coalition and the King County Alliance for Human Services, there are always people on hand to speak up for human services – for child care, for domestic violence prevention, for senior programs. But until recently, there was never anyone on hand to speak up for Public Health.
Now there is: A small but growing group called simply People for Public Health. And the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans was in on its creation.
When things are going well, we don’t think about our Public Health agencies. We take for granted that somebody is:
*Protecting our food and water supplies,
*Maintaining emergency medical services,
*Providing vaccines (for example, for children during flu season),
*Preventing injury and violence,
*Promoting healthy eating and exercise,
*Controlling communicable diseases…and more.
If those functions were NOT being attended to, we’d all be at risk.
And that could happen. In 1999, when the old, progressive Motor Vehicle Excise tax was replaced by a flat $30 tax per car, Public Health agencies across the state lost their major source of funding. The “backfill account” later established by the legislature never did fully replace it. And since 2009 – when needs are rising and more people are seeking health care from a Public Health clinic – Public Health has had to absorb still deeper cuts – everything from staff layoffs to reduction or elimination of basic health services.
Like local governments across the state, Seattle and King County now face still another round of cuts in Public Health staffing and functions. Being considered for possible reductions are the HIV/AIDS program, public health visits to pregnant women, jail-related health services (chiefly, how medications are dispensed), adult health visits at the East Gate Health clinic and nearly 90 full-time equivalent staff.
That’s why we’ve formed People for Public Health, a Seattle-King County grassroots group committed to safe and healthy communities. Our members are social and health professionals, retirees, health sciences students, people working with low-income populations and people from the community.
We’re showing up at hearings on the city and county budgets, using our two minutes at the microphone to ask that public health agencies be kept strong enough to carry out their mission.
All of us have a vested interest in public health. Today, more than ever, public health needs strong voices. If you wish to be such a voice, or simply to keep in touch with our work by email, send your contract information to People for Public Health: amidei@drizzle.com.
When the City of Seattle or King County takes up the budget, the hearing room is sure to be crowded. Lining up at the microphones are people angry about paying taxes, about the state of their roads or sidewalks, or about some personal issue.
Thanks to the Seattle Human Services Coalition and the King County Alliance for Human Services, there are always people on hand to speak up for human services – for child care, for domestic violence prevention, for senior programs. But until recently, there was never anyone on hand to speak up for Public Health.
Now there is: A small but growing group called simply People for Public Health. And the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans was in on its creation.
When things are going well, we don’t think about our Public Health agencies. We take for granted that somebody is:
*Protecting our food and water supplies,
*Maintaining emergency medical services,
*Providing vaccines (for example, for children during flu season),
*Preventing injury and violence,
*Promoting healthy eating and exercise,
*Controlling communicable diseases…and more.
If those functions were NOT being attended to, we’d all be at risk.
And that could happen. In 1999, when the old, progressive Motor Vehicle Excise tax was replaced by a flat $30 tax per car, Public Health agencies across the state lost their major source of funding. The “backfill account” later established by the legislature never did fully replace it. And since 2009 – when needs are rising and more people are seeking health care from a Public Health clinic – Public Health has had to absorb still deeper cuts – everything from staff layoffs to reduction or elimination of basic health services.
Like local governments across the state, Seattle and King County now face still another round of cuts in Public Health staffing and functions. Being considered for possible reductions are the HIV/AIDS program, public health visits to pregnant women, jail-related health services (chiefly, how medications are dispensed), adult health visits at the East Gate Health clinic and nearly 90 full-time equivalent staff.
That’s why we’ve formed People for Public Health, a Seattle-King County grassroots group committed to safe and healthy communities. Our members are social and health professionals, retirees, health sciences students, people working with low-income populations and people from the community.
We’re showing up at hearings on the city and county budgets, using our two minutes at the microphone to ask that public health agencies be kept strong enough to carry out their mission.
All of us have a vested interest in public health. Today, more than ever, public health needs strong voices. If you wish to be such a voice, or simply to keep in touch with our work by email, send your contract information to People for Public Health: amidei@drizzle.com.
To tackle the deficit, sock it to the rich
By Rap Lewis
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the federal deficit commission, has proposed a plan to tackle the federal budget deficit without weakening Social Security or socking it to workers and the middle class.
Her plan gives labor and its community allies a specific rallying point in the campaign to prevent Congress from adopting a plan along the lines of the proposal issued by commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson.
“Their proposal would have serious consequences for middle-class Americans, and that is why I cannot support it,” Schakowsky said. The Bowles-Simpson plan would cut Social Security benefits and extend the retirement age.
Schakowsky would keep Social Security benefits intact while making deep reductions in the Pentagon budget by eliminating unnecessary weapons systems and reducing troop levels. She said her plan would ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security by raising the cap on taxable income and by “establishing a modest legacy tax on wealthier Americans.”
Her plan would eliminate corporate tax breaks, end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and at the same time create a $200 billion stimulus directed at tackling unemployment and creating jobs.
“Rep. Schakowsky plans to close the deficit by 2015 without doing so on the backs of America’s seniors, middle class, people with disabilities, and the poor,” said Barbara J. Easterling, president of the Alliance for Retired Americans. “This proposal will bring the deficit under control without jeopardizing retired workers.”
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the federal deficit commission, has proposed a plan to tackle the federal budget deficit without weakening Social Security or socking it to workers and the middle class.
Her plan gives labor and its community allies a specific rallying point in the campaign to prevent Congress from adopting a plan along the lines of the proposal issued by commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson.
“Their proposal would have serious consequences for middle-class Americans, and that is why I cannot support it,” Schakowsky said. The Bowles-Simpson plan would cut Social Security benefits and extend the retirement age.
Schakowsky would keep Social Security benefits intact while making deep reductions in the Pentagon budget by eliminating unnecessary weapons systems and reducing troop levels. She said her plan would ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security by raising the cap on taxable income and by “establishing a modest legacy tax on wealthier Americans.”
Her plan would eliminate corporate tax breaks, end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and at the same time create a $200 billion stimulus directed at tackling unemployment and creating jobs.
“Rep. Schakowsky plans to close the deficit by 2015 without doing so on the backs of America’s seniors, middle class, people with disabilities, and the poor,” said Barbara J. Easterling, president of the Alliance for Retired Americans. “This proposal will bring the deficit under control without jeopardizing retired workers.”
The Write Stuff
Letters to the editor are as widely read as any feature in your local paper. The national ARA will send a U.S. union-made pen to any member who has a letter published on any retiree issue. Just clip the letter, send it to the ARA at 815 16th St., N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006. Hurry, while stamps are still only 44 cents!
Friday, November 5, 2010
For the thousands of ‘Christinas’
By Roberta Riley
I thought of Christina when I read the latest studies showing that an increasing number of older Americans, especially single women and women of color, are slipping into poverty. Christina died a couple years ago with $15 in her bank account.
My parents first met her in the kitchen of their church, where together they made sandwiches for the homeless. When the residents of Tent City asked to set up camp in the church parking lot after the earthquake of February 2001, an angry mob packed the public meeting. They shouted and screamed, for well over an hour, that the homeless would bring crime, drugs and filth to the neighborhood. Then this tiny, birdlike woman stepped up to the microphone, and told her story.
She was born in Serbia. The ravages of World War II destroyed her home, killing her husband and displacing her and their baby girl to a series of refugee camps. America welcomed mother and child when they emigrated in the 1950s. Soon she found work as a server at Manhattan's Waldorf Astoria hotel. "I love this country,” she said, "but the way we are acting tonight makes me feel ashamed. If this earthquake had destroyed your home, would you want the church to help?"
By the time she finished, you could hear a pin drop.
"It was the most amazing transformation I've ever witnessed," recalls Pastor Rich Lang. She completely changed the tone of the evening, nobody said another word against the homeless, and Tent City was allowed in.
Compassion triumphed over fear because Christina stood up for the less fortunate. She refused to let her own poverty impoverish her spirit. Her kind face, chin length gray hair, and Slavic accent seem to rise from the pages as I pore through Fixing Social Security: Adequate Benefits, Adequate Finances, by the National Academy of Social Insurance.
She was one of thousands of women in the “most vulnerable” category, whose years of paid work were interrupted because she also cared for others. Her altruism was penalized with minimal Social Security benefits. Yet Fixing Social Security and other studies demonstrate that we have plenty of good options to increase Social Security revenues, securely finance current benefits, and pay for benefit improvements for those most in need.
A related study, by Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), establishes just how critical it is that we update the way we measure poverty in this country, which sets the baseline for Social Security benefits. The antiquated formula, which is based on the cost of food, little else, assumes one person living alone in 2008 could get by on $10,400. But at that level, Christina suffered. She couldn’t afford her medications and pay rent and utilities. The cupboards of her tiny apartment were bare by the third week of the month.
The new, updated measure developed by WOW takes health and other necessary expenses into account. It finds that an older American who lives alone and enjoys good health actually needs about $16,300 to make ends meet if she owns a home mortgage-free. A renter like Christina needs about $20,250, and a homeowner still paying off a mortgage needs approximately $24,000.
We could pay for the benefit increases WOW calls for simply by requiring higher income workers to pay Social Security taxes on ALL of their wages. There is no good reason to exempt income above $106,800 from the payroll tax. It is just another tax break for the wealthy.
As this article goes to press, we do not know the outcome of this month’s election, but the latest posturing and misinformation by enemies of Social Security signals that Republicans will soon claim we must raid the Social Security Trust Fund and impose “entitlement reform” to reduce the federal deficit.
Paul Krugman, the Nobel Laureate economist, debunks such myths, penciling out the numbers to show that we can secure the existing program for generations to come by simply undoing President Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Fixing Social Security and WOW further demonstrate that we can, and should, not only secure Social Security, but improve it.
But in politics it’s never enough to have truth on one’s side. It will take an army, thousands of people just like Christina, braving the fear and vitriol and standing up for the less fortunate, to transform the debate.
(Roberta Riley is a PSARA member.)
I thought of Christina when I read the latest studies showing that an increasing number of older Americans, especially single women and women of color, are slipping into poverty. Christina died a couple years ago with $15 in her bank account.
My parents first met her in the kitchen of their church, where together they made sandwiches for the homeless. When the residents of Tent City asked to set up camp in the church parking lot after the earthquake of February 2001, an angry mob packed the public meeting. They shouted and screamed, for well over an hour, that the homeless would bring crime, drugs and filth to the neighborhood. Then this tiny, birdlike woman stepped up to the microphone, and told her story.
She was born in Serbia. The ravages of World War II destroyed her home, killing her husband and displacing her and their baby girl to a series of refugee camps. America welcomed mother and child when they emigrated in the 1950s. Soon she found work as a server at Manhattan's Waldorf Astoria hotel. "I love this country,” she said, "but the way we are acting tonight makes me feel ashamed. If this earthquake had destroyed your home, would you want the church to help?"
By the time she finished, you could hear a pin drop.
"It was the most amazing transformation I've ever witnessed," recalls Pastor Rich Lang. She completely changed the tone of the evening, nobody said another word against the homeless, and Tent City was allowed in.
Compassion triumphed over fear because Christina stood up for the less fortunate. She refused to let her own poverty impoverish her spirit. Her kind face, chin length gray hair, and Slavic accent seem to rise from the pages as I pore through Fixing Social Security: Adequate Benefits, Adequate Finances, by the National Academy of Social Insurance.
She was one of thousands of women in the “most vulnerable” category, whose years of paid work were interrupted because she also cared for others. Her altruism was penalized with minimal Social Security benefits. Yet Fixing Social Security and other studies demonstrate that we have plenty of good options to increase Social Security revenues, securely finance current benefits, and pay for benefit improvements for those most in need.
A related study, by Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), establishes just how critical it is that we update the way we measure poverty in this country, which sets the baseline for Social Security benefits. The antiquated formula, which is based on the cost of food, little else, assumes one person living alone in 2008 could get by on $10,400. But at that level, Christina suffered. She couldn’t afford her medications and pay rent and utilities. The cupboards of her tiny apartment were bare by the third week of the month.
The new, updated measure developed by WOW takes health and other necessary expenses into account. It finds that an older American who lives alone and enjoys good health actually needs about $16,300 to make ends meet if she owns a home mortgage-free. A renter like Christina needs about $20,250, and a homeowner still paying off a mortgage needs approximately $24,000.
We could pay for the benefit increases WOW calls for simply by requiring higher income workers to pay Social Security taxes on ALL of their wages. There is no good reason to exempt income above $106,800 from the payroll tax. It is just another tax break for the wealthy.
As this article goes to press, we do not know the outcome of this month’s election, but the latest posturing and misinformation by enemies of Social Security signals that Republicans will soon claim we must raid the Social Security Trust Fund and impose “entitlement reform” to reduce the federal deficit.
Paul Krugman, the Nobel Laureate economist, debunks such myths, penciling out the numbers to show that we can secure the existing program for generations to come by simply undoing President Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Fixing Social Security and WOW further demonstrate that we can, and should, not only secure Social Security, but improve it.
But in politics it’s never enough to have truth on one’s side. It will take an army, thousands of people just like Christina, braving the fear and vitriol and standing up for the less fortunate, to transform the debate.
(Roberta Riley is a PSARA member.)
The Legislative Conference: Preparing our ranks for a grueling session
By Will Parry
The activist core of the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans is preparing to confront an excruciatingly tough 2011 legislative session shaped by the continuing economic crisis, by the resulting continued decline in state revenues, and by the outcome of revenue-related initiatives on the 2010 ballot.
PSARA members will prepare for the session at the Fourth Annual Legislative Conference from 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Friday, November 19, at the Greenwood Senior Center, 525 N. 85th Street in Seattle.
Senator Ed Murray, Senate Majority Caucus Chair, will open the program with an overview of the session. Jeff Johnson of the Washington State Labor Council, Treasure Mackley of the Service Employees International Union State Council, and Danielle Friedman of the Statewide Poverty Action Network, will brief participants on some of the key issues.
Conference participants will then adopt a focused legislative agenda and organize meetings with their legislators.
“It is beyond urgent this year that we prepare for the session,” said PSARA President Robby Stern. “We appeal to every member to join us at this all-important conference.”
(For more information on the Legislative Conference, see the special insert in this issue.}
State programs have endured budget cuts of $3.5 billion in 2009 and another $755 million this year. These cuts already go beyond budgetary “fat.,” cutting into the muscle and bone of state services.
Tens of thousands of men, women and children have been dropped from the Basic Health Program. Nursing home care and mental health services have suffered major reductions. Education funding was cut $1.5 billion, leaving 3,000 teachers and other school employees facing layoffs.
The state must make a particularly cruel cut of $41 million from WorkFirst, its “welfare-to-work” program, where caseloads have risen 30% in two years. Starting in February, about 5,500 families will be cut from the program, losing monthly stipends ranging from $453 to $762, depending on family size.
In the face of these grim realities, Governor Chris Gregoire has told every state agency to prepare for further cuts of 4% to 7%. A recent release from her office used the terms “cut” and “reductions” 19 times, but was silent on ways to increase revenue.
In view of these circumstances, PSARA will be an active participant in a campaign to closely scrutinize the many tax breaks granted by the legislature over the years. Every state expenditure is carefully reviewed with each budget, but the many tax preferences and exceptions, draining millions in urgently needed revenue, remain on the books unexamined year after year. Many such tax breaks are simply giveaways wrested from the legislature by special interest lobbying.
The activist core of the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans is preparing to confront an excruciatingly tough 2011 legislative session shaped by the continuing economic crisis, by the resulting continued decline in state revenues, and by the outcome of revenue-related initiatives on the 2010 ballot.
PSARA members will prepare for the session at the Fourth Annual Legislative Conference from 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Friday, November 19, at the Greenwood Senior Center, 525 N. 85th Street in Seattle.
Senator Ed Murray, Senate Majority Caucus Chair, will open the program with an overview of the session. Jeff Johnson of the Washington State Labor Council, Treasure Mackley of the Service Employees International Union State Council, and Danielle Friedman of the Statewide Poverty Action Network, will brief participants on some of the key issues.
Conference participants will then adopt a focused legislative agenda and organize meetings with their legislators.
“It is beyond urgent this year that we prepare for the session,” said PSARA President Robby Stern. “We appeal to every member to join us at this all-important conference.”
(For more information on the Legislative Conference, see the special insert in this issue.}
State programs have endured budget cuts of $3.5 billion in 2009 and another $755 million this year. These cuts already go beyond budgetary “fat.,” cutting into the muscle and bone of state services.
Tens of thousands of men, women and children have been dropped from the Basic Health Program. Nursing home care and mental health services have suffered major reductions. Education funding was cut $1.5 billion, leaving 3,000 teachers and other school employees facing layoffs.
The state must make a particularly cruel cut of $41 million from WorkFirst, its “welfare-to-work” program, where caseloads have risen 30% in two years. Starting in February, about 5,500 families will be cut from the program, losing monthly stipends ranging from $453 to $762, depending on family size.
In the face of these grim realities, Governor Chris Gregoire has told every state agency to prepare for further cuts of 4% to 7%. A recent release from her office used the terms “cut” and “reductions” 19 times, but was silent on ways to increase revenue.
In view of these circumstances, PSARA will be an active participant in a campaign to closely scrutinize the many tax breaks granted by the legislature over the years. Every state expenditure is carefully reviewed with each budget, but the many tax preferences and exceptions, draining millions in urgently needed revenue, remain on the books unexamined year after year. Many such tax breaks are simply giveaways wrested from the legislature by special interest lobbying.
Membership meeting, Holiday Party, Dec. 16
PSARA will hold its annual election of officers and Executive Board members at the Membership Meeting and Holiday Party on Thursday, December 16. Members who wish to run should contact Election Committee members Will Parry or Maureen Bo at (206) 448-9646.
The terms of President Robby Stern and Executive Vice President Maureen Bo have another year to run. Community Vice President Bette Reed and Treasurer Edie Koch, whose terms are ending, have indicated they are candidates for re-election.
The Executive Board meets on the third Thursday of each month. Members are elected to two-year terms. Half the board members’ terms expire in even-numbered years, half in odd-numbered years. All board members whose terms are expiring have indicated they are candidates to remain on the board.
In addition to regular attendance at monthly membership meetings, Executive Board members are asked to work on committees, contact elected officials, testify at hearings, or participate in demonstrations, rallies, phone banks and conferences.
The terms of President Robby Stern and Executive Vice President Maureen Bo have another year to run. Community Vice President Bette Reed and Treasurer Edie Koch, whose terms are ending, have indicated they are candidates for re-election.
The Executive Board meets on the third Thursday of each month. Members are elected to two-year terms. Half the board members’ terms expire in even-numbered years, half in odd-numbered years. All board members whose terms are expiring have indicated they are candidates to remain on the board.
In addition to regular attendance at monthly membership meetings, Executive Board members are asked to work on committees, contact elected officials, testify at hearings, or participate in demonstrations, rallies, phone banks and conferences.
For Max Roffman
The late Max Roffman, the deeply respected builder of the Puget Sound Council of Senior Citizens, had a five-word slogan he drove home at every opportunity:
“Every member get a member!”
We lost Max years ago, but his organizing spirit is alive and with us today as together we work toward our goal of 250 new members in the year 2010.
Max had another slogan, this one only four words, that also applies today.
“Get into the action!”
We know that hundreds of our members, in one way or another, did “get into the action” during the challenging 2010 election campaign. In every struggle that comes its way, the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans has an impact all out of proportion to its size because we do indeed “get into the action.”
In November, let’s honor a dedicated founder and champion builder of our movement by translating Max’s slogan into reality:
“Every member get a member!”
When you ask that friend or neighbor to join – retiree, boomer or any other generation – you are building the organization that “gets into the action.”
And somewhere Max Roffman will nod his head and smile quietly.
“Every member get a member!”
We lost Max years ago, but his organizing spirit is alive and with us today as together we work toward our goal of 250 new members in the year 2010.
Max had another slogan, this one only four words, that also applies today.
“Get into the action!”
We know that hundreds of our members, in one way or another, did “get into the action” during the challenging 2010 election campaign. In every struggle that comes its way, the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans has an impact all out of proportion to its size because we do indeed “get into the action.”
In November, let’s honor a dedicated founder and champion builder of our movement by translating Max’s slogan into reality:
“Every member get a member!”
When you ask that friend or neighbor to join – retiree, boomer or any other generation – you are building the organization that “gets into the action.”
And somewhere Max Roffman will nod his head and smile quietly.
Extreme privatizer named Social Security trustee
The threat to Social Security and Medicare just turned still more sinister.
Charles Blahous, point man for George W. Bush in his abortive campaign to privatize Social Security, has been named one of two Public Trustees for the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.
Blahous, formerly on the staff of Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, was the choice of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Blahous is now associated with the far-right Hudson Institute.
The Democrats named Robert Reischauer as trustee. He is a conservative with ties to billionaire Pete Peterson, including membership on the Peterson-funded Committee for a Responsible Budget. If Blahous is clearly an extreme privatizer, Reischauer is at best a lukewarm supporter.
The appointments will weaken Social Security and Medicare from within at a moment when the deficit commission is poised to send its wrecking proposal to Congress.
Charles Blahous, point man for George W. Bush in his abortive campaign to privatize Social Security, has been named one of two Public Trustees for the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.
Blahous, formerly on the staff of Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, was the choice of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Blahous is now associated with the far-right Hudson Institute.
The Democrats named Robert Reischauer as trustee. He is a conservative with ties to billionaire Pete Peterson, including membership on the Peterson-funded Committee for a Responsible Budget. If Blahous is clearly an extreme privatizer, Reischauer is at best a lukewarm supporter.
The appointments will weaken Social Security and Medicare from within at a moment when the deficit commission is poised to send its wrecking proposal to Congress.
Paid sick days for a healthy Tacoma
The Coalition for a Healthy Tacoma is campaigning for paid sick days for the 41,000 of the city’s workers who currently lack that basic protection.
The coalition reports that 78 percent of Tacoma’s restaurant workers, 55 percent of its retail workers, and even 29 percent of its health care workers have no paid sick days. That means they either go to work sick, or stay home and lose pay – or even face discipline for absenteeism.
It’s a public health issue as well. Sneezing, coughing workers spread disease. Paid sick days protect the entire community.
The plan would provide one hour paid sick time for every 30 hours worked. Workers in small companies could accrue up to 40 hours of paid sick time; those in larger companies, up to 72 hours.
The coalition reports that 78 percent of Tacoma’s restaurant workers, 55 percent of its retail workers, and even 29 percent of its health care workers have no paid sick days. That means they either go to work sick, or stay home and lose pay – or even face discipline for absenteeism.
It’s a public health issue as well. Sneezing, coughing workers spread disease. Paid sick days protect the entire community.
The plan would provide one hour paid sick time for every 30 hours worked. Workers in small companies could accrue up to 40 hours of paid sick time; those in larger companies, up to 72 hours.
Where Do We Go From Here
By Robby Stern
When you read this column, the 2010 election will be over and we will learn whether Washington voters and voters across the country have decided to move us forward or take us backwards. As I write this column in the last week of Oct., PSARA members are casting their votes (I KNOW PSARA members vote!) and many of us are anxiously awaiting the results.
Whatever the outcome of the election, PSARA is preparing for the next stage of our fight to achieve a society where people are encouraged to care about each other and work together to make the lives of all of our broader community better. PSARA has our short term focus, which includes developing our goals for the 2011 Legislative session. At the federal level, we are organizing to stop any cuts to Social Security and Medicare and supporting efforts to improve those essential programs. We are also supporting efforts to achieve Comprehensive Immigration Reform and all genuine efforts to create jobs and help the victims of this Wall Street generated economic crisis.
In the 2010 election, we have witnessed the pernicious impact of corporate greed as multi national corporations spent historically unprecedented amounts of money to gain advantage at the expense of the vast majority of the American people. We have also experienced a reactionary resurgence that longs for mythical days of yore when white, mostly men, ruled and government was a hand maiden to oppression of the vulnerable.
At the same time, on Oct. 2, in Washington D.C. (with a satellite action in Seattle) tens of thousands of people, reflecting the real diversity, of our country, came together under the theme “One Nation Working Together”. There is a real battle taking place for the “soul” of America and PSARA intends to be part of the side that works to create what Dr. Martin Luther King described as “The Beloved Community”.
I recently completed Going Down Jericho Road, The Memphis Strike, Martin Luther King’s Last Campaign, by U.W. Professor Michael K. Honey. Michael Honey has given us a gift with this book. The book left me with a much better understanding of the forces at play in the strike by Memphis sanitation workers. It sparked emotions of hope, of deep sadness, and also a sense of what we need to be building for the long haul in order to achieve the vision of “The Beloved Community”.
In Memphis, led by truly heroic African American sanitation workers, a community-wide coalition was forged including the labor movement, led by AFSCME, the union representing the sanitation workers and the Memphis Central Labor Council. Playing a key role in the coalition were the African American Churches and African American civic organizations, most notably the NAACP. This coalition faced off against an unbelievably racist Mayor, Henry Loeb, a predominantly racist and gutless City Council, a white media and a white community that was poisoned with racism and ignorance. The sanitation workers, their union and the African American community stood strong in the face of terrible violence, culminating in the assassination of Dr. King (Honey refers to it as a crucifixion), vilification and betrayal reaching as far as the FBI and the White House. The sanitation workers, the union, and the community won the battle at a huge cost to themselves and to the nation…but they WON!
The lessons from Memphis as well as other successful struggles for social and economic justice are clear. Every activity, every struggle in which PSARA engages we will keep in mind the need to build a broader movement for progressive change. We will work hard to be constructive members of the coalitions to which we commit. By working together with other sectors of the community, we are building the capacity to create a movement for progressive change.
The forces arrayed against us are strong, they have unlimited money, they control the media, and they will try to make us believe that our efforts are hopeless. But if we are determined, brave and smart; if we are genuinely loyal to those with whom we coalesce; if we are prepared to make sacrifices, then we will follow the example of the great victory of the sanitation workers and their allies in Memphis and we will prevail.
When you read this column, the 2010 election will be over and we will learn whether Washington voters and voters across the country have decided to move us forward or take us backwards. As I write this column in the last week of Oct., PSARA members are casting their votes (I KNOW PSARA members vote!) and many of us are anxiously awaiting the results.
Whatever the outcome of the election, PSARA is preparing for the next stage of our fight to achieve a society where people are encouraged to care about each other and work together to make the lives of all of our broader community better. PSARA has our short term focus, which includes developing our goals for the 2011 Legislative session. At the federal level, we are organizing to stop any cuts to Social Security and Medicare and supporting efforts to improve those essential programs. We are also supporting efforts to achieve Comprehensive Immigration Reform and all genuine efforts to create jobs and help the victims of this Wall Street generated economic crisis.
In the 2010 election, we have witnessed the pernicious impact of corporate greed as multi national corporations spent historically unprecedented amounts of money to gain advantage at the expense of the vast majority of the American people. We have also experienced a reactionary resurgence that longs for mythical days of yore when white, mostly men, ruled and government was a hand maiden to oppression of the vulnerable.
At the same time, on Oct. 2, in Washington D.C. (with a satellite action in Seattle) tens of thousands of people, reflecting the real diversity, of our country, came together under the theme “One Nation Working Together”. There is a real battle taking place for the “soul” of America and PSARA intends to be part of the side that works to create what Dr. Martin Luther King described as “The Beloved Community”.
I recently completed Going Down Jericho Road, The Memphis Strike, Martin Luther King’s Last Campaign, by U.W. Professor Michael K. Honey. Michael Honey has given us a gift with this book. The book left me with a much better understanding of the forces at play in the strike by Memphis sanitation workers. It sparked emotions of hope, of deep sadness, and also a sense of what we need to be building for the long haul in order to achieve the vision of “The Beloved Community”.
In Memphis, led by truly heroic African American sanitation workers, a community-wide coalition was forged including the labor movement, led by AFSCME, the union representing the sanitation workers and the Memphis Central Labor Council. Playing a key role in the coalition were the African American Churches and African American civic organizations, most notably the NAACP. This coalition faced off against an unbelievably racist Mayor, Henry Loeb, a predominantly racist and gutless City Council, a white media and a white community that was poisoned with racism and ignorance. The sanitation workers, their union and the African American community stood strong in the face of terrible violence, culminating in the assassination of Dr. King (Honey refers to it as a crucifixion), vilification and betrayal reaching as far as the FBI and the White House. The sanitation workers, the union, and the community won the battle at a huge cost to themselves and to the nation…but they WON!
The lessons from Memphis as well as other successful struggles for social and economic justice are clear. Every activity, every struggle in which PSARA engages we will keep in mind the need to build a broader movement for progressive change. We will work hard to be constructive members of the coalitions to which we commit. By working together with other sectors of the community, we are building the capacity to create a movement for progressive change.
The forces arrayed against us are strong, they have unlimited money, they control the media, and they will try to make us believe that our efforts are hopeless. But if we are determined, brave and smart; if we are genuinely loyal to those with whom we coalesce; if we are prepared to make sacrifices, then we will follow the example of the great victory of the sanitation workers and their allies in Memphis and we will prevail.
Drug company corruption
The Swiss drug giant Novartis is the latest company in that sleazy industry to buy its way out of multiple corrupt practices charges.
Novartis paid $422.5 million to settle criminal and civil investigations into the marketing of six of its drugs. It had been accused by federal prosecutors of paying illegal kickbacks to health professionals. It denied wrongdoing – a common drug company practice in these situations – but paid the walloping fine to avoid prosecution.
In the last few years, at least five other major drug companies have pleaded guilty of health care fraud and have settled with huge payments. Pfizer paid $2.3 billion; Eli Lilly, $1.4 billion; Allergan,$600 million; AstraZeneca, $520 million; Bristol-Myers Squibb, $515 million, and Forest Laboratories, $313 million.
Novartis raised a few eyebrows when it announced its guilt and in the same release pledged to “continue its commitment too high standards of ethical business conduct and regulatory compliance.”
The criminal conduct at issue with Novartis and the other companies was aggressive (and illegal) “off‐label marketing, ”that is, persuading physicians to use drugs for purposes other than those approved by rigorous testing.
Novartis paid $422.5 million to settle criminal and civil investigations into the marketing of six of its drugs. It had been accused by federal prosecutors of paying illegal kickbacks to health professionals. It denied wrongdoing – a common drug company practice in these situations – but paid the walloping fine to avoid prosecution.
In the last few years, at least five other major drug companies have pleaded guilty of health care fraud and have settled with huge payments. Pfizer paid $2.3 billion; Eli Lilly, $1.4 billion; Allergan,$600 million; AstraZeneca, $520 million; Bristol-Myers Squibb, $515 million, and Forest Laboratories, $313 million.
Novartis raised a few eyebrows when it announced its guilt and in the same release pledged to “continue its commitment too high standards of ethical business conduct and regulatory compliance.”
The criminal conduct at issue with Novartis and the other companies was aggressive (and illegal) “off‐label marketing, ”that is, persuading physicians to use drugs for purposes other than those approved by rigorous testing.
Monthly discussions at three senior centers
Groups will meet monthly to discuss topical issues at Seattle’s Greenwood, Ballard and Wallingford Senior Centers, on the initiative of the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans.
The first such gathering, at 10:30 a.m. Thursday, November 4, at the Wallingford Senior Center, 4649 Sunnyside Ave. N., will discuss the significance of the 2010 election results. Discussions at the Ballard Senior Center are scheduled at 11 a.m. on the third Monday of each month, and those at the Greenwood Senior Center are scheduled at 1 p.m. on the second Thursday of each month.
“We’d like to encourage the participants to study and evaluate local issues – particularly those that impact the lives of seniors,” said Bette Reed, PSARA community vice president and chair of its Outreach Committee. “Residents of each of the three communities are encouraged to drop in and take part in these one-hour discussion groups.”
The first such gathering, at 10:30 a.m. Thursday, November 4, at the Wallingford Senior Center, 4649 Sunnyside Ave. N., will discuss the significance of the 2010 election results. Discussions at the Ballard Senior Center are scheduled at 11 a.m. on the third Monday of each month, and those at the Greenwood Senior Center are scheduled at 1 p.m. on the second Thursday of each month.
“We’d like to encourage the participants to study and evaluate local issues – particularly those that impact the lives of seniors,” said Bette Reed, PSARA community vice president and chair of its Outreach Committee. “Residents of each of the three communities are encouraged to drop in and take part in these one-hour discussion groups.”
Defending Saturday mail delivery
If the Postal Service eliminates Saturday delivery - - a step under serious consideration – it will shoot itself in those sturdy and dependable feet that for generations have walked the mail door to door in fair weather and foul.
Cutting service from six to five days is a dumb idea, the Postal Workers Union says. Here are five reasons why:
1. Saturday delivery is the key strategic advantage the Postal Service has over United Parcel Service and Federal Express. Surrendering Saturday to the competition would reduce Postal Service revenues in an amount far exceeding any short-term savings.
2. Slower service will drive customers away. Letters mailed late Friday wouldn’t be picked up until Monday. Besides, the less frequent delivery is likely to accelerate the shift to electronic invoicing and bill paying, further draining Postal Service revenues.
3. Niche delivery firms are already salivating over the lucrative business opportunities offered by Saturday delivery. Once established, competitors will demand that Congress open the mail boxes to their deliveries, making it impossible to maintain the government monopoly – the foundation of dependable, affordable service.
4. The slick rationale for ending Saturday delivery could be used again to cut the delivery week still further from five days to four days. This would not only eliminate half the union jobs in the system. It would inevitably trigger a death spiral, with less service leading to less mail volume, justifying still deeper cuts in service, etc.
5. Eliminating Saturday delivery is not a budget necessity. The union insists that pensions and retiree health benefits are fully funded and that the system has reserves that can be drawn upon.
Tell Congress you want to have your mail delivered Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, too. Let the letter carriers continue to have Sundays and holidays free and clear.
Cutting service from six to five days is a dumb idea, the Postal Workers Union says. Here are five reasons why:
1. Saturday delivery is the key strategic advantage the Postal Service has over United Parcel Service and Federal Express. Surrendering Saturday to the competition would reduce Postal Service revenues in an amount far exceeding any short-term savings.
2. Slower service will drive customers away. Letters mailed late Friday wouldn’t be picked up until Monday. Besides, the less frequent delivery is likely to accelerate the shift to electronic invoicing and bill paying, further draining Postal Service revenues.
3. Niche delivery firms are already salivating over the lucrative business opportunities offered by Saturday delivery. Once established, competitors will demand that Congress open the mail boxes to their deliveries, making it impossible to maintain the government monopoly – the foundation of dependable, affordable service.
4. The slick rationale for ending Saturday delivery could be used again to cut the delivery week still further from five days to four days. This would not only eliminate half the union jobs in the system. It would inevitably trigger a death spiral, with less service leading to less mail volume, justifying still deeper cuts in service, etc.
5. Eliminating Saturday delivery is not a budget necessity. The union insists that pensions and retiree health benefits are fully funded and that the system has reserves that can be drawn upon.
Tell Congress you want to have your mail delivered Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, too. Let the letter carriers continue to have Sundays and holidays free and clear.
One beautiful rainbow nation
By Rap Lewis
Marshaled by more than 400 sponsoring organizations, tens of thousands of labor, civil rights and social justice advocates massed at the Lincoln Memorial October 2 for a powerful demonstration with the theme of “One Nation Working Together.”
The mighty gathering presented a rainbow of Black, Brown and white faces, in stark contrast to the virtually all ‐ white crowd pulled together August 28 by Fox News, the Tea Party and TV demagogue Glenn Beck.
“You look like one beautiful nation,” a radiant AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said, touching off a roaring ovation from a crowd that included thousands of Black, Latino and white union members in their brightly colored T-shirts, jackets and caps.
“We are together. This march is about power to the people,” said Ed Schultz, host of MSNBC’s “Ed Show.” “It is about the people standing up to the corporations. Are you ready to fight back?” Another roaring affirmative rose from the crowd, waving a sea of placards proclaiming “Hope not Hate,” “Healthcare not Warfare,” and “Jobs, not Tax Give-aways to the Rich.”
Speaking from the steps where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech, Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children’s Defense Fund, condemned those who dole out “massive tax giveaways to the rich when fifty percent of our children are living in poverty.”
Citing the Biblical story of Noah’s Ark, Edelman said, “We’re all in the same boat. Don’t let our children be put in small, leaky boats. “Noah’s Ark was built by amateurs,” she reminded the crowd. “The Titanic was built by professionals.”
Trumka captured the mood of the huge throng when he said, “There is nothing, and I mean nothing, we can’t do when we stand side by side, shoulder to shoulder.
“We will stand together,” Trumka said, his voice ringing out loud and clear over the sea of faces. “And we will win together. And we won’t let anyone – and I mean anyone – stand in our way.
Marshaled by more than 400 sponsoring organizations, tens of thousands of labor, civil rights and social justice advocates massed at the Lincoln Memorial October 2 for a powerful demonstration with the theme of “One Nation Working Together.”
The mighty gathering presented a rainbow of Black, Brown and white faces, in stark contrast to the virtually all ‐ white crowd pulled together August 28 by Fox News, the Tea Party and TV demagogue Glenn Beck.
“You look like one beautiful nation,” a radiant AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said, touching off a roaring ovation from a crowd that included thousands of Black, Latino and white union members in their brightly colored T-shirts, jackets and caps.
“We are together. This march is about power to the people,” said Ed Schultz, host of MSNBC’s “Ed Show.” “It is about the people standing up to the corporations. Are you ready to fight back?” Another roaring affirmative rose from the crowd, waving a sea of placards proclaiming “Hope not Hate,” “Healthcare not Warfare,” and “Jobs, not Tax Give-aways to the Rich.”
Speaking from the steps where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech, Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children’s Defense Fund, condemned those who dole out “massive tax giveaways to the rich when fifty percent of our children are living in poverty.”
Citing the Biblical story of Noah’s Ark, Edelman said, “We’re all in the same boat. Don’t let our children be put in small, leaky boats. “Noah’s Ark was built by amateurs,” she reminded the crowd. “The Titanic was built by professionals.”
Trumka captured the mood of the huge throng when he said, “There is nothing, and I mean nothing, we can’t do when we stand side by side, shoulder to shoulder.
“We will stand together,” Trumka said, his voice ringing out loud and clear over the sea of faces. “And we will win together. And we won’t let anyone – and I mean anyone – stand in our way.
‘I’ll defend Social Security’ – Senator Cantwell
Senator Maria Cantwell has declared that she “will do everything I can to strengthen and protect the Social Security program.”
The Washington Democrat made this commitment October 4 in a letter to Social Security Works Washington and to the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans.
Without mentioning the deficit reduction commission by name, Cantwell said: “Changes to the Social Security program – how it is financed, how benefits are calculated, or decisions about retirement age – should be designed to preserve and strengthen the financial integrity of the program, and should not be a part of the deficit reduction decisions.”
Cantwell expressly hailed “the efforts of Social Security Works Washington and the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans” for their efforts “to protect and strengthen Social Security for current and future generations.”
The Senator’s letter was in response to a request from Social Security Works Washington and PSARA that she join Senator Patty Murray, Representative Jim McDermott, and Eighth District Congressional candidate Suzan delBene in a firm pledge to reject any changes in Social Security that would emasculate the program in the name of tackling the federal budget deficit.
“Social Security is a promise to American workers and their dependents, and changing the rules in the middle of the game by eroding benefits or delaying the retirement age undermines that promise,” Senator Cantwell wrote.
The Washington Democrat made this commitment October 4 in a letter to Social Security Works Washington and to the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans.
Without mentioning the deficit reduction commission by name, Cantwell said: “Changes to the Social Security program – how it is financed, how benefits are calculated, or decisions about retirement age – should be designed to preserve and strengthen the financial integrity of the program, and should not be a part of the deficit reduction decisions.”
Cantwell expressly hailed “the efforts of Social Security Works Washington and the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans” for their efforts “to protect and strengthen Social Security for current and future generations.”
The Senator’s letter was in response to a request from Social Security Works Washington and PSARA that she join Senator Patty Murray, Representative Jim McDermott, and Eighth District Congressional candidate Suzan delBene in a firm pledge to reject any changes in Social Security that would emasculate the program in the name of tackling the federal budget deficit.
“Social Security is a promise to American workers and their dependents, and changing the rules in the middle of the game by eroding benefits or delaying the retirement age undermines that promise,” Senator Cantwell wrote.
Means testing: Here’s what’s wrong with it
By Nancy Amidei and Will Parry
“Means testing” Social Security is a slick, seductive idea being promoted by Social Security’s enemies, supposedly to address the federal budget deficit. But like proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age, means testing has nothing to do with the deficit, and everything to do with emasculating Social Security.
So how would means testing apply to Social Security? It’s simple: Continue to require everybody to contribute to the Trust Fund from their paychecks, but abandon the established practice of paying benefits based on those contributions. Instead, pay benefits based on “need.” That is, reduce or eliminate benefits for those with incomes above a certain level.
Note that means testing, whatever its form and whatever its rationale, betrays two basic principles of Social Security: First, that benefits be universally available; and second, that a benefit be an earned right. Everyone who works and pays into the system is entitled to a benefit. It’s always worked that way.
That’s why the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans and its partners in the Social Security Works/Washington coalition have explicitly rejected means testing: “Principle No. 3: Social Security is an insurance policy, and as such should not be means tested.”
In a survey of nearly 1,500 people last year, hefty majorities said they had no problem with having to pay Social Security taxes. Why the popular support? It’s the program’s universality. People know that that they will receive a monthly Social Security check when they become eligible.
It’s a well understood principle in Washington, DC, that “programs for poor people tend to become poor programs.” Consider a means tested program like TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). Only poor people qualify. Eligibility is strict. And the benefits are temporary and meager.
Grotesquely inadequate as it is, TANF is always on the chopping block when government budgets get tight. The wealthy and the powerful do not spring to the defense of TANF. Why should they? They’re means-tested totally out of the program.
In summary, to means test Social Security is to place it on the proverbial slippery slope, its funding without powerful champions, inevitably degenerating into a program no longer recognizable as Social Security, sooner or later to become simply an under-funded twin to TANF. The enemies of Social Security want the program to wither away and die. That’s why they churn out slick arguments for means testing.
(Nancy Amidei is a member of PSARA.)
“Means testing” Social Security is a slick, seductive idea being promoted by Social Security’s enemies, supposedly to address the federal budget deficit. But like proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age, means testing has nothing to do with the deficit, and everything to do with emasculating Social Security.
So how would means testing apply to Social Security? It’s simple: Continue to require everybody to contribute to the Trust Fund from their paychecks, but abandon the established practice of paying benefits based on those contributions. Instead, pay benefits based on “need.” That is, reduce or eliminate benefits for those with incomes above a certain level.
Note that means testing, whatever its form and whatever its rationale, betrays two basic principles of Social Security: First, that benefits be universally available; and second, that a benefit be an earned right. Everyone who works and pays into the system is entitled to a benefit. It’s always worked that way.
That’s why the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans and its partners in the Social Security Works/Washington coalition have explicitly rejected means testing: “Principle No. 3: Social Security is an insurance policy, and as such should not be means tested.”
In a survey of nearly 1,500 people last year, hefty majorities said they had no problem with having to pay Social Security taxes. Why the popular support? It’s the program’s universality. People know that that they will receive a monthly Social Security check when they become eligible.
It’s a well understood principle in Washington, DC, that “programs for poor people tend to become poor programs.” Consider a means tested program like TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). Only poor people qualify. Eligibility is strict. And the benefits are temporary and meager.
Grotesquely inadequate as it is, TANF is always on the chopping block when government budgets get tight. The wealthy and the powerful do not spring to the defense of TANF. Why should they? They’re means-tested totally out of the program.
In summary, to means test Social Security is to place it on the proverbial slippery slope, its funding without powerful champions, inevitably degenerating into a program no longer recognizable as Social Security, sooner or later to become simply an under-funded twin to TANF. The enemies of Social Security want the program to wither away and die. That’s why they churn out slick arguments for means testing.
(Nancy Amidei is a member of PSARA.)
Jo Jacobson new staffer
Jo Jacobson, a retiree with more than 35 years in public education, has been hired by the Washington State Alliance for Retired Americans as their staff person for field mobilization.
Jacobson has taught every K‐12 grade and in community college. Her rich resume also includes work as a school counselor; a private therapeutic counseling service; and service as executive director of Pierce County Careers Connection.
“She is strongly committed to fight for issues that affect, not just retired Americans, but all Americans,” WASARA President Mike Warren said.
The Puget Sound ARA joins WASARA in warmly welcoming Jo Jacobson to the Alliance.
Jacobson has taught every K‐12 grade and in community college. Her rich resume also includes work as a school counselor; a private therapeutic counseling service; and service as executive director of Pierce County Careers Connection.
“She is strongly committed to fight for issues that affect, not just retired Americans, but all Americans,” WASARA President Mike Warren said.
The Puget Sound ARA joins WASARA in warmly welcoming Jo Jacobson to the Alliance.
Wal-Mart target of discrimination suit
By Rap Lewis
Nine years after it was filed, the largest employment discrimination suit in U.S. history, affecting more than one million women currently or formerly employed by Wal-Mart, is headed for the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court accepts the case, it will decide, not whether discrimination occurred, but whether the women can sue as a class, rather than being compelled to sue as individuals or in small groups. The company argues that employees charging discrimination should sue one at a time.
Brad Seligman, an attorney for the women, challenged Wal-Mart’s position.
“The ruling upholding the class in this case is well within the mainstream that courts at all levels have recognized for decades,” Seligman said.
“Only the size of the case is unusual, and that is a product of Wal-Mart’s size and the breadth of the discrimination we documented. There is no ‘too big to be liable’ exception in civil rights laws.”
In April, the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in San Francisco ruled 6-5 that the suit could proceed as a class action. The company appealed. If the Supreme Court agrees with the appeals court majority, the case could provide judicial grounds for similar class actions in the future.
If the Supreme Court rejects Wal-Mart’s position, the case will revert for trial as a class action before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.
If the pattern of discrimination is established in Judge Walker’s court, Wal-Mart could be confronted with $1 billion or more in damages, Steven Greenhouse reported in The New York Times. The women are seeking damages for every year since 1997.
The suit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart, gets its name from Betty Dukes, a spunky Wal-Mart greeter who experienced years of frustration on the job, culminating in an argument with managers that led to a humiliating demotion and a pay cut. In 2001, Dukes and six other women filed the class action suit that is now before the Supreme Court.
When the lawsuit was filed, Dukes was being paid $8.44 an hour, despite nine years of service. When she began being covered in the media, Wal-Mart raised her pay nearly 50% within a year.
Dukes’ lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart has violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, creed or gender. It charges that the company systemically pays women less than their male counterparts and promotes men more rapidly than women.
Experts retained by the plaintiffs said they found such patterns of discrimination at all 46 Wal-Mart regions.
It was not the first time discrimination was an issue. As early as 1995, Wal-Mart itself hired a major law firm to explore its vulnerability to such a lawsuit. The law firm found wide gender disparities in pay and promotion at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores and urged the company to take remedial measures.
The law firm’s findings were similar to those found years later by the plaintiffs’ main expert, Richard Drogin, an emeritus statistics professor at California State University, who examined payroll data from 1996 to 2002.
Drogin found that among hourly workers in 2001, women earned about $1,100 a year less than men. Among salaried workers, he found that women earned $14,500 less than men. He also found that in 2001, 65% of Wal-Mart’s workforce was female, compared with only 33% of its managers.
Nine years after it was filed, the largest employment discrimination suit in U.S. history, affecting more than one million women currently or formerly employed by Wal-Mart, is headed for the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court accepts the case, it will decide, not whether discrimination occurred, but whether the women can sue as a class, rather than being compelled to sue as individuals or in small groups. The company argues that employees charging discrimination should sue one at a time.
Brad Seligman, an attorney for the women, challenged Wal-Mart’s position.
“The ruling upholding the class in this case is well within the mainstream that courts at all levels have recognized for decades,” Seligman said.
“Only the size of the case is unusual, and that is a product of Wal-Mart’s size and the breadth of the discrimination we documented. There is no ‘too big to be liable’ exception in civil rights laws.”
In April, the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in San Francisco ruled 6-5 that the suit could proceed as a class action. The company appealed. If the Supreme Court agrees with the appeals court majority, the case could provide judicial grounds for similar class actions in the future.
If the Supreme Court rejects Wal-Mart’s position, the case will revert for trial as a class action before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.
If the pattern of discrimination is established in Judge Walker’s court, Wal-Mart could be confronted with $1 billion or more in damages, Steven Greenhouse reported in The New York Times. The women are seeking damages for every year since 1997.
The suit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart, gets its name from Betty Dukes, a spunky Wal-Mart greeter who experienced years of frustration on the job, culminating in an argument with managers that led to a humiliating demotion and a pay cut. In 2001, Dukes and six other women filed the class action suit that is now before the Supreme Court.
When the lawsuit was filed, Dukes was being paid $8.44 an hour, despite nine years of service. When she began being covered in the media, Wal-Mart raised her pay nearly 50% within a year.
Dukes’ lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart has violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, creed or gender. It charges that the company systemically pays women less than their male counterparts and promotes men more rapidly than women.
Experts retained by the plaintiffs said they found such patterns of discrimination at all 46 Wal-Mart regions.
It was not the first time discrimination was an issue. As early as 1995, Wal-Mart itself hired a major law firm to explore its vulnerability to such a lawsuit. The law firm found wide gender disparities in pay and promotion at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores and urged the company to take remedial measures.
The law firm’s findings were similar to those found years later by the plaintiffs’ main expert, Richard Drogin, an emeritus statistics professor at California State University, who examined payroll data from 1996 to 2002.
Drogin found that among hourly workers in 2001, women earned about $1,100 a year less than men. Among salaried workers, he found that women earned $14,500 less than men. He also found that in 2001, 65% of Wal-Mart’s workforce was female, compared with only 33% of its managers.
Poverty rising in state
New Census data indicate that poverty in Washington state has increased substantially during the recession, with an especially disturbing rise in poverty among children, and with catastrophic poverty rates in the African American, Native American and Latino communities.
The state’s overall poverty rate rose from 11.4% in 2007 to 12.3% in 2009. Among the state’s children, the poverty rate grew from 14.5% to 15.8%.
The Census also reported 2009 poverty rates of 24.8% among Latinos, 24.4% among Native Americans, and 24.3% among African Americans.
The median annual income in the state fell by nearly $1,000, and food stamp usage (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) rose by 51% between 2007 and 2009.
In the nation as a whole, 43.6 million people – one in every seven Americans – were in poverty in 2009, up from 39.8 million in 2007. It was the largest increase in nearly three decades. Everywhere, communities of color continue to be hit hardest.
Even with the mitigating effect of Social Security, poverty among older Americans is about 9%. The poverty rate among children in Washington State is now at 15.8%, 10% above the rate a year ago.
The state’s overall poverty rate rose from 11.4% in 2007 to 12.3% in 2009. Among the state’s children, the poverty rate grew from 14.5% to 15.8%.
The Census also reported 2009 poverty rates of 24.8% among Latinos, 24.4% among Native Americans, and 24.3% among African Americans.
The median annual income in the state fell by nearly $1,000, and food stamp usage (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) rose by 51% between 2007 and 2009.
In the nation as a whole, 43.6 million people – one in every seven Americans – were in poverty in 2009, up from 39.8 million in 2007. It was the largest increase in nearly three decades. Everywhere, communities of color continue to be hit hardest.
Even with the mitigating effect of Social Security, poverty among older Americans is about 9%. The poverty rate among children in Washington State is now at 15.8%, 10% above the rate a year ago.
Who has the right to foreclose?
Let’s review: a collapsed housing market and sustained high unemployment have left millions of homeowners falling behind on mortgage payments. Until early September, home foreclosures and seizures continued at a record pace. But who, if anyone, has the right to seize these homes? Based on the discovery of apparently flawed foreclosure documents and likely criminal industry procedures, the answer is very unclear.
Legal analysts see one gigantic problem: How do you foreclose on a home when you can’t figure out who owns it? Since the mid-1990s, original mortgages have been sliced and diced so many ways as part of a “derivatives” investment package that legal ownership is often unrecognizable.
As if that weren’t enough, many of those who sign off on foreclosures are so-called “robo-signers” tied to a computerized program that is often identified in proceedings as the owner of record. Roughly 65 million homes are potentially affected. Employees at some lender banks have also admitted to signing off with absolutely no review.
As the public learned all this, it also got wind of The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act, which would have forced state courts to ignore many of the most commonly cited flaws, potentially streamlining and accelerating the already record pace.
The Act, first passed by the House in April of this year, sat quietly in the Senate Judiciary Committee until the day before Congress recessed for its midterm-election break. On September 27, with little attention or public debate, the bill was unexpectedly brought to the Senate floor and passed. A little over a week later, President Obama broke with his own party's leadership and announced that he’d veto the legislation.
Then, in mid-October, fifty-one Attorneys-General (including D.C.) simultaneously launched investigations into allegations that flawed documents were used in hundreds of thousands of foreclosures. Critics found it hard to imagine manufacturing $14 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities and other games of mathematical chance in five years without cutting a lot of corners.
Within days, major lenders announced actions ranging from a temporary nation-wide moratorium on foreclosures to promises to hire “outside” reviewers or to review for potential defects even though lenders “had discovered no problems.” By month’s end, Bank of America had reinsituted foreclosures in 23 states, amending its declaration of “not one case” of error to read “a tiny number,” generally “misspellings and omissions.”
Sadly, the White House warned of the “unintended consequences to a broader moratorium.” Treasury Secretary Geithner cited “too many people taking on debt they couldn’t handle,” plus “Don’t hurt the recovery!” and “the Wisdom of Markets Forces” as reasons to oppose an extended moratorium while neglecting to show how to detect and quantify people who were “foolishly overextended.” He also failed to note that “the recovery” is 25-30% fueled by sales of foreclosed properties, or that the Free Market allowed banks to launch this “runaway train.”
Some prominent economists believe Geithner’s reluctance to back a moratorium is based on the fact that the government owns or is backing trillions of dollars in assets that no one wants, predicated on the same or similar suspicious loans that defaulted during the last Bush years, when the White House did nothing to stop the wave or force banks to restructure.
If foreclosed homes couldn’t be sold because of fraudulent paperwork or had to wait for more detailed inspections, imagine how difficult selling assets stuffed with faulty loans might be.
If it’s tough to find a title for a foreclosed home, think how tough it is to extract the related loan from a pyramid of securities sitting on top of it.
If a foreclosed property isn’t selling, it’s not recovering any money back to any asset waiting for it. What that can do to the value of toxic assets living at the Fed and the Treasury Department is simple: kill it.
Geithner’s stance is a reminder that business as usual has resumed. Candidate Obama advocated a foreclosure moratorium, as did his opponent. So did newly sworn-in President Obama. That was when things were still bad for the banks and the markets. Then profits, bonuses and stock prices got stronger. So did the power of the TooBigToFails.
The response from the Right is even worse. The GOP is mum, but its media surrogates (esp. The Wall Street Journal editorial page) have dismissed the lack of proper documents as a triviality. Paul Krugman put it best: In effect, they’re saying that if a bank says it owns your house, we should just take its word. To me, this evokes the days when noblemen felt free to take whatever they wanted, knowing that peasants had no standing in the courts. But then, I suspect that some people regard those as the good old days.
In 2000, then-Treasury Secretary--and now soon-to-be-departed White House economic guru Lawrence Summers--declared that the keys to avoiding financial crisis were “well-capitalized and supervised banks, effective corporate governance and bankruptcy codes, and credible means of contract enforcement.”
Back to Professor Krugman: The accounting scandals at Enron and WorldCom dispelled the myth of effective corporate governance. The idea that our banks were well capitalized and supervised sounds like a sick joke. And now the mortgage mess is making nonsense of claims that we have effective contract enforcement — in fact, the question is whether our economy is governed by any kind of rule of law.
Legal analysts see one gigantic problem: How do you foreclose on a home when you can’t figure out who owns it? Since the mid-1990s, original mortgages have been sliced and diced so many ways as part of a “derivatives” investment package that legal ownership is often unrecognizable.
As if that weren’t enough, many of those who sign off on foreclosures are so-called “robo-signers” tied to a computerized program that is often identified in proceedings as the owner of record. Roughly 65 million homes are potentially affected. Employees at some lender banks have also admitted to signing off with absolutely no review.
As the public learned all this, it also got wind of The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act, which would have forced state courts to ignore many of the most commonly cited flaws, potentially streamlining and accelerating the already record pace.
The Act, first passed by the House in April of this year, sat quietly in the Senate Judiciary Committee until the day before Congress recessed for its midterm-election break. On September 27, with little attention or public debate, the bill was unexpectedly brought to the Senate floor and passed. A little over a week later, President Obama broke with his own party's leadership and announced that he’d veto the legislation.
Then, in mid-October, fifty-one Attorneys-General (including D.C.) simultaneously launched investigations into allegations that flawed documents were used in hundreds of thousands of foreclosures. Critics found it hard to imagine manufacturing $14 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities and other games of mathematical chance in five years without cutting a lot of corners.
Within days, major lenders announced actions ranging from a temporary nation-wide moratorium on foreclosures to promises to hire “outside” reviewers or to review for potential defects even though lenders “had discovered no problems.” By month’s end, Bank of America had reinsituted foreclosures in 23 states, amending its declaration of “not one case” of error to read “a tiny number,” generally “misspellings and omissions.”
Sadly, the White House warned of the “unintended consequences to a broader moratorium.” Treasury Secretary Geithner cited “too many people taking on debt they couldn’t handle,” plus “Don’t hurt the recovery!” and “the Wisdom of Markets Forces” as reasons to oppose an extended moratorium while neglecting to show how to detect and quantify people who were “foolishly overextended.” He also failed to note that “the recovery” is 25-30% fueled by sales of foreclosed properties, or that the Free Market allowed banks to launch this “runaway train.”
Some prominent economists believe Geithner’s reluctance to back a moratorium is based on the fact that the government owns or is backing trillions of dollars in assets that no one wants, predicated on the same or similar suspicious loans that defaulted during the last Bush years, when the White House did nothing to stop the wave or force banks to restructure.
If foreclosed homes couldn’t be sold because of fraudulent paperwork or had to wait for more detailed inspections, imagine how difficult selling assets stuffed with faulty loans might be.
If it’s tough to find a title for a foreclosed home, think how tough it is to extract the related loan from a pyramid of securities sitting on top of it.
If a foreclosed property isn’t selling, it’s not recovering any money back to any asset waiting for it. What that can do to the value of toxic assets living at the Fed and the Treasury Department is simple: kill it.
Geithner’s stance is a reminder that business as usual has resumed. Candidate Obama advocated a foreclosure moratorium, as did his opponent. So did newly sworn-in President Obama. That was when things were still bad for the banks and the markets. Then profits, bonuses and stock prices got stronger. So did the power of the TooBigToFails.
The response from the Right is even worse. The GOP is mum, but its media surrogates (esp. The Wall Street Journal editorial page) have dismissed the lack of proper documents as a triviality. Paul Krugman put it best: In effect, they’re saying that if a bank says it owns your house, we should just take its word. To me, this evokes the days when noblemen felt free to take whatever they wanted, knowing that peasants had no standing in the courts. But then, I suspect that some people regard those as the good old days.
In 2000, then-Treasury Secretary--and now soon-to-be-departed White House economic guru Lawrence Summers--declared that the keys to avoiding financial crisis were “well-capitalized and supervised banks, effective corporate governance and bankruptcy codes, and credible means of contract enforcement.”
Back to Professor Krugman: The accounting scandals at Enron and WorldCom dispelled the myth of effective corporate governance. The idea that our banks were well capitalized and supervised sounds like a sick joke. And now the mortgage mess is making nonsense of claims that we have effective contract enforcement — in fact, the question is whether our economy is governed by any kind of rule of law.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Senator Murray: ‘I will defend Social Security’
(Editor’s note: The Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans has received a welcome letter from Senator Patty Murray spelling out in detail her commitment “to defend the integrity of Social Security against efforts to reduce its benefits or weaken its protections.” In view of the critical importance of this issue to our members, and to the nation, we are publishing Senator Murray’s letter in full. You will find it linked to the PSARA Home page.)
Legislative prospects hinge on Nov. 2 vote
By Jerry Reilly
If the Eyman/British Petroleum Initiative 1053 is defeated, the legislature will also have the ability to consider, again, closing some of the tax loopholes (in excess of $1 billion) that they were not able to muster the votes to accomplish in the 2010 session. But most important of all, they can expect to see about $1 billion in additional revenue in the next biennium from the passage of Initiative 1098 (taxing high earners). They can also plan to see about $4 billion in additional revenue from Initiative 1098 in the biennium after next that begins in July 2013. Even with some new revenue options available, they will most likely still need to make additional cuts to state services to bring the budget into balance.
The outlook for the 2011 session will be very different if the news story on November 3rd is as follows:
The outlook for the 2011 Legislative Session all depends on the outcome of the November 2nd election—and that outcome depends on us.
Confounding the pollsters and the pundits, the voters in Washington State defeated a set of ballot initiatives that would have reduced state revenues by $1.2 Billion and another initiative that would have made it impossible for the legislature to close tax loopholes and update a tax on hazardous petroleum products. The voters also approved an initiative to give tax relief to small businesses and property owners and to improve the state’s regressive tax system by installing an income tax on high earners.If this is the news story on November 3rd, after the general election, the task for the 2011 session of the Legislature will be challenging, but manageable. The Legislature will need to build a budget for the next biennium with an estimated shortfall in revenues of around $5 Billion. But they will not have to cope with the loss of an extra $1.2 Billion in revenue caused by passing initiatives 1107 (rolling back the soda pop and candy tax); 1100 and/or 1105 (privatizing liquor sales) and 1082 (creating a private insurance scheme for worker’s compensation).
If the Eyman/British Petroleum Initiative 1053 is defeated, the legislature will also have the ability to consider, again, closing some of the tax loopholes (in excess of $1 billion) that they were not able to muster the votes to accomplish in the 2010 session. But most important of all, they can expect to see about $1 billion in additional revenue in the next biennium from the passage of Initiative 1098 (taxing high earners). They can also plan to see about $4 billion in additional revenue from Initiative 1098 in the biennium after next that begins in July 2013. Even with some new revenue options available, they will most likely still need to make additional cuts to state services to bring the budget into balance.
The outlook for the 2011 session will be very different if the news story on November 3rd is as follows:
Confirming predictions that the voters were going to “vote their anger”, Washington voters passed initiatives to roll back taxes, privatize liquor sales, bring private insurers into the worker’s compensation system and assure minority rule on tax matters. They also rejected an initiative that combined small business and property owner tax relief with an income tax on high earners.If this how the election turns out, then the legislature will face a revenue shortfall of over $6 billion, without any real option to raise new revenue or close existing loopholes. They will have no real choice except to make additional cuts of $6 Billion on top of the $5 Billion already made in the current biennium. They will be forced to gut health care and long term care for the poor, disabled and elderly, make additional drastic cuts to higher education, curtail preschool opportunities for children and impose dozens of other harmful reductions. If this turns out to be our future, we should retain Governor Haley Barbour as a budget consultant because we will be on our way to becoming Mississippi.
The outlook for the 2011 Legislative Session all depends on the outcome of the November 2nd election—and that outcome depends on us.
Notice of PSARA elections
PSARA will hold its annual election of officers and Executive Board members at the Membership Meeting and Holiday Party on Thursday, December 16. Members who wish to run should contact Election Committee members Will Parry or Maureen Bo at (206) 448-9646.
The terms of President Robby Stern and Executive Vice President Maureen Bo have another year to run. Community Vice President Bette Reed and Treasurer Edie Koch, whose terms are ending, have indicated they are candidates for re-election.
The Executive Board meets on the third Thursday of each month. Members are elected to two-year terms. Half the board members’ terms expire in even-numbered years, half in odd-numbered years. Except for Steve Dzielak, who is moving out of the area, all board members whose terms are expiring have indicated they are candidates to remain on the board.
With no paid staff, PSARA relies entirely on the activism of its officers, its Executive Board, and its rank and file membership to carry out the organization’s work. In addition to regular attendance at monthly membership meetings, Executive Board members are asked to work on committees, contact elected officials, testify at hearings, or participate in demonstrations, rallies, phone banks and conferences.
The terms of President Robby Stern and Executive Vice President Maureen Bo have another year to run. Community Vice President Bette Reed and Treasurer Edie Koch, whose terms are ending, have indicated they are candidates for re-election.
The Executive Board meets on the third Thursday of each month. Members are elected to two-year terms. Half the board members’ terms expire in even-numbered years, half in odd-numbered years. Except for Steve Dzielak, who is moving out of the area, all board members whose terms are expiring have indicated they are candidates to remain on the board.
With no paid staff, PSARA relies entirely on the activism of its officers, its Executive Board, and its rank and file membership to carry out the organization’s work. In addition to regular attendance at monthly membership meetings, Executive Board members are asked to work on committees, contact elected officials, testify at hearings, or participate in demonstrations, rallies, phone banks and conferences.
Legislative Conference Nov. 19
Please plan to attend the PSARA annual Legislative Conference from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Friday, November 19, at the Greenwood Senior Center (site of our fabulous birthday party for Social Security). At this always interesting and informative conference, we will have an analysis of the results of the November 2 election and what they mean for the 2011 session of the State Legislature.
The PSARA Legislative Committee and Executive Board will present recommendations for PSARA priority legislative issues. We’ll discuss these issues, adopt a legislative agenda, and plan our strategy to advocate for our priorities.
We face a very difficult budget situation in our state, with revenues falling far behind what is needed. Once we know the fate of the November ballot initiatives, we’ll have a realistic estimate of the deficit we face and the options we have as we work to meet the growing needs of the people of our state.
Please join us as we chart our course for the coming critical months of advocacy.
The PSARA Legislative Committee and Executive Board will present recommendations for PSARA priority legislative issues. We’ll discuss these issues, adopt a legislative agenda, and plan our strategy to advocate for our priorities.
We face a very difficult budget situation in our state, with revenues falling far behind what is needed. Once we know the fate of the November ballot initiatives, we’ll have a realistic estimate of the deficit we face and the options we have as we work to meet the growing needs of the people of our state.
Please join us as we chart our course for the coming critical months of advocacy.
Forward? Or Backward? The 2010 Elections
By Robby Stern
The 2008 election created high expectations. The promise of a new forward thinking President and an overwhelmingly Democratic controlled Congress meant we could not only reverse the terrible policies of the abysmal Bush era but we could finally move a progressive agenda. At the state level, many believed the overwhelming Democratic majorities combined with a Democratic governor meant we could address the terrible economic recession in a humane manner that created the least suffering possible.
Disappointment shadows us as we face the 2010 election. There is a significant distance between what we had hoped for and what has occurred. At the state level, the legislature did raise some revenue, but not enough and they lacked the courage to attack the tax breaks that have been handed out like Halloween candy. The continuing tidal wave of revenue shortfalls promises even more devastating cuts.
At the federal level, the stimulus package, while helpful, was not nearly big enough. The health care reform legislation, while historic, could have been so much better and the same can be said about Wall Street Reform legislation.
So many things are still on the table including Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the Employee Free Choice Act, the Fair Pay Act, Global Warming legislation and legislation that overturns the terrible Supreme Court decision that handed our electoral process over to the wealthy corporations and Wall Street. We feel these disappointments keenly. But we cannot give in to cynicism and despair. WE MUST BE ACTIVE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION BECAUSE IF WE AREN’T, OUR COUNTRY AND OUR STATE GO IN ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG DIRECTION.
As I am writing this column, the House Republican Caucus just announced their Pledge for our country. They will repeal the health care reform act, retain the tax cuts for the wealthy, scapegoat immigrants, move to privatize Social Security, and cut spending for much needed social programs. They are clear. They are telling us what they will do. They will continue to blame the unemployed for their fate and do as much as they can to weaken organized labor. We can assume, from the filibusters of the Senate Republicans, that they are in lock step with their House Republican colleagues. WE MUST DO ALL THAT WE CAN TO NOT LET THESE PEOPLE GAIN CONTROL OF CONGRESS.
At the state level, both the election of candidates and the initiatives are critical. We are faced with q fundamental question: Who do we want to write the biannual budget for the next two years? It is clear that had the Republicans been in control of the state legislature in 2009-2010, no revenue would have been raised.
On the initiative and referendum front, the choices could not be clearer. I-1107, robs the state of significant revenue raised in the 2010 session – more than $100 million per year by repealing the soda and candy tax. I–1100 and I–1105, privatizing liquor sales, would create an explosion of liquor vendors in our state. In addition, I-1100 would cost state and local governments $275 million over five years and I–1105 would cost more than $700 million over five years. These two initiatives would also eliminate approximately 800 good family wage jobs for workers represented by UFCW 21. I–1053 is Tim Eyeman’s initiative and would absolutely tie the hands of legislators who might want to close tax loopholes or raise additional revenue. I–1082 will privatize our Workers Compensation system and turn it over to the likes of AIG and Liberty Mutual. Corporate interests are spending HUGE dollars to pass these five initiatives and boost their profits at the expense of every day working people. They are the “Dirty Five” and PSARA recommends a “No” vote on each one of them.
Much has been written about I–1098, the high income tax initiative. This could be the biggest assistance in the history of our state to revenue for education and health care since our regressive tax system was developed. The initiative is fair. It supports those things we most value. I–1098 presents us an historic opportunity. Finally, R–52 addresses two desperate needs; 1. It creates between 30,000 & 40,000 jobs and 2. It will allow the long overdue physical upgrading of our educational infrastructure.
Will we continue create the groundwork, giving us the opportunity to move forward? Or will the forces and interests who will take us backward achieve a victory in this election? The answer is up to us!
The 2008 election created high expectations. The promise of a new forward thinking President and an overwhelmingly Democratic controlled Congress meant we could not only reverse the terrible policies of the abysmal Bush era but we could finally move a progressive agenda. At the state level, many believed the overwhelming Democratic majorities combined with a Democratic governor meant we could address the terrible economic recession in a humane manner that created the least suffering possible.
Disappointment shadows us as we face the 2010 election. There is a significant distance between what we had hoped for and what has occurred. At the state level, the legislature did raise some revenue, but not enough and they lacked the courage to attack the tax breaks that have been handed out like Halloween candy. The continuing tidal wave of revenue shortfalls promises even more devastating cuts.
At the federal level, the stimulus package, while helpful, was not nearly big enough. The health care reform legislation, while historic, could have been so much better and the same can be said about Wall Street Reform legislation.
So many things are still on the table including Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the Employee Free Choice Act, the Fair Pay Act, Global Warming legislation and legislation that overturns the terrible Supreme Court decision that handed our electoral process over to the wealthy corporations and Wall Street. We feel these disappointments keenly. But we cannot give in to cynicism and despair. WE MUST BE ACTIVE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION BECAUSE IF WE AREN’T, OUR COUNTRY AND OUR STATE GO IN ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG DIRECTION.
As I am writing this column, the House Republican Caucus just announced their Pledge for our country. They will repeal the health care reform act, retain the tax cuts for the wealthy, scapegoat immigrants, move to privatize Social Security, and cut spending for much needed social programs. They are clear. They are telling us what they will do. They will continue to blame the unemployed for their fate and do as much as they can to weaken organized labor. We can assume, from the filibusters of the Senate Republicans, that they are in lock step with their House Republican colleagues. WE MUST DO ALL THAT WE CAN TO NOT LET THESE PEOPLE GAIN CONTROL OF CONGRESS.
At the state level, both the election of candidates and the initiatives are critical. We are faced with q fundamental question: Who do we want to write the biannual budget for the next two years? It is clear that had the Republicans been in control of the state legislature in 2009-2010, no revenue would have been raised.
On the initiative and referendum front, the choices could not be clearer. I-1107, robs the state of significant revenue raised in the 2010 session – more than $100 million per year by repealing the soda and candy tax. I–1100 and I–1105, privatizing liquor sales, would create an explosion of liquor vendors in our state. In addition, I-1100 would cost state and local governments $275 million over five years and I–1105 would cost more than $700 million over five years. These two initiatives would also eliminate approximately 800 good family wage jobs for workers represented by UFCW 21. I–1053 is Tim Eyeman’s initiative and would absolutely tie the hands of legislators who might want to close tax loopholes or raise additional revenue. I–1082 will privatize our Workers Compensation system and turn it over to the likes of AIG and Liberty Mutual. Corporate interests are spending HUGE dollars to pass these five initiatives and boost their profits at the expense of every day working people. They are the “Dirty Five” and PSARA recommends a “No” vote on each one of them.
Much has been written about I–1098, the high income tax initiative. This could be the biggest assistance in the history of our state to revenue for education and health care since our regressive tax system was developed. The initiative is fair. It supports those things we most value. I–1098 presents us an historic opportunity. Finally, R–52 addresses two desperate needs; 1. It creates between 30,000 & 40,000 jobs and 2. It will allow the long overdue physical upgrading of our educational infrastructure.
Will we continue create the groundwork, giving us the opportunity to move forward? Or will the forces and interests who will take us backward achieve a victory in this election? The answer is up to us!
Working to age 70 – the worst idea
By Rap Lewis
Raising the normal Social Security retirement age from 67, where it is currently headed, another three full years to age 70 may well be the worst single idea to emerge from the feverish national discussion about the federal budget deficit.
At a time when millions are in the streets of Europe to protest raising the retirement age from 60 to 62, making our working men and women hang in there even until age 67 is uncivilized. We cannot hold still for any further increase. At age 70, workers should already have been retired on full benefits for at least a decade
Social Security has never contributed one penny to the budget deficit. Its funding is separate and as it stands the program will remain solvent for almost 30 years. Even raising the retirement age to 90 wouldn’t address the budget deficit.
But any increase beyond 67 would mean a substantial reduction in the already modest benefit checks of every man and woman who retires after the effective date of the change.
Above all, a higher retirement age is cruel economic punishment to the millions of workers who, for many reasons, simply cannot continue grinding it out day after day anywhere close to the age of 70.
Data in the Current Population Survey and in the Occupational Information Network spell out the numbers who would be driven by the nature of their work into early retirement at reduced benefits. In 2009, about 6.5 million workers age 58 and older had physically demanding jobs, involving lifting, handling or moving objects, spending significant time standing, or doing other physically demanding work.
Another 5 million workers age 58 and older had jobs with difficult working conditions, including cramped working space, labor outdoors, exposure to contaminants or to abnormal temperatures, hazardous equipment, or excessive noise.
We’re talking about factory workers, nursing home workers, construction workers, hotel maids, coal miners and farm workers, among many difficult or dangerous occupations.
There are also millions trapped by the current recession in long-term unemployment, with uncertain prospects for ever working again. Among them are all those whose work experience is dated, already replaced by younger workers with the required newer skills.
As the recession drags on, instances of age discrimination multiply. Challenging such discrimination has just been made much more difficult by the U.S. Supreme Court, with a decision shifting the burden of proof to the worker.
Increases in life expectancy are used to rationalize a later retirement age. But life expectancy statistics need close scrutiny. The National Council of Women’s Organizations reports that “increased longevity is linked to income and education and does not mean that people are able to work longer before receiving their Social Security benefits.”
Over the last century, although life expectancy at birth has increased significantly for both men and women, a major part of the increase has been between birth and age 20.
Moreover, most of the improvement in life expectancy has occurred among higher-income and more educated men. Lower-income and less educated men have seen little or no change.
Women’s overall life expectancy has stagnated. Lower-income women have seen actual declines in life expectancy.
Under these circumstances, to extend the retirement age even one year – never mind to 70 -- is to impose cruel and indefensible punishment on millions who have committed no offense except the graying of hair and the multiple health problems that come with aging.
Raising the normal Social Security retirement age from 67, where it is currently headed, another three full years to age 70 may well be the worst single idea to emerge from the feverish national discussion about the federal budget deficit.
At a time when millions are in the streets of Europe to protest raising the retirement age from 60 to 62, making our working men and women hang in there even until age 67 is uncivilized. We cannot hold still for any further increase. At age 70, workers should already have been retired on full benefits for at least a decade
Social Security has never contributed one penny to the budget deficit. Its funding is separate and as it stands the program will remain solvent for almost 30 years. Even raising the retirement age to 90 wouldn’t address the budget deficit.
But any increase beyond 67 would mean a substantial reduction in the already modest benefit checks of every man and woman who retires after the effective date of the change.
Above all, a higher retirement age is cruel economic punishment to the millions of workers who, for many reasons, simply cannot continue grinding it out day after day anywhere close to the age of 70.
Data in the Current Population Survey and in the Occupational Information Network spell out the numbers who would be driven by the nature of their work into early retirement at reduced benefits. In 2009, about 6.5 million workers age 58 and older had physically demanding jobs, involving lifting, handling or moving objects, spending significant time standing, or doing other physically demanding work.
Another 5 million workers age 58 and older had jobs with difficult working conditions, including cramped working space, labor outdoors, exposure to contaminants or to abnormal temperatures, hazardous equipment, or excessive noise.
We’re talking about factory workers, nursing home workers, construction workers, hotel maids, coal miners and farm workers, among many difficult or dangerous occupations.
There are also millions trapped by the current recession in long-term unemployment, with uncertain prospects for ever working again. Among them are all those whose work experience is dated, already replaced by younger workers with the required newer skills.
As the recession drags on, instances of age discrimination multiply. Challenging such discrimination has just been made much more difficult by the U.S. Supreme Court, with a decision shifting the burden of proof to the worker.
Increases in life expectancy are used to rationalize a later retirement age. But life expectancy statistics need close scrutiny. The National Council of Women’s Organizations reports that “increased longevity is linked to income and education and does not mean that people are able to work longer before receiving their Social Security benefits.”
Over the last century, although life expectancy at birth has increased significantly for both men and women, a major part of the increase has been between birth and age 20.
Moreover, most of the improvement in life expectancy has occurred among higher-income and more educated men. Lower-income and less educated men have seen little or no change.
Women’s overall life expectancy has stagnated. Lower-income women have seen actual declines in life expectancy.
Under these circumstances, to extend the retirement age even one year – never mind to 70 -- is to impose cruel and indefensible punishment on millions who have committed no offense except the graying of hair and the multiple health problems that come with aging.
Wal-Mart target of discrimination suit
By Rap Lewis
Nine years after it was filed, the largest employment discrimination suit in U.S. history, affecting more than one million women currently or formerly employed by Wal-Mart, is headed for the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court accepts the case, it will decide, not whether discrimination occurred, but whether the women can sue as a class, rather than being compelled to sue as individuals or in small groups. The company argues that employees charging discrimination should sue one at a time
Brad Seligman, an attorney for the women, challenged Wal-Mart’s position.
“The ruling upholding the class in this case is well within the mainstream that courts at all levels have recognized for decades,” Seligman said.
“Only the size of the case is unusual, and that is a product of Wal-Mart’s size and the breadth of the discrimination we documented. There is no ‘too big to be liable’ exception in civil rights laws.”
In April, the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in San Francisco ruled 6-5 that the suit could proceed as a class action. The company appealed. If the Supreme Court agrees with the appeals court majority, the case could provide judicial grounds for similar class actions in the future. If the Supreme Court rejects Wal-Mart’s position, the case will revert for trial as a class action before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.
If the pattern of discrimination is established in Judge Walker’s court, Wal-Mart could be confronted with $1 billion or more in damages, Steven Greenhouse reported in The New York Times. The women are seeking damages for every year since 1997.
The suit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart, gets its name from Betty Dukes, a spunky Wal-Mart greeter who experienced years of frustration on the job, culminating in an argument with managers that led to a humiliating demotion and a pay cut. In 2001, Dukes and six other women filed the class action suit that is now before the Supreme Court.
When the lawsuit was filed, Dukes was being paid $8.44 an hour, despite nine years of service. When she began being covered in the media, Wal-Mart raised her pay nearly 50% within a year.
Dukes’ lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart has violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, creed or gender. It charges that the company systemically pays women less than their male counterparts and promotes men more rapidly than women.
Experts retained by the plaintiffs said they found such patterns of discrimination at all 46 Wal-Mart regions.
It was not the first time discrimination was an issue. As early as 1995, Wal-Mart itself hired a major law firm to explore its vulnerability to such a lawsuit. The law firm found wide gender disparities in pay and promotion at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores and urged the company to take remedial measures.
The law firm’s findings were similar to those found years later by the plaintiffs’ main expert, Richard Drogin, an emeritus statistics professor at California State University, who examined payroll data from 1996 to 2002.
Drogin found that among hourly workers in 2001, women earned about $1,100 a year less than men. Among salaried workers, he found that women earned $14,500 less than men. He also found that in 2001, 65% of Wal-Mart’s workforce was female, compared with only 33% of its managers.
Nine years after it was filed, the largest employment discrimination suit in U.S. history, affecting more than one million women currently or formerly employed by Wal-Mart, is headed for the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court accepts the case, it will decide, not whether discrimination occurred, but whether the women can sue as a class, rather than being compelled to sue as individuals or in small groups. The company argues that employees charging discrimination should sue one at a time
Brad Seligman, an attorney for the women, challenged Wal-Mart’s position.
“The ruling upholding the class in this case is well within the mainstream that courts at all levels have recognized for decades,” Seligman said.
“Only the size of the case is unusual, and that is a product of Wal-Mart’s size and the breadth of the discrimination we documented. There is no ‘too big to be liable’ exception in civil rights laws.”
In April, the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in San Francisco ruled 6-5 that the suit could proceed as a class action. The company appealed. If the Supreme Court agrees with the appeals court majority, the case could provide judicial grounds for similar class actions in the future. If the Supreme Court rejects Wal-Mart’s position, the case will revert for trial as a class action before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.
If the pattern of discrimination is established in Judge Walker’s court, Wal-Mart could be confronted with $1 billion or more in damages, Steven Greenhouse reported in The New York Times. The women are seeking damages for every year since 1997.
The suit, Dukes v. Wal-Mart, gets its name from Betty Dukes, a spunky Wal-Mart greeter who experienced years of frustration on the job, culminating in an argument with managers that led to a humiliating demotion and a pay cut. In 2001, Dukes and six other women filed the class action suit that is now before the Supreme Court.
When the lawsuit was filed, Dukes was being paid $8.44 an hour, despite nine years of service. When she began being covered in the media, Wal-Mart raised her pay nearly 50% within a year.
Dukes’ lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart has violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, creed or gender. It charges that the company systemically pays women less than their male counterparts and promotes men more rapidly than women.
Experts retained by the plaintiffs said they found such patterns of discrimination at all 46 Wal-Mart regions.
It was not the first time discrimination was an issue. As early as 1995, Wal-Mart itself hired a major law firm to explore its vulnerability to such a lawsuit. The law firm found wide gender disparities in pay and promotion at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores and urged the company to take remedial measures.
The law firm’s findings were similar to those found years later by the plaintiffs’ main expert, Richard Drogin, an emeritus statistics professor at California State University, who examined payroll data from 1996 to 2002.
Drogin found that among hourly workers in 2001, women earned about $1,100 a year less than men. Among salaried workers, he found that women earned $14,500 less than men. He also found that in 2001, 65% of Wal-Mart’s workforce was female, compared with only 33% of its managers.
129 sponsors for public option bill
By David Loud
What a year it’s been working on healthcare reform - a milestone year in an ongoing struggle for healthcare justice. It’s worth noting that President Theodore Roosevelt first called for national health care in 1912, and that successive Presidents tried and failed to move this agenda. When President Obama signed the Affordable Health Care Act into law in March, it was the biggest step forward in a century of trying. This law is flawed and incomplete, but it represents a historic victory. As Congressman Jim McDermott has said recently, “That was our D-Day, and now we’re on the beaches.” The opponents of reform would like to push us back into the water in November, and the advocates of reform know that to survive we must fight to defend and improve on what’s been achieved.
A bill to amend the Affordable Care Act to establish a public health insurance option was filed in the House in July. HR 5808 has 129 cosponsors, including Congressman McDermott. Single-payer (a publicly-funded national plan for all) remains the best policy idea, and many are working to promote it at both the state and national levels.
The ongoing rise in healthcare costs will force people to revisit the question of whether we will be able to afford healthcare for all as long as long as private insurance and profiteering have so much power in the system.
I hope all of us will find some way to help keep our country from moving further to the right in the November elections. It would be tragic if understandable disappointments in getting “change we can believe in” since 2008 lead people to allow Republicans to gain the power to push us backwards. Probably more important than anything else will be getting out the vote – persuading people that it does really matter this year, as much as it did in 2008.
(David Loud is a member of PSARA.)
What a year it’s been working on healthcare reform - a milestone year in an ongoing struggle for healthcare justice. It’s worth noting that President Theodore Roosevelt first called for national health care in 1912, and that successive Presidents tried and failed to move this agenda. When President Obama signed the Affordable Health Care Act into law in March, it was the biggest step forward in a century of trying. This law is flawed and incomplete, but it represents a historic victory. As Congressman Jim McDermott has said recently, “That was our D-Day, and now we’re on the beaches.” The opponents of reform would like to push us back into the water in November, and the advocates of reform know that to survive we must fight to defend and improve on what’s been achieved.
A bill to amend the Affordable Care Act to establish a public health insurance option was filed in the House in July. HR 5808 has 129 cosponsors, including Congressman McDermott. Single-payer (a publicly-funded national plan for all) remains the best policy idea, and many are working to promote it at both the state and national levels.
The ongoing rise in healthcare costs will force people to revisit the question of whether we will be able to afford healthcare for all as long as long as private insurance and profiteering have so much power in the system.
I hope all of us will find some way to help keep our country from moving further to the right in the November elections. It would be tragic if understandable disappointments in getting “change we can believe in” since 2008 lead people to allow Republicans to gain the power to push us backwards. Probably more important than anything else will be getting out the vote – persuading people that it does really matter this year, as much as it did in 2008.
(David Loud is a member of PSARA.)
Standing Up for a future we can all depend on
Grocery Store Workers – Standing Up for a future we can all depend on
By Tom Geiger, Communications Director UFCW 21
Our son Isaiah (7) and daughter Naomi (5) will inherit the world we make for them. My wife Aiko and I take that responsibility seriously. Like all parents, we want our kids’ lives to be better than our own.
And fighting for a better future – a future we can all depend on – is just what 25,000 grocery store workers across Puget Sound are doing in the current contract negotiations. These workers – from UFCW 21, UFCW 81, and Teamsters 38 – work in hundreds of stores across the region.
The future we seek is one where workers have: improved wages; quality and affordable health care; a secure pension; as well as scheduling, paid sick days and other policies that are critical to our quality of life.
Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans has been there with the workers every step of the way. PSARA President Robby Stern spoke to over 400 hundred store leaders in February on the eve of our negotiations. Many PSARA members supported our Standing Up for Working Moms events in May and other events since.
Recently, workers and community allies delivered the Grocery Store Bill of Rights to management in all 218 stores. Check out the Bill of Rights at:
http://www.ufcw21.org/grocery2010/bill-of-rights
Whether workers attain a fair contract depends primarily on the level of their unity and action combined with the level of public support. That combination has not been higher anywhere in the nation than it is here in Puget Sound.
By Tom Geiger, Communications Director UFCW 21
Our son Isaiah (7) and daughter Naomi (5) will inherit the world we make for them. My wife Aiko and I take that responsibility seriously. Like all parents, we want our kids’ lives to be better than our own.
And fighting for a better future – a future we can all depend on – is just what 25,000 grocery store workers across Puget Sound are doing in the current contract negotiations. These workers – from UFCW 21, UFCW 81, and Teamsters 38 – work in hundreds of stores across the region.
The future we seek is one where workers have: improved wages; quality and affordable health care; a secure pension; as well as scheduling, paid sick days and other policies that are critical to our quality of life.
Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans has been there with the workers every step of the way. PSARA President Robby Stern spoke to over 400 hundred store leaders in February on the eve of our negotiations. Many PSARA members supported our Standing Up for Working Moms events in May and other events since.
Recently, workers and community allies delivered the Grocery Store Bill of Rights to management in all 218 stores. Check out the Bill of Rights at:
http://www.ufcw21.org/grocery2010/bill-of-rights
Whether workers attain a fair contract depends primarily on the level of their unity and action combined with the level of public support. That combination has not been higher anywhere in the nation than it is here in Puget Sound.
Sick Days for All Workers
New coalition aims for a healthier Seattle through paid sick days for all workers
By Alex Stone
It should be as fundamental a standard as the minimum wage and the 40-hour work week. Yet one million Washington workers can’t take a single paid day off from work when they – or their children or their elderly parents – get sick.
Among them is Amber, a 22 year old Seattle-area mother with a 3 year old son. Amber’s current job as a kitchen staffer doesn’t offer her paid time off to care for her son when he gets sick. “When my son was sick, I had to call in sick because he couldn’t go to daycare,” Amber says. “I had to take two days off without pay and I regretted it because I have bills to pay and now I am behind”.
Amber’s story is commonplace in the food service industry, where just 16% of employers offer full-time workers paid sick days, and only 2% offer them to part-time employees. It's no wonder nearly half of "stomach flu" related outbreaks are linked to ill food service workers.
According to the most recent national data, 38% of all workers and two-thirds of the lowest-paid 25% have no paid sick leave. And some grocery and hospital workers – who in theory get sick leave – have to be out two or three days without pay before they can take it.
In 2006, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to adopt minimum paid sick days standards. The law allows all workers in the city to accrue paid sick days – up to 5 days in businesses with fewer than 10 employees and 9 days in larger companies. Since then, both Washington, D.C. and Milwaukee, WI have adopted, but not yet fully implemented, similar measures. New York City and Philadelphia have active campaigns, and a paid sick days bill is before Congress.
The Seattle Coalition for a Healthy Workforce is laying the groundwork for paid sick days legislation here by organizing a broad coalition of businesses, community organizations and individuals who support paid sick days for Seattle workers.
A citywide paid sick days standard will benefit public health, allowing workers like Amber to stay home when she or her son get sick. It will promote family economic security by ensuring workers and their families can care for basic health care needs without jeopardizing a day’s wages. It will create healthier workplaces, hospitals, and childcare facilities by limiting the spread of disease. It will lower health care costs by enabling workers to seek preventive care for themselves and their loved ones. Business owners who provide paid sick leave have found that morale, productivity, and customer satisfaction all go up.
There are millions of stories just like Amber’s. Do you have one? Please share it on the Seattle Healthy Workforce website, Help Seattle join other cities in caring for working families. Visit http://seattlehealthyworkforce.org/ to learn more.
(Alex Stone is Communication Manager for the Economic Opportunity Institute.)
By Alex Stone
It should be as fundamental a standard as the minimum wage and the 40-hour work week. Yet one million Washington workers can’t take a single paid day off from work when they – or their children or their elderly parents – get sick.
Among them is Amber, a 22 year old Seattle-area mother with a 3 year old son. Amber’s current job as a kitchen staffer doesn’t offer her paid time off to care for her son when he gets sick. “When my son was sick, I had to call in sick because he couldn’t go to daycare,” Amber says. “I had to take two days off without pay and I regretted it because I have bills to pay and now I am behind”.
Amber’s story is commonplace in the food service industry, where just 16% of employers offer full-time workers paid sick days, and only 2% offer them to part-time employees. It's no wonder nearly half of "stomach flu" related outbreaks are linked to ill food service workers.
According to the most recent national data, 38% of all workers and two-thirds of the lowest-paid 25% have no paid sick leave. And some grocery and hospital workers – who in theory get sick leave – have to be out two or three days without pay before they can take it.
In 2006, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to adopt minimum paid sick days standards. The law allows all workers in the city to accrue paid sick days – up to 5 days in businesses with fewer than 10 employees and 9 days in larger companies. Since then, both Washington, D.C. and Milwaukee, WI have adopted, but not yet fully implemented, similar measures. New York City and Philadelphia have active campaigns, and a paid sick days bill is before Congress.
The Seattle Coalition for a Healthy Workforce is laying the groundwork for paid sick days legislation here by organizing a broad coalition of businesses, community organizations and individuals who support paid sick days for Seattle workers.
A citywide paid sick days standard will benefit public health, allowing workers like Amber to stay home when she or her son get sick. It will promote family economic security by ensuring workers and their families can care for basic health care needs without jeopardizing a day’s wages. It will create healthier workplaces, hospitals, and childcare facilities by limiting the spread of disease. It will lower health care costs by enabling workers to seek preventive care for themselves and their loved ones. Business owners who provide paid sick leave have found that morale, productivity, and customer satisfaction all go up.
There are millions of stories just like Amber’s. Do you have one? Please share it on the Seattle Healthy Workforce website, Help Seattle join other cities in caring for working families. Visit http://seattlehealthyworkforce.org/ to learn more.
(Alex Stone is Communication Manager for the Economic Opportunity Institute.)
Low-income housing is scarce and costly
Housing for low-income renters is becoming increasingly scarce, and what rental housing exists is becoming increasingly costly, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reports.
In 2009, 5.6 million households with incomes below the poverty level paid at least half their income for rent and basic utilities, newly-released Census data show. That’s 1.7 million more households than paid that share of their income in 2003.
Job losses account in part for the 1.7 million increase. A major factor is that while home prices have fallen by nearly 30% since the market peaked in 2006, rents have actually risen by an average of 11% over the same period. Federal rental assistance programs have helped, but funding for them has fallen far behind the growing need.
One indication of the deepening crisis is that in 2009 about 325,000 children lived at least part of a year in a homeless shelter, up 12% since 2007.
“Two or three times as many children were homeless if you count those living temporarily in hotels or motels, doubled-up with other families, or on the street…separate data from the (U.S.) Department of Education suggest,” the CBPP reports.
In 2009, 5.6 million households with incomes below the poverty level paid at least half their income for rent and basic utilities, newly-released Census data show. That’s 1.7 million more households than paid that share of their income in 2003.
Job losses account in part for the 1.7 million increase. A major factor is that while home prices have fallen by nearly 30% since the market peaked in 2006, rents have actually risen by an average of 11% over the same period. Federal rental assistance programs have helped, but funding for them has fallen far behind the growing need.
One indication of the deepening crisis is that in 2009 about 325,000 children lived at least part of a year in a homeless shelter, up 12% since 2007.
“Two or three times as many children were homeless if you count those living temporarily in hotels or motels, doubled-up with other families, or on the street…separate data from the (U.S.) Department of Education suggest,” the CBPP reports.
Where workers run the show
By Will Parry
The United Steelworkers, the nation’s largest industrial union, has announced a potentially historic collaboration with the world’s largest worker-owned cooperative, Mondragon International, based in the Basque region of Spain.
The objective of the union is to bypass the greed of financial speculators and private capital and take the burning issue of job creation into its own hands.
The union has the world’s most experienced cooperative enterprise as its partner. The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC) has championed economic democracy and social entrepeneurship for more than 50 years.
Begun in 1956 in a small shop making kerosene stoves, MCC has been built into a network of some 260 cooperatives employing 100,000 worker-owners in 40 countries. Its products include high-tech machine tools, motor buses, household appliances, and a chain of supermarkets. Its annual sales exceed 15 billion Euros.
The Steelworkers are proceeding cautiously.
“We’ve made a commitment here,” said Rob Witherell of the union’s Organizing Department. “But for that reason, we want to make sure we get it right, even if it means starting slowly and on a modest scale.”
The union is seeking viable small businesses in appropriate sectors whose owners are interested in cashing out. At the same time, it is lining up financial institutions – credit unions and cooperative banks – with a focus on productive investment.
“It can get complicated,” Witherell said. “Not only do you have to fund the buyout, but you also have to figure out how to lend the workers the money to buy in, so they can repay it at a reasonable rate over a period of time and still make a decent living.”
Once the start-up problems are resolved and workers begin running an enterprise they own, the payoff is dramatic. The worker-owners cannot be fired. In regular assemblies, they hire and fire their managers, as well as set the general policies that govern the firm’s direction.
A worker-owner can “cash out” upon retirement, but his or her share cannot be sold. It is available only for purchase by a new worker-owner at the enterprise.
The workers also determine the income spread between the lowest-paid worker and the highest-paid manager. In the U.S. today, that ratio is 400 or more to one. In Mondragon cooperatives, the ratio currently averages about 4.5 to one.
The core Mondragon model starts with a school, a credit union, and a shop, all owned by the workers. These three basic components enable the cooperative to rely on its own resources for financing and training.
Mondragon principles are already being applied in Cleveland, a city hard hit by the current economic crisis. The Evergreen Cooperative Laundry, a worker-owned, industrial-size, thoroughly “green” operation, is up and running in the depressed Glenville neighborhood, where the median income is about $18,000.
The laundry is the first of ten major cooperative enterprises in the works in Cleveland. A second green, employee-owned enterprise – Ohio Cooperative Solar – opened last fall. It is undertaking large-scale installations of solar panels on the roofs of Cleveland’s largest non-profit health, education and municipal buildings. Its role in the city’s weatherization program ensures its worker-members year-round employment.
As the Steelworkers launch cooperative enterprises, they will insist that the Mondragon formula be modified in one respect: The worker-owners will be organized into the union, and the union will negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the management team.
“What we are announcing,” said Josu Ugarte, president of Mondragon International, “represents a historic first – combining the world’s largest industrial worker cooperative with one of the world’s most progressive and forward-thinking manufacturing unions to work together so that our combined know-how and complementary visions can transform manufacturing practices in North America.”
Somebody has to check banker-capitalist greed. Somebody has to create living-wage union jobs. Somebody has to plant the flag of worker-controlled industry in U.S. soil.
Stay tuned. The Steelworkers are serious.
The United Steelworkers, the nation’s largest industrial union, has announced a potentially historic collaboration with the world’s largest worker-owned cooperative, Mondragon International, based in the Basque region of Spain.
The objective of the union is to bypass the greed of financial speculators and private capital and take the burning issue of job creation into its own hands.
The union has the world’s most experienced cooperative enterprise as its partner. The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC) has championed economic democracy and social entrepeneurship for more than 50 years.
Begun in 1956 in a small shop making kerosene stoves, MCC has been built into a network of some 260 cooperatives employing 100,000 worker-owners in 40 countries. Its products include high-tech machine tools, motor buses, household appliances, and a chain of supermarkets. Its annual sales exceed 15 billion Euros.
The Steelworkers are proceeding cautiously.
“We’ve made a commitment here,” said Rob Witherell of the union’s Organizing Department. “But for that reason, we want to make sure we get it right, even if it means starting slowly and on a modest scale.”
The union is seeking viable small businesses in appropriate sectors whose owners are interested in cashing out. At the same time, it is lining up financial institutions – credit unions and cooperative banks – with a focus on productive investment.
“It can get complicated,” Witherell said. “Not only do you have to fund the buyout, but you also have to figure out how to lend the workers the money to buy in, so they can repay it at a reasonable rate over a period of time and still make a decent living.”
Once the start-up problems are resolved and workers begin running an enterprise they own, the payoff is dramatic. The worker-owners cannot be fired. In regular assemblies, they hire and fire their managers, as well as set the general policies that govern the firm’s direction.
A worker-owner can “cash out” upon retirement, but his or her share cannot be sold. It is available only for purchase by a new worker-owner at the enterprise.
The workers also determine the income spread between the lowest-paid worker and the highest-paid manager. In the U.S. today, that ratio is 400 or more to one. In Mondragon cooperatives, the ratio currently averages about 4.5 to one.
The core Mondragon model starts with a school, a credit union, and a shop, all owned by the workers. These three basic components enable the cooperative to rely on its own resources for financing and training.
Mondragon principles are already being applied in Cleveland, a city hard hit by the current economic crisis. The Evergreen Cooperative Laundry, a worker-owned, industrial-size, thoroughly “green” operation, is up and running in the depressed Glenville neighborhood, where the median income is about $18,000.
The laundry is the first of ten major cooperative enterprises in the works in Cleveland. A second green, employee-owned enterprise – Ohio Cooperative Solar – opened last fall. It is undertaking large-scale installations of solar panels on the roofs of Cleveland’s largest non-profit health, education and municipal buildings. Its role in the city’s weatherization program ensures its worker-members year-round employment.
As the Steelworkers launch cooperative enterprises, they will insist that the Mondragon formula be modified in one respect: The worker-owners will be organized into the union, and the union will negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the management team.
“What we are announcing,” said Josu Ugarte, president of Mondragon International, “represents a historic first – combining the world’s largest industrial worker cooperative with one of the world’s most progressive and forward-thinking manufacturing unions to work together so that our combined know-how and complementary visions can transform manufacturing practices in North America.”
Somebody has to check banker-capitalist greed. Somebody has to create living-wage union jobs. Somebody has to plant the flag of worker-controlled industry in U.S. soil.
Stay tuned. The Steelworkers are serious.
Fighting to regulate the big boys
By Steve Dzielak
Most U.S. Senators win arguments or get legislation passed relying on horse-trading, muscle and bluster. Not Maria Cantwell. The junior senator from Washington State does her homework, then fights for what she believes is right.
Ask smart people in DC who is the toughest, best-informed Congressional combatant for effective financial regulation. Few will say House and Senate financial committee chairs Barney Frank or Chris Dodd. The answer you’re more likely to get is the junior senator from the Evergreen State.
Dismayed by what she’s seen to date, Cantwell continues to push the Obama administration for systemic financial reforms. "If there are people at the Treasury and the White House who think that the way to get the economy going again is not to close these loopholes, that’s disgusting," she said.
During last year’s committee work on healthcare, Cantwell salvaged some of the cost-containment goals of the doomed public option. Her amendment, modeled on a Washington State program, allowed all states to negotiate the terms of insurance coverage for those eligible for subsidies, and for others buying in on their own. But the most lasting impact of her diligent approach to public policy is likely to come from her fight for the regulation of derivatives— those abstract securities based mathematically on real economic transactions.
"There's a few people in the administration,” Cantwell said at a hearing in May, “who are slow-walking, thinking we're all going to forget about this regulatory reform that is needed, I can assure you that we're not going to forget."
Cantwell, 51, grew up in Indiana. The daughter of a Congressional staffer, she moved to Seattle and at 28 won a seat in the state legislature. In 1992, she became the first Democrat in 40 years to win in the First Congressional District.
She lost her seat in the 1994 Republican landslide. Offered the top marketing job in RealNetworks, she was quickly promoted to executive vice president.
She resigned in 2000 to make her Senate run, beating incumbent Slade Gorton by 2,229 votes. Serving on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at a time of soaring electricity rates, she mastered the details of electric-power regulation, which led her directly to derivatives abuses.
In 2007 and 2008, when oil prices were spiking, Cantwell led an effort to have regulatory agencies investigate market-rigging. Many industry pros scoffed at the idea, but Cantwell continued to raise the issue, and in 2009, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) concluded that she was right.
A few months into the Obama presidency, Cantwell pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to empower the CFTC to monitor trades to curb their volatility. Geithner balked, but Cantwell pressured the White House. One observer said she “played hardball like few liberals do anymore.”
In May, Geithner made explicit commitments to give new powers to the CFTC, but as Cantwell later said, “It’s not unheard of in D.C. to feign a commitment and then not fight hard to have the legislation pass.” Sure enough, in June, the Treasury Department released a white paper weaker than Geithner’s earlier commitments, and the financial reform legislation Geithner sent to Congress in August was weaker yet.
The loopholes were widened further by the House Financial Services Committee and were not resisted by the administration “The Treasury Department should be ashamed of themselves,” Cantwell said.
“Treasury has gone back on their original commitment,” Cantwell says. “The battle lines have been drawn.”
Most U.S. Senators win arguments or get legislation passed relying on horse-trading, muscle and bluster. Not Maria Cantwell. The junior senator from Washington State does her homework, then fights for what she believes is right.
Ask smart people in DC who is the toughest, best-informed Congressional combatant for effective financial regulation. Few will say House and Senate financial committee chairs Barney Frank or Chris Dodd. The answer you’re more likely to get is the junior senator from the Evergreen State.
Dismayed by what she’s seen to date, Cantwell continues to push the Obama administration for systemic financial reforms. "If there are people at the Treasury and the White House who think that the way to get the economy going again is not to close these loopholes, that’s disgusting," she said.
During last year’s committee work on healthcare, Cantwell salvaged some of the cost-containment goals of the doomed public option. Her amendment, modeled on a Washington State program, allowed all states to negotiate the terms of insurance coverage for those eligible for subsidies, and for others buying in on their own. But the most lasting impact of her diligent approach to public policy is likely to come from her fight for the regulation of derivatives— those abstract securities based mathematically on real economic transactions.
"There's a few people in the administration,” Cantwell said at a hearing in May, “who are slow-walking, thinking we're all going to forget about this regulatory reform that is needed, I can assure you that we're not going to forget."
Cantwell, 51, grew up in Indiana. The daughter of a Congressional staffer, she moved to Seattle and at 28 won a seat in the state legislature. In 1992, she became the first Democrat in 40 years to win in the First Congressional District.
She lost her seat in the 1994 Republican landslide. Offered the top marketing job in RealNetworks, she was quickly promoted to executive vice president.
She resigned in 2000 to make her Senate run, beating incumbent Slade Gorton by 2,229 votes. Serving on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at a time of soaring electricity rates, she mastered the details of electric-power regulation, which led her directly to derivatives abuses.
In 2007 and 2008, when oil prices were spiking, Cantwell led an effort to have regulatory agencies investigate market-rigging. Many industry pros scoffed at the idea, but Cantwell continued to raise the issue, and in 2009, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) concluded that she was right.
A few months into the Obama presidency, Cantwell pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to empower the CFTC to monitor trades to curb their volatility. Geithner balked, but Cantwell pressured the White House. One observer said she “played hardball like few liberals do anymore.”
In May, Geithner made explicit commitments to give new powers to the CFTC, but as Cantwell later said, “It’s not unheard of in D.C. to feign a commitment and then not fight hard to have the legislation pass.” Sure enough, in June, the Treasury Department released a white paper weaker than Geithner’s earlier commitments, and the financial reform legislation Geithner sent to Congress in August was weaker yet.
The loopholes were widened further by the House Financial Services Committee and were not resisted by the administration “The Treasury Department should be ashamed of themselves,” Cantwell said.
“Treasury has gone back on their original commitment,” Cantwell says. “The battle lines have been drawn.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)