Initiative 1070 would raise a billion in new revenues
An initiative that would raise a billion dollars in new revenue while providing significant tax relief to the state’s home owners and small businesses is being circulated for signatures to secure a place on the November ballot.
The initiative is the work of Seattle’s Economic Opportunity Institute, whose credo is: “Building an economy that works. For everyone.”
Initiative 1070 would levy an excise tax on income in excess of $200,000 for one individual and $400,000 for joint filers. This tax would net $1,687 million in new revenue, offset in part by a one-fifth reduction in the state property tax and an increase in small business credit to $4,800 per year.
Savings from the property tax cut could range from $61 in Skykomish to $178 in Seattle.
The estimated net new annual revenue of $1,069 million would be placed in a trust fund dedicated to improving education and health services.
Seventy percent of the net new revenue would be placed in a Student Achievement Fund, to be distributed to the state’s hard-pressed school districts to be used to improve student achievement through class size reduction, extended learning opportunities and pre-kindergarten, or to fund construction associated with these objectives.
The remaining 30% would be used to strengthen the Basic Health Plan, public health services and long-term care service for seniors and persons with disabilities.
Approval of I-1070 at the polls would mark an historic breakthrough for tax fairness advocates, who have worked in vain for decades to change the highly regressive character of the state’s tax system.
The Executive Board of the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans will have before it at its April 20 meeting a recommendation that I-1070 be formally endorsed and that the membership be urged to engage actively in the campaign to acquire the necessary signatures.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
PSARA activists hear McDermott, Hasegawa
First-hand reports on the 30-day special session from Senator Joe McDermott and Rep. Bob Hasegawa highlighted the lively March 25 Legislative Debriefing sponsored by the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans.
McDermott came from Olympia to report in person and Hasegawa reported by telephone. Both fielded probing questions from the PSAA activists assembled at UFCW Local 21 in Seattle. A third invited speaker, John Burbank, executive director of the Economic Opportunity Institute, outlined revenue-raising alternatives, including a proposed new tax on high incomes.
The two legislators focused on the standoff between the two chambers on how to raise an agreed-upon $800 million in new revenue to offset in part an anticipated $2.7 billion budget shortfall. At the Retiree Advocate deadline, the stalemate had not been resolved, with the Senate proposing a sales tax increase that the House majority strongly opposed. Negotiations were continuing.
McDermott came from Olympia to report in person and Hasegawa reported by telephone. Both fielded probing questions from the PSAA activists assembled at UFCW Local 21 in Seattle. A third invited speaker, John Burbank, executive director of the Economic Opportunity Institute, outlined revenue-raising alternatives, including a proposed new tax on high incomes.
The two legislators focused on the standoff between the two chambers on how to raise an agreed-upon $800 million in new revenue to offset in part an anticipated $2.7 billion budget shortfall. At the Retiree Advocate deadline, the stalemate had not been resolved, with the Senate proposing a sales tax increase that the House majority strongly opposed. Negotiations were continuing.
AFL-CIO raps decision
Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, the AFL-CIO declared the decision will increase “the already excessive influence that corporations exert in our electoral system.”
The court erred in treating union political expenditures like those of corporations, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said. “Unions, unlike businesses, are democratically-controlled, nonprofit membership organizations representing working men and women across the country, and their independent speech should accordingly be given greater protection,” he said.
The court erred in treating union political expenditures like those of corporations, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said. “Unions, unlike businesses, are democratically-controlled, nonprofit membership organizations representing working men and women across the country, and their independent speech should accordingly be given greater protection,” he said.
Will Wal-Mart be our next President?
By Will Parry
Will the United States Supreme Court now rule that Wal-Mart can run for President?
That was the sardonic question posed by Greg Palast, writing in the February 15 Progressive Populist, after the court’s five right-wing justices declared that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as us human beings.
Palast was making a point through exaggeration, in the fine old tradition of Mark Twain. What is not at all far-fetched is a future in which the Wal-Marts of the corporate world elect their stooge as president, and stack the Congress and the state legislatures while they’re at it.
That’s the threat posed by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case.
President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
The corporation, writes Patricia J. Williams in the February 15 issue of The Nation, “will now enjoy a range of First Amendment benefits…constrained only by the size of its treasury in deploying whatever technological bullhorn has the greatest chance of drowning out everyone else.”
Or as The New York Times declared in a January 22 editorial: “If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.”
Lawrence M. Noble, former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, makes the same point about corporate blackmail: “We have got a million we can spend on advertising for you or against you – whichever one you want.”
In his scathing 90-page dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that “while American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of money in politics.”
“Corporate interests already had too much money power over our political system,” writes Jim Hightower, the well-known Texas populist. “Using their PACs, executive bundling, 527s, front groups and other financing gimmicks, their chosen candidates have long had big advantage over lesser-funded aspirants.”
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader pointed out that “the financial sector invested more than $5 billion in political influence purchasing over the past decade, with as many as 3,000 lobbyists, winning deregulation and other policy decisions that led directly to the current financial crisis.”
Now the lid on corporate spending, never screwed on too securely, is blown sky-high.
Plainly, progressives cannot hold still for what Jim Hightower calls “a black-robed coup” by Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.
New York Senator Charles E. Schuman and Maryland Representative Chris Van Hollen, both Democrats, have been working on legislation in anticipation of the court’s ruling. One possibility would be a bill to ban political advertising by corporations that hire lobbyists, receive government money, or collect most of their revenue abroad.
Advocates are also stepping up the demand for public financing of elections, encouraged by the filing of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would provide congressional candidates with an alternative to corporate-funded campaigns.
Sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois and Representative John Larson of Connecticut, both Democrats, the bill would encourage unlimited small-dollar donations from individuals. It would also provide qualifying candidates with public funding in exchange for refusing corporate or large private contributions. The bill has broad support, including 126 House co-sponsors.
Conceding that it will require a long-term campaign, Public Citizen is calling for a constitutional amendment, stating that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections except for freedom of the press.
Will the United States Supreme Court now rule that Wal-Mart can run for President?
That was the sardonic question posed by Greg Palast, writing in the February 15 Progressive Populist, after the court’s five right-wing justices declared that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as us human beings.
Palast was making a point through exaggeration, in the fine old tradition of Mark Twain. What is not at all far-fetched is a future in which the Wal-Marts of the corporate world elect their stooge as president, and stack the Congress and the state legislatures while they’re at it.
That’s the threat posed by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case.
President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
The corporation, writes Patricia J. Williams in the February 15 issue of The Nation, “will now enjoy a range of First Amendment benefits…constrained only by the size of its treasury in deploying whatever technological bullhorn has the greatest chance of drowning out everyone else.”
Or as The New York Times declared in a January 22 editorial: “If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.”
Lawrence M. Noble, former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, makes the same point about corporate blackmail: “We have got a million we can spend on advertising for you or against you – whichever one you want.”
In his scathing 90-page dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that “while American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of money in politics.”
“Corporate interests already had too much money power over our political system,” writes Jim Hightower, the well-known Texas populist. “Using their PACs, executive bundling, 527s, front groups and other financing gimmicks, their chosen candidates have long had big advantage over lesser-funded aspirants.”
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader pointed out that “the financial sector invested more than $5 billion in political influence purchasing over the past decade, with as many as 3,000 lobbyists, winning deregulation and other policy decisions that led directly to the current financial crisis.”
Now the lid on corporate spending, never screwed on too securely, is blown sky-high.
Plainly, progressives cannot hold still for what Jim Hightower calls “a black-robed coup” by Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.
New York Senator Charles E. Schuman and Maryland Representative Chris Van Hollen, both Democrats, have been working on legislation in anticipation of the court’s ruling. One possibility would be a bill to ban political advertising by corporations that hire lobbyists, receive government money, or collect most of their revenue abroad.
Advocates are also stepping up the demand for public financing of elections, encouraged by the filing of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would provide congressional candidates with an alternative to corporate-funded campaigns.
Sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois and Representative John Larson of Connecticut, both Democrats, the bill would encourage unlimited small-dollar donations from individuals. It would also provide qualifying candidates with public funding in exchange for refusing corporate or large private contributions. The bill has broad support, including 126 House co-sponsors.
Conceding that it will require a long-term campaign, Public Citizen is calling for a constitutional amendment, stating that for-profit corporations are not entitled to First Amendment protections except for freedom of the press.
Better care, $$$ saved, in new health care law
Retirees and boomers will benefit significantly as specific provisions of the new law come into effect. Check out these changes:
• Seniors trapped in the “doughnut hole” will get a $250 rebate this year. In 2011, their doughnut hole drugs will be discounted 50%. By 2020, the doughnut hole will be eliminated.
• In 2011, Medicare will provide free annual check-ups and eliminate co-payment for mammograms, colonoscopies and other preventive screenings.
• The new legislation enacts the CLASS Act, creating a new, voluntary, self-insured insurance program to help families pay for long-term care supports and services for a loved one.
• The Medicare Part D subsidy is expanded to help struggling low-income seniors afford their prescription drugs.
• Employer health plans that cover early retirees are subsidized, cutting costs by $1,200 per family for some plans.
• The Elder Justice Act, part of the new law, will authorize criminal background checks on long-term care workers in nursing homes; require public disclosure of nursing home ownership and quality of care; and improve residents’ complaint process.
• The law will extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund by 9 years by eliminating unwarranted overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans and by creating incentives for coordinated high quality care.
• Seniors trapped in the “doughnut hole” will get a $250 rebate this year. In 2011, their doughnut hole drugs will be discounted 50%. By 2020, the doughnut hole will be eliminated.
• In 2011, Medicare will provide free annual check-ups and eliminate co-payment for mammograms, colonoscopies and other preventive screenings.
• The new legislation enacts the CLASS Act, creating a new, voluntary, self-insured insurance program to help families pay for long-term care supports and services for a loved one.
• The Medicare Part D subsidy is expanded to help struggling low-income seniors afford their prescription drugs.
• Employer health plans that cover early retirees are subsidized, cutting costs by $1,200 per family for some plans.
• The Elder Justice Act, part of the new law, will authorize criminal background checks on long-term care workers in nursing homes; require public disclosure of nursing home ownership and quality of care; and improve residents’ complaint process.
• The law will extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund by 9 years by eliminating unwarranted overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans and by creating incentives for coordinated high quality care.
Health reform law
By Will Parry
An imperfect bill? Certainly.
At the same time, an historic breakthrough for the American people?
Absolutely.
After weeks of harsh partisan clashes in both House and Senate, coupled with intense off-stage negotiations and compromises, at long last, on Tuesday, March 23, President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010.
The President declared that the legislation “enshrines the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.”
That “core principle” has been disgracefully abused and trampled on by the medical-industrial complex -- above all, by the health insurance industry – that dominates the U.S. health care system.
The legislative process was unusually strident, messy and prolonged, but despite the powerful tug and pull of lavishly-financed special interests, the measure finally adopted fully deserves the term “historic.”
Yes, the law seems likely to enrich health insurance companies with the premiums of an estimated 16 million new customers. But it will be an insurance industry operating under totally new rules.
No rejections based on pre-existing conditions. No rescissions – the cutting off of benefits – just because you get sick or injured. No annual limits on how much health care they’ll pay for.
Despite strong public support, the law has no public option, but the need for that critical feature continues, and the demand for it to be amended into the law will continue as well.
The bill will cut the deficit by $130 billion over ten years, and by an estimated $1.2 trillion in the following ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The significance of the reform is underscored by considering the outlook if the bill had failed. The Urban Institute applied its computer model to a scenario in which there would be no reform. Here’s what it found:
“Over the next decade in every state, the percent of the population that is uninsured will increase, employer-sponsored coverage will continue to erode, spending on public programs will balloon, and individual and family out-of-pocket costs could increase by more than 35%.” The number of uninsured Americans could soar to as many as 65 million over the decade, the Urban Institute predicted.
In contrast, enactment of the new law will ultimately insure an estimated 32 million currently uninsured Americans, will assist small employers in providing coverage, and will address many of the out-of-pocket expenses families are now encountering.
Throughout the long legislative battle, Congressional Republicans remained a stubbornly opposed bloc, denouncing the bill as a “socialist takeover” of health care and uttering dire predictions about what it would lead to.
As the President and Congress turn to the crisis of unemployment, Republican intransigence seems likely to continue. “There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year,” Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said flatly.
How well that will fly at the polls in November remains to be seen. Party leaders may loathe the health care reform law, but as Michael Moore mischievously points out, “Republicans will get better health care, too!”
An imperfect bill? Certainly.
At the same time, an historic breakthrough for the American people?
Absolutely.
After weeks of harsh partisan clashes in both House and Senate, coupled with intense off-stage negotiations and compromises, at long last, on Tuesday, March 23, President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010.
The President declared that the legislation “enshrines the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.”
That “core principle” has been disgracefully abused and trampled on by the medical-industrial complex -- above all, by the health insurance industry – that dominates the U.S. health care system.
The legislative process was unusually strident, messy and prolonged, but despite the powerful tug and pull of lavishly-financed special interests, the measure finally adopted fully deserves the term “historic.”
Yes, the law seems likely to enrich health insurance companies with the premiums of an estimated 16 million new customers. But it will be an insurance industry operating under totally new rules.
No rejections based on pre-existing conditions. No rescissions – the cutting off of benefits – just because you get sick or injured. No annual limits on how much health care they’ll pay for.
Despite strong public support, the law has no public option, but the need for that critical feature continues, and the demand for it to be amended into the law will continue as well.
The bill will cut the deficit by $130 billion over ten years, and by an estimated $1.2 trillion in the following ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The significance of the reform is underscored by considering the outlook if the bill had failed. The Urban Institute applied its computer model to a scenario in which there would be no reform. Here’s what it found:
“Over the next decade in every state, the percent of the population that is uninsured will increase, employer-sponsored coverage will continue to erode, spending on public programs will balloon, and individual and family out-of-pocket costs could increase by more than 35%.” The number of uninsured Americans could soar to as many as 65 million over the decade, the Urban Institute predicted.
In contrast, enactment of the new law will ultimately insure an estimated 32 million currently uninsured Americans, will assist small employers in providing coverage, and will address many of the out-of-pocket expenses families are now encountering.
Throughout the long legislative battle, Congressional Republicans remained a stubbornly opposed bloc, denouncing the bill as a “socialist takeover” of health care and uttering dire predictions about what it would lead to.
As the President and Congress turn to the crisis of unemployment, Republican intransigence seems likely to continue. “There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year,” Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said flatly.
How well that will fly at the polls in November remains to be seen. Party leaders may loathe the health care reform law, but as Michael Moore mischievously points out, “Republicans will get better health care, too!”
‘Rebel Voices’ at Will’s 90th
“Rebel Voices,” one of the great singing duos of our time, will be featured artists at Editor Will Parry’s gala 90th Birthday celebration Saturday, April 24.
The event runs from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Best Western Executive Inn. Tickets are $50, with proceeds benefiting the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans. Subsidized scholarships are available.
Susan Lewis and Janet Stecher, who perform as Rebel Voices, have been singing as a duo and with other artists for more than 20 years. Their repertoire of “one hundred songs of the last one hundred years” expresses the struggles and triumphs of workers from countries the world over.
The speaking program will sketch highlights of Will’s life and work from childhood and youth, through college, service in World War II, work as a labor reporter, union activity, and leadership in the retiree movement.
Seats are still available, but better reserve yours quickly, using the coupon on page 7 of this newsletter. Note: Since publication, the event has been sold out!
I want some presents!
Newsbreak: I’ve got a birthday coming up. And for the first time since I was about 12 years old (that would be in 1932), I want some presents.
No, not a tie. I’ve got one. Not a new car. The old ’88 Nissan is still running. I neither need nor want anything that’s being commercially advertised.
As my birthday present, I’m asking each of you to actively search out a boomer or a retiree and enlist her/him as a member of the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans. You’ll be doing that friend, relative or neighbor a big favor – 12 issues of The Retiree Advocate! – and you’ll add muscle to our leading-edge advocacy.
As I write, we have 44 new members toward our goal of 250 in the year 2010. Let’s guarantee – maybe not a tsunami, but certainly not a mere trickle – a steady flow of new members in April.
That’s the present – the only present --I really want!
-- Will Parry
The event runs from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Best Western Executive Inn. Tickets are $50, with proceeds benefiting the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans. Subsidized scholarships are available.
Susan Lewis and Janet Stecher, who perform as Rebel Voices, have been singing as a duo and with other artists for more than 20 years. Their repertoire of “one hundred songs of the last one hundred years” expresses the struggles and triumphs of workers from countries the world over.
The speaking program will sketch highlights of Will’s life and work from childhood and youth, through college, service in World War II, work as a labor reporter, union activity, and leadership in the retiree movement.
Seats are still available, but better reserve yours quickly, using the coupon on page 7 of this newsletter. Note: Since publication, the event has been sold out!
I want some presents!
Newsbreak: I’ve got a birthday coming up. And for the first time since I was about 12 years old (that would be in 1932), I want some presents.
No, not a tie. I’ve got one. Not a new car. The old ’88 Nissan is still running. I neither need nor want anything that’s being commercially advertised.
As my birthday present, I’m asking each of you to actively search out a boomer or a retiree and enlist her/him as a member of the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans. You’ll be doing that friend, relative or neighbor a big favor – 12 issues of The Retiree Advocate! – and you’ll add muscle to our leading-edge advocacy.
As I write, we have 44 new members toward our goal of 250 in the year 2010. Let’s guarantee – maybe not a tsunami, but certainly not a mere trickle – a steady flow of new members in April.
That’s the present – the only present --I really want!
-- Will Parry
Donna Ristorucci Relies on The Advocate
To the Editor, Retiree Advocate:
Enclosed is a contribution to PSARA from the Retiree Division of Teamsters Local 237 in New York City. As the editor of Retiree News and Views, our monthly newsletter, I find The Retiree Advocate an invaluable source of information, analysis, and concrete suggestions for action. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve relied on your newsletter when writing articles about Social Security, Medicare, healthcare reform, and economic, political and social justice developments and struggles.
Our local, the largest Teamsters local in the country, represents 23,000 public employees in New York City and Long Island and 8,000 retirees. Retiree News and Views is mailed to our retirees, most of whom live in the New York area, but there are many who have relocated to other states as well – including Washington State. We also send it to our political representatives and organizations involved with retiree issues. Which is to say, The Retiree Advocate’s impact extends, indirectly, far beyond Puget Sound and Washington State.
Best wishes in solidarity,
Donna Ristorucci
Enclosed is a contribution to PSARA from the Retiree Division of Teamsters Local 237 in New York City. As the editor of Retiree News and Views, our monthly newsletter, I find The Retiree Advocate an invaluable source of information, analysis, and concrete suggestions for action. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve relied on your newsletter when writing articles about Social Security, Medicare, healthcare reform, and economic, political and social justice developments and struggles.
Our local, the largest Teamsters local in the country, represents 23,000 public employees in New York City and Long Island and 8,000 retirees. Retiree News and Views is mailed to our retirees, most of whom live in the New York area, but there are many who have relocated to other states as well – including Washington State. We also send it to our political representatives and organizations involved with retiree issues. Which is to say, The Retiree Advocate’s impact extends, indirectly, far beyond Puget Sound and Washington State.
Best wishes in solidarity,
Donna Ristorucci
Immigration reform rally April 10
At noon Saturday, April 10, thousands will mass at Seattle’s Occidental Park to call for comprehensive reform of our country’s unjust and ineffective immigration laws.
Sponsored by the Washington Immigration Reform Coalition for America (WIRC4America), the demonstration is one of many across the U.S. with a common theme: We’ve waited long enough! Reform immigration laws now!
As part of the coalition, the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans is urging its members to swell the throng at the Occidental Park rally.
The April 10 rallies follow a giant mobilization on the same issue at the nation’s capital on March 21. With marchers massed the full length of the Mall, from the Capitol to the Washington Monument, crowd estimates ranged from 200,000 to 500,000. A delegation from Washington State represented diverse countries of origin, faiths and native languages, coming from Mount Vernon, Mattawa, Yakima, Vancouver, Issaquah, Tacoma and Seattle.
Speaking at that event, Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) voiced the crowd’s demand for action.
“We’ve listened quietly. We’ve asked politely,” Gutierrez said. “We’ve turned the other cheek so many times our heads are spinning.”
Gutierrez has introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act. It addresses security issues, protecting fundamental rights for all, a rational and humane approach to undocumented immigrants, ensuring appropriate ways for workers to enter the U.S. legally, allocating sufficient visas, keeping families together and reducing immigrant backlogs.
In the Senate, Democrat Charles E. Schumer of New York and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are jointly crafting an immigration reform bill.
The legislation would include a path toward citizenship for the 10.8 million people living in the U.S. without papers. Undocumented workers would have to register, pay taxes and meet other requirements.
President Obama has pledged support for comprehensive reform, but until now has been involved with the long struggle over health care. Advocates are urging him to make a similar commitment to the cause of the nation’s immigrant families.
Among the bill’s supporters in Congress, there is consensus that the legislation must move by April or early May, before attention shifts to the November elections, to have a chance of passage this year.
Sponsored by the Washington Immigration Reform Coalition for America (WIRC4America), the demonstration is one of many across the U.S. with a common theme: We’ve waited long enough! Reform immigration laws now!
As part of the coalition, the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans is urging its members to swell the throng at the Occidental Park rally.
The April 10 rallies follow a giant mobilization on the same issue at the nation’s capital on March 21. With marchers massed the full length of the Mall, from the Capitol to the Washington Monument, crowd estimates ranged from 200,000 to 500,000. A delegation from Washington State represented diverse countries of origin, faiths and native languages, coming from Mount Vernon, Mattawa, Yakima, Vancouver, Issaquah, Tacoma and Seattle.
Speaking at that event, Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) voiced the crowd’s demand for action.
“We’ve listened quietly. We’ve asked politely,” Gutierrez said. “We’ve turned the other cheek so many times our heads are spinning.”
Gutierrez has introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act. It addresses security issues, protecting fundamental rights for all, a rational and humane approach to undocumented immigrants, ensuring appropriate ways for workers to enter the U.S. legally, allocating sufficient visas, keeping families together and reducing immigrant backlogs.
In the Senate, Democrat Charles E. Schumer of New York and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are jointly crafting an immigration reform bill.
The legislation would include a path toward citizenship for the 10.8 million people living in the U.S. without papers. Undocumented workers would have to register, pay taxes and meet other requirements.
President Obama has pledged support for comprehensive reform, but until now has been involved with the long struggle over health care. Advocates are urging him to make a similar commitment to the cause of the nation’s immigrant families.
Among the bill’s supporters in Congress, there is consensus that the legislation must move by April or early May, before attention shifts to the November elections, to have a chance of passage this year.
The match in the powder keg?
By Alfredo Peppard
What is going on? What is going to happen next? These two questions are a regular part of the conversation of the expatriates (known here as expats) who congregate at the Prima Vera in the Zocalo. The Zocalo is where it all comes down. Does it belong to the tourist industry or the people of the countryside? The people of the countryside say it is theirs by several hundred years’ tradition. It was once their open air market; it is where they come in their numbers to speak truth to the power symbolized by the former Governor’s Mansion, now a museum, on the south end of the square. The Gov moved to a less exposed residence after the 2006 uprising.
Last week Pauline and I were walking down to the Prima Vera to check in with our friend Frank when we became aware of dozens of dilapidated old third-class buses from outlying pueblos. Sure enough, as we entered the Zocalo we could see hundreds of campesinos sitting on the flower bed walls.
One of the Mexican Communist Parties was setting up a small stage with a sound system. They were calling for support of the striking miners in the north. We worked our way through the crowd to Frank’s table in the sidewalk part of the Prima Vera. Norm, the retired Canadian teacher, was there, so we all started discussing what we thought the present political moment was all about. In the last month prices of basic commodities had jumped ten or more percent. People are mad as hell; the more Spanish you speak the more you can hear and feel this growing rage.
The cops are pussyfooting around, no more provocative pickup trucks full of masked heavily-armed cops; they have been off the streets for about a month now. There were no cops in the Zocalo as this rally for working class unity went on.
Just a day before, I had witnessed a bust right across the street from where our callejon enters Tinoco and Palacio. The cops were just bringing out three young people in handcuffs, two men and a woman. They were all good-looking clean-cut types. The cops were in a hurry. As soon as they had the three prisoners in the back of the pickup they left. Suddenly there appeared from seemingly nowhere six or seven cops with M16s, all of whom jumped on their motor bikes and a pickup and were gone. The whole thing could not have taken more than 5 minutes.
Could it be that they don’t want to be the ones who strike the match in the powder keg? Who knows?
The State of Oaxaca, the powder keg, is a fiefdom of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional, the PRI. Essentially the PRI was the party formed by the generals who won the civil war. It has ruled Mexico since its organization in the early 20s. Although the PRI lost the presidency to PAN, the National Action Party or Partido Acción Nacional, it is still the most powerful political party in Mexico.
And like the Democratic and Republican parties of the United States the PRI top leadership betrayed the interests of its working and middle class constituents in favor of an elitist partnership with the lords of finance. Salinas and his gang got to go to all those really cool conferences in cool places in the French Alps. And oh yeah, while they were at it they got fabulously wealthy by selling the property of the Mexican people to insiders and transnational corporations. Carlos Salinas, Brian Mulroney, and Bill Clinton got together and made the three national economies into one international economy -- an economy that has no nation, no government, and no democracy.
NAFTA has created a single integrated economy in North America that is outside the laws of any of the three countries. As a binding treaty, it brings into being a confederation of billionaires whose interests as investors supersede any laws that try to maintain the gains of past labor and environmental struggles or any social services needed by the less fortunate. The effect that this anti-democratic rule by plutocrats has had upon the life of the people of all three countries is plain to see in the job loss, distortions in agricultural policies, destruction of social-safety nets, and the loss of public control of resources. Clinton, Salinas, and Mulroney were promised a place in history for the efforts.
Yeah, Bill. Charley and Brian sold out their working people so they could run with the big dogs. So that they could go to all those nifty meetings in cool places; and yes they will have their place in history. They were the guys who brought into being one single working class in the three nations. That’s right. One integrated economy, one integrated work force. We all work for the same bosses now. More on this later.
What is going on? What is going to happen next? These two questions are a regular part of the conversation of the expatriates (known here as expats) who congregate at the Prima Vera in the Zocalo. The Zocalo is where it all comes down. Does it belong to the tourist industry or the people of the countryside? The people of the countryside say it is theirs by several hundred years’ tradition. It was once their open air market; it is where they come in their numbers to speak truth to the power symbolized by the former Governor’s Mansion, now a museum, on the south end of the square. The Gov moved to a less exposed residence after the 2006 uprising.
Last week Pauline and I were walking down to the Prima Vera to check in with our friend Frank when we became aware of dozens of dilapidated old third-class buses from outlying pueblos. Sure enough, as we entered the Zocalo we could see hundreds of campesinos sitting on the flower bed walls.
One of the Mexican Communist Parties was setting up a small stage with a sound system. They were calling for support of the striking miners in the north. We worked our way through the crowd to Frank’s table in the sidewalk part of the Prima Vera. Norm, the retired Canadian teacher, was there, so we all started discussing what we thought the present political moment was all about. In the last month prices of basic commodities had jumped ten or more percent. People are mad as hell; the more Spanish you speak the more you can hear and feel this growing rage.
The cops are pussyfooting around, no more provocative pickup trucks full of masked heavily-armed cops; they have been off the streets for about a month now. There were no cops in the Zocalo as this rally for working class unity went on.
Just a day before, I had witnessed a bust right across the street from where our callejon enters Tinoco and Palacio. The cops were just bringing out three young people in handcuffs, two men and a woman. They were all good-looking clean-cut types. The cops were in a hurry. As soon as they had the three prisoners in the back of the pickup they left. Suddenly there appeared from seemingly nowhere six or seven cops with M16s, all of whom jumped on their motor bikes and a pickup and were gone. The whole thing could not have taken more than 5 minutes.
Could it be that they don’t want to be the ones who strike the match in the powder keg? Who knows?
The State of Oaxaca, the powder keg, is a fiefdom of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional, the PRI. Essentially the PRI was the party formed by the generals who won the civil war. It has ruled Mexico since its organization in the early 20s. Although the PRI lost the presidency to PAN, the National Action Party or Partido Acción Nacional, it is still the most powerful political party in Mexico.
And like the Democratic and Republican parties of the United States the PRI top leadership betrayed the interests of its working and middle class constituents in favor of an elitist partnership with the lords of finance. Salinas and his gang got to go to all those really cool conferences in cool places in the French Alps. And oh yeah, while they were at it they got fabulously wealthy by selling the property of the Mexican people to insiders and transnational corporations. Carlos Salinas, Brian Mulroney, and Bill Clinton got together and made the three national economies into one international economy -- an economy that has no nation, no government, and no democracy.
NAFTA has created a single integrated economy in North America that is outside the laws of any of the three countries. As a binding treaty, it brings into being a confederation of billionaires whose interests as investors supersede any laws that try to maintain the gains of past labor and environmental struggles or any social services needed by the less fortunate. The effect that this anti-democratic rule by plutocrats has had upon the life of the people of all three countries is plain to see in the job loss, distortions in agricultural policies, destruction of social-safety nets, and the loss of public control of resources. Clinton, Salinas, and Mulroney were promised a place in history for the efforts.
Yeah, Bill. Charley and Brian sold out their working people so they could run with the big dogs. So that they could go to all those nifty meetings in cool places; and yes they will have their place in history. They were the guys who brought into being one single working class in the three nations. That’s right. One integrated economy, one integrated work force. We all work for the same bosses now. More on this later.
On guard for Social Security!
By Will Parry
Back in February, in an editorial of 1,800 words entitled “The Truth About the Deficit,” The New York Times sounded this ominous note:
“And then there is Social Security. What is needed is a combination of benefit cuts and tax increases that preserve the program’s essential nature.”
The phrase “benefit cuts and tax increases” sums up in five words the objectives of an array of powerful political actors, including billionaire Peter Peterson, who has been pouring his wealth into campaigns to destroy Social Security for a quarter century.
The talk about “preserving the program’s essential nature” is sheer window-dressing. It is the last thing the enemies of Social Security are concerned with.
Today’s reality is that the millions subsisting on Social Security cannot afford benefit cuts. And any increase in the regressive Social Security payroll tax would shift the crushing weight of the deficit still more onto the workers from whose paychecks that tax is regularly deducted.
Charged with bearing responsibility for the budget deficit, Social Security, with $2.5 trillion in the trust funds, is funded farther into the future than any other government program. The Congressional Budget Office says Social Security, as it stands today, can make its scheduled payments in full through 2043.
Far from “preserving its essential nature,” benefit cuts and tax increases substantial enough to address the budget deficit would totally emasculate Social Security.
Any long-range shortfall in Social Security funding could be addressed by simply abolishing the arbitrary $106,800 cap above which income is not subject to the 8.2% payroll tax. The cap enables the wealthy to amass billions of dollars tax free, even as fry cooks and steelworkers are taxed for every cent of their wages.
Shamefully, stories in the mainstream media reinforce the falsehoods about Social Security funding – that it is in trouble, and that it is responsible for the deficit. And they rarely if ever mention the option of abolishing the arbitrary cap on taxable earnings.
President Obama’s preoccupation with reducing the federal deficit is deeply troubling. Congress defeated a proposal for a statutory commission, but Obama has set up an appointed bipartisan 18-member commission, charged with considering everything that might reduce the deficit, including spending cuts, new taxes, and changes in Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
Obama named former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles to co-chair the panel. Simpson is a real fox in the henhouse. He compiled a rotten Senate voting record, has propagated the “greedy geezer” lie about the nation’s elderly, and wants to cut Social Security benefits by changing the statistical formula used to calculate the annual cost-of-living adjustments.
Nor is Bowles a champion of Social Security’s integrity. Bloomberg News quotes him as saying that entitlement programs such as Social Security will turn the nation into a “second-rate power” if their costs aren’t reduced.
“We’re going to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security because if you take those off the table, you can’t get there,” Bowles said in a speech to North Carolina bankers. “All of our revenues are completely consumed by entitlements.”
Both Simpson and Bowles have said they would consider recommending a value-added tax, one of the most egregiously regressive ways to raise revenue.
Forty national organizations have written every member of Congress expressing “strong opposition” to any deficit-reduction commission “that would override the normal legislative process.”
Look for a bruising political battle, rivaling that over health care reform, throughout 2010 and into next year. And the stakes are every bit as big.
Back in February, in an editorial of 1,800 words entitled “The Truth About the Deficit,” The New York Times sounded this ominous note:
“And then there is Social Security. What is needed is a combination of benefit cuts and tax increases that preserve the program’s essential nature.”
The phrase “benefit cuts and tax increases” sums up in five words the objectives of an array of powerful political actors, including billionaire Peter Peterson, who has been pouring his wealth into campaigns to destroy Social Security for a quarter century.
The talk about “preserving the program’s essential nature” is sheer window-dressing. It is the last thing the enemies of Social Security are concerned with.
Today’s reality is that the millions subsisting on Social Security cannot afford benefit cuts. And any increase in the regressive Social Security payroll tax would shift the crushing weight of the deficit still more onto the workers from whose paychecks that tax is regularly deducted.
Charged with bearing responsibility for the budget deficit, Social Security, with $2.5 trillion in the trust funds, is funded farther into the future than any other government program. The Congressional Budget Office says Social Security, as it stands today, can make its scheduled payments in full through 2043.
Far from “preserving its essential nature,” benefit cuts and tax increases substantial enough to address the budget deficit would totally emasculate Social Security.
Any long-range shortfall in Social Security funding could be addressed by simply abolishing the arbitrary $106,800 cap above which income is not subject to the 8.2% payroll tax. The cap enables the wealthy to amass billions of dollars tax free, even as fry cooks and steelworkers are taxed for every cent of their wages.
Shamefully, stories in the mainstream media reinforce the falsehoods about Social Security funding – that it is in trouble, and that it is responsible for the deficit. And they rarely if ever mention the option of abolishing the arbitrary cap on taxable earnings.
President Obama’s preoccupation with reducing the federal deficit is deeply troubling. Congress defeated a proposal for a statutory commission, but Obama has set up an appointed bipartisan 18-member commission, charged with considering everything that might reduce the deficit, including spending cuts, new taxes, and changes in Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
Obama named former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles to co-chair the panel. Simpson is a real fox in the henhouse. He compiled a rotten Senate voting record, has propagated the “greedy geezer” lie about the nation’s elderly, and wants to cut Social Security benefits by changing the statistical formula used to calculate the annual cost-of-living adjustments.
Nor is Bowles a champion of Social Security’s integrity. Bloomberg News quotes him as saying that entitlement programs such as Social Security will turn the nation into a “second-rate power” if their costs aren’t reduced.
“We’re going to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security because if you take those off the table, you can’t get there,” Bowles said in a speech to North Carolina bankers. “All of our revenues are completely consumed by entitlements.”
Both Simpson and Bowles have said they would consider recommending a value-added tax, one of the most egregiously regressive ways to raise revenue.
Forty national organizations have written every member of Congress expressing “strong opposition” to any deficit-reduction commission “that would override the normal legislative process.”
Look for a bruising political battle, rivaling that over health care reform, throughout 2010 and into next year. And the stakes are every bit as big.
Ninety career educators on the street
By Larry Greene
The public schools of America were seen as failing by the Bush Administration, and now they are seen as failing by President Obama. The nature of this crisis is illustrated by a current unfortunate episode in a small school district in Central Falls, Rhode Island. The local schools chief arbitrarily fired all teaching personnel as well as administrative and support employees, leaving about 90 career educators to face being on the street at the end of this school year. This was done, not on the basis of unsatisfactory classroom performance by the teachers, but because in their schools – many serving minority and disadvantaged and immigrant neighborhoods – only about 10% of students were able to pass a nationally mandated math test.
The Rhode Island teachers union was, of course, outraged. It has commenced Federal unfair labor practice charges and is challenging the city’s action through the state’s teacher tenure appeal procedures.
In citizen meetings recorded by The Providence Journal, the state’s main newspaper, State Schools Chief Deborah Gist defended the dismissals as consistent with what she called “optional turnaround models.” These have been adopted by the state under U.S. Department of Education guidance, with President Obama’s support, to allow school districts to “turn around” so-called failing schools. When asked, the President said he thought wholesale dismissal of teachers in failing schools was a good idea.
The school district could have chosen other, more positive improvement plans to help the children cope with the Bush “No Child Left Behind” testing system. Instead they chose to blame the teachers for the failure of the schools. This smacks of union-busting. And in Gist’s public meetings, a good deal of general hostility toward teachers’ unions was expressed. The district school superintendent now says she intends to recruit better-qualified replacements.
This flies in the face of what every knowledgeable educator understands about the obstacles to learning faced by children from neighborhoods and families that lack safety and support. Children who get no support at home for learning and are not properly nourished or cared for will not achieve academically. Blaming this situation on hard-working classroom teachers is a bankrupt, unfair approach. In the end, this will only give support to the enemies of public schools in their drive, supported by the Republican Party, to divert children to charter schools. The answer for children in failing schools lies in public programming to support the families served by those schools.
There should be public housing programs, day care for the children of low-income mothers, and employment programs. There should be public social services and counseling to assure that children are being nurtured, mentally, physically and socially. No child should be left behind to grow up in a family and community where life outside the school is abusive, or which fails to meet basic needs.
The public schools of America were seen as failing by the Bush Administration, and now they are seen as failing by President Obama. The nature of this crisis is illustrated by a current unfortunate episode in a small school district in Central Falls, Rhode Island. The local schools chief arbitrarily fired all teaching personnel as well as administrative and support employees, leaving about 90 career educators to face being on the street at the end of this school year. This was done, not on the basis of unsatisfactory classroom performance by the teachers, but because in their schools – many serving minority and disadvantaged and immigrant neighborhoods – only about 10% of students were able to pass a nationally mandated math test.
The Rhode Island teachers union was, of course, outraged. It has commenced Federal unfair labor practice charges and is challenging the city’s action through the state’s teacher tenure appeal procedures.
In citizen meetings recorded by The Providence Journal, the state’s main newspaper, State Schools Chief Deborah Gist defended the dismissals as consistent with what she called “optional turnaround models.” These have been adopted by the state under U.S. Department of Education guidance, with President Obama’s support, to allow school districts to “turn around” so-called failing schools. When asked, the President said he thought wholesale dismissal of teachers in failing schools was a good idea.
The school district could have chosen other, more positive improvement plans to help the children cope with the Bush “No Child Left Behind” testing system. Instead they chose to blame the teachers for the failure of the schools. This smacks of union-busting. And in Gist’s public meetings, a good deal of general hostility toward teachers’ unions was expressed. The district school superintendent now says she intends to recruit better-qualified replacements.
This flies in the face of what every knowledgeable educator understands about the obstacles to learning faced by children from neighborhoods and families that lack safety and support. Children who get no support at home for learning and are not properly nourished or cared for will not achieve academically. Blaming this situation on hard-working classroom teachers is a bankrupt, unfair approach. In the end, this will only give support to the enemies of public schools in their drive, supported by the Republican Party, to divert children to charter schools. The answer for children in failing schools lies in public programming to support the families served by those schools.
There should be public housing programs, day care for the children of low-income mothers, and employment programs. There should be public social services and counseling to assure that children are being nurtured, mentally, physically and socially. No child should be left behind to grow up in a family and community where life outside the school is abusive, or which fails to meet basic needs.
She laced up her sneakers and walked across the U.S.
Doris Haddock, whose one-woman march for campaign finance reform began in Pasadena, California, on New Year’s Day of 1999 and ended 14 months and 3,200 miles later in Washington, DC, died March 9 at the age of 100.
Widely known as “Granny D,” Mrs. Haddock lived long enough to denounce the U.S. Supreme Court majority that gave corporations the First Amendment rights of human beings.
“The Supreme Court,” she said, “representing a radical fringe that does not share the despair of the grand majority of Americans, has today made things considerably worse by undoing the modest reforms I walked for….The Supreme court now opens the floodgates to usher in a new tsunami of corporate money into politics.”
In 2004, at age 94, Granny D. ran for the U.S. Senate against Republican Judd Gregg, receiving 34% of the vote despite refusing private campaign contributions.
Widely known as “Granny D,” Mrs. Haddock lived long enough to denounce the U.S. Supreme Court majority that gave corporations the First Amendment rights of human beings.
“The Supreme Court,” she said, “representing a radical fringe that does not share the despair of the grand majority of Americans, has today made things considerably worse by undoing the modest reforms I walked for….The Supreme court now opens the floodgates to usher in a new tsunami of corporate money into politics.”
In 2004, at age 94, Granny D. ran for the U.S. Senate against Republican Judd Gregg, receiving 34% of the vote despite refusing private campaign contributions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)