People Before Profit blog

Demand grows for federal jobs program

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:34:00 +0000

A few days ago, retired auto worker, Frank Hammer, read a union-baiting article in the Dayton Daily News headlined “GM Now A Federal Jobs Program.”

He was angry enough to write a letter to the editor of the Ohio newspaper: “With the 21,000 auto workers losing their jobs at GM as a result of bankruptcy restructuring, union workers and non-union workers alike will need a Federal jobs program if only to sustain a tax-base for the communities in which they reside.”

In a phone interview from his home in Detroit, Hammer told the World, “I wrote the letter to the Dayton paper right after I read their article. I said to myself, ‘I’ve got to respond to this.’”

Hammer, a former president of the United Autoworkers Local 909 in Warren, Michigan. He is the former president of United Autoworkers Local 909 in Warren Michigan representing workers at GM's Powertrain plant. He is also a former member of the UAW International Executive Board. He organized a caravan of active and retired UAW members to Washington D.C. last December to appeal to Congress to help the auto companies stave off bankruptcy. In an appeal to join that caravan, he warned UAW workers that the auto companies would use bankruptcy to destroy 70 years of UAW union representation.

Hammer also said it is clear that the federal government must intervene directly to create jobs. “On the day that President Obama announced the plan for the auto industry, he likened the situation for all the auto towns to a hurricane.”

When a natural hurricane hits a community, he said, “the entire nation responds. We need the do the same here in my view. The collapse of the auto-industry is a drier version of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.” Dozens of cities and towns dependent on the auto industry, starting with Detroit, “have been hit by a hurricane that came from Wall Street and caused this collapse.”

The challenge for Obama, he added, is to demonstrate that his administration will act decisively and with sufficient stimulus funds to help reverse the collapse unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush, who left Katrina victims trapped on the roofs of their flooded houses in New Orleans.

“In the short-term, a federal jobs program is absolutely necessary,” Hammer said. “It is necessary to take charge of this issue of global warming to refashion what used to be the auto industry into a transportation industry.”

He added, “Look at the debacle in Washington D.C. with the collision of the two Metro trains. There were calls two years ago to replace those rail passenger cars. And here we are in Detroit with empty factories sitting idle.”

He added, “We should not only be replacing worn out equipment on existing subway systems, we should be building new ones in cities, like Detroit, that have no metro rail systems.”

Hammer spoke as reports showed a continued rise in unemployment despite the infusion of funds from Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus package. White House economic advisers had hoped that stimulus would help hold the nation’s jobless rate below eight percent. But the official jobless rate is now 9.4 percent and expected to climb above 10 percent. In several states it is above 12 percent. For African Americans, Latinos and other nationally and racially oppressed, the rate is closer to 20 percent. The official jobless rate does not count workers who are so discouraged they have given up the search for a job.

There were worrisome signs of a “jobless recovery” in which bank and corporate profits surge but millions of workers continue to lose their jobs, homes, health care and education for their children. The U.S. Treasury Department’s Comptroller of the Currency released a report June 26 that banks raked in $9.8 billion in profits during the first quarter of 2009 fueled by trading in “derivatives” the opaque investment product blamed by many economists for pushing the nation into the current crisis. Obama is pushing his financial regulatory reform package that includes measures to impose regulations on derivatives to make them far more transparent.

Financial analysts at Bloomberg.com commented that “Bets on mortgage-linked securities using credit derivatives brought insurer American International Group, Inc (AIG) to the brink of bankruptcy when the value of the contracts plunged and it couldn’t meet collateral calls.” AIG, deemed “too big to fail” received more than $175 billion in taxpayer bailouts.

But so far, the bailouts seem to be helping the banks but have not translated into more jobs. There are calls for another stimulus package this time with funds earmarked to bail out “Main Street” not “Wall Street.”

Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski warning of a “jobs emergency” with unemployment well over 12 percent in the Beaver State, called in May for a direct government jobs program. “President Roosevelt gave hope to millions of unemployed Americans when he created the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and other jobs programs,” Kulongoski said. “We need to take that same kind of immediate action in Oregon.”

He proposed borrowing $90 million from the state’s Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund to create 12,000 temporary jobs paying $8.40 to $10.00 an hour. It would have employed some of the 90,000 jobless workers in Oregon working at the Oregon Food Bank, building park trails, clearing brush from fire-prone forests and restoring wetlands.

Unfortunately, the Oregon legislature bowed to strong corporate opposition to the jobs plan and failed to approve the bill before adjourning this week. That puts all the more pressure on the federal government to shift toward direct jobs programs like the CCC. “The Governor had hoped that Oregon would take the lead creating direct jobs on the ground,” said his media spokesperson. “Unfortunately time ran out without the legislature passing it.”

Rosenberg commemoration debunks treason charges

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:15:00 +0000

The National Committee to Reopen the Rosenberg Case annual memorial meeting June 18, commemorating the 56th anniversary of the execution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, featured calls for the exoneration of the couple, executed in 1953.

The well-attended event was held at New York University’s Tamiment Library.

Longtime researcher on the case David Alman, 90, read from his work in progress, “The Case for Exoneration.” Alman believes exoneration may be forthcoming relatively soon. He started with some history of the case, before turning to Morton Sobell’s revelation last year that he and Julius Rosenberg had given non-atomic military information to the Soviet Union, during World War II when the U.S. and Soviet Union were allies. Alman said he believes Sobel’s statements were a confession to a crime, but not to treason. Under normal circumstances, he maintained, the Rosenbergs would have been sentenced to 10 years, serving perhaps three or four of those. Instead, they were framed for treason and executed.

“Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were accused of Communist Party membership, as if that were a crime, and executed for ‘atomic espionage’ at the height of McCarthyism, in an attempt to scare Americans away from Communist Party membership or sympathies,” said Dr. Angelo D’Angelo, a longtime activist with the Rosenberg Committee. He added that the trial was fraught with irregularities, and activists then and now have seen parallels with the cases of Sacco and Vanzetti and Mumia Abu Jamal. Alman went on to describe his call for exoneration as a call for justice for the historically-persecuted Jewish people. He is seeking a White House posthumous exoneration of the Rosenbergs and of Sobel. He spoke of a historical opportunity to “reclaim America” from 60 years of a dual legal system — one responsible to the Constitution, one not — thus offering a compelling context to Guantanamo and other pseudo-legal abuses of the George W. Bush administration. Miriam Moskowitz, who was in prison with Ethel Rosenberg, read from her own book in progress. Starting with a history of the flawed prosecution of the Rosenbergs, she questioned whether they were guilty of treason, or, instead, of alleged CPUSA membership and apparent Jewish ethnicity. She reiterated questions about whether the trial was fair, noting the history of bias of the judges and prosecutors, which included the notorious McCarthyite Roy Cohn. Moskowitz wondered aloud whether what the Rosenbergs did was really espionage, or merely stealing intellectual property from their employers. Was it a case of treason, or just the perhaps-illegal but certainly not treasonous mistakes of youthful idealism? After all, all of America was committed to supporting the Soviet Union’s defeat of Nazi fascism at the time in question. She suggested that the Rosenbergs’ activities were more properly compared to any American business executive who goes to another company, bearing trade secrets. As for these secrets, they were not of how to make “the bomb,” but of a defensive radar system. The case, she concluded, was blown out of all proportion by the insanity of J. Edgar Hoover’s hunt for communist espionage. The event was emceed by committee co-directors Richard Corey and Leonard Lehrman. There was a sense of the gathering that people want to work together more formally, with regular meetings and updates throughout the year. For more information on the injustices of the Rosenberg trial and the campaign for exoneration, and to become involved, contact the National Committee to Reopen the Rosenberg Case at 718-667-4740.

Supreme Court rules against affirmative action

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:09:00 +0000

The Supreme Court today ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn. were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, overturning a decision by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

In a blow to affirmative action the court, in a 5-4 ruling, said New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results.

Civil rights groups are saying the ruling could have a negative effect on hiring and promotion practices nationwide by potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities. New Haven had said that it acted, in part, to avoid a civil rights lawsuit.

“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas . In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters “understandably attract this court’s sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.”

Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg’s dissent. Observers note that the jobs at issue were supervisory positions for which there are a variety of qualifications, only some of which can be assessed by test results.

The concern in New Haven did not want to select from only among those who performed well on the test because that group, the city believed, was unrepresentative of the department and the city. New Haven believed it could scrap the test and start its assessment process over again. This was in keeping with precedent in many communities all over the country in recent years.

Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven.

John Glasletter, a spokesman for People for the American Way, told the World that “opponents of Judge Sotomayor have gone to great lengths to use the ruling of her panel against her, and they will ramp up their efforts with the Supreme Court overruling her Second Circuit Court.

He noted that “Sotomayor and her panel colleagues were bound by longstanding precedent and federal law. They applied the law without regard to their personal views and unanimously affirmed the district court ruling and the full 2nd circuit backed them up.

“In other words,” Glasletter said, 'Sotomayor is anything but an outlier. She and the seven other federal judges who decided the case at the district and circuit levels were unanimous in determining that precedent and federal law required rejection of the suits.”

The Supreme Court decision today, observers note, upends decades of settled law and, at the same time, undermines civil rights law and affirmative action.

Glasletter said it is the height of hypocrisy and opportunism for Sotomayor’s so-called ‘strict constructionist’ critics to condemn her for judicial activism when she was being conservative with that ruling.

Civil rights leaders, meanwhile, note that the conservative justices have no problem with judicial activism as long as it is used to further right-wing causes, in this cast the weakening of civil rights and affirmative action.

Jason Rahlan, a spokesperson for the Center for American Progress, said the decision overturns the longstanding discretion that allows employers to reconsider promotion tests that yield discriminatory results. He also said the decision will be used for political advantage by opponents of the Obama administration.

“Unfortunately, some on the right will undoubtedly use today’s decision as an opportunity to score political points against President Barack Obama and his nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. These attacks have no merit. Unlike the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor was bound by Second Circuit precedent when she voted to reject the discrimination claim. As a lower court judge, Sotomayor acted in the only manner she legitimately could by following her court’s binding precedent.”

In California, budget drama grows

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:23:00 +0000

SACRAMENTO, Calif. ― Tension is reaching new heights this week in California’s budget drama, with the state set to issue IOUs if the legislature and governor fail to pass a measure within days. The last week has seen Democrats intensify their efforts to identify revenues to help balance proposed cuts, only to have Republicans including the governor reject their proposals.

In 2008 California’s budget deficit was $14.5 billion. It has now grown to $24.3 billion. To close the gap, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for cuts including ending health care for over 900,000 poor children, ending the CalWorks welfare-to-work program that provides cash aid to the state’s poorest families, ending in-home health services for most elderly or disabled Californians, cutting $4.5 billion from K-12 education, and phasing out Cal Grants, the college fee assistance program.

On all these issues, the Democrats have attempted to lessen the pain. Though they, too, propose deep cuts, they are determined to find new sources of revenue as well. They have refused to end health care for poor children and welfare-to-work. They have rejected ending Cal Grants and making further deep cuts in aid for the poor elderly and disabled.

Democrats have a healthy majority in both legislative houses. So how can the “no spending” and “no new taxes” antics of the governor and his Republican cronies threaten the citizens of California and bring the world’s seventh largest economy to a halt?

California is the only state in the U.S. to require a supermajority two-thirds vote to pass a budget and to raise taxes. (Meanwhile the state requires only a simple majority to pass tax loopholes.)

The state has faced budget shortfalls before, especially since 2001. That means all the easy solutions ― such as having unspent reserves, deferring maintenance, eliminating nonessential programs and services ― have been used up. The state has now borrowed to the point that debt service alone will rise to $4 billion in 2009-2010.

Meanwhile California’s population has grown by more than 4 million since 2000, and seniors are the fastest growing segment, thereby increasing the need for health and age related services.

Today’s crisis has its roots in history.

In 1933, during the Great Depression, the state’s constitution was changed to require a two-thirds vote to pass a general fund budget. In 1978, Prop. 13, which includes a provision requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes, was sold to the public as a protection for homeowners against rising property taxes. Prop. 13 also exempts all commercial property from regular tax reassessment. According to a recent survey, 63 percent of Californians support “closing the loophole” that allows corporations to avoid reassessment of the value of new property they purchase.

Proceeds from the state sales tax have declined over time, reflecting a shift in economic activity from goods to services, and the increase in Internet and mail order sales that escape taxation. If taxable purchases accounted for the same share of spending today as they did in the late 1960s, the state would collect $15.9 billion in additional sales tax revenues.

If California corporations paid the same taxes in 2008 as they did in 1981, (before former President and California Governor Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down theory took hold) corporate taxes would be $7.3 billion higher. Tax cuts the state enacted between 1993 and 2006 will cost the state $12 billion in 2009-10. The largest reduction is the $4.8 billion cut in the vehicle license fees.

Tired of taxes? But wait, there’s more. Late last month the Sacramento Bee published an article by Jean Ross of the California Budget Project, revealing the latest tax cuts for the state’s corporations. Quietly slipped into the budget agreements passed by the legislature in September 2008 and February 2009 were provisions that corporations may be taxed only on sales taking place in California. They may transfer tax credits among related corporations, and a corporation may “carry back” losses by receiving a refund of taxes they’ve already paid. These new loopholes will benefit a handful of the biggest corporations to the extent of about $2.5 a year.

So we have Republicans demanding an end to health care for over 900,000 poor children, which will save $375 million a year, but not a single word about the $2.5 billion in tax cuts for corporations.

Stay tuned!

Health reform? Women say it's about work, wages

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:11:00 +0000

Original source:

(WOMENSENEWS)--As the battle to reform U.S. health care heats up, Cindy Pearson is staying focused.

'This push is our No. 1 priority now,' says Pearson, executive director of the Washington-based National Women's Health Network. 'It's an important time because Obama is voicing his concerns about health care and because both houses of Congress are developing legislative language on the issue that women's advocates will have a chance to discuss, review--and possibly change--before it comes up for a vote in the fall of 2009.'

Pearson says that her group is encouraging women to educate themselves about health care reform, attend local and national events and lobby representatives for the proposals they want.

She cites women's involvement in shaping other health care legislation--including the Family Medical Leave Act and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, both passed in 1993, as proof that they should get involved now. 'Women have affected public health policy in the past and the only way we can do so now is by making our voices heard,' she said.

Ten health care proposals are now before Congress. Most Popular Proposals

The three most popular proposals all require that Medicaid be expanded; that most people continue to get insurance coverage through their employers; and that every citizen have health insurance, with government subsidies available to individuals and families to help make that coverage more affordable.

After these common elements, the proposals diverge in some key ways.

The first proposal, which emerged from the May hearings led by Senate Finance Committee Chair Montana Sen. Max Baucus, would create an insurance exchange (an organized market for the purchase of health insurance) through which individuals and small businesses could buy coverage.

The second, introduced June 9 by the Committee on Health, Labor, Exchange and Pensions, which is chaired by Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, would include the exchange as well. However, it would make subsidies available to more Americans than the Baucus plan, covering more of the nation's 45 million uninsured.

The third plan, drafted by the Obama administration and the House leadership, was unveiled June 19 with the endorsement of three House committees: Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor. It does not include the type of insurance exchange recommended in the Baucus and Kennedy proposals and is not as wide-reaching as the Kennedy plan.

The Obama 'Tri-Committee' plan does require employers to either cover workers or contribute to a government fund. And it fulfills Obama's campaign promise to create a government-sponsored health plan that rivals private plans. 'If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and it will help keep their prices down,' Obama said at a June 11 town hall meeting on health reform in Green Bay, Wisc.

One of the ten proposals up for consideration is a single-payer model, in which a publicly financed entity (a 'single payer') reimburses providers for their services (instead of private insurers). Single-Payer Model Best Serves Women

Though single-payer legislation is not being considered in the Senate, the House is weighing it in the form of the U.S. National Health Care Act (HR 676), which was introduced January 26 by Michigan Rep. John Conyers, Jr.

Prominent advocates for women's health say the lagging single-payer model would serve women best. The National Women's Health Network, for instance, has endorsed this model since 1978.

'Most of the leading health care proposals on the table would tie insurance coverage to employment in a way that is problematic for women,' said Judy Norsigian, executive director of the Boston-based Our Bodies, Ourselves.

Dr. Susan Hasti, a spokesperson for the Chicago-based Physicians for a National Health Program, agrees. 'Women are more likely than men to have inadequate coverage because they are self-employed, work part time, have low-paying, no-benefit jobs, rely on their spouses for coverage or lose their insurance when they change jobs,' she said.

Reproductive services, including abortion, would likely be covered by single-payer legislation and are also likely to be covered by an 11th plan not yet on the table: the U.S. Universal Health Service Act (HR 3000), which California Rep. Barbara Lee plans to reintroduce during this legislative session. According to Norsigian, none of the other proposals under consideration would cover reproductive services as comprehensively.

As Lee's plan and others come before Congress, the Washington-based Raising Women's Voices, a coalition of social reform groups based in Washington and New York, is encouraging voters to organize 'Women's Speak-Outs for Health Reform' in their communities.

National grassroots campaigns are also underway. One became visible on June 25, when thousands of women descended on the U.S. Capitol for a mobilization and rally for affordable, quality health care for all. The rally was sponsored the Washington-based Health Care for America Now.

Norsigian says a single-payer system would save up to $400 billion annually in health care administrative expenses and would help eliminate medical debt, which is 30 percent more common among women than men.

Attorney General seeks review of cocaine sentencing laws

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:04:00 +0000

Original source:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told lawmakers that it was time to close the gap in prison sentences for crack and powder cocaine crimes, a disparity in sentencing that has had a large impact on the African-American community.

For years drug reform advocates have pointed to the difference in sentencing for powder and crack cocaine as one glaring example of institutionalized racism in the criminal justice system. About 90 percent of crack arrests are of African Americans, while 75 percent of powder cocaine arrests are of whites. Under federal law, it takes only five grams of crack cocaine to trigger a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. But it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the same sentence.

The Obama administration announced in April its desire to change the law to end this 100-to-1 racial disparity in sentencing. Holder this week agreed, calling for a thorough review of federal sentencing and corrections policies, with an eye toward possible reform.

'The disparity in crack and powder cocaine sentences is unwarranted, creates a perception of unfairness, and must be eliminated.' he said, adding that the ballooning prison population and inadequate drug treatment programs also contribute to a public perception of injustice in the criminal justice system.

A few of the areas Holder said a review should concentrate on include:

* the structure of federal sentencing, including the role of mandatory minimums; * the DOJ's own charging and sentencing policies; * alternatives to incarceration and re-entry; * eliminating the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine; and * an examination of other unwarranted disparities in federal sentencing.

'We are approaching this effort with a specific set of core values,' Holder underscored. 'We will apply those principles to create a sentencing and corrections system that protects the public, is fair to both victims and defendants, eliminates unwarranted sentencing disparities, reduces recidivism, and controls the federal prison population.'

The effort to change federal sentencing laws for cocaine has gained broad support at the federal level over the past few years. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) is pushing for legislation that would end the gap by eliminating crack as a category in the criminal code. He called the 100-to-1 ratio 'a racial discrimination in practice' that must be ended, reported the Associated Press.

The movement for sentencing reform also reflects changes that have been been bubbling up on the national scene for the last few years. As the Sentencing Project detailed in their May 2009 review of federal crack cocaine sentencing:

After two decades of contentious debate regarding the federal sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, unprecedented momentum to reform current policy has emerged. In 2007 the United States Sentencing Commission lowered the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses and recommended that Congress finally address the lengthy mandatory minimum sentences for low-level crack cocaine offenses. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that judges may consider the excessive nature of penalties for crack cocaine offenses for purposes of sentencing defendants below the recommended sentencing guidelines. Seven crack cocaine sentencing reform bills were introduced during the 110th Congress, including bills in the Senate and House of Representatives that would equalize penalties for crack and powder cocaine offenses without increasing mandatory sentences. In 2009, President Obama declared that 'the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.' The likelihood of legislative reform in the 111th Congress is the strongest it has ever been. ... The overwhelming consensus among federal judges, the civil rights community and legal experts is that now is the time for reform.

Drug reform advocates are also applauding the traction being made in Congress in terms of overall criminal justice reform. As Facing South reported earlier this month, new legislation -- the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009 -- was introduced in March by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA). If passed the bill would create a commission charged with completing an 18-month top-to-bottom review of the country's entire criminal-justice system, ultimately providing Congress with specific, concrete recommendations for reform.

It's Been a Long Road

Since 1980, the country's prison population has quadrupled to more than two million, with the South accounting for nearly half of that increase. The prison population increase can be attributed largely to draconian 'tough-on-crime' criminal justice policies enacted in the 1980s and 1990s. Among them were mandatory drug sentences and 'three-strikes-and-you're-out' laws.

The effects of the Drug War and incarceration were especially hard-felt in the South. By 2000, nine of the 20 states with the highest incarceration rates were in the South. It was harsh drug sentences that, more than anything, fueled the skyrocketing rate of incarceration in the South. According to the Sentencing Project, the nation's mandatory penalties for crack cocaine offenses were the harshest ever adopted for low level drug offenses - crack cocaine is still the only drug that carries a mandatory prison sentence for a first-time possession offense.

As the Sentencing Project reported:

African American drug defendants have a 20 percent greater chance of being sentenced to prison than white drug defendants. Between 1994 and 2003, the average time served by African Americans for drug offenses increased by 62 percent, compared to an increase of 17 percent for white drug offenders. Moreover, African Americans now serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months).

Nation-wide, 27 percent of the growth in prison rates for African-Americans from 1990-2000 was from drug busts, even though 72 percent of illicit drug users in the country are white. By the late 1990s, 33 percent of convicted white defendants received a prison sentence, while 51 percent of African-American defendants received prison sentences. African Americans today account for more than 50 percent of sentenced drug offenders, yet only 13 percent of the country's population. Since the majority of African Americans live in the Deep South (the highest populations are in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia respectively), the racial disparities of 'get-tough' drug war policies have been disproportionately felt there.

Despite the call for sentencing reform and policy review being pushed by the Obama administration, Holder and lawmakers such as Sen. Webb, drug reform advocates still point out that there is a long road ahead. Some advocates are calling for more focus on eliminating mandatory minimum rules which are especially harsh on first-time offenders, as well as racial profiling and other disparities in who gets arrested and charged for what offense. Advocates also hope to see more funding for prevention and rehabilitation programs, two things that are particularly lacking in the South.

Yet, lawmakers and advocates that have been pushing for reform in federal sentencing laws do agree that this is an important start. As Holder said this week:

There is no tension between a sentencing scheme that is effective and fair and one that is tough and equitable. We must work toward these twin goals and we must do so now. Too much time has passed, too many people have been treated in a disparate manner, and too many of our citizens have come to have doubts about our criminal justice system...We must break out of the old and tired partisan stances that have stood in the way of needed progress and reform. We have a moment in time that must be seized in order to ensure that all of our citizens are treated in a way that is consistent with the ideals embodied in our founding documents. This Department of Justice is prepared to act.

Arizonas equal opportunity programs under threat

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:41:00 +0000

Original source:

Arizona's equal opportunity programs are facing a renewed assault this week after the state legislature voted to place an anti-equal opportunity initiative onto the 2010 Arizona General Election ballot.

California businessman and millionaire Ward Connerly had attempted to qualify the initiative for the ballot in 2008. However, the so-called Arizona 'Civil Rights' Initiative, Proposition 104, failed to get on the ballot after the Arizona's Secretary of State disqualified more than 40 percent of the petition signatures collected by Connerly's campaign. Connerly had faced numerous allegations of fraudulent activities and even profiteering around these initiatives in Arizona and other states. Under Arizona state law, an initiative must have 230,047 valid signatures from the public before it is placed on the ballot. Having failed to garner enough public support with valid petition signatures, Connerly and his supporters have chosen to go through the legislature, which is currently controlled by Republicans.

The vote on this anti-equal opportunity ballot initiative in 2010 could affect programs that many Arizonans consider essential for ensuring that all Arizonans have equal access to opportunities in education and employment. Speaking after the state Senate vote Monday, state Sen. Rebecca Rios, D. Apache Junction, noted that although some progress has been made in providing equal opportunity, there is still a great 'need' for programs that are designed to level the playing field. Programs that could be affected include an Arizona State University initiative that helps Native Americans transition from life on the reservation to life at college and a counseling program for teen fathers in Phoenix

Sacked workers achieve total victory

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:36:00 +0000

Original source:

Total workers have won a stunning victory to beat back bosses' attacks on their unions.

All the workers' demands - the reinstatement of almost 700 engineers and construction workers sacked for taking unofficial strike action, new jobs for all the workers whose forced redundancies sparked the walk-out and assurances that no-one will be victimised for taking solidarity action - were won in a determined fightback against bosses' attempts to tear up union agreements.

The unofficial, all-out strike at the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire was backed throughout the week by thousands of workers walking out at power stations, refineries and gas terminals across Britain in defiance of anti-union laws.

Faced with such determined resistance, Total bosses had no choice but to back down and concede defeat, despite insisting for more than a week that executives at the multinational corporation would not talk with union reps until the strikers went back to work.

GMB Lindsey shop steward Phil Whitehurst declared that the solidarity strikes had been crucial in forcing Total and the industry bosses' club, the Engineering Construction Industry Association, against the wall.

'Workers throughout the whole industry played a major part in this monumental victory and the Lindsey shop stewards committee sends its gratitude to all those who took action in our support.

'We could not have done it without you,' he added.

Unite assistant general secretary Les Bayliss revealed that workers will vote on the deal at a mass meeting at the refinery on Monday and confirmed that all the union reps on site were recommending acceptance.

'We're pleased that we were able to thrash out a deal which the union can put to the workforce. The employers have agreed to reinstate all the sacked workers,' he declared.

Obama: Climate change and clean energy

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:01:00 +0000

Sebelius reiterates Obama's support for public option

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:34:00 +0000

Pressing hard on the urgency of needed health reform, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius released a set of new state-by-state reports this week documenting the nation's broken health system.

The new reports reveal that it doesn't matter which state or region, 'the health care crisis impacts all of America,' Sebelius told reporters on a conference call June 26. In her responses to questions, she reiterated President Obama's support for a public option as part of the needed reforms.

The reports, produced by HHS's Agency for Health Research and Quality, showed a dire picture of far too many people without coverage and far too many with insurance who have only inadequate access to care. 'Skyrocketing health care costs are hurting families, forcing businesses to cut or drop health benefits, and straining state budgets,' the reports point out. 'Millions are paying more for less.'

In a state like North Dakota, for example, 11 percent of the state's residents have no insurance, even though 70 percent of those people are from households with at least one full-time worker.

In South Carolina, the cost of the average family premium has risen by 92 percent since 2000 alone.

In Montana, a typical family plan premium costs more than $12,000, and just two private insurance companies dominate about 85 percent of the market.

Small businesses in Arizona constitute 73 percent of the state's businesses, but only 32 percent of them are able to provide health care benefits. Increasing costs have driven that number down by almost one-fifth since 2000, the HHS report showed.

In Texas, insurance companies are legally allowed to exclude or deny coverage to people they believe have 'preexisting conditions,' essentially ensuring that people who need coverage the most will struggle to get needed care. The HHS report labeled the overall quality of care in that state as 'weak.'

The high cost of care causes 13 percent of people in Indiana to go without needed medical attention, and the percent of state residents with employment-based coverage has declined from 71 percent to 66 percent since 2000.

This problem is worse in Kentucky where 17 percent of people report doing without care because of costs, and the number of residents with employment-based coverage has fallen to less than 6 in 10. The main issue, again, is that small businesses have dropped employee benefits in growing numbers since 2000 because of high costs.

Similar alarming numbers can be found in every state, the HHS found.

'These are more than just numbers and facts, more than just numbers on a page,' Secretary Sebelius remarked. 'They represent real people and families in states across the country who are struggling.'

Responding to reporters' questions about the inclusion of a public option in the health reform package, Sebelius restated President Obama's support for the public option as a competition mechanism that provides 'the best way to have cost containment.'

Referring to bills being drafted in both houses of Congress right now, Sebelius said, 'I think it's pretty clear with the bills coming forward that a public option is definitely part of the strategy.'

She said the proposed reforms in the bill will help small businesses provide employee benefits. It will give the uninsured and underinsured access to health care coverage, including a choice of a public plan.

Remembering Michael Jackson

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:19:00 +0000

I think the first album I ever bought was by the Jackson Five. It was at a record store on Hillman and Kenmore Street in Youngstown, Ohio, and I rushed home to jam to the bubble gum beat and the saccharine sound of Michael Jackson.

Today, neither the store, the vinyl LPs, nor Michael Jackson exist.

Over the years I’ve grown an accustomed to the absence of the store: everything that surrounds it is gone too: the Arab grocery owned by the notorious Rafiti brothers, Willie Mae’s Soul Kitchen, the body shop whose rusted shapes once adorned the corner. Even Hillman Jr High School, where young women endlessly debated who was the “finest,” Tito, Michael or Marlon, is no longer there though the worn-and-torn brick structure remains.

The LPs gave way to eight track tapes, cassettes, CDs and they to MP3s – and I missed them not all that much.

I wonder, however, if I will ever get used to the absence of Michael Jackson.

It’s not that I ever was a big Michael fan. I was always more of a funk man myself and quickly grew to disdain, at least officially, the Jackson sound. But the Jackson sound, honed in not too far away Gary and later in Berry Gordy's Motown studio in Detroit, in many ways defined me and my generation and several sets of other generations in deep, profound and even troubling ways.

The music, like Stevie Wonder's, is almost omnipresent: always hummed, within reach, the lyrics part of the body’s genetic memory. Michael’s style and stories are almost omnipotent, cross-cultural urban legends, toying with the aspirations of hundreds of millions of working-class poor black, brown and white youth, defining, teasing and tossing them through the decades of Generation Me, Generation X and Generation Y as jobs disappeared, towns collapsed and dreams fell in on themselves or went up in the mist of all too many crack pipes.

And then there was the dark side: not so much in 'Thriller,' but in stories of an over-ambitious and cruel father, an ambiguous identity, a bleaching of personality, texture and tone, with surgeries and dyes and fashions woven one wondered where: Paris, New York or the laboratories of 1930s Germany? One watched in, yes, almost horror as a little boy with round nose and full lips became transformed into what or whom? Peter Pan? Diana Ross? Elizabeth Taylor? Who?

The rumors, surely some slander, and the charges bounded through the years, with cash settlements settling nothing. Even the most hardened stomachs retching with the notion of abused children and ruined lives.

Was this the price of wealth and fame: Oz and infamy, sunglasses, veils and white gloves? And what lay below? Surely a great, even transcendent artist and performer, a musical genius, but also the same black child born into a Gary Indiana of unions and steel and fire and Smokey Robinson; a proletarian child and pauper turned prince, who thought perhaps for a price he could have it all.

But with Michael gone and Gary's mills all but closed and also Motown's General Motors, Chrysler and maybe even Ford, I wonder at what price?

I remember hearing in Cape Town once how Michael had come and tried to buy Table Mountain, staggered by its beauty by the sea and thinking that he could own it, not only it the mountain but also perhaps its beauty, perhaps also its dream.

“How could he think that we would sell such a thing, our Table Mountain?” I was asked. I had no answer: only a pang of hurt and angst not at Michael, never Michael, but at the illusionary pursuit of the bourgeois dream.

As I mourn Michael, I mourn the Lost throughout the years, but also relish and wonder at the Found. I also wonder what he was chasing. Maybe Michael thought he’d find it on a mountain. I hope he does. I say with Baldwin: Go tell it on a mountain, Michael; Go tell it on a mountain! But remember it’s not for sale.

Pressure grows to resolve Illinois state budget crisis

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:02:00 +0000

Chicago — With the clock ticking toward a “doomsday budget” that would devastate state services and cause massive layoffs, six thousand union members, seniors, children, social service agency workers and their clients flooded the Illinois statehouse in Springfield June 23 to demand action by state legislators.

The protest was so massive the statehouse was forced to close its doors. Demonstrators demanded a progressive tax increase to close the estimated $9.2 billion budget gap and avoid a 50% cut in vital social services affecting residents across the state. The deficit is the result of a $67 billion “lights on” budget compromise passed by the state assembly without enough revenues.

Gov. Pat Quinn has sent mixed signals whether or not he will veto the budget. “I’m not going to preside over a dismantling of that fundamental human safety net,” Quinn has said, who spoke at the June 23 rally. “I just can’t believe that legislators of both parties will accept that kind of dire outcome.” Ninety-seven percent of the state budget funds education and health care.

Quinn originally proposed a temporary tax hike on individuals and corporations. Individual income tax rates would increase from 3% to 4.5% and corporate taxes would increase from 4.8% to 7.2%.

Illinois has a constitutionally mandated flat tax. This has led to an under funding of state services for years. To get around this, Quinn proposed tripling the individual exemption from the income tax, to $6,000 per person. Quinn said it would cut taxes for about five million of 13 million residents, despite the individual tax increase.

A somewhat modified version of this approach introduced by Sen. James Meeks to increase the individual and corporate taxes from 3 to 5% and increase the earned income tax credit from $2,000 to $3,000 passed the Senate in May. However, the bill, which could serve as a blueprint, never made it onto the full House floor.

The state legislature with both houses controlled by Democrats is in a real fix. Because of divisions in Democratic ranks no budget was passed by a May 31 deadline. A super majority is now required to pass a budget giving Republicans greater influence over whatever legislation is adopted. They are demanding $800 million in cuts to social programs as a condition for any support.

The legislature voted to issue notes for refinancing of pension payments, which would free up savings to allocate for social programs. However the state would still be $1 billion short.

Pressure from the Republicans and corporations have forced some concessions by Quinn. He has called for 2,200 layoffs of state workers in addition to 12 furlough days a year. AFSCME which represents many state workers has rejected this idea. Additionally he is now proposing to reduce the corporate tax increase which would effectively continue the state's regressive tax structure.

In a telephone conference call with scores of advocates and service providers convened by Illinois Voices for Children, Policy Director Kelley Talbot called for stepping up the pressure on the Governor and legislators. She urged those present to demand Gov. Quinn veto the “doomsday budget,” keep legislators in Springfield until a balanced budget solution is reached including new revenue sources, and approve an interim state budget if needed to avoid the devastating cuts.

Protests and lobbying of legislators is continuing across the state. Vigils are being planned across the state for Monday, June 29, including one at the Thompson Center in downtown Chicago from 8:30-10:30 pm. Another massive rally is being called for Tuesday, June 30 also at the Thompson Center at 11 am.

Voices for Illinois Children website has immediate action steps and information how your senator and representative voted:

updated Fri., June 26

Make the Dream Act a reality, immigrant youth say

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:07:00 +0000

CHICAGO – Most people are familiar with the popular catchphrase, “youth are the future.” Youth coined in this saying are dubbed to become the next generation of educated leaders in their communities and their country. Young people who graduate from high school and go onto college are likely to fit this wishful description.

Yet some 65,000 undocumented high school graduates nationwide are forced to opt out of attending college every year. Most cannot attend college, or if they do, receive no financial support from the U.S. government. These are students who have grown up in the U.S. their whole lives, brought here by their hard working immigrant parents so that they can receive a better education. However the reality of going to college if you are undocumented is limited. Many argue it’s due to a broken immigration system that continues to deny basic human rights to the estimated 12 million immigrants living and paying taxes in the U.S. today.

Dozens of high school and college students held a rally here at St. Ann’s Church June 23 in support of the Dream Act (Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act), which would allow eligible undocumented students to legalize their immigration status by enrolling in college. The bill is currently pending in both chambers of Congress, and if passed and signed into law would ensure that no child in America is denied their dream of having a better life as long as they’re willing to work for it. There is talk the Dream Act will be part of a bigger legislative immigration overhaul in the future. But talk is cheap when it comes to young people who want to attend college now.

“I’m an undocumented student about to graduate from high school,” said Ivonne, 16, who was born in Mexico and brought to the U.S. as a child with her parents. “Passing the Dream Act will help me pursue an education and become successful,” she noted. Ivonne hopes to study culinary arts and medicine in college. “Immigration reform is really important because we are really hard workers and we should be treated with respect and fairness,” she said. Ivonne continued, “My parents are not trying to steal anybody’s job. They’re just trying to work hard in order to support my brother and me. And this issue affects many immigrant communities, not just Latinos,” she said.

Chan Kho Kim, 17, is a high school student whose parents are originally from Korea. He is a volunteer and active member with Fighting Youth Shouting Out for Humanity, a youth group with the Korean American Resource and Cultural Center. Kim said each year his youth group chooses a cause to learn about so they can work all year to support it and build unity around it. “So this year we chose the Dream Act because it’s important and it affects a lot of people and many of my friends,” said Kim. “I’m connected to their cause and can relate to their struggle,” he added. “Personally I don’t see any negative side to the Dream Act, and I feel only good can come from it. I think most people can only benefit from it,” he said.

Jessica G. Perez is the assistant youth minister at St. Ann's and gave a speech about the importance of education and why passing the Dream Act is critical for undocumented students like her.

“Many people enter the U.S. for the ‘American Dream,’ for my parents this meant a better education,” said Perez. “I was born in a country I barely remember and I learned the value of education from my family.” Perez said her parents knew no English but instilled in her a strong work ethic and helped her realize that getting an education is a stepping-stone to accomplishing bigger dreams in life. “By getting an education, I will be able to discover these new unique ways and help the community that I love,” she said. “I understand that education is the key that opens the doors of my dreams and I take being undocumented as an opportunity rather than a drawback.” Perez continued, “Education is the only documentation that you need to succeed and I am determined to make a difference in my life and in that of my community by receiving a post-secondary education.”

Speakers at the rally said the recession should not be used as an excuse to put comprehensive immigration reform or the passage of the Dream Act on the back burner. Access to education is a basic civil and human right, and is a multi-racial issue, they said. The Dream Act cannot just remain a dream and must become a reality, they charge.

“We really believe immigrant rights are human rights,” said Becky Belcore, executive director of the Korean American Resource and Cultural Center. “Immigrants are a core community that socially, culturally and economically contribute to American society,” she said. “This country is historically based on the hard work of immigrants.”

Belcore said one in five people in the Asian community here are undocumented. “There are 1.5 million Asian immigrants living in this country,” she noted. “The more immigrant communities work together the stronger we will become and events like these especially led by young people energizes the broader movement for unity,” she said.

Belcore pointed out supporters of immigrant rights made an impact in President Barack Obama’s election. “President Obama even borrowed the historic slogan for the immigrant right’s movement, ‘Si Se Puede,’” she said. “We are hopeful that Obama will honor his commitments on this important issue and we want to do our part on the ground to mobilize the grass roots to support his efforts.”

Pastor Felipe Vaglienty said the church supports immigration reform especially because many of the families there are undocumented. “In our parish two young sisters were valedictorians at their school, back to back, when they graduated,” he said. “These are kids who are smart and study hard and their parent’s are undocumented. If they can’t go to college, it’s just not right,” he said.

Meanwhile President Obama met with congressional leaders of both parties June 25 to begin laying the political groundwork for sweeping immigration legislation. Obama and Congress should adopt a strong bipartisan commitment to work together on immigration reform in order to move forward, critics charge.

Changes in homeland security, including guidelines that make employers, rather than workers, the target of workplace raids, as well as expanded humanitarian-release rules to keep parents detained on immigration charges from being separated from small children, should be supported, they say.

But more needs to be done and immigration advocates are urging Obama and national lawmakers to act swiftly and substantively in order to address the issue, which has been taken hostage by anti-immigrant forces and divisive rhetoric in the media that blames immigrants for all social and economic ills. Racism and xenophobia, including acts of violence, must not be tolerated and passing immigration reform should be framed and inspired by rationality, humanity and justice, advocates argue.

Industry insider: For-profit insurers have hijacked our health care system

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:05:00 +0000

Original source:

Wendell Potter, a former health insurance company executive, testified before the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday.

I'm the former insurance industry insider now speaking out about how big for-profit insurers have hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street investors, and how the industry is using its massive wealth and influence to determine what is (and is not) included in the health care reform legislation members of Congress are now writing.

Although by most measures I had a great career in the insurance industry (four years at Humana and nearly 15 at CIGNA), in recent years I had grown increasingly uncomfortable serving as one of the industry's top PR executives. In addition to my responsibilities at CIGNA, which included serving as the company's chief spokesman to the media on all corporate and financial matters, I also served on a lot of trade association committees and industry-financed coalitions, many of which were essentially front groups for insurers. So I was in a unique position to see not only how Wall Street analysts and investors influence decisions insurance company executives make but also how the industry has carried out behind-the-scenes PR andlobbying campaigns to kill or weaken any health care reform efforts that threatened insurers' profitability.

I also have seen how the industry's practices -- especially those of the for-profit insurers that are under constant pressure from Wall Street to meet their profit expectations -- have contributed to the tragedy of nearly 50 million people being uninsured as well as to the growing number of Americans who, because insurers now require them to pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets before their coverage kicks in -- are underinsured. An estimated 25 million of us now fall into that category.

What I saw happening over the past few years was a steady movement away from the concept of insurance and toward 'individual responsibility,' a term used a lot by insurers and their ideological allies. This is playing out as a continuous shifting of the financial burden of health care costs away from insurers and employers and onto the backs of individuals. As a result, more and more sick people are not going to the doctor or picking up their prescriptions because of costs. If they are unfortunate enough to become seriously ill or injured, many people enrolled in these plans find themselves on the hook for such high medical bills that they are losing their homes to foreclosure or being forced into bankruptcy.

As an industry spokesman, I was expected to put a positive spin on this trend that the industry created and euphemistically refers to as 'consumerism' and to promote so-called 'consumer-driven' health plans. I ultimately reached the point of feeling like a huckster.

I thought I could live with being a well-paid huckster and hang in there a few more years until I could retire. I probably would have if I hadn't made a completely spur-of-the-moment decision a couple of years ago that changed the direction of my life. While visiting my folks in northeast Tennessee where I grew up, I read in the local paper about a health 'expedition' being held that weekend a few miles up U.S. 23 in Wise, Va. Doctors, nurses and other medical professionals were volunteering their time to provide free medical care to people who lived in the area. What intrigued me most was that Remote Area Medical, a non-profit group whose original mission was to provide free care to people in remote villages in South America, was organizing the expedition. I decided to check it out.

That 50-mile stretch of U.S. 23, which twists through the mountains where thousands of men have made their living working in the coalmines, turned out to be my 'road to Damascus.'

Nothing could have prepared me for what I saw when I reached the Wise County Fairgrounds, where the expedition was being held. Hundreds of people had camped out all night in the parking lot to be assured of seeing a doctor or dentist when the gates opened. By the time I got there, long lines of people stretched from every animal stall and tent where the volunteers were treating patients.

That scene was so visually and emotionally stunning it was all I could do to hold back tears. How could it be that citizens of the richest nation in the world were being treated this way?

A couple of weeks later I was boarding a corporate jet to fly from Philadelphia to a meeting in Connecticut. When the flight attendant served my lunch on gold-rimmed china and gave me a gold-plated knife and fork to eat it with, I realized for the first time that someone's insurance premiums were paying for me to travel in such luxury. I also realized that one of the reasons those people in Wise County had to wait in long lines to be treated in animal stalls was because our Wall Street-driven health care system has created one of the most inequitable health care systems on the planet.

Although I quit my job last year, I did not make a final decision to speak out as a former insider until recently when it became clear to me that the insurance industry and its allies (often including drug and medical device makers, business groups and even the American Medical Association) were succeeding in shaping the current debate on health care reform. While the thought of speaking out had crossed my mind during the months leading up to the day I gave notice, I initially decided instead to hang out my shingle as a consultant to small businesses and nonprofit organizations.

I decided to take the shingle down, though, at least for a while, when I heard members of Congress reciting talking points like the ones I used to write to scare people away from real reform. I'll have more to say about that over the coming weeks and months, but, for now, remember this: whenever you hear a politician or pundit use the term 'government-run health care' and warn that the creation of a public health insurance option that would compete with private insurers (or heaven forbid, a single-payer system like the one Canada has) will 'lead us down the path to socialism,' know that the original source of the sound bite most likely was some flack like I used to be.

Bottom line: I ultimately decided the stakes are too high for me to just sit on the sidelines and let the special interests win again. So I have joined forces with thousands of other Americans who are trying to persuade our lawmakers to listen to us for a change, not just to the insurance and drug company executives who are spending millions to shape reform to benefit them and the Wall Street hedge fund managers they are beholden to.

Take it from me, a former insider, who knows what really motivates those folks. You need to know where the hard-earned money you pay in health insurance premiums -- if you lucky enough to have coverage at all -- really goes.

I decided to speak out knowing that some people will not like what I have to say and will do all they can to discredit me. In anticipation of that, here are some facts:

* I am not doing this because my former employer was pushing me out the door or because I had become a disgruntled employee. I had not been passed over for a promotion or anything like that. As I noted earlier, I had a financially rewarding career in the industry, and I'm very grateful for that. I had numerous promotions, raises, bonuses, stock options and stock grants over the years. When I left my last job, I was as close on the corporate ladder to the CEO as any PR person has ever climbed at the company. I reported to the general counsel, the company's top lawyer, whose boss is the chairman and CEO, a man I like and worked closely with over many years. * The decision to leave was entirely my own, and I left on good terms with everybody at the company. In fact, I agreed to postpone my last day at work by more than two months at the company's request. My coworkers gave me a terrific going-away party, and I received dozens of kind notes from people all across the country including friends at other companies and at America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade association.

I still consider all of them my friends. In fact, the thing I have missed most since I left is working as part of a team, even though I eventually came to the conclusion that I was playing for the wrong side. Being a consultant has its advantages, but I have missed the camaraderie. After a few months, I thought that maybe I should consider working for another company again. At one point, a former boss told me that another insurer had posted a PR job and encouraged me to contact a former CIGNA executive who worked there about it. Against my better judgment, I did, but I immediately decided not to pursue it. The last thing I wanted to do was to go from one big insurer to another one. What the hell was I thinking?

I'm writing this because, knowing how things work, I'm fully expecting insurers' PR firms to quietly feed friends of the industry (which include a roster of editorial writers and pundits, lawmakers and many others who fall under the broad category of 'third-party advocates,') with anything they can think of to discredit me and what I say. This will go on behind the scenes because the insurers will want to preserve the image they are working so hard to cultivate -- as a group of kind and caring folks who think only of you and your health and are working hard as real partners to Congress and the White House to find 'a uniquely American solution' to what ails our system.

I expect this because I have worked closely with the industry's PR firms over many years whenever the insurers were being threatened with bad publicity, litigation or legislation that might hinder profits.

One of the reasons I chose to become affiliated with the Center for Media and Democracy is because of the important work the organization does to expose often devious, dishonest and unethical PR practices that further the self interests of big corporations and special interest groups at the expense of the American people and the democratic principles this country was founded on.

After a long career in PR, I am looking forward to providing an insider's perspective as a senior fellow at CMD, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak out for the rights and dignity of ordinary people. The people of Wise County and every county deserve much better than to be left behind to suffer or die ahead of their time due to Wall Street's efforts to keep our government from ensuring that all Americans have real access to first-class health care.

Supreme Court makes it harder for older workers to prove discrimination

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:18:00 +0000

Original source:

Last week, in a 5-to-4 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the Supreme Court made it harder for employees to win age discrimination lawsuits.

The lawsuit was brought by Jack Gross, a longtime employee of FBL Financial Services, Inc., who was demoted at the age of 54 through what the employer called a restructuring. Gross argued his demotion was the result of his age and filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, which prohibits employment discrimination against workers over the age of 40.

In a broad decision, the Court reversed a longstanding rule used by many federal appellate courts that provided for a two-step process in some age discrimination cases under the ADEA. Previously, the employee had to demonstrate that age was a motivating factor in the employer's decision, which then shifted the burden to the employer to prove that the action was based on grounds other than age. Now, the employee carries the full burden of showing that age was the determining factor in a demotion or layoff by an employer.

Seniors' rights and civil rights groups denounced the decision.

'By putting on the worker the entire burden of demonstrating the absence or insignificance of such factors, the majority has effectively freed employers to discriminate against older workers, as long as they do not actually state that they are singling out an employee for adverse treatment solely because of age,' said the National Senior Citizens Law Center in a statement.

Supreme Court rules strip-search of teen illegal

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:18:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.

The court ruled 8-1 on Thursday that school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding in the rural eastern Arizona town of Safford.

Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills -- the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

'What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear,' Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. 'We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.'

But the court ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to 'counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law,' Souter said.

'We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case,' Souter said.

The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the Safford United School District No. 1 could be held liable.

A schoolmate had accused Redding, then an eighth-grade student, of giving her pills.

The school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson, took Redding to his office to search her backpack. When nothing was found, Redding was taken to a nurse's office where she says she was ordered to take off her shirt and pants. Redding said they then told her to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, exposing her breasts and pelvic area. No pills were found.

A federal magistrate dismissed a suit by Redding and her mother, April. An appeals panel agreed that the search didn't violate her rights. But last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was 'an invasion of constitutional rights' and that Wilson could be found personally liable.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the portion of the ruling saying that Wilson could not be held financially liable.

'Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it,' Ginsburg said.

The case is Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, 08-479.

Working families rally for health care reform in nation's capital

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:01:00 +0000

Original source:

As thousands of workers and their unions rally today in Washington for comprehensive health care reform AFSCME Legislative Director Chuck Loveless says private insurers cannot continue to monopolize health care.

“It’s extremely important that insurance companies have to compete with a government plan option. And if the government plan option is not in he mix, we’re not gonna get the kind of reform that we want to see.”

Loveless says AFSCME wants to see employers pay their fair share and health care reform should NOT include taxing the health benefits of working families.

“We want to see a progressive tax policy to help pay for health care reform. We do not want to see health care benefits for average middle Americans to be taxed. And that is, of course a serious policy option that's being considered now in the United States Senate.'

AFSCME also says a Medicaid expansion paid for by the federal government is a vital componet of meaningful health care reform.

Astonishing speed and breadth of pww.org

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:42:00 +0000

Tim Yeager, who was interviewed in a recent article on our web site, says he was “astonished at the speed of the article, not only going up on the web site, but also the speed it was picked up by news media and blogs and made its way around the world.”

Our article quoted Yeager, a Chicago trade unionist and Episcopal church member, talking about the new Religion Commission launched by the Communist Party USA. In less than 24 hours it was posted or mentioned by the Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, and Religion News Service, to name a few.

“Within a few hours I got e-mail from someone in England,” Yeager said. “Within a few days I got e-mails from several different states, asking for more information.” Some of the response was from right-wingers, of course, but the key thing is the amount of genuine, positive interest the article generated. Frankly, he said, he wasn’t prepared for it.

The People’s Weekly World’s expanding online reporting is “a great tool,” said Yeager, who has also written for us and is a longtime reader and supporter. “Because of its speed and breadth, we also need to figure out providing content that invites rapid response, and be prepared for rapid response. People want information, they want resources. We have to be able to respond to the need.”

Out in St. Louis, PWW writer Tony Pecinovsky regularly e-mails his articles from pww.org to “leaders in the union movement, community activists, and even politicians.”

“One state rep read excerpts from one of my articles on the floor of the Missouri House,” he said. The St. Louis Labor Tribune has reprinted some of his pww.org articles. This month the Apollo Alliance features a link to an article he did at the America’s Future conference.

PWW reporter Pepe Lozano gets his stories out to his 500-plus Facebook friends every week, and they regularly post comments.

Editorial Board member Joe Sims says, “In a typical week, about 20,000 people read our online pages. But more important is the personal touch. My niece listened to an audio podcast I did recently on the financial crisis. She said, ‘Now I understand why the economy is going to hell!’ She would never have read an article in our newspaper. But a podcast on Facebook — that's how she connects.”

These are a few examples of the vast power of the Internet that we are only beginning to tap. We will be launching our wonderful new web site soon, with new tools to widen our reach, to get the news out and build the people’s movement. Those tools don’t come for free, though. . $500, $100, $50, $10, $5 — more, less, no gift is too big or too small. It’s exciting — !

Live on stage at the Guthrie: The Employee Free Choice Act?

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:03:00 +0000

MINNEAPOLIS - (Workday Minnesota) Imagine my surprise when I heard a character in a world premiere play now at the Guthrie Theater sing the praises of the Employee Free Choice Act!

The proposed federal legislation is labor’s top priority in Congress right now. And here was Pulitzer-winning playwright Tony Kushner’s character, Maria Teresa Marcantonio — a labor lawyer — discussing her work to help pass the bill to restore workers’ rights to organize unions.

The labor lawyer is the daughter of Gus Marcantonio, the central character in Kushner’s play, “The Intelligent Homosexual’s Guide to Capitalism & Socialism with a Key to the Scriptures.”

Gus Marcantonio, a retired union longshoreman, is at the same time proud of and haunted by his own legacy as a radical union leader who struggled for all workers’ rights — and then faced a life-changing choice. “The best thing I ever did was the worst thing I ever did,” he laments.

The play is a powerful, challenging journey through 20th century union history and radical social politics.

Members of Stagehands Local 13 did a masterful job building an original set, which captures the New York City brownstone where most of the play takes place.

The play runs through June 28. Rush seats are available at a discount most nights. For tickets, call the Guthrie box office at 612-377-2224 or visit www.guthrietheater.org. For more information, the website offers a study guide to the play, including a section on the Employee Free Choice Act.

Steve Share edits the Labor Review, the official publication of the Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation. Learn more at www.minneapolisunions.org

Was failure to invest behind D.C. train wreck?

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:58:00 +0000

WASHINGTON — In the worst disaster of the 33-year history of the Washington, D.C., Metro, a fast-moving train slammed into the rear of a stopped one Monday, killing the driver of the moving train (Jeanice McMillan, age 42) and eight other people, and injuring about 80. Early indications are that failure to carry out needed repair and renovation of trains and signaling equipment very likely played a role.

The accident took place around 5 p.m. Monday on the Metro's Red Line. The trains which collided were headed into Northeast D.C. from Takoma Park, Md. — against the rush hour traffic — or the casualty rate would probably have been much higher. One train was stopped outside the Fort Totten Station, waiting for another to move out so that it could also stop and let off its passengers. Then a third train smashed into the back of the stopped train at such a high rate of speed that its first car flew into the air and landed on top of the last car of the stopped train.

The nine people killed in the incident represented a cross-section of the D.C. area, from ordinary workers to a general who had formerly commanded the D.C. National Guard, and his wife. Rescuers from the D.C. police and fire departments were joined by those from neighboring communities. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was immediately called in, as was the FBI. By end of day Tuesday, NTSB representative Debbie Hersman was able to give some information about the train that had been in motion. It was composed of old cars that had been brought into service between 1974 and 1978, while the stopped train was somewhat newer (D.C. Metro cars are older than those of most other systems, an average of 19.3 years old). The crash occurred on a dry day and on a very slight curve, which should have given the engineer of the moving train a clear view in front of her. In fact, passengers had said that shortly before the crash the driver had come onto the intercom to tell them that she was stopping because of a train in front of her, then the train started up again, with the crash occurring soon thereafter. Examination of the moving train’s braking system showed that it was set to automatic operation, which means that the train should have detected the danger and stopped by itself. And in fact the brakes had been applied sharply.

Although the driver was relatively new, mechanical problems seem, at this early point, to be the most likely cause of the accident. Either something went wrong with the automatic braking system, or with the signal system on the tracks which is supposed to automatically control movement of trains during rush hour and thus prevent them from getting too close to each other.

The NTSB had told the agency which runs the Metro, the Metropolitan Washington Area Transit Authority (MWATA) three years ago that it was far behind on maintenance tasks related to basic safety, and that the group of aging trains to which the moving train belonged should have been phased out or remodeled. The moving train was two months overdue for brake work.

The specific reasons for the crash have not yet been definitely pinned down despite this suggestive evidence. But the politics of neglect which allow such things to happen are well known by the inhabitants of Washington.

The District of Colombia does not have voting representation in Congress, yet Congress for years had a veto over its budgetary decisions. In the specific case of MWATA, funding for both operating and capital expenditures (such as the replacement of aging rolling stock) come out of a Rube Goldberg mixture of sources. About 58% of operating expenses come from advertising and passenger fares. But the rest of the operating expenses, and all of the capital expenses — for repairing and replacing rolling stock and other equipment — have historically depended on year by year votes of subsidies by the District of Colombia and by jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia that are served by MWATA: Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland, and the Virginia jurisdictions of Fairfax and Arlington counties, plus the cities of Fairfax, Falls Church and Alexandria. MWATA has had to go hat in hand to each of these jurisdictions each year to meet its budgetary goals.

In 2008, Congress approved a $1.5 billion one-time cash grant which requires that the area governments come up with a permanent way of funding the area's transportation authority in the future. But in 2008 also, MWATA was socked with a demand that it fork over $43 million to the KBC Bank Group because of the default of the AIG insurance company, which had guaranteed a loan made by KBC to MWATA in 2002. As of writing, a federal judge has issued a restraining order on this demand.

More incidents like the tragedy on the Red Line could be avoided if the federal government and Congress would carry out President Obama’s idea of massive infrastructural improvements to stimulate the economy. The amount of money in the stimulus is enough to buy a whole new fleet of trains and buses for D.C. and other cities — trains and buses that could be manufactured in Detroit and other places that are suffering high unemployment in this moment of crisis.

Emile Schepers lives in the D.C. area.