Rational but impractical
We will never have a truly representative democracy as long as 350,000 people in one state have the same voting power as 35,000,000 people in another state. Here's what the states would like if they had equal populations. Note that some states are drawn to take account of socioeconomic factors; for example, western PA and western NY are joined together because they have they have more in common with each other than with the other parts of their current states.
Fifteen or Fight!
For someone so ept at electoral politics, Barack Obama has repeatedly shown himself to be artless when it comes to the political side of governance. Over and over again the president has entered policy negotiations with low-ball proposals that set-up compromises that, in real terms, hand victory to his opponents.
Take the $9 minimum wage proposal. A person making $9 an hour will earn, before deductions, $360 a week. That's working a full week, but many retail and service jobs offer much shorter hours. Even a worker lucky enough to land two full-time jobs -- 80 hours a week -- would take home less than $720 a week after deductions. Clearly, a minimum wage of $9 is insufficient if the goal is to assure that, as the president said, no one with a full time job should have to live in poverty.
The problem with Obama's maladroit handling of negotiations with the conservatives is that he establishes benchmarks that, while they may achieve "compromise," not only don't fix the problem being addressed but make it more unlikely that a better result can be achieved in the future (think of health care reform).
As politics, $9 barely makes sense; as policy, it's ridiculous. Labor and liberals should have nothing to do with it.
Take the $9 minimum wage proposal. A person making $9 an hour will earn, before deductions, $360 a week. That's working a full week, but many retail and service jobs offer much shorter hours. Even a worker lucky enough to land two full-time jobs -- 80 hours a week -- would take home less than $720 a week after deductions. Clearly, a minimum wage of $9 is insufficient if the goal is to assure that, as the president said, no one with a full time job should have to live in poverty.
The problem with Obama's maladroit handling of negotiations with the conservatives is that he establishes benchmarks that, while they may achieve "compromise," not only don't fix the problem being addressed but make it more unlikely that a better result can be achieved in the future (think of health care reform).
As politics, $9 barely makes sense; as policy, it's ridiculous. Labor and liberals should have nothing to do with it.
Is there anyone in Congress or the White House, elected official or staff member, who would work for $9 an hour?
For someone so ept at electoral politics, President Obama has repeatedly shown himself to be artless when it comes to the political side of governance. On issue after issue, he has entered policy negotiations with low-ball proposals that set-up compromises that, in real terms, hand victory to his opponents.
Take the $9 minimum wage proposal. A person making $9 an hour will earn, before deductions, $360 a week. That's working a full 40-hour week, but many retail and service jobs offer much shorter hours. Even a worker lucky enough to land two full-time jobs -- 80 hours a week -- would take home less than $720 a week after deductions. Clearly, a minimum wage of $9 is not sufficient if the goal is to assure that, as the president said Tuesday in his address to Congress, no one with a full time job should have to live in poverty.
The problem with Obama's maladroit handling of negotiations with the conservatives is that he establishes benchmarks that, while they may achieve "compromise," not only don't fix the problem being addressed but make it less likely that a better result can be achieved in the future (think of health care reform). If a deal at all cost is your goal, $9 may make some sense; as policy, it's ridiculous.
Labor and liberals should have nothing to do with it.
Take the $9 minimum wage proposal. A person making $9 an hour will earn, before deductions, $360 a week. That's working a full 40-hour week, but many retail and service jobs offer much shorter hours. Even a worker lucky enough to land two full-time jobs -- 80 hours a week -- would take home less than $720 a week after deductions. Clearly, a minimum wage of $9 is not sufficient if the goal is to assure that, as the president said Tuesday in his address to Congress, no one with a full time job should have to live in poverty.
The problem with Obama's maladroit handling of negotiations with the conservatives is that he establishes benchmarks that, while they may achieve "compromise," not only don't fix the problem being addressed but make it less likely that a better result can be achieved in the future (think of health care reform). If a deal at all cost is your goal, $9 may make some sense; as policy, it's ridiculous.
Labor and liberals should have nothing to do with it.
Return of Medicare For All
Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.
Although Obamacare is an improvement over what existed before, it was clear from the beginning of the health care debate that the compromised plan would deliver neither truly universal nor truly affordable access to health care. The greatest fear of liberals who opposed it was that, by embedding the insurance industry in the health care infrastructure, it would prevent either of these goals from ever being achieved. As the deficiencies of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have become more recognized, however, a new opportunity has opened up for Congress to do what should have been done in the first place: establish a single-payer system.
The insurance industry will oppose single-payer with scalpels and skull saws, of course, but the fight will be somewhat fairer because the industry's reputation is even lower than that of Congress. Still, with little or no help to be expected from the White House, it promises to be a hell of a battle, one that will be won only if ordinary citizens are mobilized. You can help right
Rep. John Conyers will reintroduce national, single-payer healthcare legislation sometime this week. Before he introduces the bill, Conyers would like to have as many original cosponsors as possible. Please call your rep today and let them know you want them to cosponsor H.R. 676. Help them out by mentioning that in order to become an original cosponsor of H.R. 676 your member will need to contact Michael Darner from Rep. Conyers' office at michael.darner@mail.house.gov or 202-225-5126.
Already on board (thank them if you're in their district): Nadler, Schakowsky, Pingree, Grijalva, Ellison, Hank Johnson, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Takano, Holmes-Norton, Lofgren, Rangel, Moore, Chu, Al Green, Farr, McGovern, Welch, Clarke, Lee, Nolan, Pocan, Doyle, Engel, Gutierrez, Frederica Wilson, Cohen, Edwards, McDermott, Clay, Huffman, Roybal-Allard, Cummings, Yarmuth, George Miller, Honda, Christensen, Rush.
If you live on the liberal west side of Los Angeles, note the following absences from this list: Waxman, Hahn, Sherman and Bass (Capitol switchboard: 866-220-0044).
Resources: PNHP.org: Physicians for a National Health Program is a non-profit research and education organization of 18,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance
Healthcare-Now!: Organizing for a National Single-Payer Healthcare System
PublicCitizen: the Health Research Group of one of the country's most effective citizen's organizations
Welfare states
Red indicates states that get more than a dollar back from the federal government for every dollar paid in federal taxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
