Congress

High-Speed Rail Coming Down The Tracks

Adam Doster — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:26:50 -0800

The Supertrain could be coming to a station near you. Following the excellent news last month that Congress doubled the amount of federal funding earmarked for Amtrak, Sens. John Kerry and Arlen Specter unveiled another bill last week that would build upon the Amtrak reauthorization and fund high-speed rail lines across the country.

Titled the High-Speed Rail for America Act of 2008, the bill would provide money for tax-exempt bonds to finance long-stalled high-speed rail projects. “A first-rate rail system,” Kerry said in a statement, “would protect our environment, save families time and money, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and help get our economy moving again.”

If the bill passes, Illinois riders could benefit handsomely. The legislation sets aside $5.4 billion over a six-year period for rail infrastructure bonds that can be used on 10 rail corridors deemed in need of repair by the Federal Rail Administration. The Midwest represents one such corridor, with Chicago as its hub. Plans to revamp the region’s stretch of rail (dubbed the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative) were drawn up years ago. All that’s needed is the capital, which this bill would help provide.

As Ryan Avent writes, the timing of Kerry and Specter’s initiative is especially poignant in light of the Rust Belt’s financial struggles and the auto executives’ impending 500-mile carpool to Washington:

High-speed rail could cut travel time between Detroit and Washington from nine hours to three — just a smidge longer than the train ride from Washington to New York, from downtown to downtown. And you’d never have to take your shoes off, unless you wanted to. High-speed rail would also cut a five-hour drive from Detroit to Chicago to just over an hour. Detroit to Cleveland? Just under and hour. Detroit to Pittsburgh? About an hour and a half.

High-speed rail would, in other words, turn Rust Belt distances into northeast corridor distances, while also shifting the Rust Belt closer to the northeast corridor. It would increase the return to doing business in every city in the region. It would be the Erie Canal and the original railroads on steroids.

(H/T Praire State Blue)

Durbin's Foreclosure Bill Back On Table

Adam Doster — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:37:48 -0800

Back in April, during the height of the mortgage rescue package negotiations in Congress, we were frustrated to see Senate Republicans and the White House beat down Sen. Dick Durbin's proposal to aid struggling homeowners by allowing the terms of their mortgages to be revised in bankruptcy court. Apparently, so was the Illinois senator. Now, following encouraging testimony late last week from FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair in which she unveiled an aggressive plan to help those homeowners facing foreclosure, Durbin is throwing his proposal back on the table:

A U.S. senator on Monday introduced legislation to let judges alter the terms of distressed mortgages in bankruptcy cases, reviving a controversial proposal meant to help troubled homeowners, said an aide to the lawmaker.

Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin unveiled the bill, which his spokesman said would "allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages on primary residences."

As Reuters points out, there are a few differences between Durbin's original proposal and this iteration, most of which relate to oversight of the already approved bailout package. But at its core, allowing judges to reduce the amount borrowers snowed over by unaffordable mortgages owe in bankruptcy court is a common-sense solution to the ever worsening foreclosure crisis. When proposed last winter, advocates concluded that such a plan would help 600,000 homeowners keep their homes. And the only reason the banking industry opposed the idea was because, in the words of the Washington Post, "they could be forced to trim their profits."

Cook County Sherriff Tom Dart, who earned some national profile when he issued a brief moratorium on foreclosure evictions in October, will testify in support of the measure during Durbin's hearing tomorrow. We'll keep you posted on the bill's progress.

The Employee Free Choice Act: What's At Stake

Keith Kelleher — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:14:16 -0800

In 1980, the United Labor Unions set out to organize employees at Detroit fast food chains in the hopes of sparking a nationwide movement to unionize the workforce in this fast-growing industry. As a rookie organizer working on the campaign, I learned firsthand what is at stake when workers stand up for better wages, healthcare, and a voice on the job.

We started with a Burger King franchise in Detroit’s Greyhound station. While the drive was a challenge, the spark spread between employees as they encouraged each other to join the union and stand up to their managers. Greyhound Food Management ran a tough campaign to keep workers from organizing -- threatening some, making promises to others -- but didn’t succeed. By a margin of just one vote, the Burger King employees opted to create a union.   

Encouraged by our victory, we shifted our focus to three McDonald’s franchises on Detroit’s North Side. The employees were struggling with all kinds of issues -- minimum wage violations, sexual harassment, unfair scheduling, and health and safety issues ranging from grill burns to meat slicer injuries. Fed up and fired up, they decided to organize a union and won overwhelming support from their co-workers. Nothing could stop them.

Or so they thought.  

As workers started building their union inside the three local franchises, top-level corporate executives watched closely. It quickly became clear that the McDonald’s Corporation would take extreme measures to prevent their low-wage, part-time workforce from coming together to demand better jobs and working conditions.

A few weeks after we began, a team of psychologists rolled in. They quickly went to work, systematically interrogating each employee in a not-so-subtle attempt to intimidate them out of joining the union.

In the weeks that followed, McDonald’s brought in a high-powered corporate law firm that filed motion after motion to delay the union election that would give these McDonald’s workers an opportunity to unite. As the lawyers buried us in depositions, motions, and labor board charges, they were purposely slowing down the election process and buying McDonald’s more time to run an anti-union campaign built on spreading fear and misinformation among its workers.   One by one, the strongest pro-union voices in the three franchises were either demoted, forced out, or fired.   

The coup de grace was a mandatory “party” hosted by McDonald’s a few nights before the scheduled election. It featured an array of celebrities -- everyone from Detroit’s number-one deejay to football star Earl Campbell -- who each explained the evils of uniting in a union. Even a costumed Ronald McDonald was on hand to bust the organizing effort, running a raffle with cash prizes for everyone.   

When the election finally took place, workers opted against the union by a 60-40 percent margin. And every time we tried to support workers in other McDonald’s franchises, we ran into the same harassment and intimidation.   

Since those days in Detroit, I’ve stood with tens of thousands of workers who have united through the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) for a voice on the job. But in my nearly 29 years in the labor movement, I’ve seen too many forced to back down from their dream of a living wage and a better quality of life because their employers deliberately delayed or interfered with their right to form a union.   

Today, with the economy in crisis, working families are under attack like never before. Companies are slashing hours, delaying raises, hiking co-payments, or eliminating healthcare all together. It has never been more important for working people to have the freedom to unite on the job and fight back against the “race to the bottom” in pay, benefits and working conditions. Unfortunately, the number of men and women who are union members is at a historic low, and it’s hitting all of us.

In January, a new president and a new Congress will be sworn in with a mandate for change. Number one on their list should be to make it easier for workers like the ones I knew in Detroit to form a union and finally join the middle class.

To do that, Congress needs to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) – a law that makes the right to join a union a fundamental freedom, just like freedom of speech or religion, and says that workers should be allowed to come together without the kind of intimidation that happened in those McDonald’s and in so many other workplaces every day.

Under current law, even if a majority of workers sign up for a union, the company can veto that decision and demand an election. This gives the company time to fire or harass workers and threaten to close the workplace to coerce workers into voting against a union. Under the EFCA, if a majority of employees sign cards indicating they want to organize, then the company has to recognize the union, as long as it is certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  

While strong-arming employees to keep them from organizing has been illegal for a generation, the current penalties for union-busting amount to nothing more than wrist-slaps. According to a recent Human Rights Watch report, companies break the law with impunity and often factor in potential penalties as the cost of doing business. There are even law firms who openly specialize in “union avoidance” to help employers handle the minimal fines. The EFCA would level the playing field by requiring the NLRB to take immediate legal action to reinstate workers fired for union activity and triple the penalties for companies that punish or fire employees for engaging in protected organizing activities.

Not surprisingly, McDonald’s is already set to fight back against the EFCA. They have joined their fellow corporations -- such as other fast food companies, hotel chains, and mega-retailers like Wal-Mart -- in promising to spend more than $500 million to pressure President Obama and Congressional Democrats to avoid the bill.

Now is the time to do just the opposite. It was a new president elected during the depths of the Great Depression, after years of Republican misrule, that enshrined the right of American workers to form a union as part of the New Deal. Now it’s our turn to rise to the occasion and write the next chapter.

This fight is not just for union members. This is a fight for anyone who believes that workers deserve a living wage, that healthcare is a human right, that CEO pay is out of control, and that the race to the bottom has got to stop. As progressives, we need to come together and push back. It’s you and me and millions of workers versus Ronald McDonald and his union-busting friends. To win, we need all of you.

Keith Kelleher was one of the initial founders of United Labor Unions Local 880 in Chicago, which later affiliated with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and became SEIU Local 880. Under Kelleher’s leadership, Local 880 pioneered the organization of home care, child care and other low-wage workers, growing the local from only 200 members in 1983 to over 68,000 by 2008. This year, Local 880 joined forces with two other SEIU health care locals and formed SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana (HCII). With over 85,000 members, SEIU HCII is the largest union local of any union in Illinois and the Midwest, and the fifth largest local of SEIU. Kelleher was elected president of SEIU HCII earlier this year, and elected an international vice-president of SEIU at its convention in June. 

Editor’s note: The SEIU Illinois State Council sponsors Progress Illinois. Those readers who want to join SEIU’s campaign to pass the Employee Free Choice Act can learn more here.

Union Voters And Card Check

Adam Doster — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:16:03 -0800

If the Democratic leadership pushes the Employee Free Choice Act next year, it could be the nastiest political fight of Barack Obama's first term.

The bill would make it easier for employees to form unions by allowing them to sign cards authorizing union representation. It died in the Senate last year after only one Republican -- Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- voted for cloture.

It's no surprise that the GOP has put up such a unified fight. Many conservatives hold a visceral disgust for unions, in part because they counterbalance the party's big business constituents. But from a strategical standpoint, fierce opposition to card check could be a disaster for the GOP's long-term electoral prospects.

Why? White union voters heavily favor Democrats. In These Times' David Moberg has the numbers from this cycle:

If more voters belonged to a union, Obama would have won more decisively, even among white voters.

Election-night polling by Peter Hart for the AFL-CIO showed that 67 percent of union members voted for Obama while only 30 percent chose McCain. (Compare that to the 51 to 47 percent advantage Obama had over McCain in exit polls of non-union voters.) The union advantage was slightly higher in battleground states.

Most dramatically, union membership made a big difference in how well Obama performed. Union members over 65 voted by a 46-point margin for Obama, while all voters over 65 voted for McCain by an 8-point margin. Obama won by 23 points among white non-college graduates who belong to a union, even as he lost by 18 points among all white non-college voters.

Obama lost heavily among gun owners and white weekly churchgoers—except if they were union members. Then they voted for Obama, though by slim margins.

Demographic shifts are already shrinking the GOP's core constituency. If more white voters are exposed to union culture, the GOP's share of the electorate will contract even further.

That's what makes the unresolved U.S. Senate races in Minnesota, Georgia, and Alaska so crucial. If Democrats can somehow emerge victorious in two of the three outstanding contests, they will hold 57 seats with two independents in their caucus (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders). That leaves Specter in the unenviable position of voting for his party or his ideals. We can only imagine the battle that would ensue.

The "Dangerous Threesome" Argument

Adam Doster — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:06:13 -0800

Hoping to survive an oncoming Democratic wave, John McCain and his Republican cohorts popularized a new campaign meme this past week -- the "dangerous threesome":

Referring to Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, House speaker, and Harry Reid, Senate majority leader, Mr. McCain told a rally in Cleveland, Ohio: "You know, my friends, this is a dangerous threesome. They believe that $1 trillion of rescue financing is not enough and have already proposed another $300bn spending spree they're calling a stimulus plan."

This idea that voting for Republican candidates will prevent the "threesome" from overreaching has trickled into some tight congressional races too, especially in districts where Obama is expected to fare well. GOP Rep. Peter Roskam, fearing a 14-point Obama landslide in the 6th District, warned of one-party rule on WLS' Don Wade & Roma In The Morning last Wednesday:

ROSKAM: My predecessor Henry Hyde had a great description for things. And he said, “There’s one thing worse than gridlock in Washington and the worse thing is the greased shoot of government.” And I think there’s a lot of wisdom there. If government does things fast, without other voices, without other people raising issues and raising questions, it tends not to work out too well.

Now, there's some truth to that quote. Good policy incorporates a range of opinions and research from different perspectives. What's overlooked, however, is the actual policies an Obama administration and a Democratic Congress would push. No matter how much Roskam cries about the dangers of big government, Americans are hungry for the main planks of the Democratic agenda. In fact, they have been for a long time, only to be foiled by timid lawmakers and structural legislative deficiencies (i.e. the filibuster).

Most Americans want to solve global warming and move away from our dependence on oil. They want a responsible but immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They also want progressive taxation and government-funded stem cell research and reformed labor laws and universal health care.

Maybe Americans prefer a divided government because it provides necessary "checks and balances" on the leaders in the majority. Some political scientists aren't at all convinced, and I'm not either. Regardless, complaints at this stage of the game about the danger of giving the opposition too much power just reek of desperation, particularly coming from a party whose godfathers not so long ago relished the idea of one-party rule.

Hare: Don't Tie Stimulus To Colombia Trade Agreement

Adam Doster — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:07:00 -0700

If the Democrats decide to push for a second stimulus package during the upcoming lame-duck session, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and company might throw in a few sweeteners to build bipartisan support. While the House Republican proposal amounts to nothing more than an ineffective tax-cut giveaway, President Bush and congressional leaders have hinted they might accept a Democratic deal if the stalled free trade agreements with Panama, South Korea, and Colombia were approved as part of the package. Here's White House press secretary Dana Perino yesterday:

"We have some things that we think would stimulate the economy that they could do right away, such as vote yes or no on the free trade agreements that we have in front of them, especially the Colombia free trade agreement," she said.

That's not sitting too well with Rep. Phil Hare, a consistent critic of the Colombian deal. Here's his response in an email statement to supporters:

"The President's offer to grant Democrats his support for an economic stimulus package in exchange for the Colombia FTA is unacceptable and should be rejected.

"I continue to support efforts by this Congress to invest in our crumbling infrastructure and put the American people back to work. But tying an economic stimulus package to the Colombia FTA would be at best counterproductive and at worst downright harmful.

"At a time when our economy is hemorrhaging jobs, we should be forging a new direction on trade that protects American workers, not repeating the mistakes of the past.

"Furthermore, Colombia's record of violence against labor organizers is deplorable, with murders actually on the rise in 2008. Our steadfast commitment to basic human rights can never be used as a bargaining chip.

"I am all for compromise. But given the flawed nature of the Colombia FTA, our opposition should be non-negotiable."

GOP Proposal Stimulates The Rich

Adam Doster — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:18:17 -0700

Yesterday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) unveiled his own version of an economic recovery package, one that attempts to draw a contrast with the proposal favored by House Democrats:

Boehner’s plan, some components of which are also proposed by Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), would double the child tax credit to $2,000 per child, cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, zero out capital gains taxes for equities over the next two years, and encourage American companies to purchase new equipment through deductions. He also wants Congress to focus on investing in energy independence initiatives that could create jobs

On one hand, we have a Democratic proposal -- supported by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke -- that would extend unemployment insurance benefits, invest in transportation and infrastructure, provide a new round of tax rebate checks for working and middle class Americans, and deliver urgent aid to state governments (like Illinois) who are getting crushed under the weight of a global recession. Boehner counters with what the Wonk Room's Pat Garafalo calls "a conservative tax cut wish list."

As the Economic Policy Institute's handy graph illustrates, it's pretty clear which plan serves its intended purpose.

Four of the Democrats' major proposals would each provide more than $1.30 of economic value per dollar invested. The major GOP planks wouldn't stimulate anything, generating less than $.40 per dollar invested. That's because their plan doen't focus on providing relief for the poor, who would spend the money immediately if given the opportunity. Nor do they provide aid to the states, which will be forced to cut back spending without some assistance, thus weakening the package's effect. Instead, the trickle down tax cuts are directed primarily at the wealthy, who will ostensibly stash it away. It's not rocket science.

Nonetheless, we wonder what the Illinois Republican congressional delegation thinks of Boehner's proposal.

(H/T Ezra Klein)

Despite GOP Opposition, Home Energy Help On The Way

Angela Caputo — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:46:58 -0700

Fewer cash-strapped Illinois senior citizens and struggling families will have to go it alone when it comes to scrounging up the money to pay their heating bills this winter. An increase in federal funding will translate into an additional $118 million -- or $265 million in all -- worth of bill-pay assistance for low-income households struggling to keep up with a spike in home energy costs.

Last year, Illinois provided assistance to only half of the 788,749 Illinois households who qualified for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) because there wasn't enough federal grant money to go around. With home energy prices rising sharply, advocates for the poor expressed concern that thousands of needy households -- most of which include the elderly, children and disabled people -- would face an even tougher winter this year. Back in July, the National Governors' Association said an increase in funding was essential in averting a public health crisis this winter.

Despite opposition from Republicans -- including Illinois Reps. Judy Biggert, Peter Roskam, Don Manzullo, John Shimkus, and Ray LaHood -- an appropriation bill that increased LIHEAP aid was signed into law in September.

Not surprisingly, the same members of the Illinois Republican delegation who voted against additional LIHEAP funding also shot down two other bills this fall which sought to rein in subsidies and tax breaks for big energy companies who have posted record profits as consumer energy prices have gone through the roof.

Qualified Illinois residents can begin applying for the LIHEAP aid on Nov. 1 at community centers across the state.

Watchdog Group Files Complaint Against Roskam (UPDATED)

Josh Kalven — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:01:53 -0700

What is GOP Rep. Peter Roskam thinking? According to the watchdog group Public Citizen, 6th Congressional District residents have reported receiving taxpayer-funded mailings from Roskam between August 18 and October 7. Congressional ethics law prohibits members from using their "franking" privileges within 90 days of an election. Therefore, "rising star" Roskam should have ceased such communications on August 6.

Today, Public Citizen filed a complaint (available for viewing or download) which urged the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards "to severely reprimand Roskam and require him to pay a civil penalty and pay back the taxpayers for any franked mail sent out since early August."

From the accompanying press release:

“Right up into October, just weeks before the election, voters have been receiving two-page color mailers paid for by taxpayers, with Peter Roskam’s name splashed all over them,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. “Taxpayers should not be footing the bill to advertise Roskam’s candidacy for Congress.”

“Using tax dollars to pay for campaign literature is a clear violation of the franking laws,” said David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. “The mailers are campaign advertisements, plain and simple. They promote Roskam for things like ‘Protecting Children from Poison’ and ‘Securing Our Borders.’ ”

UPDATE: From Roll Call's report:

Roskam’s office didn’t immediately return calls for comment Thursday, but a spokeswoman for the Republicans on the House Administration Committee — which oversees the franking commission — said Public Citizen will have to prove that Roskam sent out more than 500 pieces of official mail. If it’s less than 500, the mail would not reach the threshold for a “mass mailing” and thus not fall under franking rules, other than for content.

It’s the first complaint the franking commission has received for this election cycle, said House Administration spokesman Kyle Anderson. If the commission finds Roskam guilty of violating House rules, the issue would go to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Stimulus Negotiations Focus On State Governments

Adam Doster — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:44:17 -0700

Meeting on Capitol Hill yesterday, House Democratic leaders and 10 economic experts (Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, EPI's Jared Bernstein, and former SEC Chair Arthur Levitt among them) discussed what to include in a new economic stimulus package Democrats intend to enact on the heels of a Congress' Wall Street bailout. Aside from extending unemployment insurance benefits, investing in transportation and infrastructure, and perhaps providing a new round of tax rebate checks -- all likely to provide a valuable bang for the taxpayer's buck -- those in attendance pushed for another crucial investment: federal assistance for state governments.

A slowing economy causes revenues to decline, demand for services like Medicare to rise, and state coffers nationwide to starve. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, at least 29 states plus the District of Columbia face an estimated $48 billion in combined shortfalls in their budgets for fiscal year 2009. In Illinois, it's $2 billion and State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias says the state is facing "a perfect storm of fiscal problems."

The worst is yet to come, according to Raymond C. Scheppach, the executive director of the National Governors Association. Mortgage defaults will undoubtedly rise and U.S. exports will decrease as the global economy drags, he writes, meaning "this economic downturn will likely be longer and more severe than any states have experienced since the downturn of 1982–1983."

Meanwhile, states can't deficit spend. That means crucial programs fall by the wayside during rough economic patches, including public health programs, education funding, and state jobs. In Illinois, we saw this dynamic play out earlier in the year when Governor Blagojevich tried to slash funding for substance abuse centers. Providing aid to state governments so they aren't forced to raise taxes, eviscerate social programs, or layoff workers is a valuable way to help working and middle class Americans deal with the recessionary pressures.

But conservative Republicans want none of it.

"Nothing being discussed will ease the uncompetitive nature of our nation's tax rates," wrote minority leader John Boehner in a letter to majority leader Nancy Pelosi, "Nothing being discussed will bring a single dollar of private capital into our markets, which would help stabilize and restore American families' savings and retirement accounts. And nothing being discussed will help small businesses compete and thrive." What do they propose instead? Among their ideas is removing legal barriers to offshore drilling, suspending the capital gains tax for two years, and lowering taxes on income that U.S. corporations earn from their overseas subsidiaries. Or as Matt Yglesias writes, "a stimulus package that doesn’t include the most valuable stimulus measures."