flaw in the cardcheck bill LA times editorial

This is a copyrighted article dealing with the union organizing bill we support at Soar St. Louis.

It is valid criticism in my opinion. Again, if objections launched; I will withdraw this post. We shall talk about the bill at next meeting and this is a continuing item.


-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-efca29-2009mar29,0,6497350.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Editorial

The flaw in 'card check'

The Employee Free Choice Act contains worthy reforms, but it needs to preserve the secret ballot.March 29, 2009Congress fought back against the Depression and unemployment in the 1930s with the National Labor Relations Act, protecting employees who wanted to organize unions but who feared management retaliation. The pendulum swung away from labor in 1947 when Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act over President Truman's veto. It has never swung back, and in fact, labor organizers have been stymied by a succession of regulatory restrictions and hostile National Labor Relations Board decisions that have helped undermine the 1935 act's stated policy of encouraging collective bargaining to negotiate terms and conditions of employment.Now Congress is considering a bill aimed at correcting the balance and affording employees real power to organize and participate in meaningful contract negotiations. One part of the proposed Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 ought to be a no-brainer: adding teeth to today's penalties against employers who improperly intimidate workers or engage in other unfair labor practices. If anything, that portion of the bill ought to be enhanced.A second part, calling for an arbitrator to impose a two-year initial contract when negotiations and mediation fail, has drawn strong protest from business, which currently can drag out contract talks forever and thus negate employees' decision to organize. Filibustering against a properly elected union is an abuse of the collective bargaining process, and binding arbitration is an appropriate way to stop it. Regulations would fine-tune the arbitrator's role; rule makers ought to consider imposing either side's last, best offer as a way to encourage both sides to be more realistic in their offers and make negotiations more productive.These two reforms are too often dismissed as lesser components of this three-part bill. But they should not be overlooked. They're crucial proposals that would swing the pendulum back and return some power to employees.The third part of the bill is the one that troubles us. It would eliminate the secret-ballot elections that are used in most organizing campaigns and replace them with a method variously known as majority sign-up, petitioning or "card check." This change would correctly take away from management the power to pick employees' method of voting on whether to organize. But instead of returning that decision to the people who ought to have it -- the employees -- it would award it to a labor union, an outside third party that has the potential to become the employees' representative in bargaining but isn't yet, and shouldn't be before the vote.There is no doubt that card check -- in which union organizers try to persuade more than half the workers to sign cards or petitions selecting a particular union as their representative -- favors unions. It becomes common knowledge which workers have signed and which have not. Organizers can canvass the holdouts and target those most likely to succumb to union campaigning or peer pressure. But it is the workers' power to select a union that we're trying to protect, not the union's power to organize employees.A chief argument of anti-union commentators against card check is that the secret ballot is inherently neutral, in the time-honored American tradition of elections, and protects employees' ability to express their decision free from pressure exerted by either labor or management. But that's only part of the story.The integrity of a secret-ballot election is a result not just of its private nature but of the context in which it is cast. Elections for political office, for instance, are open, with each candidate enjoying unfettered ability to state his or her case to whatever voters will listen. Threats and claims, even those whispered secretly to select voters, quickly become public and are tested by vigorous debate. Balloting takes place not in the office of the incumbent but in schools, churches and garages free from control by any politician. Candidates have no power to retaliate against citizens who dare to campaign for the "wrong" side. Elections recur at regular intervals, and voters can undo any mistakes they believe they made in the previous election.Contrast that with the workplace version of the secret ballot. Employers may prevent labor organizers from entering the job site, but may round up their workers for periodic lectures and presentations on the supposed evils of unions. Balloting takes place ostensibly under the control of neutral labor officials, but under the watchful eye of the employer, who controls the workers' route to and from the ballot box. Employees who campaign for the union cannot legally be fired, demoted or harried in retaliation, but often are; employers have to pay back wages but suffer nothing else of consequence. Meanwhile, procedures for investigating and punishing misconduct are so time-consuming that the worker must spend years without a job, perhaps branded an unemployable pariah by other businesses.There are two courses to remedying this unacceptable status quo. The first is to revoke management's power to mandate a secret ballot, as proposed under the bill. The second -- and the one we support -- is to keep the secret ballot but change the context in which those votes are conducted, so that management no longer has undue power over the employees' decision-making process. This would mean stiffening penalties for unfair labor practices beyond merely the payment of back wages. The bill requires immediate investigation of retaliation claims and, for the first time, awards civil penalties of up to $20,000 for each violation. That's a good first step, but Congress should go even further, requiring neutral sites for elections and shortening the preelection period during which management can campaign, unimpeded, against the union.Although we sympathize with the bill's efforts to address the balance of power between unions and management, we do not support it as written. Unions should be free to exercise their power on behalf of workers, but only after workers have designated them as their representatives in a process that reduces the possibility of intimidation from either side.
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.Article licensing and reprint options
Copyright 2009 Los Angeles Times

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

Krugman article Magic Market

Krugman is a fine writer and I am borrowing this article. It is copyrighted and my intent is informational rather than pure stealing. Will withdraw if objections launched.

I suggest all our members follow Krugman's remarks and the Post Dispatch as well as the New York Times and other papers print Krugman's articles every week

This article (time permitting) will be discussed next Soar meeting:

-----------------------------------------

Paul Krugman: Market magic
Let's not return to the days of hocus pocus

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Lawrence Summers, the head of the National Economic Council, recently responded to criticisms of the Obama administration's plan to subsidize private purchases of toxic assets. "I don't know of any economist," he declared on Monday, "who doesn't believe that better functioning capital markets in which assets can be traded are a good idea."

Leave aside for a moment the question of whether a market in which buyers have to be bribed to participate can really be described as "better functioning." Even so, Mr. Summers needs to get out more. Quite a few economists have reconsidered their favorable opinion of capital markets and asset trading in the light of the current crisis.

But it has become increasingly clear over the past few days that top officials in the Obama administration are still in the grip of the market mystique. They still believe in the magic of the financial marketplace and in the prowess of the wizards who perform that magic.

The market mystique didn't always rule financial policy. America emerged from the Great Depression with a tightly regulated banking system, which made finance a staid, even boring business. Banks attracted depositors by providing convenient branch locations and maybe a free toaster or two; they used the money thus attracted to make loans, and that was that.
And the financial system wasn't just boring. It was also, by today's standards, small. Even during the "go-go years," the bull market of the 1960s, finance and insurance together accounted for less than 4 percent of GDP. The relative unimportance of finance was reflected in the list of stocks making up the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which until 1982 contained not a single financial company.

It all sounds primitive by today's standards. Yet that boring, primitive financial system serviced an economy that doubled living standards over the course of a generation.

After 1980, of course, a very different financial system emerged. In the deregulation-minded Reagan era, old-fashioned banking was increasingly replaced by wheeling and dealing on a grand scale. The new system was much bigger than the old regime: On the eve of the current crisis, finance and insurance accounted for 8 percent of GDP, more than twice their share in the 1960s. By early last year, the Dow contained five financial companies -- giants like AIG, Citigroup and Bank of America.

And finance became anything but boring. It attracted many of our sharpest minds and made a select few immensely rich.

Underlying the glamorous new world of finance was the process of securitization. Loans no longer stayed with the lender. Instead, they were sold on to others, who sliced, diced and pureed individual debts to synthesize new assets. Subprime mortgages, credit card debts, car loans -- all went into the financial system's juicer. Out the other end, supposedly, came sweet-tasting AAA investments. And financial wizards were lavishly rewarded for overseeing the process.
But the wizards were frauds, whether they knew it or not, and their magic turned out to be no more than a collection of cheap stage tricks. Above all, the key promise of securitization -- that it would make the financial system more robust by spreading risk more widely -- turned out to be a lie. Banks used securitization to increase their risk, not reduce it, and in the process they made the economy more, not less, vulnerable to financial disruption.

Sooner or later, things were bound to go wrong, and eventually they did. Bear Stearns failed; Lehman failed; but most of all, securitization failed.

Which brings us back to the Obama administration's approach to the financial crisis.

Much discussion of the toxic-asset plan has focused on the details and the arithmetic, and rightly so. Beyond that, however, what's striking is the vision expressed both in the content of the financial plan and in statements by administration officials. In essence, the administration seems to believe that once investors calm down, securitization -- and the business of finance -- can resume where it left off a year or two ago.

To be fair, officials are calling for more regulation. Indeed, on Thursday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner laid out plans for enhanced regulation that would have been considered radical not long ago.

But the underlying vision remains that of a financial system more or less the same as it was two years ago, albeit somewhat tamed by new rules.

As you can guess, I don't share that vision. I don't think this is just a financial panic; I believe that it represents the failure of a whole model of banking, of an overgrown financial sector that did more harm than good. I don't think the Obama administration can bring securitization back to life, and I don't believe it should try.

Paul Krugman is a syndicated columnist for The New York Times.

First published on March 28, 2009 at 12:00 am

Madnees in Missouri House

Folks, anyone saying the democratic party won in Missouri has a lot to learn. This is an audio snip from a healthcare speech in the Missouri House. Representative Schaaf believes the Child Insurance program called Schif is akin to slavery. Some hot exchanges follow. St. Joe voters whom elected this man should be shamed by their representative's remarks.

This info comes from: http://www.firedupmissouri.com/

Representative Curtis from Kansas city is the woman whom replied.

Rep Schaaf is the chair of the Healthcare Transformation committee and his "office" phone is 573-751-2183. Perhaps a few of us should call?

HR676 update and info

The following is from Thomas's congressional page today and note, little or no action from reports in FEB, 2009 at meeting. Missouri has 2 co-sponsors (Clay, Cleaver) and Illinois has a couple including Costello. Folks living in these districts need tell those congressfolks supporting HR676 thanks.

Those not supporting HR676, then it is time to put pressure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R.676 Title: To provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, improved health care delivery, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 1/26/2009) Cosponsors (72) Latest Major Action: 1/26/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
ALL ACTIONS:
1/26/2009:
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
1/26/2009:
Referred to House Energy and Commerce
1/26/2009:
Referred to House Ways and Means
1/26/2009:
Referred to House Natural Resources

More budget fights--Mo state house/madness

The following is from a newsletter from From:
"Jeanette Mott Oxford" jmo4rep@juno.com

Ms. Oxford is a very progressive friend in the statehouse in Missouri and is thought of highly by labor. I met her at the Sicko premere is St. Louis some time ago. Woman to give support in my opinion.

------------------------

Friends, Constituents, and Allies,

Missouri House of Representatives Budget Chair Allen Icet and GOP leadership are proposing over $300 million in cuts to health care and critical state services. GOP leadership must hear from you immediately if we are going to prevent these cuts. The budget bills move to the House floor the week of March 24!

Rep. Icet and majority party House leaders are doing the opposite of what our economy needs. They are eliminating more than 3,700 jobs and cutting over $300 million in critical state services that are vital to laid off workers and families. These cuts turn away billions of dollars of federal funding to shore up Missouri's economy over the next few years. 70,000 Missourians will lose services or have them reduced.

These cuts are unnecessary. Federal economic recovery money is available so that not one service, job or person has to be cut. But key Missouri legislative leaders refuse to use federal recovery act dollars as they were intended.

Cuts they are proposing include:
$4.4 million to Medicaid funding to provide services to Medicaid-eligible patients. This cut will jeopardize $7.8 million in federal Medicaid funds available to Missouri.
$1.8 million for Home and Community Based Services for Seniors and People with Developmental Disabilities.
$2.0 million to Area Agencies on Aging which will reduce services for seniors including transportation, home delivered meals, health promotion and more.
$48.7 million to Mental Health Services, affecting thousands of children and adults with severe mental illness or developmental disabilities.

In addition, they have eliminated funding Gov. Jay Nixon proposed that would expand health insurance coverage to 34,000 working parents. The Missouri Hospital Association volunteered to pay Missouri’s share of the cost so that the cost to taxpayers was zero. This proposal would have brought almost $98 million in federal funds to our state.

There are cuts and shenanigans going on with the education budget too:
Last year $5 million was cut from professional development for teachers, and this year they've taken away the remaining $15 million to zero out the program. Outrageous! Teacher training is a proven way to reduce achievement disaparities that relate to race/ethnicity and income as well as to improve all educational outcomes. Yet another penny-wise pound-foolish mistake in the budget championed by Rep. Icet.

The House Republican budget uses more than $500 million in federal funds to replace general revenue that normally would fund the school foundation formula. (They are unwilling to do this with social services, health, and mental health, but are doing it with education - a strange inconsistency.) In addition to using federal funds to supplant state spending on education, GOP leadership is playing a shell game with the Proposition A casino revenue approved by voters in November. Voters were promised the money would be additional revenue for public schools but instead it is being used to replace $108 million in general revenue for other non-education purposes. You can read more about this at: http://www.stlbeacon.org/mo_legislature/stimulus_shell_game_are_missouri_legislators_diverting_federal_money_from_intended_uses_
For a very detailed analysis of the proposed cuts, go to: http://www.mobudget.org/
Of course I plan to fight these cuts and to vote no if we cannot amend the funds back into the budget. But Democrats have little chance to succeed because Rep. Icet is very determined to make the cuts happen and because there are 89 Republicans and only 74 Democrats in the House. Therefore we have to reach GOP leaders if changes are to be made. Here's what to do -----
Write, e-mail, or call these House leaders who have proposed or supported the cuts and who have the power to stop them from happening:
- House Budget Chair Allen Icet: 636-519-0002; http://us.mc331.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Allen.Icet@house.mo.gov
- House Budget Vice-chair Rick Stream: 314-822-0556; http://us.mc331.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Rick.Stream@house.mo.gov- Speaker of the House Ron Richard: 417-781-0206; http://us.mc331.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Ronald.Richard@house.mo.gov
- Speaker Pro Tem Bryan Pratt: 816-220-1099; http://us.mc331.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Bryan.Pratt@house.mo.gov
Each may also be written by snail mail at:
The Honorable [Representative's Name]
House of Representatives
Jefferson City, MO 65101

The most effective thing you can do is to call or write a letter. E-mails are the next choice for effective advocacy. (Since they take less time, they carry less weight with legislators.) If you cannot take time to personally write, call, or visit these House leaders about the budget cuts, then by all means use this e-mail tool from St. Louis Area Jobs with Justice:

http://www.unionvoice.org/stljwj/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=24114967

--------------------------------------------

Note: although the feds pick up 62 cents of every dollar and hospitals have submitted plan to pay additional taxes, Missouri statehouse folks oppose the help. This refusal under the last governor cost Missouri over a bilion dollars in aid. Yes a billion and even after the election, some of our fearless leaders still oppose. Madness and this underscores the need for HR676 now.

Use the links above and let folks know what you think. Project for myself monday.

Health care news

Two items of interest in Today's Aliance for Retired Americans newsletter:

U.S. House Moves Forward on Health Care ReformThree committee chairmen in the U.S. House have agreed to work together to pass similar health care reform legislation in their committees before the recess in August. According to CQ Today, Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, Henry Waxman (D-CA) Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and George Miller, (D-CA) Chair of the Committee on Education and Labor, made the agreement. These committees have overlapping jurisdiction over health care, and the chairmen hope that their coordinated efforts to pass similar legislation will ensure success with reform efforts. The Senate probably will not be able to move as quickly as the House. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will have to schedule more time for debate in his chamber than Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will in the House. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) said last week that he wants his committee to vote on an overhaul in June. A health overhaul in the Senate will have to be approved by Baucus’ panel and by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Sen. Kennedy is recuperating from brain cancer treatment in Florida and has not announced a timetable for his committee to vote on a bill. “Health care reform should come as soon as possible, and it should provide early retirees the option to purchase Medicare coverage. Many of the 5.1 million Americans between 55-64 who lack health insurance are victims of mass layoffs,” said Barbara Easterling, President of the Alliance.

Taxation of Employer-Provided Health Benefits is on the TableThe New York Times reported on Saturday that the Obama administration and Senator Baucus have indicated that they are open to the idea of taxing employee health benefits to offset the costs of health care reform. Eliminating “employer exclusion” would represent a tax increase for working families and retirees with employer provided insurance, and many policy analysts believe that this proposal would hurt efforts to expand access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans. The proposal would also undermine health care coverage by causing employers to discontinue the higher cost employee and retiree health care plans, disrupting health insurance for those who have coverage they like. “The Alliance opposes taxing employee health benefits because it would give employers an incentive to walk away,” Alliance Secretary-Treasurer Ruben Burks said. “Americans bargained for these benefits, and have every right to expect to move forward and not backward.”

--------------------------------------------------------------

Comments: the taxing of our meager still existing health benefits is not acceptable and I assure folks that Soar units will respond to such with negative vigor. After all, most of us did not vote for John McCain whose contribution to the health care debate was he wished to tax benefits.

Note two: the exclusion of HR676 folks from the debate on healthcare is a serious political mistake. Employer based healthcare is presently a joke and should be scrapped in favor of something that would work and many models of this around the world. The hell with the insurance companies and big drug companies, Universal Health care now, it is the right of the people to have decient affordable healthcare.

Some of the "consiveridems" better take note. If your plans are to become Republican, do so now before the elections.

Major PBS healthcare Tuesday--March 31, 2009

There will be a major healthcare presentation on Frontline (PBS) on Tuesday, March 31st. Recommend folks watch and it will be up for discussion on our April 1st meeting.

Vote on taxing the AIG bonus

The vote passed the House today on taxing the AIG bonus monies. However, the bill must pass the senate (unlikely) and pass a test by the courts. The bill probably would not pass a court text on several grounds.

This is how our congressional folks voted. Note, many a republican switched votes at last minute to support the measure. This creates a problem for them for many signed a pledge not to raise taxes and some consider this vote a trap set by Nancy P, our fearless speaker of the house.

There are some little talked about provisions in this bill. This is from bill itself and deals with more than AIG in scope. Too bad the way this is worded it probably will not pass a court test in my opinion:

SECTION 1. BONUSES RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN TARP RECIPIENTS.
(a) In General- In the case of an employee or former employee of a covered TARP recipient, the tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year shall not be less than the sum of--
(1) the tax that would be determined under such chapter if the taxable income of the taxpayer for such taxable year were reduced (but not below zero) by the TARP bonus received by the taxpayer during such taxable year, plus
(2) 90 percent of the TARP bonus received by the taxpayer during such taxable year.
(b) TARP Bonus- For purposes of this section--
(1) IN GENERAL- The term `TARP bonus' means, with respect to any individual for any taxable year, the lesser of--
(A) the aggregate disqualified bonus payments received from covered TARP recipients during such taxable year, or
(B) the excess of--
(i) the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for such taxable year, over
(ii) $250,000 ($125,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).
(2) DISQUALIFIED BONUS PAYMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `disqualified bonus payment' means any retention payment, incentive payment, or other bonus which is in addition to any amount payable to such individual for service performed by such individual at a regular hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or similar periodic rate.
(B) EXCEPTIONS- Such term shall not include commissions, welfare or fringe benefits, or expense reimbursements.
(C) WAIVER OR RETURN OF PAYMENTS- Such term shall not include any amount if the employee irrevocably waives the employee's entitlement to such payment, or the employee returns such payment to the employer, before the close of the taxable year in which such payment is due. The preceding sentence shall not apply if the employee receives any benefit from the employer in connection with the waiver or return of such payment.
(3) REIMBURSEMENT OF TAX TREATED AS TARP BONUS- Any reimbursement by a covered TARP recipient of the tax imposed under subsection (a) shall be treated as a disqualified bonus payment to the taxpayer liable for such tax.
(c) Covered TARP Recipient- For purposes of this section--
(1) IN GENERAL- The term `covered TARP recipient' means--
(A) any person who receives after December 31, 2007, capital infusions under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which, in the aggregate, exceed $5,000,000,000,
(B) the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
(C) any person who is a member of the same affiliated group (as defined in section 1504 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, determined without regard to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b)) as a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B), and
(D) any partnership if more than 50 percent of the capital or profits interests of such partnership are owned directly or indirectly by one or more persons described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
(2) EXCEPTION FOR TARP RECIPIENTS WHO REPAY ASSISTANCE- A person shall be treated as described in paragraph (1)(A) for any period only if--
(A) the excess of the aggregate amount of capital infusions described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such person over the amounts repaid by such person to the Federal Government with respect to such capital infusions, exceeds
(B) $5,000,000,000.
(d) Other Definitions- Terms used in this section which are also used in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall have the same meaning when used in this section as when used in such Code.
(e) Coordination With Internal Revenue Code of 1986- Any increase in the tax imposed under chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by reason of subsection (a) shall not be treated as a tax imposed by such chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under such chapter or for purposes of section 55 of such Code.
(f) Regulations- The Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary's delegate, shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.
(g) Effective Date- This section shall apply to disqualified bonus payments received after December 31, 2008, in taxable years ending after such date.

------------todays vote by congressional districts. Note: several in Mo and IL switched party line votes---------------------------------------------------

MO
1
Rep. William Lacy Clay Jr.
Democratic
Y
MO
2
Rep. W. Todd Akin
Republican
N
MO
3
Rep. John Russell Carnahan
Democratic
Y
MO
4
Rep. Ike Skelton
Democratic
Y
MO
5
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II
Democratic
Y
MO
6
Rep. Samuel Graves
Republican
N
MO
7
Rep. Roy Blunt
Republican
Y
MO
8
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson
Republican
Y
MO
9
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer
Republican
N

---------------------------------------------Il----------------------------------------------

IL
1
Rep. Bobby Rush
Democratic
Y
IL
2
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
Democratic
Y
IL
3
Rep. Daniel Lipinski
Democratic
Y
IL
4
Rep. Luis Gutierrez
Democratic
Y
IL
6
Rep. Peter Roskam
Republican
Y
IL
7
Rep. Danny Davis
Democratic
Y
IL
8
Rep. Melissa Bean
Democratic
N
IL
9
Rep. Janice Schakowsky
Democratic
Y
IL
10
Rep. Mark Kirk
Republican
Y
IL
11
Rep. Deborah Halvorson
Democratic
Y
IL
12
Rep. Jerry Costello
Democratic
Y
IL
13
Rep. Judy Biggert
Republican
Y
IL
14
Rep. Bill Foster
Democratic
Y
IL
15
Rep. Timothy Johnson
Republican
Y
IL
16
Rep. Donald Manzullo
Republican
Y
IL
17
Rep. Phil Hare
Democratic
Y
IL
18
Rep. Aaron Schock
Republican
Y
IL
19
Rep. John Shimkus

everything comes at a price video

This vid is making the rounds of the internet. Good music and good political points. Recommend you watch.

Another Obama snub of 676ers

Obama health care folks have once again excluded supporters of HR676. This is e-mail I recieved and will share with folks. Note, if folks wish all proposals on the table, then the exclusion of the HR676 folks is a bad sign of poor judgement and more.

Who says we do not have the best politicans money can buy.

-----------------------------------

Labor Campaign for Single-Payer Healthcare
Healthcare Is A Right -- Not A Privilege
www.laborforsinglepayer.org

For Immediate Release: March 18, 2009
Contact: Mark Dudzic: 201-314-2653 or mdudzic@igc.org

Labor leaders disappointed by lack of working people's voices at Vermont healthcare reform discussion

Burlington, VT -- Working people’s voices were not heard at the Obama Administration's second regional Health Care Summit in Burlington, VT on March 17.

"Despite the fact that several union spokespersons attended the meeting, we were not called upon and unfortunately the voice of workers was shut out of the discussion," said Peter Knowlton, president of the Northeast Region of the United Electrical Workers Union (UE). "When it came to the financial discussion, Gov. Douglas and Gov. Patrick [the two governors moderating the session] only called on wealthy special-interests from the worlds of business and professional circles."

Sandy Eaton, a nurse who attended the forum stated that nurses’ voices went unheard as well. "Nurses were well represented, but our voices were not heard -- and the term "nurse" or "hospital worker" was never mentioned in the two hour forum," said Eaton who is a member of the executive board of the Massachusetts Nurses Association.

Outside the auditorium where the summit was being held, over 250 labor and community members rallied in support of HR 676 and single payer healthcare. “Our system needs fundamental reform,” said Dawn Stanger, President of the Vermont Workers Center-Jobs with Justice. Stanger, a UPS employee and member of Teamsters Local 597, was joined by dozens of unionized nurses who worked next door at Fletcher Allen Health Care, the largest hospital in Vermont.

“We need to build a movement to demand change,” Stanger told the crowd. The Vermont Workers Center is coordinating a major statewide “Healthcare Is a Human Right” rally on May 1 at the Vermont Statehouse which will include U. S. Senator Bernie Sanders. The rally will oppose Vermont Governor Douglas’ proposed budget cuts to healthcare programs and support state and national single-payer legislation.

“I was really hopeful that these forums would finally give voice to workers concerns,” added UE leader Peter Knowlton. "There were many people there who could have reminded them about the serious problems hourly workers face with skyrocketing premiums and dealing with the horrors of co-pays, deductibles, out-of-pocket expenses and the run around all workers face with managed care. If this forum is any indication of future ones, we will need to be much more aggressive to get our voices heard."

Knowlton, Eaton and Stanger were among the several labor leaders at the forum who support HR 676, the "Expanded and Improved Medicare for All" Act. HR 676 was re-introduced this year by Congressman John Conyers. It currently has 66 congressional co-sponsors. Because it eliminates the private insurance industry from profiting from people's misfortunes and, like Medicare, establishes the federal government as the "single payer" of everyone's medical bills, HR 676 can provide healthcare for all with no co-pays or deductibles in a fiscally prudent manner. HR 676 has the endorsement of hundreds of state and local labor federations and local unions as well as many other civic and religious organizations.

The Labor Campaign for Single Payer Healthcare was formed at a meeting attended by over 150 representatives from labor organizations in 31 states that have endorsed HR 676. We believe that the struggle for universal, single-payer health care needs labor's dynamic grassroots involvement. Learn more at: www.laborforsinglepayer.org

The Burlington Free Press also provided coverage of the rally at:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090318/NEWS03/90318001&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

ARA Obama Health Care

This is from the weekly ARA newsletter, Friday edition-today's: (retired American's newletter has some very interesting and timely news by the way)


FRIDAY ALERT
Alliance for Retired Americans
815 16th Street, NW, Fourth Floor • Washington, DC 20006 202.637.5399 • www.retiredamericans.org • arafridayalert@retiredamericans.org
March 6, 2009

--------------------------------------


Alliance Participates in White House Health Care SummitPresident Barack Obama stepped up his effort to pass health-care-reform legislation this week, naming a new Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and hosting a White House summit to discuss solutions to the issues at hand. On Monday, the president announced Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as his choice to head HHS. The same day, he named Nancy Ann Min DeParle, who served as a top health official in the Clinton administration, the new director of the White House Office on Health Reform.

The President hosted a White House summit on how to overhaul the health-care system on Thursday, with approximately 120 invited members of Congress, advocates from non-profits, and others gathering to discuss the road forward. Alliance Executive Director Edward F. Coyle was one of the advocates in attendance.
Rather than craft health care legislation on its own, the administration is offering a set of principles to shape a process in which all stakeholders will make concessions.

As an opening maneuver, Obama set aside $634 billion in his proposed budget to be dedicated to health reform. The 10-year reserve fund could be used to provide health insurance to some of the 46 million Americans who do not have it today. To raise that money, Obama would cut itemized tax deductions for the wealthiest Americans and trim federal payments to hospitals, home health aides, drug manufacturers and some physicians.

White House budget director Peter Orszag said on Sunday that he wants to see the effort offset with tax increases or spending cuts so it does not add to the deficit, according to The Wall Street Journal. The White House proposal contains numerous elements that are likely to come under debate, including whether businesses should be required to provide insurance to workers and whether Americans should be required to sign up for insurance. A Democratic proposal to set up a public program to compete with private health-insurance companies is also under discussion. Next up will be Senate confirmation hearings for Gov. Sebelius, who was a two-term state insurance commissioner before becoming governor.

Said Mr. Coyle, “The Alliance for Retired Americans believes that any health care reform passed by Congress must: allow Medicare to negotiate volume discounts with drug manufacturers; close the ‘donut hole’ in Medicare Part D coverage; and provide early retirees age 55-64 the option to purchase Medicare coverage. I look forward to working with my fellow Summit attendees and the Obama administration to improve health care for current – and future – retirees.”

--------------------------
It was good that a member of labor, retiree organization was at conference. Where are the folks that support HR676, such as the nurse's organizations? Seems some early stacking the deck for the insurance/pharm companies.

Also beware, when folks in Washington or the state houses talk about "benefit reform", they naturally are talking about getting further into your pocketbooks by cutting any promiced benefits. This of course sounds familiar to many in the Canco retirement community for that is exactly what American-National, Silgan, Crown-Cork has done to the retirees. Retirees for many other companies can report this as well and the list would be many, many pages.

Of course, some would remind me this is early; but I think the powers-that-be should be very aware our position here in St. Louis. I figure with the "give-backs" to the company (or theft of benefits one might say), I have already donated to the great society and I for one really do not wish to hear that "compromise" or " give a little" bull hockey.

After all, I am not one who has accepted insurance or drug company blood money nor is any in our merry little band on the West Bank in Missouri.

Most of the SOAR 11-3 folks feel exactly this way.

More on healthcare summit

It is unbelievabal, but it looks as if the "676-ers" were excluded from yesterday's health care meeting. The following is from the "nurses" association.

Labor Campaign for Single-Payer Healthcare
Healthcare Is A Right -- Not A Privilege
www.laborforsinglepayer.org


For Immediate Release: March 4, 2009
Contact: Mark Dudzic: 201-314-2653 – mdudzic@igc.org

Labor Leaders Demand That ‘Single Payer’ Be Part of Obama Healthcare Reform Discussions
The Obama administration’s plans to hold a “Health Care Summit” that excludes advocates of single-payer healthcare reform has drawn a sharp response from labor leaders around the country.
“President Obama has indicated that his administration is committed to the passage of a new ‘universal’ national health care program for all Americans, and he wants it done this year. For working people, and particularly the 48 million Americans currently without health insurance, this is welcome news. We also applaud the President’s efforts to provide immediate relief to the growing number of unemployed workers faced with the loss of their health insurance,” said Mark Dudzic, National Coordinator of the Labor Campaign for Single Payer Healthcare.
“At the same time,” he continued, “we are deeply concerned by the apparent failure of the administration to include a single supporter of HR 676 among the 120 invited participants to Thursday’s Health Care Reform Summit. We are calling on our supporters to call and write the White House and demand that our voice be heard.”
HR 676, the “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All” Act, was re-introduced this year by Congressman John Conyers. It currently has 59 congressional co-sponsors. Because it eliminates the private insurance industry from profiting from people’s misfortunes and, like Medicare, establishes the federal government as the “single payer” of everyone’s medical bills, HR 676 can provide healthcare for all with no co-pays or deductibles in a fiscally prudent manner. HR 676 has the endorsement of hundreds of state and local labor federations and local unions as well as many other civic and religious organizations.
“The first step is to ensure that HR 676 has a ‘seat at the table’ in the upcoming healthcare reform debates,” said South Carolina AFL-CIO President Donna Dewitt. “It needs to be given the same degree of attention as all other credible proposals for reform and subjected to a side-by-side ‘facts based’ analysis with those proposals.”
Leaders of the Labor Campaign for Single Payer are urging President Obama to consider alternatives which, like Medicare, would not rely on private, for-profit insurance companies to ration health care to the American people. “Proposals which funnel our precious healthcare dollars into the pockets of the for-profit insurance industry and other
special interests will do nothing to contain and control costs or improve the quality of care,” said Fernando Gapasin, President of the West Central Oregon Central Labor Council.
Labor leaders from Massachusetts are particularly concerned that their state’s law requiring all individuals to purchase private health insurance is being touted as a model for the nation. “Last month 40 of my fellow union leaders wrote to President Obama to urge him to reject a Massachusetts-style plan that would leave private insurance companies at the center of the system through an individual mandate and expensive public subsidies supported by taxes for plans that still don’t provide enough coverage. The Massachusetts plan is widely recognized as unsustainable and now that we are facing an economic crisis, it is even more problematic.” said Peter Knowlton, president of the Northeast Region of the United Electrical Workers Union (UE).
“If anyone should be excluded from this summit,” said Ray Stever, New Jersey State Industrial Union Council President, “it should be the representatives of the health insurance industry. These are the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. They will move heaven and earth to continue to deny Americans the healthcare justice that citizens of all other industrialized countries enjoy.”
The Labor Campaign for Single Payer Healthcare joins other single payer advocates and organizations who are demanding that their views be represented in the growing debate over health care reform. These include the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Healthcare, Healthcare-NOW, the All Unions Committee for Single Payer, the Physicians for a National Health Program and the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee whose Co-president, Geri Jenkins, RN, recently warned, “Any reform premised on expanding the insurance-based system will likely fail, frustrate the public desire for a real solution to our healthcare crisis, and undermine the political capital the administration has earned for reform.”
“That is why it is so important to speak up at this moment,” said Clyde Rivers of the California School Employees Association. “The stakes are too high to allow special interests to hijack a discussion whose outcome will so importantly affect the lives and livelihoods of the American people. We call on President Obama and the leaders of both houses of Congress to give HR 676 the fair and open hearing that it deserves,”
**** **** **** **** **** ****
The Labor Campaign for Single Payer Healthcare was formed at a January 10th meeting in St. Louis, Missouri attended by over 150 representatives from labor organizations in 31 states that have endorsed HR 676. We believe that the struggle for universal, single-payer health care needs labor’s dynamic grassroots involvement. www.laborforsinglepayer.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I watched the "interview" and comments after the first meeting. I think the term Obama used was "Bleeding heart liberal" in his after comments.

Horse droppings is my reply. This liberal supports HR676 for a number of reasons and "bleeding heart bullshit" is far down on the list. Most of Soar 11-3 believes likewise.

In any case, if Obama puts down the concern that over 20k fellow citizens die each year from lack of preventable care (and this estimate is too low in my opinion) as "bleeding heart nonsense", then Obama does not understand the full horror of the disaster we call health care and deserves to be a one termer.

It is folks like himself that took insurance blood money and pharm pay-offs for his election and not myself or any in the group. Yes, blood money for how does one think these folks make money. Soylent Green type thinking it seems.

Obama's health care mistake

President Obama is making a grave error. He has excluded the Nurse's Associations promoting HR676 from his upcoming health care conference.

Several of the members have called the White House and or sent e-mails. If you support the "Medicare for All Americans Act" you might wish to call and call soon.

Excluding our guys from productive imput in the mess we call health care in this nation is a grave error on the parts of the elected ones. We admit that HR 676 will not solve all the health care woes of the land, but it is the best proposal currently in congress. This plan is the closest proposal to our "old time" canco insurance, which was vastly superior to the current mess we all enjoy thanks to the greedy companies.

From Nurses's e-letter:

TELL THE PRESIDENT LET NURSES IN!
The voice of single payer has been shut out of the Obama Health Care Summit. Nurses, Doctors, Patients and millions of other activists do not have a voice at the table. Obama promised an open process, instead the only "evidenced-based reform" for health care – single payer – is excluded!
All other groups support keeping the insurance industry in place, even though single payer would generate 2.6 million additional jobs in America while covering every patient!
Nurses worked hard in every state in this country to elect Obama on the belief that their patients would finally have security about that which is most precious - the health of their families. It is not too late!

Call The White House today!Tell them to let single payer into the White House Summit on health care.
(202) 456-1414 or (202) 456-1111
TELL THE PRESIDENT America's HealthcareSolution is HR 676 - Medicare for ALL - Let Us In!