by Robby Stern
The “compromise “ that was struck by the Obama administration and Republican leadership, and for which most Republicans and far too many Democrats voted, has done significant damage to Social Security. The “one year” 2% reduction of the worker contribution to the Social Security Trust Fund and the decision to reimburse the Trust Fund from the general fund has demonstrated the willingness of our President to use Social Security in political horse trading.
The damage to the integrity of the program is extensive and permanent since Social Security will no longer be considered the “Third Rail”. It is now, as a result of this deal, just another government program that can be part of what is considered a “reasonable” political compromise.
Some proponents of the compromise argue that the reduction is only for one year and the Trust Fund will be reimbursed. That argument is lacking in political reality. It is unlikely that Congress will allow the tax reduction to lapse in 2012, an election year. The argument that Social Security will be reimbursed is hollow. Congress will simply robbing Peter to pay Paul by cutting other essential social programs to provide this reimbursement? Meanwhile, Social Security simply has become, for the first time, another bargaining chip.
In listening to PSARA members it is clear that many consider this compromise an act of political betrayal. Many thought the election of President Obama would herald a time of progressive policies and that Social Security would be immune from the attacks of the former administration. When President Obama appointed Timothy Gietner and Lawrence Sommers, two Wall Street insiders, many of us were concerned that the foxes had been put in charge of the hen house and the Wall Street agenda for privatization of Social Security funds might be revitalized. Nevertheless, many of us significantly modulated our criticism as we wanted to give the newly elected President the benefit of the doubt.
Sadly, the month of December, 2010, has provided those of us who are committed to the protection and improvement of Social Security a bitter dose of reality. First, President Obama’s Fiscal Commission issued recommendations that would do severe damage to Social Security recipients. While the recommendations failed to get the necessary votes to force a “fast track’ vote, they nevertheless did receive bi-partisan support. These recommendations promise to be part of the debate that is coming in the next Congressional session over deficit reduction.
Then, President Obama, negotiated the reduction in the worker share of the Social Security tax for 2011, as part of a package that extended Unemployment Benefits for 13 months, extended Bush era tax cuts and tax credits, and reduced the estate tax that was scheduled to return to the pre-Bush era tax rates..
A statement from the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, a national coalition of 250 organizations said in part, “Using treasury funds to pay for a payroll tax ‘holiday’ is unprecedented in Social Security’s 75 year history – and dangerous. Social Security is very popular with the public because workers pay dedicated contributions and count on the promise of Social Security to be there when they retire, become disabled or die, thereby leaving their benefits to their survivors.”
The statement goes on to say, “The debate over the Bush tax cuts illustrates how difficult it is to return taxes to original levels once tax cuts have been enacted, even when the law includes an expiration date. This will likely be the case again in 2011 as the payroll tax ‘holiday’ expires and the 2012 election campaign begins. Restoring the payroll tax to 6.2% from the reduced rate of 4.2% under the ‘holiday’ will constitute a 48% increase in the payroll tax of every worker. By comparison, the debate over extending the Bush tax cuts involves just a 13% increase to income over $384,000.”
Clearly, the “compromise” has seriously threatened the long term funding for Social Security. We must now gear up for an extended fight to preserve this program at a level that will provide its recipients the income they need to lead lives of dignity. It is truly disheartening that an administration for whom we had such hope has proven itself to be, at best, unreliable and at worst in the pocket of Wall Street interests who would like nothing better than to see Social Security funds invested in Wall Street or else wither on the vine.
We recognize there was a desperately needed extension of unemployment benefits that was intended to make the “compromise’ somewhat attractive. Nevertheless, we are disappointed that Senators Murray and Cantwell voted for the “compromise” as did Rep. Rick Larsen and Rep. Norm Dicks. The poison pill attack on Social Security made this “compromise” unpalatable. We express our gratitude to Reps. McDermott, Inslee, and Smith for their recognition of the damage this “compromise” will do to the majority of people in our country who rely on Social Security or will rely on Social Security in the years to come.
The next step in this battle begins when the new Congress convenes. We can be sure that the new House leadership will move to raise the retirement age and make other cuts to Social Security as part of their deficit reduction proposal . They will try to frame it as cutting Social Security to save it.
A significant group of Democrat and Republican Senators have publicly announced their support for the Commission recommendations. PSARA will join a national effort beginning early January, 2011, to urge President Obama to make no offers of compromise or concession related to Social Security in his State of the Union address. Such a statement will do enormous damage. We will need the help of our Congressional Representatives and Senators, major organizations in our state and all of us individually calling on the White House to do no damage during the State of the Union address.
Our fight promises to be long and demanding. Please get ready to be very active!
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
We Cannot Afford Tax Loopholes
As a state we have a long history of standing together during good times and bad. As voters we have overwhelmingly approved measures to invest in the quality of our kids education, provide affordable healthcare for everyone, and to make sure the most vulnerable among us can live a life of dignity free of unnecessary suffering. We have led the nation in innovative public services and programs that protect clean air and clean water, and attract good paying jobs.
In this deep recession, when the need for these critical services is greater than ever, we must not abandon that legacy of investing in the core services upon which we all rely to maintain our quality of life and future prosperity. Yet the draconian all cuts budget the Governor put forth would dismantle that legacy. Here are some examples about what it would mean to cut an additional $4.7 billion from the state budget on top of the $4.3 billion in cuts from the past two years:
• Suspend Initiative 728, which provides money to reduce class sizes
• Suspend Initiative 732, which provides cost-of-living increases for teachers
• Eliminate Basic Health Plan, affordable health insurance for 66,000 low income residents —
• Eliminate Disability Lifeline, which provides critical assistance to the unemployable disabled —
• Reduce in-home personal-care services for people on Medicaid
• Reduce nonemergency dental and maternity care for Medicaid patients
• Double digit increase in tuition to offset a $344.7 million cut at state colleges and universities
• Increase fares by 10 percent and reduce average daily sailings for the Washington State Ferry system
To be fair to the Governor, state law requires her to propose a balanced budget using only existing revenue sources. That said she failed to use the opportunity to urge legislators to take a more balanced approach that includes cutting some of the hundreds of tax exemptions that cost our state $6.5 billion a year.
At a time when we are considering cutting vital services for seniors, our kids and grandkids futures, and public services that protect public health and safety, shouldn’t we also consider cutting tax breaks for big out of state banks and private jet owners? When we are scrutinizing every dollar that we spend on our communities shouldn’t special interest tax giveaways get the same level of scrutiny?
Fortunately a broad based coalition (PSARA is a very active member) of non-profits and faith based organizations is advocating for a better way forward that protects our quality of life, economic competitiveness and the legacy of our great state. During the 2011 legislature we will advocate for the following:
• Cutting unjustified tax giveaways for special interests and the wealthy instead of funding for our kids and communities
• Going after tax evaders and tax cheats that are not contributing their fair share to our great state
• Reforming the tax exemption system to bring transparency and accountability to the hundreds of tax exemptions that cost our state $6.5 billion a year
In order to overcome the intense opposition we expect from special interest lobbyists we need to engage all concerned citizen’s in this fight. When ordinary citizen’s come to the Capitol and lobby their legislators it sends a strong message. On Feb. 24th you have a great opportunity to advocate for the future of our state by joining PSARA at the Senior Lobby Day. Please mark your calendars look for more details in the Feb. Retiree Advocate.
by Jim Dawson, Campaign Director, Our Economic Future Coalition
In this deep recession, when the need for these critical services is greater than ever, we must not abandon that legacy of investing in the core services upon which we all rely to maintain our quality of life and future prosperity. Yet the draconian all cuts budget the Governor put forth would dismantle that legacy. Here are some examples about what it would mean to cut an additional $4.7 billion from the state budget on top of the $4.3 billion in cuts from the past two years:
• Suspend Initiative 728, which provides money to reduce class sizes
• Suspend Initiative 732, which provides cost-of-living increases for teachers
• Eliminate Basic Health Plan, affordable health insurance for 66,000 low income residents —
• Eliminate Disability Lifeline, which provides critical assistance to the unemployable disabled —
• Reduce in-home personal-care services for people on Medicaid
• Reduce nonemergency dental and maternity care for Medicaid patients
• Double digit increase in tuition to offset a $344.7 million cut at state colleges and universities
• Increase fares by 10 percent and reduce average daily sailings for the Washington State Ferry system
To be fair to the Governor, state law requires her to propose a balanced budget using only existing revenue sources. That said she failed to use the opportunity to urge legislators to take a more balanced approach that includes cutting some of the hundreds of tax exemptions that cost our state $6.5 billion a year.
At a time when we are considering cutting vital services for seniors, our kids and grandkids futures, and public services that protect public health and safety, shouldn’t we also consider cutting tax breaks for big out of state banks and private jet owners? When we are scrutinizing every dollar that we spend on our communities shouldn’t special interest tax giveaways get the same level of scrutiny?
Fortunately a broad based coalition (PSARA is a very active member) of non-profits and faith based organizations is advocating for a better way forward that protects our quality of life, economic competitiveness and the legacy of our great state. During the 2011 legislature we will advocate for the following:
• Cutting unjustified tax giveaways for special interests and the wealthy instead of funding for our kids and communities
• Going after tax evaders and tax cheats that are not contributing their fair share to our great state
• Reforming the tax exemption system to bring transparency and accountability to the hundreds of tax exemptions that cost our state $6.5 billion a year
In order to overcome the intense opposition we expect from special interest lobbyists we need to engage all concerned citizen’s in this fight. When ordinary citizen’s come to the Capitol and lobby their legislators it sends a strong message. On Feb. 24th you have a great opportunity to advocate for the future of our state by joining PSARA at the Senior Lobby Day. Please mark your calendars look for more details in the Feb. Retiree Advocate.
by Jim Dawson, Campaign Director, Our Economic Future Coalition
Opportunity with Retiree Advocate
PSARA is looking for an Associate Editor to assist with writing & editing our newsletter, The Retiree Advocate. The person who serves in this volunteer position will have the opportunity to work closely with our Editor and President Emeritus, Will Parry.
Requirements for Associate Editor of The Retiree Advocate
1. Commitment to PSARA mission.
2. Ability to work cooperatively with and under the direction of PSARA officers and Executive Board.
3. Ability to work as part of a collective – the editor, associate editor and president – that plans and oversees the development of each issue. Approximately 5 – 10 hour per week. (It will vary from week to week.)
4. Readiness to work collegially day-to-day with the editor.
5. Have some writing and editing skills – they overlap but are not identical and willing to learn from Editor.
6. Dependability: Monthly deadlines are inexorable masters.
7. Ability over time to develop ties of mutual respect with elected officers and staff of allied organizations.
Desirable qualities and skills:
Basic computer literacy.
Ability to do basic research on social and economic issues.
Experience working in one or more organizations.
Good background on social justice issues, broadly defined.
Helpful: Skills in photography, layout, note taking and telephone interviewing.
Requirements for Associate Editor of The Retiree Advocate
1. Commitment to PSARA mission.
2. Ability to work cooperatively with and under the direction of PSARA officers and Executive Board.
3. Ability to work as part of a collective – the editor, associate editor and president – that plans and oversees the development of each issue. Approximately 5 – 10 hour per week. (It will vary from week to week.)
4. Readiness to work collegially day-to-day with the editor.
5. Have some writing and editing skills – they overlap but are not identical and willing to learn from Editor.
6. Dependability: Monthly deadlines are inexorable masters.
7. Ability over time to develop ties of mutual respect with elected officers and staff of allied organizations.
Desirable qualities and skills:
Basic computer literacy.
Ability to do basic research on social and economic issues.
Experience working in one or more organizations.
Good background on social justice issues, broadly defined.
Helpful: Skills in photography, layout, note taking and telephone interviewing.
New Officer & New Board Member
At our Winter membership meeting and holiday party, we reelected, by acclamation, Bette Reed, Outreach Vice President; Edie Koch, Treasurer; and returning Board members Frank Irigon, Mary Anderson, Joan Bethel, Rick Erickson, Vivian Lee, and Gene Lux.
Executive Board member, Frieda Takamura, was elected our new Secretary replacing Jim Weston, who stepped down from the Executive Board. Frieda was a public school teacher, and then union staff member with the Washington Education Association where she served as Human/Civil Rights Program Coordinator. She is also an active volunteer with many groups in the Asian Pacific Islander community and serves on state committees working to improve public education for students of color and also on the Safe Schools Coalition.
Bonny Oborn is newly elected to the Executive Board. Bonny worked as a public employee for 34 years, retiring five years ago from DSHS. She continues to participate in the activities of her WFSE local. Since her introduction to PSARA two years ago, she has attended conferences and street rallies for health care, immigration reform, campaign finance reform, and contract disputes.
Executive Board member, Frieda Takamura, was elected our new Secretary replacing Jim Weston, who stepped down from the Executive Board. Frieda was a public school teacher, and then union staff member with the Washington Education Association where she served as Human/Civil Rights Program Coordinator. She is also an active volunteer with many groups in the Asian Pacific Islander community and serves on state committees working to improve public education for students of color and also on the Safe Schools Coalition.
Bonny Oborn is newly elected to the Executive Board. Bonny worked as a public employee for 34 years, retiring five years ago from DSHS. She continues to participate in the activities of her WFSE local. Since her introduction to PSARA two years ago, she has attended conferences and street rallies for health care, immigration reform, campaign finance reform, and contract disputes.
Make Sense of the World: Join PSARA in 2011
By Dina Burstein
Thanks to all our amazing members, we have achieved our goal of 250 new members in 2010! Our Executive Board has set a goal of 250 new members in 2011. We can do it! But only if every PSARA member makes it happen.
We have lived through triumphs and disappointment in 2010. We saw the voters of Washington state vote to cut state and municipal services that these voters desperately need. Towns in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Alabama and Rhode Island slouch toward bankruptcy, unable to pay for police, firefighters, parks, snowplows…the services that make our communjties work.
How do we make sense of the policies that have resulted in such terrible outcomes? Our daily newspapers, TV, radio, even our friends tell us backwards facts: federal employee salaries too high, state employee pensions too high, Social Security benefits and retirement age unaffordable…How do we keep going in the face of this blast of poisonous “wrong is right” misinformation?
We tell our people to join PSARA! We tell our family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, union friends, religious-faith-sharers: Join PSARA! Get a year-long nurturing diet of news, analysis and commentary that actually makes sense of world events! Become part of the fun crowd at PSARA discussions, vigils, demonstrations, potlucks. At $15 a year, give your people a membership gift. Or just talk them into it. Sign them up! Together make sense, not nonsense, of the world.
Thanks to all our amazing members, we have achieved our goal of 250 new members in 2010! Our Executive Board has set a goal of 250 new members in 2011. We can do it! But only if every PSARA member makes it happen.
We have lived through triumphs and disappointment in 2010. We saw the voters of Washington state vote to cut state and municipal services that these voters desperately need. Towns in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Alabama and Rhode Island slouch toward bankruptcy, unable to pay for police, firefighters, parks, snowplows…the services that make our communjties work.
How do we make sense of the policies that have resulted in such terrible outcomes? Our daily newspapers, TV, radio, even our friends tell us backwards facts: federal employee salaries too high, state employee pensions too high, Social Security benefits and retirement age unaffordable…How do we keep going in the face of this blast of poisonous “wrong is right” misinformation?
We tell our people to join PSARA! We tell our family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, union friends, religious-faith-sharers: Join PSARA! Get a year-long nurturing diet of news, analysis and commentary that actually makes sense of world events! Become part of the fun crowd at PSARA discussions, vigils, demonstrations, potlucks. At $15 a year, give your people a membership gift. Or just talk them into it. Sign them up! Together make sense, not nonsense, of the world.
Medicare Targeted by Cat Food Commission Recommendations
National health care costs in the U.S. amount to some $2.5 trillion a year and are increasing by about 6% per year. (Gross Domestic Product, in contrast, has been increasing recently by an average of 3% per year.) Without significant changes, by 2035 federal health spending is projected to account for almost 40% of total federal spending.
Medicare is participating in this increase, although from 1998 to 2008 per
capita costs for Medicare increased slightly less than those for the privately
insured. Medicare at present has 42 million beneficiaries (of whom 7 million
also have Medicaid coverage— “dual eligibles”). Current federal spending on
Medicare is 13-15% of the federal budget and is expected to increase as a
percentage of the federal budge and the overall economy due to rising health
costs and an aging population.
The National Commission on the Deficit recommended changes to Medicare that were intended to reduce the rising costs. Evaluation of these changes must take into consideration the nature of the Medicare beneficiary population.
Almost half of the Medicare recipients live on low incomes ¬– below $21,000 a year for an individual, and below $28,000 for a couple. In addition, this population, in comparison to the general population, is much more likely to experience chronic illness and other needs for significant long-term care. Because of these factors, Medicare beneficiaries are especially susceptible to adverse financial consequences caused by any reductions in Medicare benefits.
The Deficit Commission Report included the following proposals.
1. Limit growth in Medicare spending, generally targeted at GDP + 1%. The reports are silent on what should be done if the targets are not met. Furthermore, limiting spending on the basis of failure to attain such targets rather than on needs is short-sighted.
2. Strengthen the role of the new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).
3. Shift in Medicare from its current “defined benefit” program (Medicare specifies the health care that is covered) to a “defined contribution” system (Medicare would give beneficiaries a fixed amount of money with which to purchase health benefits).
4. Restructure Medicare benefits and cost-sharing requirements.
5. Eliminate first-dollar coverage in Medigap policies
6. Increase Medicare premiums
7. Raise the age of eligibility for Medicare beyond age 65
8. Reduce Medicare spending through changes to the Medicare drug program.
Proposals such as changing to a ”defined contribution” program, restructuring Medicare benefits with increased cost-sharing, eliminating first-dollar coverage in Medigap policies, and increasing Medicare premiums will adversely affect the financial security of a high number of Medicare beneficiaries.
A large number of seniors with significant health problems will defer seeking health care because of limited financial resources. Their medical problems not only will not disappear but will likely worsen, ultimately requiring more resources and more money. Ultimately, although Medicare itself may have reduced expenditures, the individuals themselves and society at large will of necessity be forced to pick up the increased burden, and overall health care spending in these situations may actually increase.
In short, addressing only the budget of the Medicare program does not eliminate the health care needs of seniors; it merely shifts those costs, unnecessarily increased, to society at large.
Major changes in Medicare should be contemplated only in the context of consideration of our unsustainable rate of increase in overall health care costs. It is not the Medicare program that is the primary cause of these increases. The principal causes include the increasing number and complexity of medical interventions; a dysfunctional system in which costs are seemingly unrelated to quality of care delivered; a payment system that often rewards doing more with minimal regard to outcomes.
Support for research to determine which treatments are effective and which are not, and pilot projects to change the way care is delivered and paid for, will prove much more valuable in reducing health care costs – both for Medicare and for society at large – than cost-shifting or other measures that increase the financial burden of the individual person.
Our country has a fragmented multi-payer health care system. One-third of our health care dollars are consumed by administration costs rather than by direct patient care. On a per capita basis, the amount that our country spends for health care is twice that spent by virtually all other industrialized countries. Despite this, our health outcomes are worse than most other industrialized countries.
Changing from our current health care system to an expanded and improved Medicare For All program would result in many benefits. Simplifying administration would save about 15% of total health care spending – over $400 billion per year. Placing the entire population into a single risk-pool would permit true global planning and global budgeting. Such a program would be able to negotiate effectively for fair prices for goods and services. All people would be assured of receiving a single standard of care – appropriate, comprehensive, and timely care – without fear of financial insecurity or disaster. Instead of 50+ million uninsured (one-sixth of the population) and half again as many under-insured, all would be adequately covered.
by Donald W. Mitchell, MD,President, Western Washington chapter, Physicians for a National Health Program & a PSARA member
Medicare is participating in this increase, although from 1998 to 2008 per
capita costs for Medicare increased slightly less than those for the privately
insured. Medicare at present has 42 million beneficiaries (of whom 7 million
also have Medicaid coverage— “dual eligibles”). Current federal spending on
Medicare is 13-15% of the federal budget and is expected to increase as a
percentage of the federal budge and the overall economy due to rising health
costs and an aging population.
The National Commission on the Deficit recommended changes to Medicare that were intended to reduce the rising costs. Evaluation of these changes must take into consideration the nature of the Medicare beneficiary population.
Almost half of the Medicare recipients live on low incomes ¬– below $21,000 a year for an individual, and below $28,000 for a couple. In addition, this population, in comparison to the general population, is much more likely to experience chronic illness and other needs for significant long-term care. Because of these factors, Medicare beneficiaries are especially susceptible to adverse financial consequences caused by any reductions in Medicare benefits.
The Deficit Commission Report included the following proposals.
1. Limit growth in Medicare spending, generally targeted at GDP + 1%. The reports are silent on what should be done if the targets are not met. Furthermore, limiting spending on the basis of failure to attain such targets rather than on needs is short-sighted.
2. Strengthen the role of the new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).
3. Shift in Medicare from its current “defined benefit” program (Medicare specifies the health care that is covered) to a “defined contribution” system (Medicare would give beneficiaries a fixed amount of money with which to purchase health benefits).
4. Restructure Medicare benefits and cost-sharing requirements.
5. Eliminate first-dollar coverage in Medigap policies
6. Increase Medicare premiums
7. Raise the age of eligibility for Medicare beyond age 65
8. Reduce Medicare spending through changes to the Medicare drug program.
Proposals such as changing to a ”defined contribution” program, restructuring Medicare benefits with increased cost-sharing, eliminating first-dollar coverage in Medigap policies, and increasing Medicare premiums will adversely affect the financial security of a high number of Medicare beneficiaries.
A large number of seniors with significant health problems will defer seeking health care because of limited financial resources. Their medical problems not only will not disappear but will likely worsen, ultimately requiring more resources and more money. Ultimately, although Medicare itself may have reduced expenditures, the individuals themselves and society at large will of necessity be forced to pick up the increased burden, and overall health care spending in these situations may actually increase.
In short, addressing only the budget of the Medicare program does not eliminate the health care needs of seniors; it merely shifts those costs, unnecessarily increased, to society at large.
Major changes in Medicare should be contemplated only in the context of consideration of our unsustainable rate of increase in overall health care costs. It is not the Medicare program that is the primary cause of these increases. The principal causes include the increasing number and complexity of medical interventions; a dysfunctional system in which costs are seemingly unrelated to quality of care delivered; a payment system that often rewards doing more with minimal regard to outcomes.
Support for research to determine which treatments are effective and which are not, and pilot projects to change the way care is delivered and paid for, will prove much more valuable in reducing health care costs – both for Medicare and for society at large – than cost-shifting or other measures that increase the financial burden of the individual person.
Our country has a fragmented multi-payer health care system. One-third of our health care dollars are consumed by administration costs rather than by direct patient care. On a per capita basis, the amount that our country spends for health care is twice that spent by virtually all other industrialized countries. Despite this, our health outcomes are worse than most other industrialized countries.
Changing from our current health care system to an expanded and improved Medicare For All program would result in many benefits. Simplifying administration would save about 15% of total health care spending – over $400 billion per year. Placing the entire population into a single risk-pool would permit true global planning and global budgeting. Such a program would be able to negotiate effectively for fair prices for goods and services. All people would be assured of receiving a single standard of care – appropriate, comprehensive, and timely care – without fear of financial insecurity or disaster. Instead of 50+ million uninsured (one-sixth of the population) and half again as many under-insured, all would be adequately covered.
by Donald W. Mitchell, MD,President, Western Washington chapter, Physicians for a National Health Program & a PSARA member
No More “I” Word
Saturday, December 18th, 2010, marked the 10th anniversary of International Migrants Day and the 20th anniversary of the passage of the U.N. Convention to Protect Migrant Workers. This is an important moment to reflect on the fact that today nearly one billion people are on the move across the world, and they are increasingly the target of hatred and violence. That’s why I am celebrating International Migrants Day by signing the pledge to respect immigrants everywhere by dropping the i-word and demanding that the media do the same.
Politicians and media alike use the word “illegal” to describe human beings without immigration status, sometimes shortening “illegal immigrant” to “illegals.” While this may seem trivial to some, the language of criminality plays an enormous part in moving people along the continuum from language to violent behavior. Calling people “illegal,” describing them in ways that make them less them human, recasts them as members of an undeserving sub-class that are owed less respect than what would otherwise be acceptable for “regular” human beings.
We know that, leading up to and during World War II, language was a powerful factor in moving an ideological and genocidal agenda. The language of elimination of an entire race—described as the “final solution”—was used frequently and without apology. In the decades following the Holocaust, this kind of language was widely condemned and deemed unacceptable. And yet, as recently as this year, we have seen genocidal language directed at migrants worldwide.
Consider the recent statement of the deputy mayor of the Italian city of Treviso in relation to the issue of the undocumented Roma migrants: “I want a revolution against gypsies … I want to eliminate all the gypsy children who steal.”
Or consider the United States, where anti-immigrant extremists have painted a picture of all-out warfare that threatens the very idea of nationhood. Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan claimed on MSNBC that the influx of undocumented immigrants into the U.S. is “an invasion, the greatest invasion in history … the last scene is the deconstruction of the nations.”
The leap from fear mongering to violence—vigilantism or state-sponsored—is surprisingly short. The imagery of war and warfare helps to up the ante. After all, if this is really war, we must protect “our own.”
Across the world, violence against immigrants is on the rise. The Libyan government, according to a report just released by Amnesty International, has been torturing undocumented African migrants through electric shock and beating, even shooting at fishing boats because they may have held “illegal immigrants.”
In Sweden, shortly after the far right, anti-immigrant party won a place in Parliament for the first time, police arrested a 38-year-old man suspected of carrying out a dozen shootings, nearly all immigrants, where one person died and eight were wounded.
In the United States, the FBI has documented a dramatic increase in reported hate crimes against Latinos, from 595 in 2003 to 888 in 2007. Along the U.S.-Mexico border, armed vigilante groups who claim to be “dedicated to the defense of American patriotism” are on the rise, and the New York Times has consistently reported on the number of deaths that occur in detention centers due to callous disregard for medical needs of immigrant detainees.
One of our challenges in fighting the criminalization of migrants is that the most extreme voices in the dehumanization of immigrants have been legitimized by the media and politicians as representatives of the “other side” of the immigration debate. In spite of numerous reports from the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center and Media Matters that call out the connections to clear racist and xenophobic ideologies, groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform are routinely called on to give testimony in Congress or provide comments for news stories. Their racism skews the bounds of reasonable discourse about immigrants—and as a result sets extreme new bounds for “reasonable” policy.
As economic insecurity heightens, Americans and Europeans who would otherwise support rational and human polices on migration are drawn into fear. It becomes socially acceptable, and even personally necessary, to scapegoat or become violent towards someone else—namely, immigrants.
In this polarized environment, some policy makers have fueled the frenzy by embracing restrictionist policies that further criminalize immigrants. The success in exploiting fear in an increasingly fragile economic environment has led to fringe political parties across the world coming into power for the first time.
The Guardian has documented the rise of these fringe parties in Europe to “such a degree that they are now in the position of propping up governments.” Parties that espouse anti-Muslim views have gained ground, and state-sponsored policies that ban core practices of Islam (such as burkhas in France or minarets in Switzerland) are increasingly common. In the U.S., politicians who hold extreme anti-immigrant views are now in positions of power in the House of Representatives and are expected to introduce unprecedented regressive legislation, including an attempt to amend the Constitution’s birthright-citizenship clause.
Some are also pushing back, recognizing the real danger we face of escalating violence and polarization. In early 2010, Pope Benedict XVI, reacting to the riots in Southern Italy in which African immigrants were attacked, reminded people that, “An immigrant is a human being, different in background, culture and tradition, but a person to be respected, and possessing rights and duties. …Violence must never be a way to resolve differences.”
We need to take the hate out of the debate. It’s time to stop using racist, fear-mongering language that promotes and even condones violence. We need space for a rational, thoughtful and humane discussion around migration and immigration policies that support the economic and moral need for managed flows of people. Join me by taking a simple but significant stand for humanity. Take the pledge and Drop the I-Word. For more information, go to http://colorlines.com/droptheiword/
Pramila Jayapal is Executive Director of One America & a PSARA member
Politicians and media alike use the word “illegal” to describe human beings without immigration status, sometimes shortening “illegal immigrant” to “illegals.” While this may seem trivial to some, the language of criminality plays an enormous part in moving people along the continuum from language to violent behavior. Calling people “illegal,” describing them in ways that make them less them human, recasts them as members of an undeserving sub-class that are owed less respect than what would otherwise be acceptable for “regular” human beings.
We know that, leading up to and during World War II, language was a powerful factor in moving an ideological and genocidal agenda. The language of elimination of an entire race—described as the “final solution”—was used frequently and without apology. In the decades following the Holocaust, this kind of language was widely condemned and deemed unacceptable. And yet, as recently as this year, we have seen genocidal language directed at migrants worldwide.
Consider the recent statement of the deputy mayor of the Italian city of Treviso in relation to the issue of the undocumented Roma migrants: “I want a revolution against gypsies … I want to eliminate all the gypsy children who steal.”
Or consider the United States, where anti-immigrant extremists have painted a picture of all-out warfare that threatens the very idea of nationhood. Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan claimed on MSNBC that the influx of undocumented immigrants into the U.S. is “an invasion, the greatest invasion in history … the last scene is the deconstruction of the nations.”
The leap from fear mongering to violence—vigilantism or state-sponsored—is surprisingly short. The imagery of war and warfare helps to up the ante. After all, if this is really war, we must protect “our own.”
Across the world, violence against immigrants is on the rise. The Libyan government, according to a report just released by Amnesty International, has been torturing undocumented African migrants through electric shock and beating, even shooting at fishing boats because they may have held “illegal immigrants.”
In Sweden, shortly after the far right, anti-immigrant party won a place in Parliament for the first time, police arrested a 38-year-old man suspected of carrying out a dozen shootings, nearly all immigrants, where one person died and eight were wounded.
In the United States, the FBI has documented a dramatic increase in reported hate crimes against Latinos, from 595 in 2003 to 888 in 2007. Along the U.S.-Mexico border, armed vigilante groups who claim to be “dedicated to the defense of American patriotism” are on the rise, and the New York Times has consistently reported on the number of deaths that occur in detention centers due to callous disregard for medical needs of immigrant detainees.
One of our challenges in fighting the criminalization of migrants is that the most extreme voices in the dehumanization of immigrants have been legitimized by the media and politicians as representatives of the “other side” of the immigration debate. In spite of numerous reports from the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center and Media Matters that call out the connections to clear racist and xenophobic ideologies, groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform are routinely called on to give testimony in Congress or provide comments for news stories. Their racism skews the bounds of reasonable discourse about immigrants—and as a result sets extreme new bounds for “reasonable” policy.
As economic insecurity heightens, Americans and Europeans who would otherwise support rational and human polices on migration are drawn into fear. It becomes socially acceptable, and even personally necessary, to scapegoat or become violent towards someone else—namely, immigrants.
In this polarized environment, some policy makers have fueled the frenzy by embracing restrictionist policies that further criminalize immigrants. The success in exploiting fear in an increasingly fragile economic environment has led to fringe political parties across the world coming into power for the first time.
The Guardian has documented the rise of these fringe parties in Europe to “such a degree that they are now in the position of propping up governments.” Parties that espouse anti-Muslim views have gained ground, and state-sponsored policies that ban core practices of Islam (such as burkhas in France or minarets in Switzerland) are increasingly common. In the U.S., politicians who hold extreme anti-immigrant views are now in positions of power in the House of Representatives and are expected to introduce unprecedented regressive legislation, including an attempt to amend the Constitution’s birthright-citizenship clause.
Some are also pushing back, recognizing the real danger we face of escalating violence and polarization. In early 2010, Pope Benedict XVI, reacting to the riots in Southern Italy in which African immigrants were attacked, reminded people that, “An immigrant is a human being, different in background, culture and tradition, but a person to be respected, and possessing rights and duties. …Violence must never be a way to resolve differences.”
We need to take the hate out of the debate. It’s time to stop using racist, fear-mongering language that promotes and even condones violence. We need space for a rational, thoughtful and humane discussion around migration and immigration policies that support the economic and moral need for managed flows of people. Join me by taking a simple but significant stand for humanity. Take the pledge and Drop the I-Word. For more information, go to http://colorlines.com/droptheiword/
Pramila Jayapal is Executive Director of One America & a PSARA member
Millions defenseless in the grip of rising costs
By Will Parry
The nation’s Social Security beneficiaries – more than 58.7 million men, women and children in all – find their standard of living, never luxurious, shrinking year after year because of an outdated and grossly inadequate formula for calculating the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA).
The inadequacy of the formula has been made freshly obvious by its failure to provide any COLA at all either in the current year or in 2011, despite the widespread recognition that living costs continue to rise.
Now a new UCLA study has revealed that “a whole hidden group of adults” over age 65, hitherto not recognized, are in actual need despite their Social Security checks.
Social Security was the primary source of income for 64% of retirees in 2008. One in every three relied on the benefit for at least 90% of their income.
The average Social Security benefit is currently about $1,072 a month, or $12,864 a year. Millions of women, confined to low-wage jobs or out of the labor market entirely as family caregivers, receive substantially less than that amount. Many of those millions are officially living in poverty, as measured by the federal government, with incomes under $10,830 a year.
Now the UCLA study has found that, in California, single persons over age 65, renting a one-bedroom apartment, actually need, not $10,830, but $21,763 -- twice the federal government standard -- to make ends meet.
“There is this whole hidden group of adults in need,” said Susan Smith, program director at the Insight Center for Community Economic Development, which commissioned the research. What’s economic reality in California has validity in Washington State and across the U.S., despite state-to-state variations.
The government’s official poverty measure has been criticized for years because it is based on spending patterns when about a third of a family’s income went toward food.
The official poverty threshold was first calculated in the 1950s, using the cost of a nutrition plan described by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the bare minimum needed to survive an emergency. It is adjusted annually for inflation, but it doesn’t take into account changing standards of living, regional cost differences, or public benefits and tax credits.
“We don’t spend a third of our income on food,” said Gerald McIntyre, an attorney for the National Senior Citizens Law Center. “If we did, we’d have no place to live.”
Advocates for the elderly emphasize the failure of the standard to take into account out-of-pocket medical costs, which have risen much faster than the overall cost of living.
Advocates, including the Washington Association of Area Agencies on Aging (W4A) and Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), have been lobbying for the adoption of a measure known as the Elder Economic Security Standard Index. Developed by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Boston’s Gerontology Institute, the index is calculated using the latest government data on food, housing, transportation and medical costs.
Attempts to incorporate the index into state and federal law have run into resistance from those worried about the costs of social services.
Governmental inaction leaves older Americans splitting pills, borrowing money from friends and maxing out their credit cards. And relying on Social Security checks that won’t see a COLA in two full years.
The nation’s Social Security beneficiaries – more than 58.7 million men, women and children in all – find their standard of living, never luxurious, shrinking year after year because of an outdated and grossly inadequate formula for calculating the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA).
The inadequacy of the formula has been made freshly obvious by its failure to provide any COLA at all either in the current year or in 2011, despite the widespread recognition that living costs continue to rise.
Now a new UCLA study has revealed that “a whole hidden group of adults” over age 65, hitherto not recognized, are in actual need despite their Social Security checks.
Social Security was the primary source of income for 64% of retirees in 2008. One in every three relied on the benefit for at least 90% of their income.
The average Social Security benefit is currently about $1,072 a month, or $12,864 a year. Millions of women, confined to low-wage jobs or out of the labor market entirely as family caregivers, receive substantially less than that amount. Many of those millions are officially living in poverty, as measured by the federal government, with incomes under $10,830 a year.
Now the UCLA study has found that, in California, single persons over age 65, renting a one-bedroom apartment, actually need, not $10,830, but $21,763 -- twice the federal government standard -- to make ends meet.
“There is this whole hidden group of adults in need,” said Susan Smith, program director at the Insight Center for Community Economic Development, which commissioned the research. What’s economic reality in California has validity in Washington State and across the U.S., despite state-to-state variations.
The government’s official poverty measure has been criticized for years because it is based on spending patterns when about a third of a family’s income went toward food.
The official poverty threshold was first calculated in the 1950s, using the cost of a nutrition plan described by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the bare minimum needed to survive an emergency. It is adjusted annually for inflation, but it doesn’t take into account changing standards of living, regional cost differences, or public benefits and tax credits.
“We don’t spend a third of our income on food,” said Gerald McIntyre, an attorney for the National Senior Citizens Law Center. “If we did, we’d have no place to live.”
Advocates for the elderly emphasize the failure of the standard to take into account out-of-pocket medical costs, which have risen much faster than the overall cost of living.
Advocates, including the Washington Association of Area Agencies on Aging (W4A) and Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), have been lobbying for the adoption of a measure known as the Elder Economic Security Standard Index. Developed by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Boston’s Gerontology Institute, the index is calculated using the latest government data on food, housing, transportation and medical costs.
Attempts to incorporate the index into state and federal law have run into resistance from those worried about the costs of social services.
Governmental inaction leaves older Americans splitting pills, borrowing money from friends and maxing out their credit cards. And relying on Social Security checks that won’t see a COLA in two full years.
Learning from North Dakota
Imagine the state of Washington controlling its own revenue and keeping the profits from the revenue local instead of exporting them as commercial bank profits. If a bill introduced by Rep. Bob Hasegawa makes it through the 2011 state legislative session, that dream could become reality. Hasegawa originally introduced HB 3162--a bill to create the State Bank of Washington (SBW)--in the 2010 session.
“As we weather the Great Recession, the lack of accessible capital for small businesses increases the economic hardships that hundreds of working families are going through,” said Hasegawa. “Small businesses are the economic drivers that help Washington’s commerce run smoothly, but when they cannot access the capital they need, the consequences result in chain reactions that invariably end up hurting most, if not all, working families, small businesses and family farms in our state.”
HB 3162 is modeled after the Bank of North Dakota (BND), the only state-owned bank in the nation. North Dakota has operated a successful financial institution since 1919, and is one of only two states that have avoided budget deficits in the past three years. Many experts cite BND as a large part of the reason.
Currently, the state Treasurer invests Washington’s operating cash in short-term, interest-bearing accounts in banks and thrifts that are approved to hold state and local government deposits. If SBW were to exist, the Treasurer would deposit state revenue into it, and the bank could lend money, assume debt and invest in private companies just like a private bank. We could achieve greater returns on state funds, and also provide access to capital for businesses that need it to thrive.
At least eight U.S. states are considering proposals to start state-run banks. The Service Employees International Union Urging is advocating for this legislation as it wages a national campaign to stop investing in unaccountable banks. “It’s time for Wall Street banks to stop focusing on their profits and start doing their part to help our cities and families recover,” says SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.
In the last three-plus years, the Bush and Obama administrations have pumped trillions of dollars into private banks through the federal bank bail-outs, with the hope that they would begin lending again. The prospect of what could have been done with all that money has some key thinkers and doers talking of taking the North Dakota model national.
A year ago, economist Joseph Stieglitz suggested, “If we had used the $700 billion to create a new financial institution, allowed it to lever 10-to-1, which is very modest compared to the 30-to-1 that we were doing, 10-to-1 would have generated $7 trillion of new lending capacity, far in excess of what our country needs. So the issue here is not about lending. It’s really about saving the bankers. And what we confused was saving the banks versus saving the bankers and their shareholders.”
What Stieglitz was referring to was a little-known practice called fractional reserve lending. Put simply, most private banks around the world lend money that they do not have, but that they literally create as an entry in their accounting books at the moment the loan is made. In the U.S., banks are allowed to lend up to 10 times the amount of money they have on deposit with the Federal Reserve. By starting a bank, states can multiply the power of the money they have from tax revenues.
State bank legislation faces monumental challenges including the start-up cost and political opposition Daunting, but nor insurmountable, given the state of the world these days. It is time for some fresh thinking.
By Steve Dzielak, PSARA member
“As we weather the Great Recession, the lack of accessible capital for small businesses increases the economic hardships that hundreds of working families are going through,” said Hasegawa. “Small businesses are the economic drivers that help Washington’s commerce run smoothly, but when they cannot access the capital they need, the consequences result in chain reactions that invariably end up hurting most, if not all, working families, small businesses and family farms in our state.”
HB 3162 is modeled after the Bank of North Dakota (BND), the only state-owned bank in the nation. North Dakota has operated a successful financial institution since 1919, and is one of only two states that have avoided budget deficits in the past three years. Many experts cite BND as a large part of the reason.
Currently, the state Treasurer invests Washington’s operating cash in short-term, interest-bearing accounts in banks and thrifts that are approved to hold state and local government deposits. If SBW were to exist, the Treasurer would deposit state revenue into it, and the bank could lend money, assume debt and invest in private companies just like a private bank. We could achieve greater returns on state funds, and also provide access to capital for businesses that need it to thrive.
At least eight U.S. states are considering proposals to start state-run banks. The Service Employees International Union Urging is advocating for this legislation as it wages a national campaign to stop investing in unaccountable banks. “It’s time for Wall Street banks to stop focusing on their profits and start doing their part to help our cities and families recover,” says SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.
In the last three-plus years, the Bush and Obama administrations have pumped trillions of dollars into private banks through the federal bank bail-outs, with the hope that they would begin lending again. The prospect of what could have been done with all that money has some key thinkers and doers talking of taking the North Dakota model national.
A year ago, economist Joseph Stieglitz suggested, “If we had used the $700 billion to create a new financial institution, allowed it to lever 10-to-1, which is very modest compared to the 30-to-1 that we were doing, 10-to-1 would have generated $7 trillion of new lending capacity, far in excess of what our country needs. So the issue here is not about lending. It’s really about saving the bankers. And what we confused was saving the banks versus saving the bankers and their shareholders.”
What Stieglitz was referring to was a little-known practice called fractional reserve lending. Put simply, most private banks around the world lend money that they do not have, but that they literally create as an entry in their accounting books at the moment the loan is made. In the U.S., banks are allowed to lend up to 10 times the amount of money they have on deposit with the Federal Reserve. By starting a bank, states can multiply the power of the money they have from tax revenues.
State bank legislation faces monumental challenges including the start-up cost and political opposition Daunting, but nor insurmountable, given the state of the world these days. It is time for some fresh thinking.
By Steve Dzielak, PSARA member
Helping the Elderly Stay Independent
(Editor’s note: Among the devastating cuts impending in the 2011 legislative session are projected cuts in funding for the Senior Citizens Services Act, the subject of this article. Despite a steady growth in the need for its services, funding for the act has been static for years. At issue in 2011 are possible cuts in such lifeline services as Senior Information and Assistance, foot care, bath assistance, minor home repair, adult day health care, transportation and case management.)
The Senior Citizens Services Act: It’s a stodgy, bureaucratic name for a very important piece of legislation that helps older adults remain at home and stay independent. SCSA funds important services you may have used in the past as well as services that you may not know about.
One critical service is Senior Information and Assistance. This service quickly connects seniors and their helping families to resources and programs through its help line and online data base. Senior I & A is often the first place that citizens turn for help in finding resources for caregiving information, adult day programs, and transportation needs, for example.
Less well known services are Discretionary Case Management, serving vulnerable adults who "fall through the cracks" of the regular Medicaid system; Adult Day Health, helping older adults remain in their communities by offering skilled day care with nursing, occupational, and physical therapy services and The Volunteer Transportation Program, providing rides to medical and other appointments for vulnerable and homebound elders through the use of volunteers and other cost-effective approaches.
Lesser amounts of funding are allocated to programs such as Health Promotion, The Senior Farmers’ Market, Long Term Care Ombudsman program, Elder Abuse, Alzheimer’s Support, Mental Health and Minor Depression Intervention.
The importance of these programs can be illustrated by looking at just one: Alzheimer’s Support. Studies have shown that families who receive training, support and at times respite, are able to keep their Alzheimer’s patient at home on average one year longer than families without these supports. Every month a patient remains at home in family care is a savings of many thousands of dollars to the state.
Funding for these services will be an issue in the next Legislative session as our representatives attempt to trim the budget to meet the state revenues. Cutting programs such as SCSA actually end up costing both the state and the Federal government much more as frail elderly need to enter long term care facilities once they lose the services that help them stay at home.
With the elder population in King County expected to double by 2025, the high cost of long term care placement will consume an enormous portion of the budget. It is wiser to support and enhance those community based services that keep seniors in their homes as long as possible. Urge your legislator to preserve funding to the Senior Citizen’s Services Act.
By Diane Snell, a member of PSARA.
The Senior Citizens Services Act: It’s a stodgy, bureaucratic name for a very important piece of legislation that helps older adults remain at home and stay independent. SCSA funds important services you may have used in the past as well as services that you may not know about.
One critical service is Senior Information and Assistance. This service quickly connects seniors and their helping families to resources and programs through its help line and online data base. Senior I & A is often the first place that citizens turn for help in finding resources for caregiving information, adult day programs, and transportation needs, for example.
Less well known services are Discretionary Case Management, serving vulnerable adults who "fall through the cracks" of the regular Medicaid system; Adult Day Health, helping older adults remain in their communities by offering skilled day care with nursing, occupational, and physical therapy services and The Volunteer Transportation Program, providing rides to medical and other appointments for vulnerable and homebound elders through the use of volunteers and other cost-effective approaches.
Lesser amounts of funding are allocated to programs such as Health Promotion, The Senior Farmers’ Market, Long Term Care Ombudsman program, Elder Abuse, Alzheimer’s Support, Mental Health and Minor Depression Intervention.
The importance of these programs can be illustrated by looking at just one: Alzheimer’s Support. Studies have shown that families who receive training, support and at times respite, are able to keep their Alzheimer’s patient at home on average one year longer than families without these supports. Every month a patient remains at home in family care is a savings of many thousands of dollars to the state.
Funding for these services will be an issue in the next Legislative session as our representatives attempt to trim the budget to meet the state revenues. Cutting programs such as SCSA actually end up costing both the state and the Federal government much more as frail elderly need to enter long term care facilities once they lose the services that help them stay at home.
With the elder population in King County expected to double by 2025, the high cost of long term care placement will consume an enormous portion of the budget. It is wiser to support and enhance those community based services that keep seniors in their homes as long as possible. Urge your legislator to preserve funding to the Senior Citizen’s Services Act.
By Diane Snell, a member of PSARA.
Time to Act
Abolitionist Frederick Douglass said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand… Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both.”
During Douglass’ time, the institution of slavery created immense wealth for a small few white men, who fomented racism against black Americans as a way to maintain that wealth. It took incredible courage and risk to stand up against slavery, and it took unprecedented bloodshed to finally end the horrific practice.
For decades, the chasm between the have’s and have not’s has been widening in our state and nation. The Great Recession has served to accelerate this transfer of wealth from the poor to the very wealthy. We are now unraveling the social safety net and cutting nearly $7 billion from our state’s budget, including cuts to everything from kidney dialysis for immigrants to health care for the working poor, from dental care to basic education. Meanwhile, corporations are basking in the highest quarterly profits in history.
Today, the wealthiest 1% of the nation earns more than the bottom 90% combined. And in pursuit of even greater profits, big corporations like Chevron, Bank of America, Pepsico, and a litany of other multinationals funneled millions into Washington State to pass initiatives like I-1053, which effectively eliminates the state’s ability to close corporate tax loopholes.
In social movements before and since, Douglass’ statement has rung true. Whether it is movements for labor, civil rights, women’s suffrage, or immigrant rights, it has been the courage of individuals, standing up to power and against injustice, that has catalyzed social change. And today, big corporations and the very wealthy have been waging an unrelenting war on the poor and the middle class. They will continue to win until ordinary people stand up and take extraordinary action together, and directly confront corporate power.
On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, January 17th, hundreds of people are gathering in Olympia to fight for an equitable state budget. If you can join us, please contact Nathan at 206-409-5051, or register online at www.mlkday2011.eventbrite.com. Then on Saturday, January 22nd, we are convening a training to fight back for people and against corporate power. If you are interested, call Washington CAN! at 206-389-0050 to get more information. If not us, who? If not now, when?
Rachel Berkson is Associate Director of Washington Community Action Network & a PSARA member
During Douglass’ time, the institution of slavery created immense wealth for a small few white men, who fomented racism against black Americans as a way to maintain that wealth. It took incredible courage and risk to stand up against slavery, and it took unprecedented bloodshed to finally end the horrific practice.
For decades, the chasm between the have’s and have not’s has been widening in our state and nation. The Great Recession has served to accelerate this transfer of wealth from the poor to the very wealthy. We are now unraveling the social safety net and cutting nearly $7 billion from our state’s budget, including cuts to everything from kidney dialysis for immigrants to health care for the working poor, from dental care to basic education. Meanwhile, corporations are basking in the highest quarterly profits in history.
Today, the wealthiest 1% of the nation earns more than the bottom 90% combined. And in pursuit of even greater profits, big corporations like Chevron, Bank of America, Pepsico, and a litany of other multinationals funneled millions into Washington State to pass initiatives like I-1053, which effectively eliminates the state’s ability to close corporate tax loopholes.
In social movements before and since, Douglass’ statement has rung true. Whether it is movements for labor, civil rights, women’s suffrage, or immigrant rights, it has been the courage of individuals, standing up to power and against injustice, that has catalyzed social change. And today, big corporations and the very wealthy have been waging an unrelenting war on the poor and the middle class. They will continue to win until ordinary people stand up and take extraordinary action together, and directly confront corporate power.
On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, January 17th, hundreds of people are gathering in Olympia to fight for an equitable state budget. If you can join us, please contact Nathan at 206-409-5051, or register online at www.mlkday2011.eventbrite.com. Then on Saturday, January 22nd, we are convening a training to fight back for people and against corporate power. If you are interested, call Washington CAN! at 206-389-0050 to get more information. If not us, who? If not now, when?
Rachel Berkson is Associate Director of Washington Community Action Network & a PSARA member
Grocery Store Workers Stand Up Together
Grocery Store Workers Stand Up Together in Tough Economy --
New Agreement Protects Health & Pension Plans, and Improves Wages
During the first two weeks of December, grocery store workers across nine Puget Sound counties voted to approve a new contract with the big national chain stores by 95%. Included with this vote were many of the local independent grocery store workers. All together, 25,000 union grocery store workers are covered by these contracts negotiated by UFCW 21, UFCW 81, and Teamsters 38.
The big chains (Safeway, Fred Meyer, QFC, and Albertsons) came into negotiations in March proposing serious cuts to nearly every part of the contract. But grocery store workers repeatedly took action and stood up together – and ultimately achieved a fair contract even in a tough economy. The fight for a fair contract was on the front page of many newspapers, and heard in dozens of TV and radio stories. (Check out ufcw21.org for contract details, videos, and some news coverage.)
“This shows how regular working people – when they stand together – can make their boss sit down and agree to a reasonable compromise. They wanted to use the tough economy as an excuse to cut our pay and benefits, but we didn’t let them. We secured a better future for ourselves and our families,” said Tasha West-Baker, UFCW 21 member and Safeway worker.
A Long Campaign — That Gets Results
Thousands upon thousands of workers took action over the long campaign, with buttons, stickers, action meetings, the Grocery Store Workers Bill of Rights, and more. Workers won broad support from community organizations (including many times with PSARA members showed solidarity by showing up for actions), other labor unions, and customers.
“We work hard for these companies, but they were trying to use the tough economy to gut our pay and benefits. We stuck together and showed them we weren’t going accept that and made some important improvements for our jobs, protected our health and pension plans, and our wages,” said Lynnette Larson, UFCW 21 Bargaining Team member and Fred Meyer worker.
By mid-October actions had taken place in every single one of the 200+ big chain stores in the area, but the employers were still proposing severe cuts to pay, severe cuts to health and pension benefits, and severe cuts to our working conditions. The time had come to vote.
In mid-November, workers voted by 94% to reject the employers' proposal and authorize a strike. Within days, the employers and the union member bargaining team went back into negotiations. As TV reporters warned of a possible strike by Thanksgiving, customers, community organizations, and other unions showed strong support for the workers. Three consecutive days of bargaining ended just before midnight on November 20th as a tentative agreement was reached.
The campaign of workers standing up and having strong support from the community led to defeating most of the employers' efforts to gut our contract and to reach an agreement that protects benefits and improves wages.
Check out more about the contract and the employer proposals that were defeated at ufcw21.org/connect/grocery-workers.
By Tom Geiger, Communications Director, UFCW 21 & a PASRA Member
New Agreement Protects Health & Pension Plans, and Improves Wages
During the first two weeks of December, grocery store workers across nine Puget Sound counties voted to approve a new contract with the big national chain stores by 95%. Included with this vote were many of the local independent grocery store workers. All together, 25,000 union grocery store workers are covered by these contracts negotiated by UFCW 21, UFCW 81, and Teamsters 38.
The big chains (Safeway, Fred Meyer, QFC, and Albertsons) came into negotiations in March proposing serious cuts to nearly every part of the contract. But grocery store workers repeatedly took action and stood up together – and ultimately achieved a fair contract even in a tough economy. The fight for a fair contract was on the front page of many newspapers, and heard in dozens of TV and radio stories. (Check out ufcw21.org for contract details, videos, and some news coverage.)
“This shows how regular working people – when they stand together – can make their boss sit down and agree to a reasonable compromise. They wanted to use the tough economy as an excuse to cut our pay and benefits, but we didn’t let them. We secured a better future for ourselves and our families,” said Tasha West-Baker, UFCW 21 member and Safeway worker.
A Long Campaign — That Gets Results
Thousands upon thousands of workers took action over the long campaign, with buttons, stickers, action meetings, the Grocery Store Workers Bill of Rights, and more. Workers won broad support from community organizations (including many times with PSARA members showed solidarity by showing up for actions), other labor unions, and customers.
“We work hard for these companies, but they were trying to use the tough economy to gut our pay and benefits. We stuck together and showed them we weren’t going accept that and made some important improvements for our jobs, protected our health and pension plans, and our wages,” said Lynnette Larson, UFCW 21 Bargaining Team member and Fred Meyer worker.
By mid-October actions had taken place in every single one of the 200+ big chain stores in the area, but the employers were still proposing severe cuts to pay, severe cuts to health and pension benefits, and severe cuts to our working conditions. The time had come to vote.
In mid-November, workers voted by 94% to reject the employers' proposal and authorize a strike. Within days, the employers and the union member bargaining team went back into negotiations. As TV reporters warned of a possible strike by Thanksgiving, customers, community organizations, and other unions showed strong support for the workers. Three consecutive days of bargaining ended just before midnight on November 20th as a tentative agreement was reached.
The campaign of workers standing up and having strong support from the community led to defeating most of the employers' efforts to gut our contract and to reach an agreement that protects benefits and improves wages.
Check out more about the contract and the employer proposals that were defeated at ufcw21.org/connect/grocery-workers.
By Tom Geiger, Communications Director, UFCW 21 & a PASRA Member
Senator Bernie Sanders Comment
In the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s, the middle class is collapsing and poverty is increasing. Meanwhile, the people at the top are doing phenomenally well. The crooks on Wall Street whose greed precipitated this recession are now earning more money than before the American people bailed them out. The top one percent in our country now earn over 23 percent of all income, more than the bottom 50 percent. The U.S. today has by far the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider.
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor, The Retiree Advocate:
The Iraq Federation of Oil Unions has appealed for help in raising the $600 a month needed to publish its newspaper. Because the anti-worker laws of Saddam Hussein are still in effect, the union cannot collect dues or otherwise operate in a normal way. Their newspaper is the principal way the union communicates with its tens of thousands of members.
U.S. Labor Against the War is asking organizations to contribute monthly, quarterly, semi-annually or to make a one-time donation toward the $600 monthly goal. Individuals can help with small monthly contributions or a one-time donation. Expressing our solidarity in this concrete way can help this courageous union defend the interests of Iraqi workers and Iraqi society against corporate schemes to privatize Iraq’s oil resources. Please make your check to: U.S. Labor Against the War, 1718 M Street NW #153, Washington, D.C. 20036, with “Iraqi Union Newspaper “ in the MEMO line.
‘
Catherine Pottinger,
PSARA Member, Seattle
The Iraq Federation of Oil Unions has appealed for help in raising the $600 a month needed to publish its newspaper. Because the anti-worker laws of Saddam Hussein are still in effect, the union cannot collect dues or otherwise operate in a normal way. Their newspaper is the principal way the union communicates with its tens of thousands of members.
U.S. Labor Against the War is asking organizations to contribute monthly, quarterly, semi-annually or to make a one-time donation toward the $600 monthly goal. Individuals can help with small monthly contributions or a one-time donation. Expressing our solidarity in this concrete way can help this courageous union defend the interests of Iraqi workers and Iraqi society against corporate schemes to privatize Iraq’s oil resources. Please make your check to: U.S. Labor Against the War, 1718 M Street NW #153, Washington, D.C. 20036, with “Iraqi Union Newspaper “ in the MEMO line.
‘
Catherine Pottinger,
PSARA Member, Seattle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)