Michael J. Wilson2013-05-26T03:39:52-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=michael-j-wilsonCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Michael J. WilsonGood old fashioned elbow grease.Peter King Chooses Demagoguery in Targeting Muslim-Americanstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12972352012-02-28T10:52:12-05:002012-04-29T05:12:01-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/over 80 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by radical Imams."
A stronger parallel is to Sen. Joe McCarthy and his infamous Lincoln Day speech in 1950, in which he claimed there were 205 or 57 members (accounts differed) of the Communist Party "still working and shaping policy in the State Department." McCarthy's charges led to a Congressional hearing, where he grandstanded but presented little real evidence.
In King's copycat demagoguery of McCarthy, he also declared there are "too many mosques in this country" and that Muslims are "an enemy living amongst us."
By King's own admission, the evidence for his 80 percent charge is weak. "The only real testimony we have on it," he conceded, "is from Sheikh Kabbani who was a Muslim leader during the Clinton Administration. He testified back in 1999 and 2000 before the State Department that he thought over 80 percent of the mosques in this country are controlled by radical Imams. Certainly from what I've seen and dealings I've had, that number seems accurate."
You have to wonder just what King's imaginative mind has seen. It certainly wasn't any of the available evidence. Consider:
A study conducted in 2000 of U.S. mosques determined that more than 70 percent of mosque participants "strongly agree" that Muslim-Americans should be involved in American institutions and should participate in the political process.
A new study, Muslim-American Terrorism in the Decade Since 9/11, found that the number of Muslim-Americans who carried out or were arrested for violent terrorist crimes continues to fall -- from 49 to 26 to 20 over the last three years.
I'm no statistician, but I think it's safe to call this a "downward trend."
Throughout our history, unpopular groups -- all too often immigrants -- have been targeted for the public's wrath in difficult times. Demagogues like King have been only too anxious to steer and cheer on this wrath.
]]>Changing the Rules for Workerstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8203282011-02-09T16:30:44-05:002011-05-25T18:30:24-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/
Today the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is more valuable in theory than in practice. The law gives American workers the right to join a labor union and lists illegal labor practices. Yet structural weaknesses and unscrupulous employer behavior have eviscerated the law. Employers knowingly violate the law since penalties are a joke, at best. They brazenly break organizing drives by intimidating employees and firing workers who lead the organizing effort and if caught, all the law requires of the employer is to pay the dismissed workers the difference between what they would have earned with the company minus what they earned in their next job after being fired. Employers happily risk such a cheap penalty - which averages $5,000 -- to the possibility of having to increase everyone's wages.
For years now, the Democrats in Congress have tried to end this abuse by enacting legislation --the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) -- which would allow workers to join a union by signing a membership card, just like joining any other organization. The EFCA would also require the employer to recognize and bargain with the union if a majority of the workers signed up. Republicans and Big Business have fought vigorously to prevent the bill from ever coming up for a vote.
Meanwhile the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has sought to address a small part of the problem by eliminating one obstacle, the lack of information regarding workers' right to organize. The NLRB has proposed a simple rule that would require employers to post a notice telling workers about their existing rights under the NLRA, just as they must post notices on minimum wage, health, safety, and equal employment opportunity rights. It would neither address the weaknesses in the law nor expand rights under current law. It would simply provide employees with information about their current rights.
Needless to say, Republicans and Corporate America are having a hissy fit and lobbying against it, just as they fought EFCA and every other attempt to help workers stand together. The Chamber of Commerce lobby is not content to prevent workers from having real collective bargaining protection; they want to keep workers ignorant of the minimal rights they currently possess.
They claim that the NLRB, which would be responsible for enforcement, lacks authority to create such a rule. The truth is that the National Labor Relations Act authorizes the Board of the NLRB to create "rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act". (29 U.S.C. 156) Court decisions have made clear that the NLRB has the authority. This claim is simply an attempt to keep workers in the dark.
The NLRB will be accepting comments on this proposed rule until February 22, 2011. Now is the time to stand up to Big Business and educate workers about their rights.]]>Gailcare, Not Obamacare!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7812262010-11-09T17:00:55-05:002011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/
To counter the Republican smear campaign, progressives should call the new health care reform "Gailcare" since were it not for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Gail O'Brien of New Hampshire would have found that her pre-existing condition would have caused her to lose her home, and maybe even her life. Cancer doesn't really pay attention to whether you have health care; it strikes randomly: young and old, rich and poor, your family and mine. But having health care makes an enormous difference on your chances of survival, not to mention whether it bankrupts you or not.
We all know the problems with the health care system, from the merely frustrating (bureaucratic battles with hard-hearted insurers) to the tragic (one of the 40,000 yearly unnecessary deaths ascribed to lack of insurance). And all of us have concerns about the new law, either because it will do too much or too little. But pretending that it can just be "repealed" is so naive that it defies description.
Especially when we know that it has saved lives, like Gail's.
Let's not forget that the new health care law also will expand prescription drug coverage and home-based, long-term care for seniors, will allow young people to stay on their parents' coverage into their mid-20s, and will bring about a raft of other improvements to a cruel and broken system.
"Gailcare" is worth defending -- no matter what you call it.
]]>2010 Election Comparisons: 1934 vs. 1994tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7742922010-10-27T11:34:17-04:002011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/
We've all heard the electoral comparisons to 1994, when the Republicans won 54 Democratic seats and took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, while also capturing the U.S. Senate. And while we may not know the results of the 2010 elections -- who will win, how many seats will change hands, which party will be control the House and Senate -- we do know the magnitude of the challenges facing the nation. However, today's persistent unemployment, momentous mortgage crisis, and ballooning trade deficit really recall memories of 1934, not 1994.
The Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress in 1929, when the stock market crashed. Their inept response to the downward-spiraling economy opened the floodgates to the Great Depression, and to the Democrats, who swept them from power by 1932. Newly elected Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, was ready to try a new approach. He would use, not restrain, the powers of the federal government to help the millions of Americans that were suffering from the economic catastrophe.
Yet, despite passing sweeping legislation, the Democrats feared big losses in 1934. Unemployment approached 22 percent. The stock market was down 75 percent from its peak. Half the nation's banks had closed. And 500,000 homes had been foreclosed.
Through most of 1934, Roosevelt, like Obama through most of this year, seemed lost. Roosevelt, "suddenly silent and irresolute, seemed to have lost his touch... The administration appeared to lack coherence in both policy and in strategy," wrote historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. The president faced "the organized business community," which was determined to halt his agenda, and "the tumult of mass opinion, so ardently stirred by the radicals and demagogues."
Like today's Republicans, the Hoover Republicans approached the 1934 midterm elections calling for the very policies that allowed economic collapse: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, slashed spending and a balanced budget. Republicans called Roosevelt a socialist, communist and fascist. They compared him to Hitler, Lenin and Stalin.
Sound familiar?
Yet in 1934, the Democrats scored the nation's biggest midterm election victory ever, adding significantly to their already huge majorities in the House and Senate.
So let's look at some of the comparisons. Upon taking office in 1933, Roosevelt launched the New Deal and its expansive programs. Many of the programs enacted during his first two years in office still provide Americans with economic security, or led to other programs that have endured:
The Federal Emergency Relief Act, the first national relief program, laid the groundwork for Social Security and federal unemployment insurance.
The Civilian Conservation Corps and the Public Works Administration built libraries, bridges, highways, and public buildings that Americans still continue to use.
The National Industrial Recovery Act led to the minimum wage, maximum workday and anti-child-labor laws, as well as the guaranteed worker's rights to organize and collectively bargaining.
The Truth in Security Act required -- for the first time -- full disclosure information for investors, and led to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) continues to protect depositors from losing their savings (up to250,000) if their bank folds.
The Rural Electrification Administration brought electricity to all of America by 1952. Before rural electrification, only 11 percent of American farms had electricity in 1934 because electric companies charged them four times the rate paid by urban customers.
President Obama and the Democrats in Congress passed some of the most wide-ranging legislation in decades, including healthcare, financial reform and the new landmark Consumer Protection Agency. They passed an economic stimulus program that included tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans and extended unemployment insurance. And they bailed out -- and just may have saved -- the domestic auto industry.
The one obvious contrast between the 1934 midterm elections and present day is that Roosevelt shook off his lethargy; he and his fellow Democrats made the election a mandate on the New Deal. Roosevelt made it clear that the "forces of privilege and greed" had made and profited from the rules. He argued that it was time to change the rules and provide a safety net to protect the weak from the ravages of unbridled capitalism. He linked the recalcitrant rich - mostly businessmen and financiers - with their shameless Republican lackeys, who had little interest in fair play despite their bluster to the contrary. They even vigorously opposed Roosevelt's efforts to end child labor.
Ordinary Americans knew what Roosevelt had done, whose side he was one, and where he wanted to take them.
President Obama has worked to defend his own programs. However, most Democratic incumbents have shied away from their major achievements, such as healthcare reform and the stimulus. Today's Democrats face electoral challenges, but those challenges could have been mitigated by an enthusiastic defense of their successes and with an emphasis that much, much more needs to be done.
We can look back to history for guidance on the message and results for the 2010 election. But looking back only to 1994 is a striking misread of history, and leads back to 1929 thinking.
The truth is that the economy needs more, not less, New Deal-like programs. Tea Partiers and their Republican allies hearken back to the failed, destructive, policies of 1930. That's really what they mean by "taking their country back." The best way forward is to go back to the future -- not to 1994, but much further back to a time that more closely resembles today, back to 1934. That year, Americans knew fear wasn't their enemy, and didn't vote to turn back the clock.
]]>The Future of Education in the U.S.tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7041992010-09-03T12:27:25-04:002011-05-25T17:30:22-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/
The issue of longer academic years and longer school days is challenging, but in the end, it's a realistic and creditable solution. Besides, President Obama is for it. When you compare the quality of education that students get today versus what they could get with additional instruction - not to mention what our international competitors are already doing -- it makes a compelling case for this drastic change. Teachers know it, professionals who are dealing with recent graduates know it, and even some students admit to it. An intern from my organization even blogged about it this summer. To be fair, we are not talking about taking away the entire summer school break. But adding some academic component to the summer has been happening gradually with assignments like summer reading lists. In addition, having four mini-breaks in coordination to the seasons, could provide young people with more varied and diverse recreation opportunities.
Let's be clear though, it's not only kids who need additional education. With an astonishing 7,000 high school students every day joining the dropout ranks, we are creating a pool of adults who will need additional education if they are to compete in the work force. The jobs of the future will require additional technical training, more advanced math, science, as well as critical and analytical thinking. The phrase "back to school" will start to be recognized less as a sales slogan and more to workers upgrading their skills and gaining additional academic credentials. Single parents and working adults don't need a September start time for classes - they need the flexibility of online, evening, and weekend instruction.
Adult students are less concerned with Greek life, cheering college football, or attending homecoming events. Harvard, UCLA, and the University of Chicago aren't necessarily the best fit for them -- though their extension programs may work for some. Community colleges have filled this niche in many ways for liberal arts and technical careers, but the growth of career colleges (or for-profit schools) has also helped thousands take the next step in their professional careers. Now there is some controversy over these for-profit schools, but I think the criticism does not affect the whole career college industry and we must analyze it while recognizing that there is a place for these schools while our country tries to regain its educational rankings. Concerns have been raised about practices at some of the schools, and the Government Accountability Office has issued a report documenting problems with some schools whose over-zealous recruiters over-promise future earnings, even encouraging fraud to qualify for unaffordable government student loans. As the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has said, the industry merits more scrutiny and regulation by Congress and the Administration. But CREW also recognizes that certain stock-speculators seem to be involved in the process of scrutinizing the institutions for their own short-term financial gains; a possible murky mix of potential investors and potential regulators claiming to represent students' best interests. Setting the right regulatory structure is important for the students, for the schools, and for the nation. But let's not allow Wall Street decide the regulatory structure. Recent history tells us this is not the way to proceed.
It is in the nation's best interest that every student who is academically qualified should have an opportunity to attend college. In contrast to the 1800's, when it was the exclusive province of wealthy white males, higher education should be as broadly accessible as secondary school. Moreover, in order to reach the President's goal for more college graduates, we need as many accredited schools as possible. That includes my alma mater, Michigan State University, as well as Bryant and Stratton College in Richmond, Virginia, where I was honored to be the commencement speaker this past spring. The students at those schools may have different needs and expectations, but they also have something in common, a desire for higher education. Watching the pride and excitement of the graduating faces in Richmond reminded me of my own graduation. It made me proud, not only of them, but of our nation, which has such a diverse and creative ability to address the hopes and aspirations of those who want to go back to school. After all, Labor Day is right around the corner.
]]>Who Is to Blame for the BP Disaster?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6917202010-08-27T10:45:35-04:002011-05-25T17:25:21-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/This post is coauthored by Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute and author of Can They Do That? Retaking our Fundamental Rights at Work
Everyone in America seems to have an opinion about who is responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Liberals blame Tony Hayward and the rest of BP's greedy and irresponsible management. Conservatives like to blame President Obama (in general) and the Mineral Management Services incompetent regulation (in particular). Then Sarah "Drill, Baby, Drill" Palin just knows that it isn't her responsibility.
The real answer is, "none of the above." Yes, BP's management and Mineral Management Services share some responsibility, but blaming them entirely ignores the fundamental problem of the 21st century workplace.
Sherlock Holmes once solved a baffling case by noticing that the dog didn't bark. It's the same clue here as well. Every one of the 126 workers on the Deepwater Horizon knew there were serious safety problems. Every one of them knew they were risking their lives every day they went to work. Why didn't they complain? Why didn't they call the OSHA, the EPA, the AFL-CIO, their Member of Congress, or the New York Times? The workers might not have known exactly who to call, but they could have found someone to pay attention. Why didn't they try?
The answer is simple; they didn't want to lose their jobs. Given the horrible choice of risking their lives at work or being unable to put a roof over their family's head, they chose danger. It's why miners work in non-union mines and why workers labor in meatpacking plants where there are more USDA inspectors than OSHA inspectors.
This was no idle fear. BP's past actions made it clear that workers who raised safety questions would be fired. Stuart Sneed was a technician on BP's Alaska pipeline. He noticed a crack in the pipeline. Nearby, a crew was grinding down welding surfaces, an activity that inherently produces sparks. If the pipeline were leaking, a spark from the grinding could have caused a catastrophic explosion that would have killed the entire crew and anyone else in the immediate vicinity. Sneed told the workers to stop grinding while the crack was investigated. Instead of rewarding Sneed for his alertness and initiative, BP fired him. Sneed never worked in the oil industry again. (Later, a crack in a nearby line burst, throwing a 28 foot long section of steel 1,000 feet into the air.)
But wouldn't whistleblower protection laws have protected BP workers who spoke up? No. America's whistleblower protection laws are a joke (except they're not funny). Tom Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project (the country's leading whistleblower protection organization) says that almost all whistleblowers are fired and very few of them ever receive justice. Experts like Devine know what's wrong with current law and have told Congress how to fix it, but no action has been taken.
The BP workers could have spoken up safely if they belonged to a union. Union contracts (called collective bargaining agreements) prohibit firing workers without "just cause". Although the right to join a union is theoretically protected by federal law (the National Labor Relations Act), this law is also part of America's ongoing comedy act when it comes to protecting workers.
When workers try to organize, standard operating procedure is for employers to fire the leaders. This intimidates the workers and the organizing effort disappears. The only penalty (assuming the employer gets caught) is paying the workers who were fired the difference between what they would have made if they hadn't been fired and what they earn at their new job. In practice, the average penalty is about $5,000. From a purely financial perspective, an employer would be foolish not to break the law. And so they do, firing thousands of workers every year who aren't lionized like Norma Rae.
Finally, the BP disaster wouldn't have happened if freedom of speech in America didn't stop at the office door. The Constitution prohibits the government from punishing people because they do not like what they say. But the Constitution says nothing about private employers. Your boss can legally fire you because of a bumper sticker on your car, over a comment on your Facebook page, or even what football team you support. (These are all real examples.) No other industrial democracy allows this abuse.
There are many things that need to be done to prevent more catastrophes like the Deepwater Horizon. But the first thing we need to do is change our laws so that workers can feel comfortable speaking up when they see something dangerous. Then we can worry about whom to blame for almost letting a disaster happen.
]]>Hawaii: The Final Chapter on Civil Unionstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6329282010-07-02T17:37:16-04:002011-05-25T16:55:19-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/Hawaii. That's right -- the 50th state is 2010's Wimbledon for the effort to battle LGBT discrimination, and Governor Linda Lingle is playing on center court. And, apparently, she is straddling the net.
While she has placed HB444 on a list of bills that she may veto, it's not exactly clear what she will do. She has to make a decision by July 6. If she wanted to veto it, she could have vetoed it a month ago. If she wanted to sign it, she could wait until the last minute. Or she could let it become law without her signature.
Obviously, ADA and I support the bill. And ADA/Hawaii has been working hard for its enactment. When the bill stalled in the legislature, ADA Hawaii circulated a petition and gathered signatures demonstrating that Hawaiians wanted the bill to be debated and passed in the state legislature. They sent letters and joined demonstrations, calling for a full vote for civil unions.
The case for marriage and civil unions is simple and related -- couples who want to make a loving and legal commitment to each other should be acknowledged and not discriminated against by their government. Civil unions are legally recognized partnerships in the state in which they are permitted and many couples have found civil unions to be a step towards equality. If HB 444 is enacted, both same-sex and heterosexual couples will have the opportunity to enjoy the same legal benefits that married couples have enjoyed for years: the ability to visit loved ones in the hospital and obtain their medical records, rights relating to insurance, health and pension benefits; and co-parenting rights. All of these liberties are provided to married couples regardless of the state of their relationships; enactment of HB444 would extend these protections to same sex couples.
As of today, fourteen states including Iowa, Washington, Oregon, and Wisconsin, plus the District of Colombia, have legalized either civil unions or marriage equality laws. Which way will Governor Lingle go? I urge her to be Reaganesque on this bill and to emulate the Old Gipper as he did with a bill he really opposed -- plant-closing notification. President Reagan really opposed the plant-closing notification bill vetoing a broader trade bill as well as a separate plant-closing bill, with the help of Senator Dan Quayle (R-IN), the Chamber of Commerce and their free trade allies. But eventually, the political pressure was great, and so Mr. Reagan let the bill that the Democratic Congress passed become law without his signature -- the only time that happened during the 8 years of his presidency. He got to maintain his reputation as a guardian of the free market without actually having to face the political consequences for the ineffectiveness of his economic policies.
In that regard, there is no need for Gov. Lingle to symbolically stand in the school house doors and threaten to block progress. There is no need for her to etch her image in history as an instrument of discrimination. All she has to do is ... nothing. And Hawaii, and our nation, can take a step forward.
]]>Returning to Core Values on Unemployment: Expand the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and the Job Corpstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6058912010-06-09T13:05:46-04:002011-05-25T16:45:26-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/disappointing employment statistics confirm what job-seeking Americans already know: despite some hopeful economic signs this year, the Great Recession drags on. The pain of unemployment cuts across all categories of workers, but each group experiences it differently.
Young workers -- those just out of high school or college -- face a roughly 20 percent youth unemployment rate, and often are not only looking for a job, but a first job. Their success or failure in joining the working world has a big impact not only on their future lives, but on an American economy that relies on fresh ideas, energy and ambition to keep it vital.
Three programs of the federal government provide (predominately) young people with a first work experience while also meeting community needs and serving national interests: the Peace Corps, the Job Corps and AmeriCorps. At the urging of my organization, Americans for Democratic Action, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) and five co-sponsors have introduced a resolution, H. Res. 1396, calling for a doubling of the budget of these three "corps" employment programs.
The Peace Corps allows Americans to serve their country by living and working in developing countries. Job Corps is a proven education and training program that helps young people learn a career, earn a high school diploma or GED, and find and keep a good job. And AmeriCorps is a network of national service programs that engage Americans in intensive service to meet the nation's critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment.
Positions in the three "corps" programs are not jobs for a lifetime. Direct compensation is modest (although indirect economic advantages include student loan forgiveness and room and board). But they can and do provide a refuge, a sturdy first step, for young people emerging from high school or college into the bleakest job market in 75 years.
The combined budget of the three programs proposed in the President's Fiscal Year 2011 budget is under $3 billion. This represents considerably less than one-tenth of one percent of the $3.8 trillion total federal budget. This is a short-sighted misallocation of resources at a time of pervasive unemployment, when we risk delaying -- or worse yet, wasting -- millions of potential careers.
The McDermott bill envisions corps budgets twice as large. Even at twice the budget, they can't meet all of the need. As an acknowledgment of the key role this government can play, however, it is more than hoping. It is a tangible sign of the value that we place on the new careers of today's young people, and tomorrows leaders.]]>Liberal Voting Record Released: 2009 Mirrors 1961tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.5455212010-04-21T13:27:13-04:002011-05-25T16:15:25-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/
"Callous Neglect of Real National Needs Shown By Congress" angrily reads the headline on ADA's annual voting scorecard of Hill votes. The White House gets a failing grade, too: through a cramped view of presidential power and willingness to compromise too early, "The president chose not to seek more than the barely possible from the Congress."
2010? Try 1961. And if the ADA I lead today cuts Congressional leaders and the President a little more slack than our predecessors did during the Kennedy years, it may be because we've seen in the intervening decades just how difficult real change can be. But we're still scoring Congressional voting records, just as we have since 1947, when we pioneered what's now a ubiquitous advocacy tool. The newest scorecard is available now.
Judging by our scorecard, all the talk about growing political polarization has a basis in fact. We score 20 votes in each house, on a wide range of foreign and domestic issues. In 2007, there were 53 House members who achieved a perfect score (our "ADA Heroes"), and 43 who got every vote wrong (the Zeros). In the latest survey, the ranks of the Heroes swelled to 98, but there were also a lot more Zeros--75. In the Senate, the three Heroes of '07 became 16 last year. (Zeros are generally scarcer in the Upper Chamber: 3 in '07, 1 last year.)
Increasing party cohesion is a reality, too. Back in the Kennedy years, progressives struggled against an "Unholy Alliance" of conservative Republicans and Southern Democrats, and often found support from a hardy band of liberal Republicans. The 1961 survey revealed an average positive voting record--or Liberal Quotient--among Democrats of 72, among Republicans, 18. By 2009, Southern conservatives had completed their migration to the GOP, and liberal Republicans are as scarce as, well, liberal Republicans. In the latest survey, the Democratic caucus had an LQ of roughly 90, the GOP, below 10.
What's it all mean for progressive politics? The most obvious answer is you don't know who to support if you don't know what they've done. In politics, just like in baseball, you really do need a scorecard to get the most out of the exercise. Unlike the production of most of our imitators, the ADA scorecard gives you a wide-spectrum analysis of progressivism, not a single-issue focus. Of course, the voting record alone is not enough information. The votes that were not taken and the public positions of Senators and Representatives adds to the full political picture. Sen. Lincoln's opposition to the public option in health care, the employee free choice act, and climate change are not reflected in her voting record, but are a part of the record nonetheless.
And our scoring is not just broad, but deep--as in historically deep. You can troll through the earlier scorecards, dating back to the Truman Administration. You will begin to see certain familiar patterns, especially at similar points in history. Like last year and 1961, 1993 was the first year of a Democratic administration with a Democratic Congress, following two or more terms of Republican administration. Guess what? ADA complains in the '93 legislative wrap-up that the minority GOP in the first year of the Clinton Administration was turning more and more to the filibuster to block progressive change. (For that matter, Kennedy is blamed in '61 for not leading the charge against the filibuster.)
The more things change...]]>Businesses Can Now Legally Pressure Workers on Political Issues?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.4800282010-03-01T11:54:55-05:002011-05-25T15:40:24-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/
1) Say, "What do you mean by 'us'?"
2) Snap to attention, salute smartly, and shout, "Yes Boss!"
3) Say "Isn't this against the law? I want to consult my attorney."
4) Say, "Does this mean that I have to quit canvassing for Obama?"
5) Pull a Norma Rae
While all of these answers are appropriate, depending on your perspective (we especially like #1 and #5), #3 is problematic. That is because it is one of the most overlooked, but highly possible results of the Citizens United decision that overturned the federal law restricting corporate expenditures on political campaigns.
The court ruled that corporations can use their unmatched wealth to overwhelm other participants in public debate and make elected officials even more indebted to big business than they already are.
But another problem has gone largely unnoticed. Employers can also use their financial power to pressure employees vote the way the company wants. This is already standard practice in union organizing campaigns. Employers hold a "captive audience" meeting which workers are required to attend. At this meeting, the company presents a stew of well-polished anti-union arguments and threatens (subtly or not) to close the company if the workers vote for the union. The union is not allowed to attend and has no comparable ability to tell workers the other side. Management closely monitors who speaks, who asks questions, and who exhibits pro-union sensibilities for later retribution.
This tactic is extremely effective. Even though workers in unionized companies make more money, have better benefits, and are protected from arbitrary termination, in about half of the elections the majority of workers vote against having a union. What makes this even more "impressive" is that before the election is held, in most instances a majority of employees have signed cards expressing a desire for a union. Sadly, the National Labor Relations Act permits this abuse.
This tactic is rarely used by employers on political issues. It's not because they don't want to. Employers are much better off when pro-business candidates (usually Republicans) win elections. Getting rank and file workers, a majority of who usually vote Democratic, to change their vote would change the outcome of a great many elections. They wouldn't have to convince [that] many workers since most elections are decided by a narrow margin of 10% or less. Winning by 51% to 49% is common. With elections so close, it doesn't take much to change the outcome.
The reason employers haven't been ramming their political views down workers' throats is that they weren't sure it was legal. There isn't any law against it. But corporate lawyers are extremely risk averse and want to avoid litigation. If they give the green light to action that ends up in court, the company will probably get another lawyer. Better to play it safe. Only rogue employers like Wal-Mart are famous for forcing their political views on workers, but the Citizens United case may change that. The court has announced with trumpets blaring that corporations have free speech rights just like real people and they will nullify any law that restricts corporate advocacy.
And if corporations are real people, they're salivating. Their attorneys may well tell employers that they can force workers to attend meetings and subject them to the same spiel of half-truths and threats that they use to fight unions. What's worse, it will be even more effective. Federal law protects a worker who speaks up in favor of a union once the meeting is over. It's a violation of the National Labor Relations Act to fire someone for advocating a union. This is existing law, even though the penalties are peanuts, and they come years later so they don't stop workers from getting fired every day.
However there is no law preventing employers from firing workers who oppose the bosses' political views. The First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot deprive a person of freedom of speech; it doesn't stop a private employer from violating workers' rights. Even refusing to hire someone because of their race wasn't illegal until Congress said so in 1964. That was after the watershed 1964 election, and was hard fought even then.
But this is 2010, and Congress has not passed a law preventing employers from firing workers because of their political views. Only five state legislatures have passed such legislation. This means that in 45 states employers can legally fire workers who don't give answer #2. This authority makes employers' ability to change workers' votes even greater than in a union election.
Congress is currently working on legislation to address problems caused by the Citizens United decision. It's critical that the legislation not only restores campaign finance reform but also prohibit employers from attempting to dictate the political views of their employees. The power that employers already have over their employees has been drastically expanded by Justices Alito, Kennedy and their allies on the Supreme Court. Congress must restore our rights as citizens not to have our political rights -- or our political choices -- determined by those who employ us. That's what we mean by "us."]]>The Other Main Street: Unemployment, Deficits & False Choicestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.4708442010-02-23T12:03:13-05:002011-05-25T15:35:18-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/
But not all Main Streets are alike. Life is grim on most Main Streets, but some Main Streets are far worse than others. Take Martin Luther King Boulevard in Austin, TX, or Martin Luther King Drive in Chicago, IL, or Martin Luther King Street in Jackson, MS. There are said to be more than 650 streets named after Dr. King in 39 states. Aside from the name, they all have something else in common: nearly all of them are located in predominately African-American communities. This is a different kind of Main Street, one where the unemployment rate isn't the official 10.2%, or even the "real rate" of 17.2% (counting discouraged workers and part-time workers who want to work full time); instead the reality on MLK Main Street is an agonizing 24.3%.
This is where bankruptcy rates, lack of health care, and unemployment reach numbers that Wall Street - and its politician friends -- can't imagine and that would not be tolerated on the mythical Main Street. All those MLK Streets are short of everything but hope. That hope is the gift of their namesake, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This African American History Month, our history is strikingly similar to our present. It's why President Obama spent part of Washington, DC's Snowmageddon week meeting with civil rights leaders Marc Morial, Ben Jealous and Al Sharpton.
Not since The Great Depression has the general population seen the unemployment rate as high as it is today on hundreds of America's MLK Streets. And unemployment there hasn't been below 10% since the Clinton Administration.
Are there solutions? Of course. The AFL-CIO's five-point program is a good start. While not specifically targeted to African Americans, it would be a boon as they are over represented in the communities that have been hit hardest. The Center for Community Change has also proposed a Community Jobs Campaign to create millions of jobs at the community level, targeting the long-term unemployed and low-income workers. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) has introduced a bill, HR 4268, the Put America to Work Act of 2009.
Americans for Democratic Action has also championed a "Corps Budget" to pump added funds into three proven programs: The Job Corps, AmeriCorps and Peace Corps, giving young people of all races a real chance for that first job. There are other constructive proposals, and the best all have the same purpose: short-term relief from the Great Recession, and long-term strategies to address the economic disparities that separate Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Street.
The plain truth is that in a time of recession only the federal government has the ability to invest, inasmuch as only the federal government can run up a deficit which times like these necessitate. Increasing the deficit is essential today to put more Americans to work, so they can spend money in their communities to care for their families while also bolstering business and paying income taxes (federal income taxes, state income taxes, social security taxes, etc). Current efforts by some Members of Congress, editorial writers, and television and radio blowhards to focus on the deficit and to slam on the brakes while millions are out of work are misguided. Moreover, many of the deficit hawks misrepresent the causes of the deficit, claiming the Obama administration's anti-recession measures are at fault. The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out that President Obama's programs and the 111th Congress haven't caused our current deficit problems. The tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, the unpaid-for wars in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and the economic downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years. (Kathy A. Ruffing and James R. Horney, "Where Today's Large Deficits Come from: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush Era Policies," CBPP, Feb. 17, 2010.)
The deficit hawks in Congress are hounding the President, holding vital new economic investments hostage to their long-term goals of shrinking entitlement programs, even through these programs have been critical to preventing even greater poverty and an even deeper recession. The best way to address the deficit is to end the recession and put people to work in private and government jobs, creating taxpayers, thus reducing the need for remedial government spending and reducing the demand for such programs as Medicaid, Food Stamps, WIC, free school lunches, and unemployment compensation.
A choice between a job program and deficit reduction is a false choice. We need to end the Great Recession and put millions of Americans back to work. No budget freeze gimmicks can accomplish those goals; it will take hard choices by elected officials representing Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Street. Because at the end of the day, no matter what street you live on, we all live in the same United States of America, where we must manage to thrive together.]]>What Would MLK Do?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.4239292010-01-15T15:31:03-05:002011-05-25T15:10:21-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/
It is an issue I ponder as we celebrate this year's holiday. Dr. King had a singular genius for targeting egregious examples of injustice, and using the tools of his time -- nonviolent protest, civil disobedience, broadcast television, legislative and political action and many others--to press for social and economic change. 2010 is vastly different. It is the Internet age of Facebook and Twitter; it is a diverse and multifaceted media world of cable, broadcast, and satellite television. The U.S. has its first African-American President and is in the midst of a Great Recession and the War on Terror. How would Dr. King respond?
My answer may not be the only one, but being a student of history, I do believe my answer is right.
Dr. King would do it all.
The quotes, the campaigns, the overarching quest to bring social and economic justice to ordinary people are the evidence of the ambition that he had for all of us. The Poor People's Campaign wasn't about the unemployment rate, but Dr. King knew that unemployment -- however temporary -- should be used as a tool to address the underlying causes of poverty.
His oft-quoted phrase from The Letter from A Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere", would have caused him to look directly at the face of discrimination that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) people face and compelled him to speak up in support of their equality.
Of the contentious health care debate that the country is going through, Dr. King's view that "Of all of the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and the most inhumane," would surely have led him to fight for a broader, bolder, more progressive health care plan than what is before Congress now.
Dr. King's final speech, to the striking sanitation workers of Memphis, Tennessee demonstrated his strong backing for America's workers. His support for workers' rights to organize was as clear as was his enmity for the forces of greed that opposed them. "That is why the labor-hater and labor-baiter is virtually always a twin-headed creature spewing anti-Negro epithets from one mouth and anti-labor propaganda from the other mouth," he told the 1961 AFL-CIO Convention.
And there is no doubt about Dr. King's opposition to war -- and not just the Vietnam War which brought him criticism from the Democratic President, the mainstream media, and even some allies in the civil rights movement. That didn't matter to Dr. King, whose opposition was grounded both in his faith and in his economics, as the War in Vietnam began to take dollars from the War on Poverty.
What challenges would Dr. King face in advocating for justice? I think of those who would oppose the policies that he would espouse, from the Teabaggers to the Chamber of Commerce to the religious right. I know that they would have called Dr. King a socialist, a communist and other un-Christian like names. I think of the challenges that they pose to even incremental reforms on health care, pay discrimination, and marriage equality and know that we still have a long way to go.
I also think of 21st century politicians who opine that Dr. King's true legacy was "service". There is no doubt that Dr. King believed in service to the community, to the nation, and to those in need. But the strength of his legacy is clear. Dr. King was about justice. He addressed the toughest issues of his time, and did so publicly, without apology and in spite of threats to his life.
In 2010, we should do no less. WWMD? Dr. King would take on the hardest issues facing the people of this nation because of the love in his heart. Looking each issue straight in the eye and without blinking, Dr. King would engage in the struggle for change. Because as he said, "Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle."]]>Americans Favor For-Profit Higher Educationtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.4009292009-12-22T15:10:27-05:002011-05-25T15:00:22-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/
Among key findings were:
78% said they were convinced for-profit universities have an open enrollment policy that offers a post-high school education to many undeserved communities.
81% surveyed were convinced that online for-profit colleges and universities offer students the flexibility they need to be successful and earn a college degree.
74% surveyed believe for-profit colleges and universities have access to the money needed to expand and have developed the infrastructure needed to grow rapidly without lowering their educational quality.
Make no mistake, in this tough economy, "for profit" education offers the flexibility and opportunity for minorities and low-income individuals to get their college degrees. Most of these folks are already working full-time jobs...they want to get ahead but need opportunities that traditional schools don't offer.
Today, America's economic future requires the nation to combat educational inequality. Many school districts, particularly those with higher-income families, provide excellent education while many big city and rural districts suffer from substandard education. High-income families have access to high quality college preparation while low income families do not. Given that disparity, the nation must act to guarantee access to post-secondary academic and vocational education and training for all high school graduates to meet their personal needs and the needs of a 21st Century high-tech economy.
The poll shows that in American 58 percent of adults have a favorable opinion of for-profit schools, including a quarter who have a very favorable opinion. Only one-in-five has an unfavorable opinion.
The report further found that when it comes to personal progress, as well as the future of America, Americans have very little doubt about the importance of a college education - a degree is extremely important. Eight in ten Americans (82 percent) agree that the key to enhancing our economic competitiveness and capacity for innovation lies in providing every American the opportunity to afford and attend college.
In fact, competition in the field of higher education does not worry Americans, it motivates them on this issue; 69 percent have a favorable impression of for-profit institutions when they learn that more than one million students that cannot or choose not to attend a traditional or private college or university attend a for-profit school, competing with traditional schools (21 percent have an unfavorable opinion). Furthermore, 73 percent of Americans agree that for-profit colleges and universities should be allowed to grant liberal arts degrees in fields such as history, English, and political science. Only 15 percent disagree. This is true even when adults are told these degrees would be equivalent to liberal arts degrees granted at traditional state or private colleges and universities.
Opportunity and flexibility are two key factors that buttress Americans' support for for-profit colleges and universities (cost being the first). These institutions' ability to reach out to non-traditional or underserved students is more important to them than arguments that these potential students are exploited or taken advantage of - they just do not buy those arguments. Seventy-four percent of adults agree that for-profit colleges and universities can be a better option for working adults because they have more flexible schedules and programs (only 14 percent disagree). Americans understand how important a college degree is and they strongly want that opportunity for non-traditional students who cannot attend school full-time on campus or to underserved student populations who may have received a poor high school education.
In the end, while some in Washington move to restrict the number of students for-profit institutions of higher learning can serve, Americans disagree. Faced with a choice between some people who oppose for-profits and want to limit their ability to grow because they think they do not adhere to high standards and exploit some students, or some people who support for-profits because they serve an important role in helping hundreds of thousands of students receive a college education and take no taxpayer money, half (53 percent) support allowing for-profits to grow while only a third (31 percent) support limiting their growth. To view the poll, please go to www.adaction.org.]]>Are Too Many People Going to College?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3845382009-12-08T19:03:21-05:002011-11-17T09:02:45-05:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/one between learning and earning which can be summarized as simply, "The more you learn, the more you earn."
While that notion clearly inspires the crassest economic aspirations amongst us, it isn't enough. Not with dropout rates in some urban areas exceeding 50%. Combined with unemployment rates among African-American and Hispanic males at over 34%, and a "real" unemployment rate for the general population at 17.2%, it's clear that the need for education is as strong as ever.
So Obama's campaign goal of having more college graduates than any other country in the world by 2020 is Kennedyesque in its scope and ambition. But unlike the space program, we do not have a direct Khrushchev-ian competitor. China, India, and Japan are sufficiently different from us to make direct comparisons challenging. In addition, as most of us know, the finish line isn't at age 22 when you get your B.A. directly after having gone to high school. It's much more complicated than that.
In fact, the real strength of America's higher education system is the diversity of options. Everyone doesn't graduate from high school, go to their state school and graduate in four years. The U.S. system of community colleges, public and private colleges, and for-profit colleges provides a wealth of higher education opportunities for potential students.
Who are potential students? Aside from traditional students, there are working parents with jobs, unemployed manufacturing workers with aspirations for white collar jobs, early retirees with active minds, GED recipients with hopes for better skills and education - you name the demographic and it exists.
Recently, my friend Julianne Malveaux, President of Bennett College in North Carolina was on NPR talking about education. She spoke about the "experts" who talk about too many people going to college. She wonders - as do I - if that is code for race, for class, or for gender. Think about it, at one time higher education wasn't for all of us - it meant white, male, and wealthy. President Obama's plan to have millions of college graduates turns that antiquated notion on it's head - he wants as many oars in the water as possible.
And the American public supports him. In a recent poll done for Americans for Democratic Actions Education Fund, we measured the views of the American public regarding higher education and the various kinds of schools. It won't surprise anyone who lives in the real world, but most folks think getting higher education - of any kind - is good, and that whether you attend Harvard, the local community college, take classes online, or attend the big state university, you can improve your skills, develop your mind, and further your education. The President's challenge makes college graduation not only smart, but patriotic; not for just a few of you, but for all of us.]]>DC Archdiocese: Desire to Discriminate Greater Than Duty to the Poortag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3590072009-11-18T12:59:01-05:002011-05-25T14:40:23-04:00Michael J. Wilsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-wilson/National Lampoon in 1973. Accompanied by this photo of a cute black and white pooch with a man holding what looks to be a .38 special at its head, it was typical of the over-the-top humor that the magazine was known for.
Over 30 years later, somebody at the Archdiocese of Washington must have thought it was a great idea to hold innocent people as hostages in order to engage in the fight against marriage equality. At least with National Lampoon it was just a joke. They didn't really shoot the dog. We don't know if the Archdiocese really wants to stop running programs that help the sick, homeless and orphaned children if the District of Columbia passes marriage equality legislation, but we have to take them at their word. The Archdiocese argues that Catholics abiding by their faith's teachings would put them in conflict with the proposed D.C. law.
The proposed Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 would permit same sex marriages within the District of Columbia (the District already recognizes same sex marriages from other jurisdictions), but would not require religious denominations to perform such ceremonies.
Who are these hostages that the Archdiocese has threatened to not support? The list includes:
• Tutors assisting students who are preparing for GED tests
• Adoption placement and foster care for children
• A medical clinic serving primarily Spanish speaking residents
• A homeless shelter serving women
Apparently, the Archdiocese runs between 20 and 25 programs in the city. Approximately $20 million in city funds pays for or subsidizes these services for the city and for city residents.
To be fair, the Archdiocese says that among its employees and among the people they serve are many who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. What they apparently object to is not their existence, or their participation in city or church activities, but giving benefits to same sex spouses or placing children with gay couples. In other words, they want to discriminate against employees and they believe that being gay disqualifies you from being a parent.
In one sense, it is a real church-state issue pitting religious freedom vs. anti-discrimination. On the other hands, history is replete with examples of people using their faith to discriminate, segregate, and justify their own bigotry
For example, the Southern Baptist Convention in 1995, admitted that "Southern Baptist forbears defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in, supported, or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American slavery;"
The Church of the Latter Day Saints (also known as the Mormons) also has a history tinged with racism. For decades, church leaders taught that black people were cursed by God, and therefore ineligible to be priests in the church. In 1978, there was a "revelation" by then President Spencer Kimball that black members could be priests. (I guess it could be worse. They could have waited until 2008). Of course, even today, the Church of Latter Day Saints is one of the leading opponents of marriage equality, funding anti-equality groups and fighting referendums in states across the nation, from Maine to California.
There are, of course, many more examples, some of them Catholic. Fortunately, most of them are in the past. Many of us believe that one of the strengths of our nation is that we are a pluralistic society with many religions and many views. It's why we have made progress in advancing freedom and civil rights. The First Amendment's provision for the separation of church and state has permitted us to have religious freedom, civic freedom, and personal freedom. Even though Rev. Pat Robertson doesn't think that the separation of church and state is in the constitution (he really said it. You don't need to make up the stupid things that Rev. Pat Robertson has said) the Archdiocese of Washington is blatantly telling the city what to do!
There are solutions, of course. The Archdiocese could capitulate, but that is extremely unlikely given the public stance that they have taken and pinning it to their faith. The city council could give in, but I can't imagine the city council wanting to be dictated to by a church - any church - about their civic responsibilities regarding what they view as a civil rights issue. It's possible that there is a compromise that would permit both sides to claim victory, but it's hard to imagine.
I believe that the best solution is to find other entities to replace the Archdiocese. The way that they have tried to publicly muscle the city into following church teaching on this issue probably makes it improbable that they can continue to be a trusted partner in the future. The search for replacement operations - secular or religious, non-profit or for profit - should begin now. Even if a compromise could be found, one that doesn't force the city to abide by the church's hardcore discriminatory policies, it would only be a matter of time before they threatened the city again. Besides, they have already proven that they are willing to take hostages. ]]>
Obviously, ADA and I support the bill. And ADA/Hawaii has been working hard for its enactment. When the bill stalled in the legislature, ADA Hawaii circulated a petition and gathered signatures demonstrating that Hawaiians wanted the bill to be debated and passed in the state legislature. They sent letters and joined demonstrations, calling for a full vote for civil unions.