Wal-Mart's Hypocrisy on Health Care

One follow-up to my last post on Wal-Mart. Colorado is being joined by Maryland in efforts to crackdown on Wal-Mart's abusive practices. The Washington Post reports "the Maryland General Assembly neared final passage of a bill aimed at Wal-Mart Stores that would require large employers to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits for employees." Wal-Mart claims "it already spends between 7 and 8 percent" which means it should have no problem with the bill. Yet, the company "warned it might stop building new stores in the state if the measure becomes law."

Why would Wal-Mart threaten to stop building stores because of a piece of legislation it says it already complies with? Could it be that Wal-Mart is lying about its compliance?

Humiliating Politicians Into Addressing Wal-Mart

Progressives in Colorado are on the verge of passing one of the most important pieces of legislation when it comes to workers, health care, and Wal-Mart. Denver's Rocky Mountain News reports that under pending legislation, the state "would publish a list of companies that offer little or no health insurance - as well as how much they're costing the state in Medicaid." Wal-Mart is expected to be high on the list.

Consider the following statistics to understand how disgusting Wal-Mart's willingness to shaft its workers really is: The company is one of the wealthiest in the world, regularly topping the Fortune 500 list, with almost $300 billion in annual sales. The company is so flush with cash, it pays its top executive almost $20 million a year, showers the Republican Party in campaign cash, uses its army of lobbyists to push for estate tax cuts for the Walton family, and, according to a former top executive, spends freely on anti-union activities.

This same super-wealthy company, however, pleads poverty when it comes to its workers, often paying employees so little they have to seek welfare assistance. In Florida, for instance, the St. Petersburg Times reports Wal-Mart "has more employees and family members enrolled in Medicaid than any company in the state."

Similarly, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that a Georgia survey "found 10,261 of the 166,000 children covered by Georgia's PeachCare for Kids health insurance in September 2002 had a parent working for Wal-Mart." That was "about 14 times the number for next highest employer: Publix, with 734." And the New York Times reported that a North Carolina hospital "found that 31 percent of 1,900 patients who described themselves as Wal-Mart employees were on Medicaid, while an additional 16 percent had no insurance at all."

That's why Colorado's potential move is so important - it is a first step to more publicly exposing just how abusive Wal-Mart is to its workers - and just how much Wal-Mart is ripping off regular taxpayers with its reliance on public assistance.

One might think that the federal government would already be following Colorado's lead, what with the the world's wealthiest company disingenuously relying on government assistance to provide its workers with health care. Instead, however, it is giving away even more government cash and favors to the company. For instance, the Associated Press reported federal lawmakers actually approved a bill "that includes $37 million for widening and extending the Bentonville street that provides the main access to the headquarters of Wal-Mart Store." Meanwhile, the Bush administration reportedly cut a secret agreement between with Wal-Mart giving the giant retailer the authority to conduct its own investigations of employee wage and hour complaints. The New York Times reported that "a provision of the agreement also promises to give Wal-Mart 15 days' advance notice" before the Department of Labor investigates accusations such as failure to pay minimum wage or overtime.

Maybe, if the Colorado effort is successful, free-market ideologues in the White House and Congress will finally be embarrassed into reversing these odious actions, and cracking down on this abusive corporation once and for all

Congress Takes on Trade; Bush Stays Quiet

Congress is finally starting to wake up to the fact that our country's free trade policies are unfair. The Associated Press reports today that for the second time in two days Congress "gave notice to both China and the Bush administration that it will take action if nothing is done about undervalued Chinese currency that gives Chinese goods an advantage over American competition."

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), one of the heroes in the fight for fair trade, said "We are playing by the rules. We think the Chinese government is cheating." He introduced a bill that defines exchange rate manipulation as a prohibited export subsidy and sets guidelines for U.S. agencies to sanction China.

Interestingly, Ryan is peeling off some Republicans. For instance, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) co-sponsored the bill. He "expressed concern that China was using the billions of dollars amassed from currency manipulation to buy advanced weaponry from Russia and other countries."

Nonetheless, there has been no word from the White House on this. Instead, President Bush continues to push America's current corporate free trade policy that has allowed this mess to happen.

Sign Up for Regular Bulletins

Just wanted to remind folks again to sign up for regular e-mail updates from this site on news of the day/breaking stories. You can sign up right in the upper right corner of this site by just entering your email address. Make sure when you hit enter to reply to the confirmation email you will receive!

Bush Called FDR a "Socialist" For Creating SS

President Bush's professor at Harvard Business School reports in today's Harvard Crimson that Bush "called former president Franklin D. Roosevelt, Class of 1904, a 'socialist' and spoke against Social Security, unemployment insurance, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other New Deal innovations."

Clearly, this shows just how extreme Bush is. But it isn't a surprise. Bush has been trying to eliminate Social Security for a long time. In 1978, he supported privatization by claiming the system would go bankrupt by 1988 - a complete lie. Now today, the professor notes that "to privatize Social Security, [Bush] is peddling a colossal lie about its solvency." Let's hope the media makes sure people know Bush has a proven track record of saying anything - regardless of truth or fact - to justify his right-wing agenda.

Sometimes It's Good to Be In the Middle

A few weeks ago, I was attacked for being too critical of Democrats. Now today, we see excerpts of Byron York's new book which attacks me for supposedly being too critical of the Bush administration.

I guess sometimes it's really good to be in the middle like this. I hope it shows credibility and a committment to issues/the progressive cause, rather than just a political party.

A Good Question for Wal-Mart

This is a great post by Facing South. They ask a very important question - if we get rid of the estate tax, as Wal-Mart is lobbying for, how will government pay for the public assistance programs Wal-Mart employees are forced to use because of the company's lack of benefits and low wages?

Drop The Hammer

Tell the companies that are funding Tom DeLay's legal defense to Drop the Hammer.

Halliburton Goes Offshore to Rip Off Workers

This was sent to me by friends at Halliburton Watch. Apparently, Halliburton (Vice President Cheney's old company) is employing its Iraq workers through its Cayman Islands subsidiary (probably the same one that it used to evade U.S. law and do business in Iran). The reason? Because when Halliburton workers return from Iraq, the company can claim it isn't a U.S. company and thus not required to pay their workers unemployment. So, when it comes to raking in billions of taxpayer dollars from government contracts, Halliburton proudly claims its an American company. But when it comes to making sure workers get unemployment benefits, Halliburton claims it is not an American company.

See the documentation of this rip-off scam here.

This is Truly Disgusting

This story from the Sacramento Bee is truly nauseating:

"For the second year in a row, the Schwarzenegger administration is trying to end a prostate-cancer treatment program for low-income men [called IMPACT]...During the 2004 budget debate, the Schwarzenegger administration told IMPACT officials to terminate the program. About 145 men with prostate cancer ended up on a waiting list for eight months." Democratic lawmakers opposed to Schwarzenegger's efforts "eventually restored the money, but by that time many men on the waiting list were much sicker than they had been when they first sought help."

If Schwarzenegger is so extreme that he's persecuting poor cancer-ridden people who have nowhere else to go, who is he going to go after next?

DeLay & the GOP's Love of the Caribbean

Over the years, the Republican Party has been unwilling to crack down on shady offshore financial dealings that shirk American law. For instance, Republicans opposed Democratic efforts to close a tax loophole that allows companies to purchase a mail drop in a Carribean island, claim they aren’t U.S. companies and thus evade their U.S. tax obligations. While GOP lawmakers publicly switched their votes when the provision initially passed, they ultimately killed the provision (and others like it) behind closed doors. They also turned a blind eye when 60 Minutes reported that Halliburton used offshore subsidiaries in places like the Cayman Islands to shirk U.S. national security embargoes and do business in places like Iran and Iraq (see more in this previous post).

And now, maybe we get a clue as to why: The Washington Post today reports that House then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R) used “a mysterious company registered in the Bahamas” to hide the fact that business lobbyists were funding his lavish overseas trips. The Post notes while DeLay publicly claimed “that the trip was sponsored by a Washington-based nonprofit organization,” in fact it was being funneled through this offshore company, which was also spending almost half a million dollars to lobby DeLay and other lawmakers. Because the U.S. hasn’t tried to crackdown on these practices, the Post notes that “it is unclear precisely how the money was transferred from the Bahamian-registered company to the nonprofit.”

In other words, maybe part of the reason the Republican Party has been so unwilling to crackdown on this abusive use of offshore tax/regulatory havens is because the GOP has been engaging in this abuse behavior itself.

Rocky Mountain Energy Contrast

As we hear more and more about a potential spike in oil prices, the Rocky Mountain west has become an interesting contrast in how best to deal with America’s energy challenges. In Colorado, the crisis is apparently being used as a way to do more favors for the oil industry. Specifically, conservatives killed an "oil-and-gas bill that could have forced companies to pay more for harming private property where they drill." Although lawmakers "acknowledged that the debate is second in importance only to that over water in many parts of the state," they were unwilling to act on behalf of citizens who are becoming angrier at energy companies for their abusive behavior. One lawmaker who voted against it is even having second thoughts. Rep. Ray Rose (R-Montrose) is now worried about explaining his vote against the bill to constituents who are concerned about the breakneck pace of gas development in their area and said, "I'll be lucky to get out without being lynched."

This push to allow oil drilling at all costs stands in stark relief to the efforts of Wyoming and Montana, which are both pioneering innovative renewable energy projects - projects that are the beginning of an energy policy that could finally get us off oil. The Casper Tribune reports that Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal is using state government to push a new solar- and wind-powered stock water pump that helps ranchers who typically rely on surface water for their livestock. The pumps, developed by the University of Wyoming, will replace many smaller, less efficient diesel engines that ranchers have been using. This innovation follows news that Montana regulators have approved a massive new wind energy farm in the Judith Basin.

This dichotomy is emblematic of the larger energy policy questions dogging the Bush administration, which falsely claims that drilling is the way out of America's energy problems. Clearly, that's not true, and states are moving in to fill that leadership void.

How Much is Bush's SS Tour Costing You?

President Bush has been barnstorming the country trying to sell the public on his plan to privatize Social Security. Some have wondered how much all his events cost - with the government in serious deficit, and the president claiming Social Security faces a funding crisis, you might think he'd be frugal with the taxpayer money he is spending on these Hollywood-style event. To get an idea of just how much taxpayer money he is spending to promote his plan, check out these stats:

STAFF COSTS BETWEEN $22,000 AND $59,000 PER EVENT: On 10/3/02, the Associated Press reported, "The White House has estimated that trips, on average, cost between $22,000 and $59,000 for staff, not including security and aircraft."

AIR FORCE ONE COSTS ABOUT $55,000 PER HOUR: The operational, per hour cost of Air Force One varies, depending on who you ask, but ranges from $35,000—$50,000 per hour in 2000 dollars. In 2000, The Republican National Committee issued a press release estimating the cost at $35,000/hr. On 8/21/2000, the the New York Post reported that, “The cost per hour of a White House flight varies, depending on the plane used. It's typically about $50,000 per hour to fly the president and his entourage on Air Force One—or seven times the hourly rate of a commercial Boeing 747.” $50,000 in 2000 dollars is about $55,000 in today's dollars.

BUSH HAS A HISTORY OF ABUSING TRAVEL BUDGETS: On 10/20/02, the Washington Post reported "the White House has billed the federal Office of Family Assistance $210,000 to help pay for five trips in which President Bush promoted welfare reform at official events and made separate fundraising appearances for GOP candidates." An HHS spokesperson "said the $210,000 from the Office of Family Assistance helped pay for stages, sound and other speech-related costs on the trips." The Office of Family Assistance is supposed to use its funding to administer programs for poor children and families - not the President's travel.

This, of course, doesn't include the costs to local government of security when he holds these events. And while the amount spent may be small compared to the federal deficit, every little bit counts, especially considering it costs five times more to run Air Force one for an hour ($55,000) than Social Security pays the typical recipient in an entire year ($11,000). When put that way, his abuse of his travel privileges and wasteful attitude toward taxpayer money is no small matter.

Divisions on Bankruptcy

Good piece by John Byrne over at Raw Story that shows how deep the divisions are on the upcoming bankruptcy bill. Check it out.

The Loan Shark Prevention Act

As the House gets ready to debate the disgusting credit-card/banking-industry-backed bankrutpcy bill, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is introducing "The Loan Shark Prevention Act" - a legislative package designed to prevent the worst abuses by credit card companies and commerical banks. The bill has three very simple provisions:

1. Cap interest rates at 8% above what the IRS charges income tax deadbeats. Currently, the cap would be 14%, the same level that the Senate approved by a 74-19 vote in an amendment offered by Sen. Al D’Amato in 1991.

2. Cap bank and credit card fees at $15, instead of the astronomical late fees that are now regularly assessed.

3. Ban the credit card interest rate bait and switch. Credit card companies are doubling or tripling the interest rates of consumers even though they always paid their credit card bills on-time. The reason? Maybe they were one day late on a student loan payment three years ago. Maybe they took out another loan for a medical emergency. Or maybe they did nothing wrong at all. Today, credit card companies can raise rates for any time for any reason. This bill would restrict that.

Sanders makes a good point: "Loan-sharking is an odious practice whether it is performed by street corner thugs or the CEOs of large banks. Charging economically vulnerable Americans outrageous interest rates and fees is simply not acceptable and, amid all of the recent political discussion over 'values,' this certainly does not constitute 'moral' behavior."

Here's the deal with this bill - people who oppose this legislation literally support usury. And that's fine - but they should have the guts to admit that, rather than pretend that their vote in support of the upcoming bankruptcy bill is about anything other than paying back an industry that regularly engages in consumer abuse.

Stand Up and Fight, Part 2

Harvard University's Elizabeth Warren and her team have a terrific post up about the upcoming vote in the House on the bankruptcy bill. Read it, and do as they say. This is an absolutely critical issue.

Bush Steps Up His War on Workers

As if the recent string of one-sided congressional victories for Corporate America wasn't enough, the Financial Times today reports that the Bush administration "aims to toughen its regulation of organized labor, in what critics see as the latest in a series of pro-business policies sweeping Washington." Specifically, political hacks at the Department of Labor "plan greater scrutiny of spending and hiring practices, and continue to increase sharply the number of financial audits of individual unions."

Despite his high-profile photo-ops and rhetoric, its pretty clear George W. Bush hates unions, and hates working people. That's not surprising, considering he never did a real day's work in his life. For Bush, growing up a wealthy blueblood elitist surely meant looking down on average blue collar workers with disdain.

But even so, today's story highlights the wild-eyed ferocity with which he has persecuted the labor movement. For instance, right-wing appointees to the National Labor Relations Board announced that they're taking aim at card-check recognition: the fairest and fastest process for workers to demonstrate they want a union. He dissolved the labor-management partnership councils – a key measure to give workers more input in federal contracting. He repealed workplace ergonomic standards that were designed to prevent worker on-the-job injuries. And the administration actually intervened to block a California law that said employers couldn't use taxpayer money to run anti-union campaigns in the workplace.

This, of course, says nothing about Bush's refusal to support a serious increase in the minimum wage, his unending support for corporate-written free trade deals that sell out American jobs, his hearty endorsement of outsourcing, and his desire to allow companies to unilaterally change their pension system to screw workers. Nor does it say anything about how his administration has given secret sweetheart deals to Wal-Mart, essentially giving the most anti-union company on the globe a free hand to continue its abusive union busting practices.

Workers in this country are clearly under assault, as conservatives really believe they can put the labor movement to death. This war will take everything the labor movement can muster in order to survive – and it is essential for progressives to see this as a seminal battle in modern politics. The labor movement is the backbone of economic progressivism, and has been at the heart of critical social change in this country. American history without a vibrant labor movement would have left us with a country that allows slave wages, sweatshops, and disallows things like the weekend (after all, it was unions who helped pass laws mandating a 40 hour work week). That history must continue.

Tell Hoyer to Stand Up and Fight

I'm echoing Atrios on this one. As Democratic Whip in the House, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is responsible for organizing opposition to the Republican's far-right agenda. Apparently, there are some concerns that he is not going to use his considerable leadership resources to whip up Democratic opposition to the bankruptcy bill this week - I really hope those rumors aren't true.

Do what Atrios says - call Hoyer's office to urge him to stand up and fight against one of the worst pieces of legislation to come down the pike in years.

Pro-Corruption, Anti-Cheaper Meds

Colorado Republicans are really making a name for themselves this year in the legislature. First, Republicans voted against legislation to prohibit cash gifts to legislators from corporations and lobbyists. Currently, Colorado is the only state that doesn't limit these cash gifts, and apparently Republicans want corruption to continue. Luckily, Democrats had the votes to pass it.

Then yesterday, Republicans voted against allowing Colorado to join with other states in drug purchasing pools - a measure designed to lower the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs for the state's Medicaid program. At a time when Medicaid budgets are bloating state budgets, these supposedly "fiscally conservative" Republicans voted against this common-sense measure.

I wonder if these two issues are related in anyway?...corporate cash gifts are still permitted...legislators then vote against good public policy...coincidence?