If you're following the politics of the Iowa Democratic caucus contest, you're familiar with the dust-up surrounding Barack Obama's health care plan, AFSCME's critique of it, his labeling of union's as "special interests" (as I read in a recent Paul Krugman column), the anti-government rhetoric the Senator has used to defend the absence of a mandate from his health insurance plan and the fact that it does not cover 15 million Americans.
Let's start with Obama's health insurance plan: it is the only "universal" health insurance proposal on the presidential trail that does not cover every American. The simple fact is that it leaves 15 million Americans without the medical care they need. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards' plans do not leave anyone behind. This is the difference that the AFSCME political action committee has pointed out in the direct mail piece that the Obama campaign has been complaining about in the media.
What's more, as Krugman has pointed out, Obama has used anti-government rhetoric to defend his position on health care and Social Security. In so doing, he makes the right-wing's argument about public services and unions. This is unacceptable, especially at a time when it is so important to promote a vibrant trade movement.
People can debate the details of the candidate's plans but the biggest difference that matters is that Barack Obama's plan does not cover 15 million people. There are clearly different policy ways to achieve the goals of controlling costs and providing quality health care for all. But you can't cover everyone if your plan does not even intend to do so.
AFSCME has fought for universal health care for decades. Our goal is simple: to protect and improve health care for those who have it, and to provide it for 47 million Americans who don't. And we are hardly a "special interest" when it comes to this or any issue. As most people know, union members have bargained hard for affordable health insurance that provides high quality care. Our members have fought for these benefits for years and their contracts have helped to set the standard for what every American should have.
When it comes to health care, our union and the labor movement in general are not a "special interest." We fight for the general interest. Our campaign for health care for all is about our commitment to a better America, and no one in America should go without the medical care they need as so many in our country do now.
The Obama campaign's criticism of our political action committee and some of the so-called 527 efforts, such as the one organized in support of Edwards, is troubling because they are suggesting that workers are somehow a special interest, just like insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. That's obviously absurd on its face. It is workers who built this country and it is their unions that created America's middle-class.
We are an important part of the Democratic base that's critical to making the Democratic nominee our next president. Senator Obama and his staff and consultants should understand this. After all, Obama's national field director is a former AFSCME staffer who ran our independent expenditure program in the last election cycle. And the director of his Iowa campaign played a key role running an interest group AFSCME and other progressive organizations helped create to defeat President Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security (it's now working on a number of other important issues).
I don't understand Senator Obama's confusion about the difference between special interests and ordinary American's like the Iowa voters who will caucus on January 3. He certainly was not confused when he accepted our union's PAC money and volunteers and other support in his campaigns for the State Senate and the U.S. Senate. What's more, it does not help the Democratic nominee, regardless of who she or he is, to have him criticize the activities of workers and their unions now – whether those activities are member education, 527 efforts or independent expenditures – when they'll be so critical to the outcome of the general election later.
It's important for all of the Democratic candidates and their supporters to remember that we're all on the same side with the same goal – taking back the White House for America's working families and making it the peoples' house again.