People Before Profit blog

Texas "women power" blocks anti-abortion bill

Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:48:00 +0000

AUSTIN, Texas (Texas Media Collective) - A severe anti-abortion bill in the Texas Legislature went down to defeat June 25 thanks in part to a 10-hour filibuster by state Senator Wendy Davis of Fort Worth.

Viewers across the country witnessed Davis's gritty performance on live streaming video. It came at the end of a special session called by Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

Despite polls in the state showing that most Texans are pro-choice, Democrats in the state Senate didn't have the votes to stop the bill, SB 5, which would have effectively closed most clinics providing abortions in the state - adding yet another burden to the working poor. The only tactic left to opponents of the bill was the filibuster.

The victory, however, is short-lived. Perry has called for another special legislative session to reconsider the proposal on July 1.

While an inspiring figure in this struggle, Davis didn't stand alone. Among her fellow state senators, Leticia Van de Putte, a San Antonio Democrat, could have been forgiven for not taking part. Earlier that day, she had attended her father's funeral. But Van de Putte chose to be there and speak out.

Using tactics even a fellow Republican called "sketchy," Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst concocted three violations supposedly involved in Davis's filibuster, and tried to use those supposed violations to end her filibuster. Her supporters on the floor raised various parliamentary points, trying to extend their defense of Texas women to past the midnight voting deadline.

Twenty minutes before midnight, Van de Putte, who had been struggling to have her voice heard, finally said, "At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues in the room?"

In an electric moment, onlookers in the gallery rose. They burst into claps, then cheers, and finally a nonstop roar.

Rattled by hearing what actual Texans thought of their shenanigans, Republican state senators clustered near the podium and tried to cram the vote through.

McAllen state Senator Chuy Hinojosa, a Democrat, caught the Republicans trying to change the post-midnight time-stamped recorded vote from June 26 to June 25. Unable to slide the faked record past alert Democrats, Republicans finally ran out of tricks. At 3 a.m., Dewhurst admitted from the podium that the vote had been too late.

People's World spoke to several of the hundreds of supporters who had been present in the gallery and lined up in the halls outside during the filibuster. They described the mood as upbeat, peaceful and united. The protest continued even after those in the gallery were sent by state troopers outside the chambers.

"It was nerve-wracking and intense not knowing what was going on with the bill," said young activist Amber Hoffman.

"Even after clapping, yelling, stomping, and chanting for two hours, the crowds were going strong. We were not going to back down. I think we definitely let them know how we felt and what we wanted."

Lt. Gov. Dewhurst later described the protestors as "an unruly mob, using Occupy Wall Street tactics." Viewers seeing the live stream saw something quite different: law-abiding citizens, rising in nonviolent opposition.

In response to Dewhurst's claim, Hoffman said, "They gave us a lot of credit for the scene we made, which was very impromptu, and I think was very successful."

Said one activist, who asked not to be identified, "The old white men are circling the wagons. They are so scared of women and what the majority of Texans want. They are losing their hold on power and they know it."

With the defacto abortion ban likely to be approved in the next special session, Texans are also faced with another restriction pushed by conservatives on the state level as well as those on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supreme Court justices in recent days threw out part of the Voting Rights Act, which has the effect of activating Texas's controversial voter ID law.

The Texas Department of Public Safety has announced that photo identification will now be required when voting in elections in Texas. Certain IDs will be acceptable as proof, including a concealed gun permit, but not, for instance, a college student ID.

This places a further financial burden on people, particularly those who will have to purchase copies of their birth certificates and other documentation.

On June 27, Rep. Marc Veasey, a Democrat, sued the state of Texas to prevent the voter identification requirements from taking effect.

Video: Texas legislature gallery roars support for Wendy Davis's filibuster:

Correction: State Sen. Wendy Davis is a Democrat. Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this article erroneously identified her as a Republican.

Photo: Texans display support for Wendy Davis during her filibuster, June 25, Austin, Texas. fejsez CC 2.0

New Haven creates "jobs pipeline" to fight poverty, unemployment

Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:49:00 +0000

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A ribbon-cutting ceremony with Gov. Dannel Malloy and workers who are now employed through the new "jobs pipeline" program, marked the official opening of New Haven Works. The project was established in March by the Board of Aldermen, the City of New Haven, labor, local residents and employers.

Through agreements with employers and ongoing case management, New Haven Works will provide a pool of qualified candidates who are New Haven residents for local businesses and institutions, creating a local "jobs pipeline."

"Even though I had more than 10 years experience in Internet technology, I was unemployed and couldn't find a job," said Josue Rodriguez.

"In March, I gave my resume to New Haven Works. Within a few weeks I had an interview with the School of Forestry at Yale where I was offered a temporary position on the spot. Now I am planning a career path in IT at the university. It is great to see my work experience and my desire to learn recognized and valued by Yale University and New Haven Works," he said.

This local initiative for jobs comes as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. John Conyers introduce the Youth Jobs Act to Congress to address the crisis of youth unemployment and poverty across the nation.

The pipeline in New Haven grew out of thousands of door-to-door conversations in the 2011 city elections. In 20 of 30 wards, voters elected representatives to the Board of Aldermen who are union members of Unite Here, 1199 and AFSCME or community allies. Their first act was to create a study group that led to the jobs pipeline.

The media has repeatedly disparaged this group of Alders, claiming that union members do not represent the interests of the neighborhoods where they live and serve. In fact, this group of Alders, enriched by their experience as union leaders where they work, have achieved major accomplishments in the city for jobs, the needs of youth, and curbing violence.

In 2011, as now, the biggest issue on the minds of residents was the need for stable jobs with a living wage and benefits.

Last April, 2,000 people joined the "Let's Get to Work" march and rally which was called to support the jobs pipeline, youth opportunities and good contracts for workers at Yale University, the city's dominant employer.

At the front of the march were youth from New Elm City Dream, who had organized their own march to link the need for jobs for youth and jobs for all to the crisis of violence in the city. Nearly half of all African American and Latino youth in New Haven are unemployed.

Last June, the unions at Yale, Locals 34 and 35 Unite Here, won a groundbreaking contract including provisions to open as many as 1,000 jobs to New Haven residents in the next four years through the jobs pipeline.

The population in New Haven is majority African American and Latino residents. The loss of nearly all the industrial jobs in this former manufacturing center has left the city with high rates of poverty and unemployment, or underemployment in low-wage, temporary part-time jobs. New Haven Works is a step toward giving city residents a chance at the relatively good jobs at large employers like Yale University.

But local action alone cannot overcome the national jobs crisis of up to 20 million unemployed or underemployed. For every local step forward, continual cuts at the federal level have resulted in loss of jobs by government workers, non-profits, contractors and suppliers, and research workers.

In Congress, the Youth Jobs Act (S 1170 and HR 2381) introduced this week would provide $3 billion in immediate funding to employ hundreds of thousands of low-income youth and economically disadvantaged young adults in summer and year-round jobs. The measure also would provide young people with the job training and skills they need to succeed in the workforce.

The legislation is modeled on a proposal in President Barack Obama's American Jobs Act that the president proposed to Congress last year. It would also build on the success of an economic stimulus program that Congress passed in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse that created more than 370,000 jobs for young Americans.

The fight for jobs locally and nationally are inter-dependent. The union-community coalition that came together around the city elections and the 2011 jobs program, was instrumental in electing Sen. Chris Murphy, a champion for jobs and working people, to the U.S. Senate. Initiatives like New Haven Works, can make a real difference on the local level, while building the coalitions needed to change national policies toward providing good, useful, productive jobs for all.

Photo: Two thousand people marched in April 2012 to press for the creation of a jobs pipeline. (Connecticut Center for a New Economy)

Texas executes 500th prisoner, Kimberly McCarthy (audio)

Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:42:00 +0000

Texas operates the busiest execution chamber in the United States and Wednesday it put to death its 500th inmate, a woman named Kimberly McCarthy, since the death penalty was reintroduced in 1976. (Audio coverage below.)

Student loan rates set to double as July 1 deadline looms

Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:11:00 +0000

CHICAGO - On July 1 interest rates for federally subsidized Stafford Loans will double for 7.4 million students unless Congress takes action. If the rates double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, students will pay on average $1,500 more a year for each loan.

Without an agreement the growing student debt crisis will only deepen. The 2013 graduating class leaves school with an average crushing debt load of $27,000.

"This is a really scary number, considering these students have no money and no established credit," said Tiffany Dena Loftin, president of United States Student Association (USSA). (Follow this link to hear audio from the People's World national teleconference with Tiffany Dena Loftin.)

A short term solution to avert a rate hike July 1 seemed more and more unlikely, Loftin told Campaign for America's Future. No agreement could spark more students to get involved in the fight for a real long term solution.

USSA, Student Debt Crisis, state and local student coalitions and other groups are ratcheting up pressure on Congress as the July 1 deadline looms to come up with a solution.

"We are asking students and their parents to make their stories heard to their elected officials. Don't be ashamed to open up about your debt. Sign petitions and visit the local offices of your legislators," said Loftin who graduated from University of California - Davis $28,000 in debt.

With the clock ticking, Congress has been unable to reach agreement over several competing bills. House Republicans are refusing to budge off their determination to make students pay "market rates" for loans, a concept contained in the Smarter Solutions for Students Act, which passed the House earlier this month.

The bill pegs loan rates to the 10-year US Treasury note plus 2.5 percent. While that rate is low now, it would rise if the economy improves. Loan interest would be capped at 8.5 percent.

Parents and graduate student borrowers would pay even higher rates.

President Obama supports a fixed loan tied to the 10-year treasury note with no cap. However, graduates would pay no more than 10 percent of their income in monthly installments.

A bill introduced by Senators Jack Reed, D-RI, and Tom Harkin, D-IA, would freeze the interest rates at 3.4 percent for two years and "pay for them" by closing corporate tax loopholes.

However the legislation generating the most excitement is Sen. Elizabeth Warren's, D-Mass., bill called the Bank on Students Act. It has garnered a number of co-sponsors and the support of dozens of groups and institutions. The bill would offer federal student loans at .75 percent, the same rate the Federal Reserve offers to the biggest banks for the next two years.

"The federal government makes 36 cents on every dollar it lends to students," said Warren. "Congressional Budget Office announced that the government will make $51 billion on the student loans it issued this year - more than the annual profit of any Fortune 500 company, and about five times Google's yearly earnings. We should not be profiting from students who are drowning in debt while we are giving great deals to big banks."

None of the legislation covers lending by Sallie Mae or other private lenders.

(story continues after video)

Some 39 million borrowers now hold an accumulated student debt over $1.1 trillion which has doubled since 2007 and is larger than consumer credit card debt. Debt repayment is becoming a major drag on the economy as young people buy less homes and cars.

"It's not like the old days. Today's students are bearing debts that past generations couldn't dream of having. In the past ten years, student debt has tripled. That's why we are pushing senators not to allow the rates to double on July 1." Courtney Hayes, University of Missouri St. Louis, student senator and Vice President of Young Activists United UMSL

The situation is made worse because students are graduating into a stagnant economy with high joblessness for young workers and declining real wages, making it harder to repay loans.

However current legislation is unlikely to alleviate the student debt crisis long term. The cost of going to college is skyrocketing, rising 1,120 percent over the past 30 years. Tuition, room and board have gone up over 30 percent over the past 10 years at private nonprofit colleges, and 42 percent at public universities.

Millions of graduates are already struggling with a lifetime of student loan debt. Student loan borrowers cannot relieve their debt by filing for bankruptcy. Among people under 30 years old, 35 percent are near default.

"This problem is much bigger than interest rates," said Loftin. "It's about college affordability, the ability of students to actually go to college, finish college and pay back their student loans afterwards. The fight goes on."

Call your senators and representatives at their home offices and Capitol Hill: (202) 224-3121

Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

U.S. Supreme Court won’t rehear California’s Prop. 8

Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:00:00 +0000

OAKLAND, Calif. - In a decision that makes California the 13^th state where same-sex marriage is legal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 yesterday that it has no authority to decide the case of Proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008 to limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman. The decision then leaves in place U.S. District Judge Vaughan Walker's 2010 ruling that the voter-approved measure banning gay marriage in the state is unconstitutional.

When Proposition 8's legality was challenged, state officials refused to defend it, leaving further defense to a former southern California legislator and other supporters.

The Supreme Court's ruling pointed out that under the U.S. Constitution, federal courts are limited to deciding "actual cases or controversies ... in other words, the litigant must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm."

"Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote in the majority opinion - leaving in place Judge Walker's ruling that the gay marriage ban was unconstitutional.

Supporters of marriage equality were jubilant. Former San Francisco mayor, and now California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who in 2004 instructed San Francisco city clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, said his city's celebration of diversity is "a core principle that defines our values in this city and state."

U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, said that because of the court's ruling, "millions of Californians will be able to marry the person they love - with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with it."

Standing on the steps of the Supreme Court, David Boies, one of the two attorneys arguing against Proposition 8, declared, "It's a wonderful day for our plaintiffs, it's a wonderful day for everyone around this country and California in particular, who wants to be able to marry the person they love. It's a wonderful day for America, because we have now taken this country another important step toward guaranteeing the promise that was in our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence that all people are created equal, that all people have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Though Gov. Jerry Brown said the ruling would apply statewide, and instructed all county clerks and registrars to comply, Proposition 8 supporters are expected to claim the decision should apply just to Alameda and Los Angeles Counties where the lawsuit was filed by Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier of Berkeley, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo of Burbank - or even just to the two couples.

Proposition 8's defenders have 25 days to request a rehearing, and marriages are not expected to start before the second half of next month.

Analysts also point out that the high court's decision is technical and limited. It did not refer to same-sex marriage, but refused to rehear a 2010 trial court decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional "because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis ..."

For decades, marriage equality has been a contested issue in the state.

In May, 2008 the California Supreme Court voided a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, opening the way for same-sex couples to marry.

That November, voters passed Prop. 8. The next year, the two couples sued, saying the measure violated their civil rights under the federal Constitution.

In August, 2010, Judge Walker ruled that the measure violates the civil rights of gay and lesbian Californians. In February 2012, after several additional legal steps, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Walker's ruling.

Last March, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case.

Photo: Two partners hug after learning that Prop 8 was struck down. Jeff Chiu/AP

GOP makes repressive amendment to immigration bill

Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:02:00 +0000

On Monday June 24, the Senate passed by a 67 to 27 vote a decision to let the Senate's main immigration reform bill, S 744, continue toward a vote in the full Senate. This vote involved the acceptance of a repressive amendment designed to bring more Republicans on board the overall bill, but is seen as a negative addition by immigrants' rights and labor groups.

The amendment offered by Republican Senators Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota would prevent any of the immigrants legalized under S 744 from achieving permanent legal resident status (and thus eligibility for citizenship) until certain requirements are met. These include a "border surge" which would double the number of border patrol agents on the southern border of the United States (to 40,000), an obligatory implementation of e-Verify by all employers and greatly increased surveillance of the border, including from the air. In addition there would be a way of catching up with people who overstay visas and the existing fencing on the border would have to be greatly increased, to 700 miles.

Until these things are accomplished and certified by the government, undocumented immigrants trying to legalize themselves will not be able to pass from the first state as Registered Provisional Immigrants to Permanent Residents eventually eligible for citizenship by naturalization.

The only positive item added is a new youth jobs program with a budget of $1.5 billion over two years, but considering the scale of youth unemployment in this country, this is small potatoes.

All this is going to sock U.S. taxpayers for $40 billion at the least. And it will not work in its stated objective of "stopping illegal immigration," as desperate people will find ways of coming. Nor does it address the main reasons that people come to the United States without papers, which are:

*The severe disruption of the economies of poorer countries by trade practices of wealthier countries, and specific trade arrangements such as NAFTA and CAFTA-DR, with more to come.

*The fact that the United States does not give legal immigration visas to poor people who are displaced by the corporate globalization our political and economic leaders are so avid in promoting.

Furthermore, the government will have to confiscate Social Security and Medicare payments made by undocumented immigrants and their employers. Under present law, those few undocumented immigrants who manage to legalize themselves may be able to get credit for such payments. To take away those payments will condemn many immigrants to extreme poverty in old age.

The decision to incorporate the Corker-Hoeven amendment in the legislation was based on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's desire to get 70 votes for S 744 and to pass it before the Senate breaks for its 4th of July recess. Reid only needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, thinks a super-majority in the Senate will help push legislation in the House. There are still a few amendments to be considered before this can happen, but the acceptance of the Corker-Hoeven amendment by many GOP senators is thought to avoid the possibility that they will jam up the bill by insisting that undocumented immigrants not be able to attain even the "Registered Provisional Immigrant" stage until the border is "sealed."

Organizations that support progressive immigration reform were highly critical of the amendments.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights wrote, "at a time when the budget sequester has had forced significant across-the-board cuts in federal programs, the 'border surge' called for by Corker-Hoeven would present a tremendous setback in [the] legislative process..." Nevertheless, the organization called for continued support for passage of S 744 anyway, citing the need to legalize as many undocumented people as possible.

Many people along the border were furious called for defeat of the amendments, and in some cases even the overall bill. The Arizona Daily Star reported that activists from the Border Action Network and No More Deaths and other groups have denounced the "border surge" as sure to create more suffering and death at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, sharply criticized the Corker-Hoeven amendment while also stating that the federation still supports the overall bill. "Building a commonsense immigration system that will allow millions of aspiring Americans to become citizens is a top priority for the labor movement in 2013. The Senate immigration bill represents an important step in building such a system-even though it has become less inclusive, less compassionate and less just since it emerged in April as the Gang of Eight's bipartisan compromise.

"Republicans have exacted a high price for moving this necessary legislation forward. The latest price for Republican support is the establishment of triggers to citizenship that, as Senator Leahy noted, read like 'a Christmas list for Halliburton'" (i.e. because of all the contracts companies like Halliburton will reap in the context of the "border surge").

However, Trumka urged continued support for S 744 because "we expect that we will be better off with the bill than with the continuing, catastrophic deportation crisis that is wrecking workforces, families and communities across our country. At the same time, we renew our call for President Obama to ease this crisis by stopping the deportation of those who would qualify for relief under this bill."

Photo: Jonathan McIntosh (CC)

Supreme Court rules same sex marriage ban unconstitutional

Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:37:00 +0000

In a historic ruling for gay rights, the Supreme Court today struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law blocking federal recognition of same-sex marriages. It came on the eve of the anniversary of Stonewall, June 28, the 1969 event that marks the beginning of the modern U.S. struggle for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights.

The Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, amounted to "the deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the court majority in a 5-4 decision.

In a separate decision, the court said it would not consider the California Proposition 8 case and left in place a lower court ruling that the proposition, which banned same sex marriage in the state, was unconstitutional. The result is that gay marriage is once again legal in California.

The ruling overturning DOMA means the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages deemed legal by states. With the court's ruling on Prop 8, now 13 states plus the District of Columbia have legalized same sex marriage.

"DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriage of others," the ruling today said. It also said the law was invalid because "there is no legitimate purpose for disparaging those whom states sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

Moments after the ruling was announced President Obama, in a post on Twitter, said the decision was "a historic step forward for marriage equality."

Kennedy, often considered the "swing" vote on the High Court, was joined in the majority by the four liberal justices, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The dissenters were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

Crowds outside the Supreme Court broke out into cheers with people waving signs and rainbow flags.

The largest federal employee union hailed the ruling.

"This ruling is a victory of equality over exclusion, of fairness over fear, of compassion over contempt," declared David Cox Sr., president of the American Federation of Government Employees.

"As the Supreme Court has clearly decided, DOMA was an unconstitutional law that discriminated against a group of Americans for no other reason than their sexual orientation, denying them the basic rights and protections that so many of us take for granted," AFGE General Counsel David Borer said.

The AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor federation, filed an amicus brief in March urging the Supreme Court to declare the Defense of marriage Act unconstitutional.

The case on which the Supreme Court ruled today, Windsor v. United States, involved New York resident Edie Windsor. Windsor sued the federal government after DOMA caused her to receive unequal tax treatment because of her same-sex marriage.

Windsor and Thea Spyer were a lesbian couple who lived together in New York for 44 years and got married in Canada in 2007.

When Spyer died in 2009, Windsor was billed $363,000 in federal estate taxes. Had the couple been considered by the federal government to be married, Windsor would not have received that tax bill.

Kennedy, in his ruling today, declared that New York's decision to authorize gay marriage was a proper exercise of its authority, and reflected "the community's considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality."

Civil rights groups hailed the court's ruling. "Today's decisions mark a significant step forward for gay and lesbian Americans from the closet toward the sunlight of full recognition of their civil and human rights," said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

"Today's decisions show how far LGBT equality has come but also remind us how much work we have ahead to overcome discrimination, ensure employment rights and achieve full marriage equality."

In a statement from the Human Rights Campaign, the group's president, Chad Griffin, welcomed both DOMA and the California decisions, yet reminded the public the battle for marriage equality is not over. By not ruling on the Prop. 8 case, the court left it up to the states to decide whether or not to recognize same sex marriage.

"[T]hough today will be remembered as a watershed moment in the fight for equality, the court unfortunately stopped short of a broader decision on the fundamental right to marry," he said. "Today's victory, while joyous, is a reminder of the long road to win marriage equality nationwide."

Photo: LGBT activists celebrate in front of the Supreme Court. J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Updated to reflect correction in date of Stonewall.

Wisconsin Democrats’ strategy debate could ripple nationwide

Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:07:00 +0000

MILWAUKEE, Wis. - The bottom line reality, veteran Democratic legislator Cory Mason reminded me in an interview on June 21, is how "this Republican state budget reeks from top to bottom." Speaking about Wisconsin, he was also unfolding a strategic move that could extend nationally to refocus Democrats, not on ineffective tirades against ugly GOP bills state by state, but on long-term campaigns to change the makeup of ballot box power across the nation.

"With so many horribles in it, nothing we offered could salvage it or lead any responsible official to vote for it," Rep. Mason, D-Racine, said of the budget sessions in Madison, the state capital. "All we can do now is point out the depth of the disaster and hold Republicans' feet to the fire for allowing in so much they said they would oppose."

He was describing the motivation behind a unified Democratic strategy that surprised the GOP, stunned media watchers on June 20, and has since led to what he calls "intramural nonsense" criticizing this "refusal to go down in flames fighting."

The Wisconsin strategy emerged when Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca called for an immediate vote on the state budget rather than introduce any of the 211 amendments the Democratic side has prepared to point out the frailty, haste and giveaways rampant in the two-year budget.

On the Wisconsin Senate side where the GOP only holds a razor-thin majority (the budget passed that chamber with one vote), the Democrats will still attempt to force a modicum of common sense in continuing sessions through June on related bills while the final budget (passed 55-42) already sits on Gov. Scott Walker's desk.

But in the Assembly where the GOP has a massive margin - even though one of their own members called this the worst budget he had seen in a decade - the Democrats had worked for months to cajole and shame the majority into small language changes, having enough success around the edges that the GOP called a halt to any more logical persuasion. Anything major was then ignored while GOP concoctions were bullied through the Joint Finance Committee. The Assembly majority even quashed the internal rebellions within its own ranks, met in secret, minimized debate and public scrutiny and voted in the wee hours of the morning to squeeze through a budget it is unwilling to change by a comma.

Yet still the Assembly Democrats were ready with 200-plus amendments to clarify or improve the train wreck known as the 2013-2015 $70 billion budget. What stopped them cold, insiders reveal, was not the GOP stubbornness with the press but a caucus Democrats held to work out procedural details with the GOP's leader in the Assembly, Robin Vos, who regards himself as lord in chief and ultimate decider on what can advance onto the floor.

At the meeting, an unfailingly polite but persistent Democrat, Sandy Pasch of Milwaukee, asked Vos the direct question: Would any of these amendments, which hadn't even been read by the opposition, "get any sort of play" or even a hearing? Vos' answer, described by one participant as "typically arrogant" and by another as "contemptuously dismissive," was no: no debate, no consideration. It was typical of how GOP-controlled statehouses around the nation are treating efforts for persuasion or debate.

Vos' obduracy led to a Democratic unified strategy meeting to leave all those amendments unsheathed and force an immediate vote. With the opposition refusing to reconsider anything, Barca said, it was time to "stop beating our heads against a brick wall" and force the Republicans to expose their own culpability.

The decision not only caught the opponents and legislative reporters flatfooted, it allowed the Democrats to immediately disperse into truth squads that headed into swing districts and even some red-tinged territory to explain the budget catastrophe to voters.

"These were Republicans assuring their districts in interviews with local papers that they would oppose expanding voucher schools into their territories or lower property tax rates rather than raise them," said Mason. "We are not going to let citizens forget those reversals."

Commented freshman Milwaukee Rep. Evan Goyke, part of a team that headed to western Wisconsin, "These moderate Republicans have a vote in the left pocket and a vote in the right pocket. We made them eat this budget despite what they tell their districts. It is a massive giveaway to a tiny minority of the very wealthy rather than protecting their own citizens."

This was another reason Vos froze out the Democrats' amendments. Citizens might learn the details of too many secret measures whose details are only now unfolding, including the so-called "technical fixes" that give millions of dollars more to the voucher movement.

Beyond that, Vos knew the Democrats' proposals would even in failure attract some Republican votes - not enough to derail but enough to embarrass.

The Democrats borrowed a playbook from the GOP of the past in a uniform refusal to not introduce the amendments developed over long painstaking hours. Today's GOP may be rife with internal debates and hidden discords, not just in D.C., but in Wisconsin where many Republicans are upset at the extremists. But in the past, unity even for distasteful proposals was a lock-step hallmark that even some Democrats admired and wanted to emulate. In the Democrats' big tent party, every strategy tends to be disputed and debated aloud in public, giving the impression not of democracy in action but of disarray. Not this time.

"There's something happening that is a hard point for the media to grasp," said Goyke. "There's a change in the Capitol. More Republicans who didn't listen to us on the floor crowded into our press conference to see what we were up to. The Democrats are winning in the building. Candidates that are running a defensive campaign lose. It's the Republicans forced to defend a bad law. We're not the ones in the crouch. And our strategy forced them into that position."

Some Democrats still point to the national attention when angry Wisconsin progressives stand up in a lost cause, specifically the ultrasound bill the GOP whipped through June 14, ostensibly to address abortion but forcing comprehensive women's health care providers to be regulated by nearby hospitals, many controlled by conservative boards.

On June 21, wielding coat hangers (a symbol of backroom abortions in the past) and chanting "Focus on jobs, not our vaginas," dozens of protesters stormed the Capitol and attempted to invade Senate chambers, ending with eight arrests but with powerful video to galvanize more frequent viewings of earlier passionate revelations by women legislators about their own experience with rape and difficult pregnancies.

"Ours was an inside baseball decision that district discussions rather than floor objections would get media attention," reflected another legislator who voted for the Assembly strategy but now has second thoughts. "So far these truth squads haven't raised a ripple while ultrasound video fills the news."

Goyke stands "110 percent behind" the strategy, but respects the internal disagreement within the party, on social media and particularly among respected strategists looking ahead to 2014. At least the Democrats, as opposed to the GOP, remain open about it.

Another legislator contrasted the Democrats' decision with the ultrasound media fever. "You could argue that this is the sort of emotional issue the media leaps to cover," she said. But she didn't deny that suddenly Wisconsin was all over the national news including CNN and MSNBC with extensive images and discussion.

Why, some Democrats now ask, couldn't the same be done on the GOP extension of voucher schools, refusal to expand Medicaid, creation of bail bondsmen against the advice of every respected law enforcement official and increasing local property taxes while pretending to do the opposite? These also are emerging as national concerns.

Rebutted another legislator, "This was a mature reaction. I think were we all tired and disgusted that ideas worth discussing weren't even getting a hearing. You can't ask intelligent people to waste their time forever."

Goyke is among those pushing a long-range strategy rather than temporary media excitement. He revealed that many neglected Democratic amendments will return in the fall as separate bills - "a clear, well-articulated Democratic agenda" much closer to the 2014 election cycle.

It was an indirect reply to a comment from another Milwaukee Democrat who ran for office: "If the Republicans had refused out loud to discuss any amendment, even a simple sensible one, that would speak volumes about their attitude to the citizens. It would help all us candidates in convincing the public we represent a party willing to fight." Said Goyke, "True-blue Democrats should know that this is about what can Democrats do to get the voters' attention. That is a long game. Something more lasting than a slugfest over amendments."

Respected Shepherd Express reporter Lisa Kaiser in an online commentary suggested the Democrats should "pick your battles ... Offer a handful of amendments instead of 211, if you must, to focus your message and let your righteous anger go viral around the state."She was not alone in arguing that Democrats should "raise holy hell on the Assembly floor" even if they were about to lose badly.

Democrats were so furious at what Mason describes as "top to bottom" disaster in the budget they couldn't whittle down their objections. "It was all so flawed, frankly, that even if the Republicans had agreed to listen we couldn't vote for it," said Mason.

"I was deeply ingrained and supportive when thousands joined us in protesting Act 10 in Madison (Walker's infamous 2011 union-wrecking "budget repair" bill) and sure appreciate there is a time to fight," he noted. "But these are new times requiring new methods."

Commented a veteran of the Assembly chamber: "It's just not my style. I would have fought for every amendment I could. I respect the decision and the need to change with the times. I don't like beating my head against the wall, but that's almost a definition of the political process."

Looking ahead to 2014, when all these Assembly seats and half the Senate are up for re-election as is the governor, "I think I would want to go down screaming," the Assembly veteran said.

"It comes down to what wins," said Goyke. Does public anger, like the protesters storming the Capitol, make people rethink their positions or harden existing attitudes? Does forcing Republican legislators to own up embarrass them or let them wriggle away from voter consequences?

Proponents on both sides of this squabble agree on one thing. It's a strategic debate about how best to reach the public - and no one knows how deeply the voters are paying attention now or how harshly they will speak out as election time nears.

Photo: Rep. Evan Goyke (center, flanked at left by another freshman Assembly compatriot, Rep. Daniel Riemer ) rallied Democrats at an outdoor rally. Photo by Dominique Paul Noth.

Supreme Court guts Voting Rights Act

Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:04:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court today gutted the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 decision, ruling that Congress has not provided sufficient reason for keeping nine, mostly southern, states under federal oversight.

The majority held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, was unconstitutional. The law was a product of years of struggle by the massive civil rights movement led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Section 4 is the section that determines which states must receive preclearance from federal authorities. Section 5, which empowers the U.S. Department of Justice to "preclear" any attempt to change "any voting qualification" or procedures in any "covered jurisdiction," is meaningless without Section 4, unless Congress passes a new bill for determining which states or counties would be covered.

Before the ink even dried on today's landmark ruling its implications quickly became stunningly clear.

With the Supreme Court destroying the mechanism that made Texas submit to federal approval before it could implement any election law change, Republican state Attorney General Greg Abbot declared that nothing can stop Texas from putting into effect its draconian voter ID law. Among numerous immediate effects will be the disenfranchisement of millions of minority voters who do not have the required ID.

"With today's decision the state's voter ID law will take effect immediately," Abbot announced. "Redistricting maps passed by the legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government."

When asked for his reaction to the attorney general's announcement, Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU's voting rights office, said, "Texas has a very strong argument that in light of today's Supreme Court decision, it can implement the voter ID law and other laws that previously required federal approval."

Laughlin made that assessment on a telephone call with reporters from outlets across the country, including People's World.

"Today's Supreme Court decision is a major setback to our democracy and the voting rights of real Americans," declared Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, also on the media call.

"We cannot allow discrimination at the ballot box and must prevent minorities from having their votes purged, packed, gerrymandered and redistricted away, Henderson declared. "No one should be fooled by the Pollyannaish fantasy that voting discrimination no longer exists."

Henderson said that he is still hopeful about the current situation, however, even after the ruling.

"As the court acknowledged, voting discrimination still exists and Congress may draft another coverage formula," Henderson said. "We urge Congress to act with urgency and on a bipartisan basis to protect voting rights for minorities."

Henderson said that he was also confident that Congress would "do the right thing" because "for them, this is a matter of pride. This ruling is a slap in the face of Congress," he said.

"What you have here is the Supreme Court overriding the authority of Congress. The court disregarded all the work Congress did back in 2006 when it reauthorized the Voting Rights Act with big bipartisan majorities - 98 votes in the Senate and more than 350 votes in the House."

Reporters on the call were skeptical about the strongly divided Congress being able to do anything, much less rewrite landmark civil rights legislation.

"That is why we must look at the off-year election in 2014 in a different way," said Henderson.

"People stayed home in 2010, during the last off-year election and the results were not as good, perhaps, as they will be if they vote in big numbers in the 2012 off-year election."

Labor union leaders have already condemned the ruling and called for specific actions to reverse its effects.

"Despite the many gains we've made, the evidence that voting discrimination persists is plentiful," said Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association. The NEA had filed an amicus brief before the case was argued, urging the justices to uphold the Voting Rights Act.

"We must protect the right to vote by holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring every single person's vote can be heard through ballot box," Van Roekel said. "We urge Congress to move immediately toward re-enacting Section 4 with a formula that reflects the unfortunate reality that racial discrimination still exists at the polls and in the fabric of many communities."

Leading the dissenters on the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court majority "completely disregarded" continuing discrimination.

"The court made no genuine attempt to engage with the massive legislative record that Congress assembled. Instead, it relies on increases in voter registration and turnout as if they were the whole story," Ginsburg said. "Without even identifying a standard of review, the court dismissively brushes off arguments based on data from the record, and declines to enter the debate about what the record shows. One would expect more from an opinion striking at the heart of the nation's signal piece of civil rights legislation."

Photo: Dozens of demonstrators line up to enter the North Carolina State Legislative Building were they were arrested during an act of civil disobedience opposing the Republican legislature's agenda, June 10. Hundreds have been arrested since "Moral Monday" demonstrations started on April 29. The NAACP and a growing number of supporters are lashing out at a host of GOP policies ranging from education to voting rights. Travis Long/The News & Observer/AP

Today in labor history: The term robot is first used

Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:20:00 +0000

On the June 25, 1921 premier, Czech author Karel Capek's introduced the term robot in his science fiction play R.U.R. in which robots organize and rebel against poor working conditions and low pay.

R.U.R. stands for Rossum's Universal Robots, an English phrase used as the subtitle in the Czech original

The play introduced the word "robot" to the English language and to science fiction as a whole. Robot displaced older words such as "automaton" or "android" in languages around the world. In its original Czech, robota means forced labor of the kind that serfs had to perform on their masters' lands, and is derived from rab, meaning "slave."^[

R.U.R. quickly became famous and by 1923, it had been translated into thirty languages.

The play begins in a factory that makes artificial people, made of synthetic organic matter, called "robots."

Unlike the modern usage of the term, these creatures are closer to the modern idea of cyborgs or even clones, as they can be mistaken for humans and can think for themselves and organize a robot rebellion.

The work premiered in Prague in 1921. It was translated from Czech into English and adapted for the English stage in April 1923 in London.

The play's American première was in New York City in October 1922, where it ran for 184 performances. It also played in Chicago and Los Angeles during 1923. In the late 1930s, the play was staged in the U.S. by the Federal Theatre Project's Marionette Theatre in New York.

Isaac Asimov, author of the Robot series of books and creator of the Three Laws of Robotics, stated: "Capek's play is, in my own opinion, a terribly bad one, but it is immortal for that one word. It contributed the word 'robot' not only to English but, through English, to all the languages in which science fiction is now written."

Photo WPA Marionette Theater RUR poster. Public domain.

Huge crowd pledges to fight for MLK's 'Dream'

Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:15:00 +0000

DETROIT - They came from their houses of worship, unions and neighborhoods. Fifty years after Dr. King first gave his "I Have a Dream Speech" to 100,000 in this city, a diverse sea of people again flooded a two-mile stretch of Woodward Ave, Detroit's main thoroughfare.

"More folks than we or anybody can count," said Dr Rev Wendell Anthony, President of the Detroit NAACP, as he addressed the rally after the march.

Like fifty years ago, there was good reason for the huge turnout. With the city now governed by an unelected and unaccountable Emergency Manager, the message was loud and clear that democracy cannot be stolen. "It is not ok. You can't take away our constitutional rights," declared Detroit Councilwoman JoAnn Watson.

Anthony said that even in the midst of political repression, voter suppression, defunding of public education and attacks on labor, women's rights and immigrant rights, "the Dream lives on."

"We are going to fight, do whatever we can to make a better world for our children," he declared.

Rev Al Sharpton said those marching were not on a nostalgia trip. He argued that Michigan's Governor Snyder has imposed his will and nullified the rights of voters just as a Southern Governors had done fifty years ago.

In response to the Republican and tea party led attack, United Auto Workers (UAW) President Bob King urged the building of a new movement. Buses of UAW members came from all over Michigan and beyond to take part.

A large contingent of Good Jobs Now supporters chanted "Hey, hey, ho, ho, $7.40 has got to go." They said "it's a slave wage, we can't live on it," and their efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15 would have the full support of Dr. King were he alive today.

Coalition of Labor Union Women President Millie Hall said she was walking in memory of her father, a 45-year autoworker, who marched in 1963, and for her brother-in-law, also a 1963 marcher who could not be here.

"Jobs, justice, equality, and getting rid of the Emergency Manager is what I'm marching for," said Hall.

Quill Pettway completed the entire walk like he had done fifty years ago. Although aged 93, he did not allow the heat to stop him. The sea of people filled him with the confidence that a broad movement for equality can be built. He did have a message for Governor Snyder, "We will clean house in 2014."

Photo: Commemorative tee shirt adorns The Spirit of Detroit bronze statue at the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center on Woodward Avenue. Jackie Dick

Philly hunger strikers fast for safe schools

Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:44:00 +0000

PHILADELPHIA - "This is breakfast, lunch and dinner. Every day, for eight days," said Patricia Norris as she held up her bottle of water.

Norris works as a food service assistant at the Cayuga School in North Philadelphia and is one of a group of school employees and parents on a "water only" fast outside Republican Gov. Tom Corbett's regional office on South Broad St. here.

Norris, a member of UNITE HERE, Local 634, says she and the others are there to protest the school district's deep staff cuts and to bring all the "safety staff" back to work in September. "Victory for us would be to give the schools all the money they need; put the money where it belongs! Without the safety staff public schools would be a disaster," she declared.

Norris tied the issues behind the hunger strike to the coming elections: "Corbett and the mayor need to remember that elections are coming. I know Mayor (Michael) Nutter can't run for his office again, but he'll run for something."

The hunger strikers say they are willing to stay as long as it takes. UNITE HERE is providing medical personnel to monitor the strikers' health as their fast continues.

The School District says that its funding shortfall is forcing it to adopt a "doomsday budget" and lay off 3,800 workers, including teachers, support staff and administrators. The district is threatening to open schools in September with no counselors or librarians.

The city says it needs over $300 million to restore the layoffs and has asked for an additional $60 million from the city and $120 million from the state. The City Council has passed a $2 a pack increase in the cigarette tax, which would raise an estimated $74 million, or more than what the District has asked that it contribute.

Gov. Corbett, on the other hand, has promised no additional funding despite the deep cuts that Harrisburg imposed on districts across the state over the last two years.

The public school crisis in Philadelphia has brought a broad array of forces into action in protest, including school employee, student and community groups. The largest coalition, Philadelphia Coalition Advocating for Public Schools (PCAPS), called for the City Council to provide additional funding by raising the business use and occupancy tax.

Much attention and anger is also focused on the governor's role. The main stream press here has noted that state budget cuts are being felt across Pennsylvania, that around three-quarters of the state's school districts will have to cut instructional programs and that nearly half will have to increase to raise class sizes during the coming school year.

The Philadelphia Inquirer, normally no friend of the teachers' union, has even said that the governor appears to be trying to set up the union (American Federation of Teachers, Local 3) to take the blame for the whole crisis when they refuse to accept layoffs and pay and benefit cuts.

The hunger strikers in Philadelphia are making their mark. They are being recognized as a visible and courageous part of a broad movement that is building around the issue of adequate funding for public education.

Photo: UNITEHERE member and hunger striker Patricia Norris holds up eight fingers to show her eight days of fasting and living on water only.

Supreme Court limits sexual harassment lawsuits

Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:33:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - By a 5-4 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 24 that only supervisors with direct power over a worker's future - such as the power to hire, fire and demote - can be sued for racial or sexual harassment on the job.

In a case involving Maetta Vance, a substitute server in the events department who sued her employer, Ball State University in Muncie, Ind., the justices reaffirmed that companies can be sued if they don't take action to prevent racial or sexual harassment, and that supervisors, as companies' representatives, can also be sued.

The question is who's a supervisor, and the court majority said it's only those with direct power over the workers' future. Those workers who - as part of their larger jobs - can give orders to other workers about run-of-the-mill daily tasks, aren't supervisors, the justices said. And they can't be sued for harassment.

"The concept of a supervisor adopted today is one that can be readily applied," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court majority, all GOP-nominated men. "An alleged harasser's supervisor status will often be capable of being discerned before or soon after litigation commences and is likely to be resolved as a matter of law before trial.

"An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's unlawful harassment only when the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim, i.e., to effect a 'significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.'

"We reject the nebulous definition of a 'supervisor' " that Vance used, citing the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. Several appeals courts agree with the EEOC, and with Vance, but her "reliance on colloquial uses of the term 'supervisor' is misplaced, and her contention that our cases require the EEOC's abstract definition is simply wrong."

Workers "who can assign daily tasks" to other workers, but who are not supervisors, do not get off completely scot-free, Alito warned. "In such cases, a victim can prevail simply by showing the employer was negligent in permitting the harassment to occur, and the jury should be instructed that the nature and degree of authority wielded by the harasser is an important factor in determining negligence," he said.

The court majority recognized, in a footnote, that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which governs worker-management relations, has a different definition of supervisor. Vance cited that as one of several definitions of supervisor the court should use in determining who can be sued for harassing her. The justices said "no."

"To be sure, the NLRA may in some instances define 'supervisor' more broadly than we define the term in this case. But those differences reflect the NLRA's unique purpose, which is to preserve the balance of power between labor and management. That purpose is inapposite" - not pertinent - "in the context of Title VII" of the Civil Rights Act, "which focuses on eradicating discrimination," the justices said.

"An employee may have a sufficient degree of authority over subordinates such that Congress has decided the employee should not participate with lower level employees in the same collective-bargaining unit, because, for example, a higher level employee will pursue his own interests at the expense of lower level employees' interests. But that authority is not necessarily sufficient to merit heightened liability for the purposes of Title VII. The NLRA's definition of supervisor therefore is not controlling in this context."

The dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the five-man majority seems to ignore what actually occurs in workplaces in today's economy.

"Addressing who qualifies as a supervisor, the EEOC answered: (1) An individual authorized 'to undertake or recommend tangible employment decisions affecting the employee,' including 'hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, and reassigning the employee' or (2) An individual authorized "to direct the employee's daily work activities.'

"The court today strikes from the supervisory category employees who control the day-to-day schedules and assignments of others. The limitation the court decrees...ignores the conditions under which members of the work force labor, and disserves the objective of Title VII to prevent discrimination from infecting the nation's workplaces," the dissenters added.

Photo: On June 24, Shakita Moore announced filing a complaint with the EEOC for the racism, sexual harassment and retaliation she experienced when raising concerns with management at the deli where she works. Fight for 15 Facebook page.

U.S. Supreme Court sends affirmative action case back to lower court

Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:17:00 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 7-to-1 decision today to send an affirmative action case back to a lower court for reconsideration. Fisher v. the University of Texas was a challenge to that school's affirmative action policy by a white student, Abigail Fisher, whose application for admission as an undergraduate was turned down.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as a lower district court, both had upheld the university's policy.

In its ruling today the Supreme Court endorsed previous decisions establishing affirmative action as constitutional. That aspect is being hailed as a major victory. But the ruling also vacated the lower court's decision to uphold the university's policy, saying the appeals court did not apply "strict scrutiny" to the policy.

"The Fifth Circuit must assess whether the University has offered sufficient evidence to prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity," according to the written opinion issued by the court. In other words, the Supreme Court ruling appeared to tighten the criteria for acceptable affirmative action programs.

The University of Texas affirmative action policy was possible as a result of the court's last major ruling on affirmative action - a 2003 case out of the University of Michigan, Grutter vs. Bollinger.

In Grutter, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that universities could use race as one of many admissions factors when selecting incoming students.

The University of Texas, as per state law, offers admission to the top eight percent of Texas high school students. For students who don't qualify for this automatic admission, race is used to help achieve a diverse student body.

More than eight in 10 African American and Latino students who enrolled at the main campus in 2011 were automatically admitted under the state law that requires the university to offer admission to the top eight percent of Texas high school students.

Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, described the Supreme Court's ruling as "an important victory for our nation's ongoing work to build a more inclusive, diverse America." He described the University of Texas's admissions policy as "carefully crafted" and he predicted that it will ultimately be upheld by the appeals court.

"In reaffirming that a diverse learning environment benefits students, our workforce, and the country as a whole," Wade said, "the ruling makes it clear that now is the time to expand our commitment to diversity in all of our institutions to ensure that we are well positioned to compete in the diverse economy of the 21st century."

Sherrilyn Iffil, president and director-counsel of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, ageed that the Supreme Court "has made a full-throated defense of preceding cases that uphold the essential nature of diversity in our nation's institutions."

"We should remember though," said Iffil, "that affirmative action is just one of a number of tools we need to use to achieve diversity. Economic fairness and opportunity for poor people are just two examples of many other things we need to see."

It was the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund that took the Brown v. Board of Ed case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954, resulting in the historic decision that struck down "separate but equal" Jim Crow schools across the South.

More than 80 organizations - labor, religious and community groups among them - filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Texas affirmative action plan. Among them was the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Today's near-unanimous decision leaves intact the important principle that universities have a compelling interest in a diverse student body, and that race can be one factor among many that universities consider in a carefully crafted admissions program," said Dennis Parker, director of the ACLU's Racial Justice program. "We believe that the University of Texas has made a strong showing that its admission plan was necessary to achieve meaningful diversity, and that it can and should be upheld under the standard that the Supreme Court announced today."

The one dissenter to the Court's ruling, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said that the appeals court had acted correctly in the first place. "I would not return this case for a second look," she wrote in her dissent, because "the University reached the reasonable, good-faith judgment that supposedly race-neutral initiatives were insufficient to achieve, in appropriate measure, the educational benefits of student body diversity."

Photo: The U.S. Supreme Court (pictured) ruled in a 7-to-1 decision today to send an affirmative action case back to a lower court for reconsideration. AP

The fast against firings

Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:43:00 +0000

OAKLAND, Calif. - Even though the full Senate is debating the immigration reform bill S. 744, labor and community activists in northern California charge that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency of the federal Department of Homeland Security continues to require local employers to fire hundreds of workers, saying they have no immigration papers. In protest, dozens of Bay Area immigrant workers and their supporters went without food last week in a 72-hour hunger strike to draw attention to hundreds of these firings.

The Obama administration, which strongly supports S. 744, calls the proposal "commonsense immigration reform." The fasters charged, however, there is no common sense in firing workers while Congress debates the bill.

The bill's supporters tout the provisional legal status it would give some undocumented workers, like those currently being fired. But workers who are now losing their jobs in these workplace enforcement actions will not be rehired even if the bill passes, critics charge. Further, the job losses will push fired workers into poverty, below the income requirement that the bill imposes to qualify for legalization.

These firings are often called "silent raids." Under the Bush and Clinton administrations, immigration agents dressed in black uniforms and carrying high-powered weapons invaded factories and workplaces, rounding up undocumented workers in heavily publicized raids. The "silent raids," in contrast, are not publicized at all. Instead of agents with guns, immigration agents force employers to fire workers. If people without papers can't work, the rationale goes, they will simply leave the country or somehow disappear.

The fasters sought to make the victims of these "silent raids" visible and to express their moral outrage over the federal government's tactic. The Rev. Dr. Phil Lawson, pastor emeritus of Easter Hill United Methodist Church and leader of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, one of the fasters, declared, "These families have done nothing wrong. They're being punished for working, which is what people in our community are supposed to do. We will not allow these workers to be treated as though they are invisible. Being terminated because of immigration status is a violation of their human and civil rights."

The firings, or "silent raids," are intended to enforce a provision of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 called "employer sanctions." That act makes it illegal for an employer to hire a worker who has no legal immigration status, and makes it illegal for undocumented workers to have a job.

In theory, this law penalizes the employer for hiring them (the "sanctions"), and penalizes workers by requiring the employer to fire them. In reality its effect is to make it illegal for an undocumented worker to work. Employers dependent on immigrant labor treat the possibility of violations and fines as a cost of doing business. Most employers receive no penalty, while thousand of workers lose their jobs and their families and communities suffer the hardships. Employers who cooperate in firing their own workers are given immunity by ICE, and escape any fines or punishment for violating the law.

Since 1986, every job applicant in the U.S. must fill out an I-9 form declaring her or his immigration status. In an I-9 audit, ICE makes a detailed examination of those personnel records, especially Social Security numbers, and then gives the employer a list of workers it says are undocumented, ordering the employer to fire them.

In addition to protesting the ongoing firings, the fasters object to a provision in the new immigration bill. Currently, federal law specifies that only certain employers, such as some federal contractors, have to immediately report the information on the I-9 form of each potential hire to ICE for comparison with E-Verify, an enormous database of Social Security numbers, visa information and other personal data. (Any employer can be subject as well to the after-the-fact I-9 audits.) But Senate bill S. 744 would make E-Verify mandatory for all U.S. employers. That would turn the current wave of firings, which today encompasses thousands of workers, into a flood that could easily affect millions.

The hunger strikers, therefore, had two demands. They demanded that ICE stop forcing employers to fire workers, whether or not the bill passes. And it called on Senators and Congress members to reject the inclusion of mandatory use of E-Verify in any immigration reform legislation.

The Obama administration has increased immigration enforcement in the workplace drastically from the Bush and Clinton eras. In the last two years alone, thousands of janitors have been fired in Minneapolis, Seattle and San Francisco, thousands of garment workers in Los Angeles, hundreds at Chipotle fast food restaurants and Target stores, and many many more. Among the many Bay Area firms where firings have taken place recently are Mi Pueblo Markets (hundreds fired), Pacific Steel (214 workers fired), Waste Management (three workers fired) and ABM (475 workers fired). In just the last few months, ICE has enforced the firing of 125 workers at the DoBake industrial bakery in Oakland, and over 200 at Joseph Albanese Construction in Santa Clara.

Another faster, Gerardo Dominguez, organizing director of Local 5 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, calls the firings "an economic disaster for the Bay Area. These workers pay taxes that support local schools and services. Being terminated because of immigration status is a violation of their human and civil rights. Their families and our entire community will be harmed, and inequality and poverty will increase." The fasters asked local elected officials to intervene with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and ask her to halt the actions.

One worker from the DoBake industrial bakery is in her 60s and worked 16 years at the bakery earning minimum wage. She now faces loss of her health insurance, which covered expensive high blood pressure medications. Another worker fired at Waste Management Inc. says, "I'm a good worker and I did a very dirty job. I'm not young, and I won't be able to find another one. People depend on me. What are we going to do?"

Because the firings are taking place throughout the Bay Area, the fast moved to different symbolic locations. It began with a rally in Cesar Chavez Park in the heart of downtown San Jose. The south bay was a focus because of the recent audit and firing of workers at Albanese Construction, headquartered in Silicon Valley. The firm is one of the Bay Area's largest construction companies, and its employees are all union members.

Richard Konda, executive director of the Asian Law Alliance in San Jose, called on ICE "to exercise commonsense judgment now and stop their enforcement that has resulted in hundreds of workers being fired. It makes no sense for these workers to lose their jobs now, with immigration reform on the horizon." Konda called on Congress "to repeal employers sanctions that were part of IRCA, abolish the I-9 form and end any and all E-Verify programs. Employers should not be junior immigration inspectors," he said.

From the park, fasters marched to the San Jose Federal Building. They heard a statement from Congressman Mike Honda supporting them for "standing up for the civil rights of our laborers and in opposing the unfair and unjust 'silent raids' occurring throughout our region." Honda announced his opposition to a provision of the proposed Senate immigration reform bill S. 744, which would make it mandatory for all employers to use the E-Verify system to detect workers with no papers. "Time and again," he said, "we see Americans, both documented and undocumented, treated like second-class citizens by the flawed E-Verify system. Not only do our businesses suffer from having to submit to these 'silent raids,' but hundreds of thousands of livelihoods are ruined, families are split apart, and local economies are hurt badly."

The following day fasters moved to east Oakland, where they set up tents on the sidewalk surrounding the parking lot of the largest store in the Mi Pueblo supermarket chain. A year ago unions and community organizations protested the use of the E-Verify immigration screening system by the Mexican markets, and accused the owner of using immigration enforcement to terrorize workers during their effort to organize a union in the stores. Workers have been trying to join Local 5 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union for the past two years, in a bitter campaign.

This April, Mi Pueblo confirmed that it was being audited by ICE and would have to fire an undisclosed number of employees. Some community and labor activists estimate that, given the chain's many markets, the firings could encompass hundreds of workers.

As fasters gathered in front of the store, a group of religious leaders met with the manager to demand that the firings stop, and that the company respect the rights of its workers. They were not given any answer. Then fasters marched through the parking lot behind the Liberation Brass Orchestra, and were later joined by an Aztec dance troupe.

The last day of the fast was held in front of the Oakland Federal Building, with the support of both the South Bay and Alameda Labor Councils and many local unions. Representatives of Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman Eric Swalwell both declared their support of the hunger strike's objectives. As the hungry participants shared loaves of bread to break their fast, they acknowledged that a long fight would be needed to get the government to end the firings, whether or not Congress passes an immigration reform bill.

"But this is just the beginning," predicted Fred Pecker, secretary treasurer of Local 6 of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. In April a similar fast was organized in San Diego to support workers fired in an audit at the Mission Valley Hilton Hotel.

"We are extremely worried," emphasized Rev. Deborah Lee of the Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights. "Congress is pushing a reform bill poised to make matters worse," she warned. "The bill will make the employment verification program, E-Verify, mandatory for all employers, and the firings we're seeing now will become much more widespread. Our elected representatives must tell ICE and Congress to end these firings and take the mandatory use of E-Verify out of the immigration bill. We must stop making it a crime to work in this country."

This article also appears at In These Times.

Shocking new cuts will gut Chicago schools

Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:46:00 +0000

CHICAGO - Fresh from closing 50 schools and laying off 850 teachers and staff, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) informed principals June 14 they face a new round of devastating cuts forcing layoffs of hundreds more educators and personnel.

Many elementary schools will suffer cuts in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and numerous high school budgets have been slashed between $1-$3 million.

The cuts, described as "horrific," amount to 10-25 percent per school, said Wendy Katten, a spokesperson with the parent group Raise Your Hand.

CPS had promised the historic school closures would result in providing the merged and remaining schools with adequate resources. But the announcement sent school communities into shock and turmoil, scrambling to make choices over what to cut and pitting school personnel against each other to see who would go.

On June 6, CPS announced new rules that give increased "flexibility" to principals and ultimately the Local School Councils to allocate funds, but places the onus on them to make the cuts.

The Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), parents and students blasted the cuts and have demanded alternative funding revenues be tapped.

Kenneth Fitzner, principal at Audubon Elementary School, told DNAInfo.org "When I saw these numbers, my jaw dropped. These are below state foundations."

Fitzner said the cuts would result in class sizes of 35-47 students. If one of two seventh grade teachers were eliminated, the resulting homeroom would have 61 students.

CPS now defines a class size of 35 students as normal "utilization."

The cuts are so deep some schools are considering steps that would essentially eliminate libraries, at a time when there are already 160 schools without libraries.

In addition, the cuts could gut guidance counseling departments, physical education and art and music programs and physical improvements like air conditioning.

Program funding for the longer school day, a move trumpeted by Mayor Rahm Emanuel as a huge educational advancement, was eliminated.

Children entitled to special education services may feel the worst impact. As the CTU noted, "At Blair Elementary, seven special education teachers, one general education teacher and close to eight paraprofessional positions will be slashed by a nearly 75 percent cut to their budget.

"At Northside Learning Center, a school that serves students with cognitive disabilities, eight special education instructors and 14 teacher aides will be lost."

The cuts are based on a new funding formula. CPS spokeswoman Becky Carroll said the per pupil rates for next year will be $4,429 per student in kindergarten through third grade, $4,140 per student in 4th through 8th grade, and $5,029 per student in high school.

This year, charter schools had per pupil rates of $6,070 per elementary student and $7,587 per high school student.

In contrast, New Trier, one of the wealthiest school districts in Illinois allocates $20,807 per student.

Emanuel warned cuts were necessary because CPS is facing a $1 billion budget deficit, most of which he blamed on teacher pensions.

CPS and CTU had negotiated a "pension holiday" and new schedule for payments into the system. But the deal was scuttled when the state legislature couldn't agree on an overall plan to resolve the public worker pension crisis.

However, CTU president Karen Lewis told the City Club that Emanuel won't join forces to end TIF payments, close corporate tax loopholes, end costly "toxic swap" deals with Wall Street banks and fight for a progressive state income tax.

Lewis said K-12 educational cutbacks in recent years are approximately equal to the amount of state taxes left unpaid by the largest 155 corporations.

Lewis also blasted TIF funding, property tax money meant for schools and parks but legally channeled to wealthy interests. TIF funds amount to $500 million per year, most of which ends up aiding downtown developers.

"Since 2000, nearly $100 million of TIF funds have been given to corporations to move their corporate offices to the (downtown) Loop or keep them in the city," she said.

"A combined Chicago city-income and commuter-progressive tax between just 0.5 percent and 1.5 percent can generate close to a $1 billion for the city, with half going to CPS. Imagine if CPS had $600 million more in revenue in addition to nearly $300 million a year from TIFs and Swaps?"

In addition, CTU is calling for passage of a Financial Transaction Tax that could raise an estimated $10-13 billion per year.

Photo: CPS school closings leave trails of destruction. (Bronzeville/Stephanie Gadlin)

Panel examines progressive side of federalism

Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:52:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - In 1932, because a state law "unreasonably curtailed" the right "to engage in a lawful private business," the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Oklahoma's attempt to regulate the sale of ice. In a famous dissent, Justice Louis Brandeis argued the court had no power to protect business from innovative regulations just because the justices think the rules are bad policy.

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country," Brandeis wrote.

"Experiments," in essence, are what many states are doing today in several fields, a panel of law professors says. And that includes regulating workers' rights.

The early decades of the 20^th century saw states take the lead in protecting workers, for instance enacting minimum wage and maximum hour laws. The federal courts declared most of those laws unconstitutional.

Today, states have more freedom to experiment, the panelists said, during the American Constitution Society convention in mid-June. Recent examples include legalizing marijuana and recognizing same-sex marriage. At the same time, states also started "experimenting" with rolling back the rights of workers and immigrants.

At the panel, entitled "...And justice for all," Santa Clara law professor P. Deep Gulasekaram focused on "immigration federalism." Using the claim the federal government abdicated its role, states enacted their own immigration laws. GOP-run Arizona and Alabama led the way against immigrants, over union and civil rights opposition.

But only politics separates states that have passed laws targeting undocumented immigrants from those that have not, Gulasekaram says. He added that immigration has become a wedge issue. He accused "political entrepreneurs" of shopping immigration legislation to receptive states, simultaneously stalling federal legislation that might actually address the problem.

Gulasekaram urged states to follow Maryland, the latest state to vote to grant drivers' licenses to undocumented people. Enough state pro-immigrant laws, he suggested, could build momentum for reform at the federal level.

Indiana University law professor Steve Sanders called federalism "morally neutral." He then said progressives should make federalism arguments.

Sanders used application of "horizontal federalism" - the concept that each state should "give full faith and credit" to each other's laws -- to same-sex marriage as an example. With prodding from Pride@Work and other gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender rights groups, several states legally recognize same-sex marriage. Most others do not.

But what if one member of a married same-sex couple gets transferred to a state that hasn't recognized same-sex marriage? According to Sanders, even if the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't find a federal right to marriage equality for all 50 states, couples should have the constitutional right to carry their marriages with them across state lines. He called "interstate transportability" basic to the right to marry. Any exception for same-sex marriages is "unprincipled."

Florida State law professor Franita Tolson agreed that "federalism can work for progressives." She noted that because of our "constitutional structure," states retain substantial power over the most basic guarantee of rights, voting. How states enforce that power affects who can vote and who gets elected. As long as states make it easy to get identification needed to register to vote, Tolson argued they could require voters to have that identification.

Days later, the Supreme Court threw out Arizona's attempt to require prospective voters to produce all sorts of expensive alternative IDs to register to vote in federal elections. The federal Motor Voter law controls that process, the justices said. But if a state comes up with proof of the voter's ineligibility, it can stop that voter's registration.

Like the others on the panel, Columbia law professor Jessica Bulman-Pozen called federalism neither "consistently liberal or conservative." Although she traced what she called "partisan federalism" to the time of Jefferson and Madison, Bulman-Pozen noted a recent resurgence, arising from the increasing polarization and regionalization of America's two main political parties.

Still, with many areas where state and federal power overlap, she argued progressives should move the discussion away from competing claims of "sovereignty" and towards state initiatives, even in policy areas primarily under federal control. Anti-union forces have done that, using state legislatures to curb or kill state and local government workers' collective bargaining rights. Labor law is primarily a federal issue.

Duke law professor Neil Siegel, the moderator asked participants to consider the risk of calling for a cutback in federal power. But as Tolson pointed out, advocates need not act as scholars. Progressives can and should be choosy in deciding when to make claims of federalism, he said.

David Sobelsohn is a staff writer for Press Associates.

Photo: Participants listen to a presentation at the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy convention (via ACS/FB).

Michigan rally slams Republicans' "Education Inc." agenda

Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:57:00 +0000

LANSING, Mich. - Pam Kirchens believes that a free quality public education is the cornerstone of a democratic society and that every child in Michigan deserves access to equal and excellent public education. That's why she joined with others to form a grassroots group called Save Michigan's Public Schools. On Wednesday, Kirchens and several thousand others rallied at the state Capitol here to deliver that message.

The June 19 rally came about, she said, out of a group of seven or eight teachers, parents and concerned citizens were alarmed about the attacks on public education in Michigan. They started meeting monthly at a deli in Ann Arbor, Mich., and came up with the idea of holding a rally.

"It was total grassroots, we have no money," Kirchens said.

With a Republican-dominated and tea-party influenced legislature, Michigan Republicans are dismantling public education by defunding it, setting up state-controlled school districts that eliminate collective bargaining and seniority, and advocating unlimited numbers of charter and online schools.

Educators and the public were incensed by the recent comments of Republican state Rep. Lisa Lyons, the House Education Committee Chairperson. Talking about the dissolution of the financially troubled Buena Vista and Inkster school districts, Lyons, in response to school employee concerns that they would not have jobs in the new districts where pupils were sent, said from the House floor, "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered."

Several demonstrators at the Capitol held signs showing their anger with the crude insult.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Schauer told the crowd it is no wonder the state's schools are in financial crisis. Referring to the current governor, Republican Rick Snyder, Shauer said, "The governor took $1 billion from public schools to help pay for a $1.8 billion corporate dollar tax cut."

Republicans place "profit over people and kids," Schauer said. "Education Inc. is their agenda."

Two public high school students made strong impressions on the rally participants. Billy Dering, a flute player in his Ann Arbor high school marching band, told the crowd he has Tourette's syndrome, a neural disorder. He confidently explained why a comprehensive education, one that includes art, physical education and music, is so necessary. Music helps him coordinate his movements, keep his focus, and alleviate some of his symptoms, he said.

"For all children, with or without disabilities, music helps them become stronger students," Dering said.

Dustin Hazen, a student at Portland, Mich., High School, said "for starters" that he does not agree with the privatization of public schools. "Our governor says he only privatizes public schools because they are financially stressed or because teachers are failing their students," he said. "How can schools function if they are not properly funded?"

Voicing his concern about the governor's advocacy of online courses Hazen said, "I may be just a kid, but I know I don't want my most inspiring teacher to be a computer."

Photo: A participant at the Save Michigan's Public Schools rally, June 19, Lansing, Mich., shows her anger at the insulting comment by Republican legislator Lisa Lyons. April Smith/PW

Obamacare is already lowering costs

Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:06:00 +0000

While all of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, don't go effect until next year, the president's signature health care law has already had a remarkable impact on health care costs.

One example is the ACA expanded Medicare's competitive bidding program on durable medical equipment, like wheelchairs. While the competitive bidding program has so far saved $202 million in its first year it is estimated to save up to $42.8 billion over the next ten years.

Due to its success, the competitive bidding program is expanding from nine pilot project metropolitan markets to 91 additional markets.

According to a recent Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) report:

* seniors and people with disabilities in Medicare will directly save a projected $17.1 billion due to lower co-insurance payments for durable medical equipment;

* taxpayers are projected to save an additional $25.7 billion through the Medicare Supplementary Medical Trust Fund due to reduced prices;

* last year alone, people with Medicare saved up to $105 on hospital beds, $168 on oxygen concentrators, and $140 on diabetic test strips;

* and, a real time claims monitoring system, set up to ensure that access to supplies was not compromised, has found that Medicare recipients continue to have access to all necessary and appropriate items.

"Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we can expand this successful example of health care reform to include more areas and achieve savings on a national level," DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently told reporters. "People with Medicare across the country will get the medical equipment they need to live their lives, while saving them and other taxpayers money in the process."

By 2016, everybody will benefit from the competitive bidding program. Markets not directly impacted by the bidding program will also likely have lower rate dues to the downward pressure on costs.

In all, starting July 1 the competitive bidding program will begin to lower costs for over 15 million beneficiaries who rely on diabetes supplies, wheelchairs, hospital beds, and walkers.

While there is some speculation that intense lobbying by the billion-dollar medical-equipment industry may delay expanding the program, seniors and the disabled are optimistic that the program's expansion with begin as scheduled.

The impact of this new program will be felt immediately. For example, in the past, Medicare paid about $78 for 100 diabetes test strips and lancets, just over one month's supply for someone who tests their blood pressure three times a day. Starting July 1, Medicare's cost will drop to about $22 for 100, and the patient's co-pay will drop from about $15 to $5.

The ACA has also begun to slow health care costs generally, even as the economy gains strength and millions of uninsured people begin to receive coverage. In other words, while costs do continue to increase, the rate of increase has slowed compared to pre-ACA levels.

A few factors slowing the increase in costs directly related to the ACA are:

* more patients are beginning to seek more routine services and are visiting doctors' more regularly, which is decreasing hospital emergency room visits, one of the largest costs associated with health care;

* and the administration is ramping up penalties on hospitals that have too many patients returning with problems soon after being discharged, while rewarding hospitals that have a better system of follow up.

The very real, practical benefits most American's will - or are currently - receiving due to the Affordable Care Act is a far cry from what "the sky is falling"-far-right-death panel crowd said would happen.

The competitive bidding program is just one example of what can be accomplished when health care advocates, unions, community groups, and faith leaders are unified.

In fact, the hard won benefits of the ACA - of which only a few have been mentioned above - move us towards a more rational, more equal and more just health care system, and helps lay the groundwork for even further advances in the struggle for quality, affordable health care.

While it isn't single payer universal health care, and while there are some problems with implementation due to right-wing Republican obstructionism, the ACA is already proving that health care costs can be lowered, while benefits are increased.

Photo: Flickr (CC)

Boehner says he’ll block whatever Senate GOP can’t kill

Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:49:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, pledged to his caucus on June 18 that no major legislation, including immigration, will come up for votes without support from "a majority of the majority," i.e. a majority of Republican representatives.

Boehner's statement is important because it gives his 234-member caucus, and particularly its tea party-radical right bloc, a virtual veto over what Congress does, regardless of the Senate, dissenting Republicans or the House's 201 Democrats.

And the tea partyers have demonstrated a hard-line attitude on immigration, forcing a bill through the GOP-run House on a party-line vote, to overturn President Obama's decision to let the "DREAMers" - college students or youngsters in the military - brought to the U.S. as undocumented children, stay here.

Meanwhile, the Blue-Green Alliance, a coalition of unions and environmental groups, led by the Steelworkers, has announced that it is joining the Communications Workers in their ongoing campaign to push for an end to the Senate filibuster. The Utility Workers and the Auto Workers are also part of the Blue-Green Alliance.

"GOP obstruction has hindered nominations to cabinet positions, including the EPA administrator, Secretary of Labor and National Labor Relations Board nominees, as well as blocking judicial nominees, making the existing caseload unmanageable for many courts," said Steelworkers President Leo Gerard.

"More and more, vacancies at key agencies go unfilled while less and less is getting done to ensure safe workplaces and communities," Gerard added.

"This obstructionism brings our most basic democratic processes to a halt," said Utility Workers president Mike Langford. "Too many legislative priorities remain tied up in flawed Senate procedure. The Senate's failure to confirm highly qualified agency nominees and judges is unacceptable and must stop immediately."

"Key positions created to hold big corporations accountable, shield consumers from fraud and keep working Americans safe are vacant and ineffective because of congressional inaction. If the Senate is truly interested in giving families the full protection of the law, they'll break the logjam and confirm the qualified nominees to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Labor Relations Board, and courtrooms across the country," added Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the biggest defender and user of the filibuster, retorts that if senators change their rules now to curb the talkathons -- by making it easier to shut them off -- he'll respond when the GOP takes over the Senate by passing a national right-to-work law.

Photo: John Boehner says that no bill will be approved unless it has the support of a majority of House Republicans. DonkeyHotey/Flickr (CC)