Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) appeared Friday on Fox News, and explained to Neil Cavuto that a judge’s ruling Thursday that struck down his controversial anti-public employee union law, based on a procedure involved in passing it, would not be a major issue — that the state is appealing the decision, and in any case they could simply re-pass the same law without the procedural defect.
“Governor, what do you do now?” asked Cavuto.
“Well, for us, the clear thing that was — we found out of that ruling is not that the law was not valid, but that the process was used, at least according to the circuit court, was not correct,” said Walker.
“So, either next week when the Supreme Court starts to hear this case, either by the time they’re done in June, or ultimately by the end of June, when we have to have the legislature passing a state budget — one way or the other, either through the Supreme Court or the legislature, these reforms will be put into place, and we’ll ultimately be able to protect middle-class jobs and middle-class taxpayers here in the state of Wisconsin.”
Walker also explained to Cavuto: “the process was not the vote itself, it was the timing of the vote, and how far in advance notice was given. They could take this same vote again, as part of the state budget process, or in separate legislation, and still have the same outcome.”
On Thursday, Dane County (Madison) Judge Maryann Sumi — who had previously blocked Wisconsin’s controversial anti-union law from taking effect, pending litigation — officially ruled that the manner in which the bill was passed violated the state’s Open Meetings law, and that the law itself is therefore not valid.
The matter revolves around a key conference committee used to advance the bill — and to get around the state Senate Dems’ walkout from the state — and whether it violated the state’s Open-Meetings law by failing to give enough prior notice. Therefore, it is ruling on procedural grounds, rather than on the substance of the bill itself, which was not addressed. And as such, it would be possible to pass the bill again, giving full notice for all the meetings involved.
Two months ago, Sumi blocked the law on these procedural grounds, issuing a temporary restraining order on the grounds the plaintiff, the Dane County District Attorney, had a likelihood of success in his complaint.
The Walker administration then made multiple attempts to disregard the ruling and implement the law anyway, before ultimately backing down in the face of repeated orders.
By: Eric Kleefeld, Talking Points Memo, May 27, 2011
May 28, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Collective Bargaining, Conservatives, Democracy, GOP, Gov Scott Walker, Government, Governors, Ideology, Middle Class, Politics, Public Employees, Republicans, Right Wing, State Legislatures, States, Union Busting, Unions, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Republicans | Anti-Union, Class Warfare, Dane County, Judge MaryAnn Sumi, Madison, Neil Cavuto, Open Meetings Law, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Legislature, Wisconsin Senate, Wisconsin Supreme Court |
1 Comment
The current assault on collective-bargaining rights shows that ideology and smash-mouth politics can triumph over economic reality.
Unions did not cause our economic mess: Greedy bankers drove the financial system to the brink of collapse. Moreover, public workers’ desire for decent wages and benefits is not busting state budgets: The same recession is starving states of essential revenue.
Destroying unions will do nothing to create more jobs or balance budgets, but it will further impoverish millions of American workers.
Yet, with the national union membership rate barely more than 10 percent, why should the rest of the work force care about unions? There are three reasons everyone who works for a living should want to rebuild the American labor movement.
First, if you want a job with a living wage and decent benefits, then you want a strong labor movement. When unions decline, many workers — whether organized or not — see a drop in their standard of living. And driving down wages does not help the American economy, which depends on strong consumer spending.
Second, if you like spending time on the weekends with your friends and family, then you want a strong labor movement. Unions struggled for many decades to get laws mandating an eight-hour day, a minimum wage and a ban on child labor. Given what is happening across the country today, with basic rights being heaved out the window, working people need unions to preserve the gains they have made.
Finally, if you believe in a healthy democracy, then you want a strong labor movement. Many unions work for more than just good wages and benefits; organized labor has also campaigned for access to affordable health care and for protecting the rights of immigrant workers.
So regardless of whether you belong to a union, every working American should be worried about the current open season on workers’ rights.
If the labor movement is weakened further, we will lose one of the last bulwarks against unbridled corporate greed and one of the last champions for dignity at work and a decent standard of living.
By: David Zonderman, CommonDreams.org, Originally published in The Providence Journal, May 26, 2011
May 27, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Banks, Collective Bargaining, Democracy, Economic Recovery, Economy, Gov Scott Walker, Governors, Health Care, Ideologues, Ideology, Immigrants, Income Gap, Jobs, Labor, Lawmakers, Middle Class, Politics, Public Employees, Republicans, State Legislatures, States, Union Busting, Unions | Benefits, Minimum Wage, Politicians, Public Workers, Wages, Workers, Workers Rights |
Leave a comment
Washington is a town currently gripped by deficit hysteria. Various commissions and congressional “gangs” have formed (and broken up) with the goal of crafting a plan to bring the nation’s budget into balance. Even the media has been sucked into this vortex, dedicating far more of its time to covering the deficit than other economic issues, such as unemployment.
At the same time, both parties seem to agree that the nation’s corporate tax code needs to be reformed. President Obama and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan each dedicated a portion of their respective budget plans to overhauling the federal corporate income tax, which is high on paper, but so riddled with loopholes, deductions, and outright giveaways that few corporations pay the full statutory rate (and several corporations pay no corporate income tax at all).
This, then, should be an excellent opportunity to kill the proverbial two birds with one stone: cleaning up the corporate tax code, lowering the corporate tax rate, and still raising more revenue that can be put towards deficit reduction.
But no.
Despite all the hyperventilating over the deficit, both Republicans and Democrats have said that they want corporate tax reform to be revenue neutral, meaning no more or less revenue will be raised by the new system than was raised by the old. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have each extolled the virtues of deficit-neutral corporate tax reform. But if this is actually the road that’s taken, it will constitute a colossal missed opportunity.
At the moment, corporate tax revenue has plunged to historic lows. In 1960, the corporate income tax provided more than 23 percent of federal revenue; the Office of Management and Budget estimates that it will provide less than 10 percent this year.
During the 1960s, the United States consistently raised nearly 4 percent of GDP in corporate revenue. During the 1970s, the total was still above 2.5 percent of GDP. Now, the U.S. raises less than 1.5 percent of GDP from the corporate income tax. As the Congressional Research Service put it, “Despite concerns expressed about the size of the corporate tax rate, current corporate taxes are extremely low by historical standards.”
The United States effective corporate tax rate is also low by international standards (though the 35 percent statutory rate is the second highest in the world). There are plenty of reasons for this drop, but chief among them is the proliferation of loopholes and credits clogging up the corporate tax code (alongside the growing use of offshore tax havens and the ability of corporations to defer taxes on offshore profits indefinitely).
Huge corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have recently had years where they paid literally nothing to the U.S. Treasury, despite making huge profits. The New York Times made waves by finding that General Electric paid no federal income tax last year, instead pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax benefits. Mega-manufacturer Boeing has done the same, paying no federal taxes in 2009 while collecting $132 million in tax benefits. Google last year had a 2.4 percent effective tax rate, while California-based Broadcom’s rate was just 1.4 percent, far below the rate that the average American pays.
The Treasury Department estimated in 2007 that corporate tax preferences cost $1.2 trillion in lost revenue over a decade. So there is ample room to remove credits and deductions (like those that benefit, amongst others, hugely profitable oil companies and agribusinesses), lower the statutory rate, while still bringing in more revenue. Some companies would see their taxes go up, but others would see their tax bills drop, and the corporate tax code would be more fair, efficient, and competitive, while ensuring that all corporations pay their fair share.
As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it, “corporate tax reform is a solid candidate to make a contribution to fiscal improvement … Taking a major revenue source off the table for deficit reduction at the outset would be ill-advised.” Indeed, with corporate profits skyrocketing—up 81 percent over a year ago—and corporations sitting on trillions in cash reserves, there is no reason that corporate tax reform should be done in a way that is deficit neutral, besides the fact that raising more revenue will be politically difficult, as corporations will likely throw their considerable lobbying weight against such a move. But in the end, failing to raise additional corporate tax revenue will simply shift more of the deficit reduction burden onto a middle-class already battered by the Great Recession.
By: Pat Garofalo, U. S. News and World Report, May 25, 2011
May 25, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Big Business, Budget, Class Warfare, Congress, Conservatives, Corporations, Deficits, Democrats, Economy, GOP, Government, Ideologues, Ideology, Income Gap, Lawmakers, Media, Middle Class, Politics, Press, Pundits, Regulations, Republicans, Tax Credits, Tax Evasion, Tax Loopholes, Taxes, Unemployed, Unemployment, Wealthy | Agribusiness, Boeing, Broadcom, Corporate Profits, Corporate Taxes, Deficit Reduction, Exxon Mobil, GDP, GE, Google, Income Taxes, Oil Companies, OMB, Revenues, Tax Code, Tax Rates, Tax Reform, Treasury |
Leave a comment
Today, you might have seen news stories about waivers from certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. There has been no shortage of confusion and deliberate obfuscation on this issue and we want to ensure you have the facts.
Under the Affordable Care Act, we have implemented new rules that phase out, by 2014, health insurance companies’ ability to slap restrictive annual dollar limits on the amount they will pay for your care. But between now and 2014, we also want to make sure workers are able to maintain their existing insurance, because on their own they would likely be shut out of the individual market or face unaffordable options. To do that, the Affordable Care Act allows the Department of Health and Human Services to issue temporary waivers from the annual limit provision of the law if it would disrupt access to existing insurance arrangements or adversely affect premiums, causing people to lose coverage. So far, we have granted 1,372 of these waivers to employers, health plans, and others in all 50 states, covering less than 2 percent of the insurance market and protecting coverage for more than 3.1 million Americans. We have been completely transparent about this process, announcing the waiver process in a regulation last summer, publishing clear guidance on the application process on our website, and posting a list of waivers we have granted on our website.
These temporary waivers will not be available beginning in 2014 when annual limits are banned and all Americans will have affordable coverage options. And millions of Americans – including many small business owners – will be able to shop for affordable coverage in new competitive marketplaces.
Some have raised questions about waivers that were recently granted to companies in California. So there’s no confusion, here are the facts:
- A company called Flex Plan Services is a third-party administrator that provides benefit administration services for employers in a number of states, including: California, Washington, Alaska, and Georgia. One type of plan they administer is known as a health reimbursement arrangements (HRA or employer contributions to a tax free account). Many of the company’s clients are hotels, restaurants and home health agencies, all of whom employ low-wage workers.
- On March 23, Flex Plan Services submitted 92 waiver requests on behalf of 45 employer clients. On April 4, 2011, HHS approved the request.
- HHS applied the same standard to the application from Flex Plan Services that it uses when reviewing any application for a temporary waiver. Waivers are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage.
- In addition, enrollees must be informed that their plan offers coverage with a restricted annual limit.
- No other provision of the Affordable Care Act is affected by these waivers: they only apply to the annual limit policy.
The Affordable Care Act puts an end to many of the worst insurance company practices including refusing to sell a policy to a family because someone had cancer or a child has asthma; cancelling coverage when a patient files claims because of an unintentional mistake in their paperwork; and slapping annual or lifetime limits on how much care you can receive. When these rules are fully in place in 2014, our country will be much better off and the cost of coverage will be within reach for the millions of Americans who now live day to day without coverage, worrying about an injury or an illness that could plunge them into bankruptcy. To get from today’s broken system to tomorrow’s patient-centered system takes time and patience through a reasonable transition period. But, together, we will get there.
By: Richard Sorian, Asst. Sec for Public Affairs, HHS, The White House Blog, May 17, 2011
May 19, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Affordable Care Act, Businesses, Consumers, Government, Health Care, Health Reform, Middle Class, Politics, Public, Public Health, Small Businesses, States, Under Insured, Uninsured | Beneficiaries, Employers, Families, Flex Plan Services, Health Care Premiums, Health Care Waivers, Health Insurance Companies, HHS, HRA's, Insurance Market |
Leave a comment
Republican Gov. Scott Walker is steadily remaking the Wisconsin government, implementing conservative ideals and quietly consolidating power under the office of the governor. His actions range from the much-publicized move to strip collective bargaining rights from powerful public unions to the less-noticed efforts to add more political appointees at state agencies and take away responsibilities from Wisconsin’s democratically elected secretary of state.
Supporters have praised what Walker and his allies are doing as a long-overdue steps to cut spending and unnecessary bureaucracy. But critics fear a loss of public input and transparency in the way the state government operates.
“It’s a power grab,” said Doug La Follette, Wisconsin’s Democratic Secretary of State. “[Walker] wants to control everything.”
“It’s turning Wisconsin’s state government from a body that is charged with serving the needs of the people of Wisconsin, into making its first priority serving corporations — both inside and outside of Wisconsin,” added Scot Ross, executive director of the progressive group One Wisconsin Now. “This is the most massive turn toward privatization of public services in not only the history of the state of Wisconsin, but possibly across the country.”
Walker’s office did not respond to a request for comment for this report.
TURNING THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES INTO A ‘CHARTER AGENCY’
The Walker administration is developing a proposal that would turn the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) into the state’s first “charter agency,” a designation that would make it a self-contained entity able to operate outside many of the bureaucratic guidelines other agencies must follow.
Most significantly, DNR would have wider latitude over the hiring, firing and merit pay of employees — issues that also played out in the collective bargaining controversy a few months ago.
“We would be freed up from a lot of the red tape that slows things down,” DNR spokesman Bob Manwell told the Wisconsin State Journal. “We would still be a state agency; we would just be operating under a different set of guidelines.”
But what worries some environmentalists is how the agency will now view its central goals. According to a draft Walker administration document with “talking points” about the plan, DNR will be committed to “increasing customer outreach and assistance” and reducing “permit times for major air and water permits.”
“It’s implying that the customer is those who are seeking permits, so DNR employees will be encouraged to pump out permits with more leniency,” explained Anne Sayers, program director of the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters. “And none of that is about protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink or the places where we hunt, fish and hike.”
“What really bothers me about it is, it sets up a pay-to-play mentality where they can reward DNR employees who are getting polluters sweetheart deals for their big contributors,” added Rep. Brett Hulsey (D-Madison), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Amber Gunn, the director of economic policy at Evergreen Freedom Foundation in Olympia, Wash., has been one of the leading voices advocating charter agencies around the country. In 2007, she wrote that it’s a “revolutionary concept” intended to “unravel the bureaucratic red tape that plagues many state agencies and replace it with results-driven motivation that promotes flexibility and innovation.”
In an interview with The Huffington Post, Gunn said one of the reasons the charter agency model is being discussed more widely is that it’s a way to cut spending without directly slashing services.
Washington’s Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire has expressed support for exploring charter agencies. But according to Gunn, one of the reasons she wasn’t able to move forward with the change was the state’s strong collective bargaining laws, which have strict restrictions on contracting out for services.
“We would have to modify the collective bargaining agreements — at least in Washington — in order to oppose charter agencies. And no one wanted to touch that,” said Gunn.
The changes Walker and his GOP allies in the state legislature made to Wisconsin’s collective bargaining laws are currently on hold, while a court considers their legality.
Iowa has also experimented with charter agencies, but a 2011 report by the state auditor found that those agencies failed to deliver what they promised.
But what is most troubling to some Democratic legislators in Wisconsin is that this remaking of a government agency was originally going to be pushed through in an executive order — without any say by the legislature or any public hearings.
“If we’re playing our role as a separate branch of government correctly, we should — Democrats and Republicans alike — be questioning. How is it you can completely reform a state agency … without an act of the legislature?” asked Rep. Cory Mason (D-Racine), one of the lawmakers investigating the legality of such a move.
STRIPPING POWER FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE
The Joint Finance Committee is expected to vote Thursday on a proposal to scale back the responsibilities of the Wisconsin Secretary of State, moving its notary public and trademark duties to the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI). The Department of Administration, which is part of the governor’s office, would take on other duties.
La Follette is adamantly opposed to the proposal, telling The Huffington Post that he was not consulted at all by the governor’s office about the changes and is lobbying committee members to vote against it.
“It’s a very dumb idea,” he said. “First of all, it won’t save money, which some people claim it would. Second of all, it will make Wisconsin difficult for people to do business. The governor’s slogan is, ‘Wisconsin is open for business,’ and I’m all in favor of that. … But in 46-47 states around the country, the Secretary of State has the responsibility for trademarks and notaries, and those are two of the functions he wants to move to this obscure agency called DFI. No other state has DFI.”
GIVING THE GOVERNOR POWER TO CHOOSE THE VETERANS AFFAIRS SECRETARY
Currently, one of the main duties of the seven veterans appointed by the governor to the Board of Veterans Affairs is to choose the secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. But under a proposal being considered by the Assembly, that power would be transferred directly to the governor. The bill would also change the number and tenure of board members.
Walker has not directly taken a position on the legislation, however, he was critical of the board’s membership during his campaign.
Veterans groups are divided on the proposal. The American Legion has said allowing the governor to choose the secretary would politicize the agency, whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars has said it would “elevate this important role to a cabinet level position equal to all other agency heads where it rightfully belongs.”
But what most upsets outgoing Veterans Affairs Board member David Boetcher, who was appointed by former Democratic governor Jim Doyle, is this provision in the proposal: “Under current law, all of the members must be veterans, and at least two of the members must be Vietnam War veterans. Under the bill, all of the board members must have served on active duty, but need not have served in any particular war or conflict.”
According to Boetcher, that would bar National Guard and Reserve members from serving.
“It’s like, I guess their military service just wasn’t good enough for the governor, so he’s blocking them out,” said Boetcher, who himself was enlisted in the Wisconsin National Guard. “It’s strange, because with a lot of the benefit programs, some of the major users are National Guard and Reserve members — especially like the GI Bill. … Either way, a lot of the people served by the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs are currently in the Guard and Reserve, but they’re going to be locked out of being on the board. Which I think is very unfortunate.”
Boetcher said there’s a possibility that the Assembly, which has been adding amendments to the bill, may change the language and allow National Guard and Reserve members to continuing serving on the board. The sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Kevin Petersen (R-Waupaca), did not return a request for comment.
CONSOLIDATING MEDICAID DECISIONS
Tucked into the budget repair bill Republicans initially proposed earlier this year was a provision granting the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) sweeping authority to make changes to the state’s Medicaid program — which covers one in five residents — with virtually no public scrutiny. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the Walker administration can use “emergency” powers to allow DHS to restrict eligibility, raise premiums and change reimbursements — all moves traditionally controlled by the legislature.
Part of the reason that advocates were so alarmed at the legislation was that the man who heads DHS is Dennis Smith, someone who has advocated for states to leave the Medicaid program.
Jon Peacock, research director of the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, equated it to if President Obama gave Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius total power to rewrite Medicare policy, even though it wouldn’t save any money in the current fiscal year.
“That’s what you have here,” said Peacock. “If President Obama proposed that, there would be rallies all over the country, and we would be marching out there arm in arm with Tea Party members, protesting against it.”
The legislation that was eventually signed into law eliminated the “emergency” powers but still gave the DHS administrator broad power to write regulations through the regular rule-making process.
By: Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post Politics, May 17, 2011
May 17, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Class Warfare, Collective Bargaining, Conservatives, Consumers, Corporations, Democracy, Democrats, GOP, Gov Scott Walker, Government, Governors, Ideologues, Ideology, Lawmakers, Medicaid, Middle Class, Politics, Public Employees, Public Opinion, Regulations, Republicans, Right Wing, State Legislatures, States, Union Busting, Unions, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Republicans | Bureaucracy, Charter Agencies, Environment, Environmentalist, Public Services, Veterns Affairs, Wiscon Sec of State, Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Government |
Leave a comment
Unknown Feed
mykeystrokes.com 