Portions XPosted on MyDesert.com

Former-President Bill Clinton, during his initial race to the Presidency, had a saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.”  The focus on the failings of the Bush economy lead to Clinton’s election and swept the supply-side Republicans from office for eight years.  Eight years of Democratic-lead prosperity, balanced budgets, and a peace-time economic bonanza for small business and working class families.

Now, America is faced with another economic debacle thanks to another member of the Bush family and to supply-side Republican economic policies that only benefit the rich and big business.  Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), presumptive Democratic nominee for the Presidency in Election 2008, has a detailed plan to strengthen the U.S. economy and to deliver us from eight years of mismanagement.

Obama’s plan is especially needed in the Coachella Valley with California one of the states hardest hit by the housing crisis, predatory lending, and rising commodity prices, with Riverside County one of the hardest hit counties, and with the Inland Empire, the San Gorgonio Pass, and the Coachella Valley as some of the hardest hit local regions.

More below the flip…

Over the course of the next few days, I will review Obama’s plan with a focus on:

• jumpstart the economy
• provide middle class Americans with tax relief
• trade
• job creation
• support small business
• labor
• protect homeownership & crackdown on mortgage fraud
• address predatory credit card practices
• reform bankruptcy laws
• work/family balance

On September 17, 2007, Obama stated:

“I believe that America’s free market has been the engine of America’s great progress. It’s created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It’s led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other’s success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.”

– Barack Obama, New York, NY, September 17, 2007

Unfortunately, Obama’s Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has stated that he has little to no knowledge concerning things economic.  Lucky us if McCain is elected as President of the United States.

Yes, you read that headline correctly.  Federal minimum wage of $6.55 an hour, not California minimum of $8 hour.  The SacBee has this gut shot of a story.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to sign an executive order next week that will reduce pay for more than 200,000 state workers to the federal minimum wage of $6.55 per hour to preserve cash in the midst of a month-long budget standoff, according to a draft copy of the order obtained by The Bee.

Administration officials said the governor expects to take the action Monday.

How are these employees going to be able to pay for their groceries on $6.55 an hour, or fill up their car with gas, let alone pay their rent?  The short answer is they aren’t.

This is going to result in a lot of employees needing governmental assistance for basic needs, not that the state has the money to help with that anyways at this point.  This is a crisis and this damn well better get some folks up in arms.

Here is the law that Arnold is using to justify this move.

He says that his action complies with a 2003 ruling by the California Supreme Court that made clear that without a state budget in place, federal labor laws require the state to pay most workers “either federal minimum wage or, for those employees that work overtime, their full salaries.”

You have to assume there will be some lawsuits, most likely by the unions representing these workers.  The pay cut is not the only thing Arnold is doing.

The order would require state agencies to stop authorizing overtime for most employees.

The governor also plans to issue a hard hiring freeze except for state jobs “directly related to the preservation and protection of human life and safety.” He also will suspend work for all retired annuitants, permanent intermittent employees, seasonal employees, temporary help workers, student assistants and some contractors.

The one group I know for sure that will be fired immediately are the seasonal employees at the state parks.  No longer will they be manning gates and working on preservation policies.  There have to be a ton of other agencies effected as well.  

This is obviously a breaking story.  If anyone has anything to add to what the Bee has up, please leave it in the comments.  We don’t have a budget and this is a crisis.  This is exactly what the Republicans want to see, the government failing and getting smaller.  This is what happens when you have a two-thirds rule for both taxes and a budget.  A small minority can cause a whole lot of pain to a huge number of people.

Just shameful.

[UPDATE by Dave] Just to chime in, as I was typing this up myself.  This is intolerable and it aligns perfectly with the Shock Doctrine of taking advantage of a crisis to cause more economic dislocation and pain while rewarding the rich and connected.  The governor’s budget plan is to literally create more working poor among a significant percentage of the work force.  

The lawsuits should begin tomorrow.  This is a breach of trust.  And if you think Arnold’s poll numbers were bad before, wait until you see them after this stunt.  200,000 workers have a lot of friends and family.  What a scumbag.

UPDATE (Bob):  I agree with Dave, let the lawsuits start tomorrow, but let the process to recall begin Friday. The GOP does not value an honest day’s work, that is why our Lame Duck Governor will destroy the lives of the people who work hardest for him while the Yacht Tax Loophole remains. Time for a Special Election to totally recall. Hope to see press releases from the CDP and any union that values work in 48 hours.

[UPDATE by Robert]: This comment by karyn1 on the SacBee article sums it up:

$6.55 an hour only amounts to $1048 per month. After my rent, that would leave only $218 left. How many of you can live on that? Hardly, am I a rich state employee. As a clerical, I am usually broke by the 10th of the month, and the other 3 weeks of the month I am barely getting by. SacBee comments

[UPDATE by Dave]: Speaker Bass weighs in:

“I don’t believe the Governor would put public servants in the crossfire of this budget battle. But this action would speak to the need for all us — including the Governor — to negotiate a balanced, responsible budget that protects our schools and the safety net before we run out of cash.”

The proposal on closing parks was just a game, but now we’re talking about people’s livelihoods.  Playing around like this is unacceptable.

…OK, so the Speaker just revised her press release by changing “should” to “would” in the first sentence, signaling that she thinks he’s bluffing.  Why they would re-send a press release for that is kind of absurd, as the implication was already made.  I really hope this isn’t the result of some talking-to from Arnold’s office, or that this is all one elaborate kabuki, because 200,000 soon-to-be minimum wage employees are not amused.

Dave Johnson sent over this really pretty amazing article in the Catholic News Agency after seeing my post on SEIU-UHW’s battle to unionize workers in the St. Joseph Health Care System.  Sure it is a few months old, but it is too good not to blog.  The article is titled innocently enough “Catholic health workers’ effort to unionize could crowd out Catholics”.  Crowd out Catholics they say?  How?

Well…it is all about the homos you see, as the lead tells us.

A complex labor dispute between a Californian Catholic healthcare company and its employees could end in an agreement with a union that promotes homosexual rights, the California Catholic Daily reports.

And what do they use to base this claim?

Well, they go right after Sal Roselli, the leader of SEIU-UHW.  No, not like SEIU International has gone after Sal, but because, gasp, he is gay!  Going way back to 1984.  Oh my goodness.

In 1984-85, Roselli was president of a Lesbian/Gay Democratic Club.  A grand marshal for the 2006 San Francisco LGBT Pride Parade, Roselli has introduced domestic partner compensation into the UHW member benefits.

This bit is my favorite.  They use an anonymous source to attack Sal and SEIU-UHW.

A political activist in Sacramento, who requested anonymity, told the California Catholic Daily that Roselli’s union is trying to become the exclusive bargaining agent for some St. Joseph employees.

“This is a very contentious union, and if they get what they want, there will be a full homosexualization of everything. Domestic partner benefits and the like will come from worker dues, and the full muscle of the union will be put behind the homosexual agenda,” the activist said.

Yes, that is exactly what SEIU-UHW does.  They are all about advancing the homosexual agenda and homosexualizing EVERYTHING.

But wait.  There is more.

The activist alleged that allowing UHW into St. Joseph’s, the Catholic health provider “would be agreeing, in effect, to fire any Catholic who does not agree to support the Culture of Death with his dues. The average nurse pays around $1,000 a year in dues for this, and that money goes to supporting candidates and propositions that support abortion and homosexuality. What kind of Catholic institution would agree to this for their employees?”

Woah, woah, woah.  How did we get to “Culture of Death” (note the capitalization) from homosexualizing everying?  Ah you see, SEIU-UHW endorses candidates and gives them money so that they can get elected and pass policies that help their members.  And yes, those politicians sometimes are pro-choice and vote for things like civil unions and even gasp….marriage equality.

But what the anonymous source conveniently fails to mention is that any union member by law is able to opt out from having their dues go to politics.  Remember the Prop. 75 fight?  That was over whether it should be opt in to political giving or the status quo of opting out.  So, a SEIU-UHW member who happens to be Catholic and anti-choice and anti-gay can continue being both things without having their dues go to politicians they disagree with.

So you see, all the author and the anonymous source are left with A) Sal Rosselli is gay. B) SEIU-UHW dues will go in a very small part to paying for domestic partner benefits for their staffers.

See, this is why the workers shouldn’t be allowed to have a union that can argue for fair pay and safe working environments for the staff and their patients.  I think they may have me convinced.  What about you?

(I added a photo of Sen. Yee joining the protest at UCSF. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

The people who cook lunches, clean classrooms, and provide medical care at the University of California live in poverty.  96% of the people who do these important, necessary jobs are eligible to receive public poverty assistance.  Many people working at the UC — one of the world’s most prestigious universities — have to work two or even three jobs just to pay rent and put food on the table for their families.

I just got back from the picket line here at UC Santa Barbara, where I’m a teacher and graduate student.  The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 3299 (AFSCME), which represents the 8,500 people who cook, clean, and work in health clinics across the University, today began a five-day strike after more than a full year of demanding a better contract with fair wages .  There are about 100 or so workers and supporters at the main entrance to UCSB right now, demonstrating for a fair contract.  Spirits are high, because everyone knows that the University simply cannot work without them — so they’re going to win a fair contract.  It’s just a matter of time.

The contract that these folks have had for the last several years is terrible.  Currently in Santa Barbara, the median home price is $1,000,000.  Average rents for a one bedroom apartment start at about $1,600 (check Craigslist for a taste of that nonsense).  Yet, these workers are paid only $10.28 to $11.50 per hour .  No wonder so many of them get public assistance simply to afford housing.

The workers aren’t asking for much.  Just a raise to $15.00 per hour, and a pay scale that includes a raise every now and then.  $15.00 per hour still won’t be nearly enough to afford housing in one of the most expensive housing markets in the world, but it will help some people work fewer hours at their second and third jobs, so that they can spend more time at home, with their children.

Even though Governer Schwarzenegger is trying to protect his rich buddies and their yacht tax breaks by cutting the budget for education , there is no reason why the UC cannot afford to pay its workers enough to afford an apartment near their place of work.

The University of California has a massive budget, and they have plenty of money to spread around to pay the salaries of important people like basketball coaches and executive administrators.  It’s time for the UC to give the same respect to all of its employees.

Dissent magazine has a fascinating article by Marie Gottschalk on current efforts to achieve healthcare reform in the United States http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1166. SEIU President Andy Stern and the business-friendly approach that failed here in California gets some well-deserved criticism:

“So far, Stern has garnered a disproportionate amount of media and popular attention. His business-friendly stance on health care reform, which stresses how the U.S. health care system is fundamentally hurting the country’s economic competitiveness, helps explain why. But his economic competitiveness argument is not convincing and could undermine efforts to forge a successful coalition or movement on behalf of affordable, high-quality care for all.”

The author argues that wooing business leaders in order to build momentum for healthcare reform is a backwards-thinking approach, and one that has failed before. For example, the labor movement tried to bring business leaders to the table in the early 1990s. The Clinton healthcare plan fell apart not only due to a lack of grassroots support, but also after multimillion-dollar attacks came from those same business leaders. The author also shows that healthcare costs are not hurting the U.S. business community’s ability to compete with overseas companies.

One example: European and Japanese firms bear higher indirect costs, because of higher corporate taxes. Those extra costs generally exceed what even the most generous American businesses spend on coverage for their employees. Another example: corporate spending on healthcare, as a percentage of after-tax corporate profits, declined steadily in the U.S. between 1986 and 2004 (except for the three years from 1998 to 2001).

Gottschalk’s bottom line: “The economic competitiveness framework obscures the fact that employers and insurers have been remarkably successful at shifting health care costs onto employees, their families, and other individuals through higher co-pays, higher deductibles, restrictions on coverage, and other measures,” and the focus needs to be placed squarely on the damaging economic consequences for individuals and households who are bearing the greatest burden of rising healthcare costs, not on employers.

The reality is that only by building a bottom-up movement will we win healthcare reform—and only after we make it clear that change is important because it’s the right thing to do for everyone. Arguing that we need reform in order to protect corporate profits is the wrong way to go. It is the right of every person in this country to have access to quality, affordable healthcare. This moral rationale for reform must maintain center stage, linked to an economic rationale focused on reducing costs for working families, and delivering higher-quality healthcare more efficiently—by providing better integrated, more appropriate services, and reducing insurance company administrative overhead, marketing costs, and profit.

My union, United Healthcare Workers-West, fights for real healthcare reform based on these principles and our personal experiences with this perverted system. We oppose phony reform, like what Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed for California last year. Badly misreading the situation here in the state, Andy Stern supported a reform package that yielded far too much ground to Schwarzenegger’s proposals. That plan proved unacceptable to the rest of the labor movement and the State Senate, and would have been rejected by voters had it gone to the ballot.

This year’s extended primary just might be great for healthcare reform as the Clinton campaign’s failure may have killed off the terrible idea of insurance mandates.  She ran on it, and lost–just like Arnold did in California last year.

If so, great news all around.  Working people, already struggling, will not face the prospects of having their wages garnished to pay off Blue Cross’ inflated premiums, overhead, and denials.  Healthcare reformers can focus their work towards enacting genuine solutions, rather than fighting off this insurance marketing scheme masquerading as health care policy.  And all of us can debate the real issues at hand here, like the new report finding the number of underinsured is spiking as our healthcare system continues its death-by-insurer spiral.

We’ll take a look at this and updates from single-payer movement below!

The big political advantage of health insurance mandates (laws forcing people to buy private insurance, no matter the cost or quality) is that insurance companies love them, and can create big coalitions of business-friendly groups that seem safely centrist but also reasonably effective.  They seem so dang politically viable.

But the Wall St. Journal points out they’re not and argues that Clinton’s Exit Deals Setback to the Push for Health-Care Mandates

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s exit from the presidential race will deal a blow to supporters of a key element in the tussle over universal health coverage: the idea that all Americans be required to buy or have health insurance.

After gaining considerable political ground, especially at the state level, the concept has suffered other setbacks lately, too. Despite years of entrenched political opposition to the idea of a mandate, it was a key part of the 2006 universal health care legislation enacted in Massachusetts and of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plan to overhaul health care in that state….

The Schwarzenegger plan, though, failed this year, in part because unions and business groups objected to its individual and employer mandates. In Massachusetts, results have been mixed. While the overall plan has cut the number of uninsured adults in that state by roughly half, the state authority responsible for overseeing the program has exempted nearly 20% of uninsured residents because it has deemed they can’t afford the policy premiums on offer.

The California plan died when the public and legislators learned that nurses and labor unions were strongly opposed to the idea-and that their wages could have been garnished or a lien put on their home.  This same strategy will kill similar proposals nationally.  It is generous to call Massachusetts’ experiment mixed; check out Dr. Steve B’s more informed comments.

There are a number of problems with mandates.  On a macro level, they make genuine healthcare reforms-single-payer-impossible by showering for-profit insurers with millions of new customers and billions in new revenues and subsidies.  On a micro level, they trap patients into this broken system and saddle them with junk insurance that will drain their bank accounts only to offer them no protection in the case of a health crisis.

A new study today elaborates on this very problem of underinsurance:

About 25 million Americans – or approximately one of every five adults younger than age 65 with health insurance – did not have sufficient coverage last year to shield them from financial hardship if they ended up in the emergency room or were seriously ill, according to a new study to be released on Tuesday by the Commonwealth Fund.

I actually think that number is really low, but at least it focuses our attention on this:

As the nation debates how best to improve its health care system, including how to insure the increasing number of Americans without coverage, policy makers also need to discuss the quality of available coverage, said Karen Davis, the president of the Commonwealth Fund.  “Lack of insurance is only part of the problem, as even the insured have serious gaps in coverage,” she said.

Meanwhile, hilarity ensues as The head of Blue Shield of California begs health reformers: “Stop demonizing health plans.”  I don’t think so.

Chellie Pingree is about to become a great Congresswoman from Maine, and she is running on a single-payer platform.  Rose Ann DeMoro from the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee,  finds a gold rush town that symbolized our healthcare crisis.

Elsewhere, a writer in the Tennessean reminds us why we don’t have single-payer healthcare…the war…and the trend of getting married for health insurance continues.

Finally, Elizabeth Edwards, well, um, eviscerates John McCain’s so-called health care plan.  Snap!