Is Louisiana Congressman Anh Cao considering a switch to the Democratic Party ?

Congressman Anh Cao (R-LA) might really be a Democrat at heart. Cao is a former Jesuit seminarian whose interest in law and politics originated from a desire to to advance social and economic justice. The newly elected Republican representative had to be placed under tremendous pressure from the House GOP leadership to oppose President Obama's stimulus package. Displaying a willingness to break with his party on key votes, Cao supported the Lilly Ledbetter Act and funding for children's health care insurance programs.

Cao's New Orleans-area district is overwhelmingly Democratic and switching parties is probably the Congressman's only hope to win re-election. I suspect that Cao's pro-life views are the main reason for his association with the GOP. Cao could be far more effective working within the majority party and join the growing ranks of pro-life Democrats.

From the Asian American Action Fund Blog:

Is Louisiana Representative Anh Cao a closet Democrat, flirting with switching sides? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/04/gop-rep-i-might-be-a-clos_n_171825.html Cao did join the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, which has traditionally been Democrats-only. And at his recent induction into CAPAC, Cao himself joked: “Don’t tell the Republicans, but I might be a closet Democrat,” said Cao to a round of laughter.

“I hope to be part of this caucus for a very, very long time, even though the next two years will be a fight, a constant battle against me. And with that, I’m pretty sure I will need all of your help. I will ask that in two years you come down to New Orleans and assist me,” he said to another round of laughter.

I had previously suggested that switching to the D’s would be a good career move for Cao, who represents a heavily Democratic seat. http://www.aaa-fund.com/?p=1470 Now national news is covering the possibility, with suspicions only increasing after Cao’s offhand remarks.

Cao, who increased his profile post-Katrina by advocating for Vietnamese Americans who were victims of the storm, is facing a recall petition by ministers in his district who are incensed at his no vote on the stimulus bill. Cao is part of a new generation of Vietnamese who are in office including Madison Nguyen of San Jose, who recently successfully faced down her own recall, 55-45. Although Vietnamese Americans traditionally have voted Republican, an increasing number of new Vietnamese American voters tend to be Democrats. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/29/local/me-vietdems29

Rep. Cao, come on over and join the party of community activists. You seem to stand for accountability and greater transparency, with your calls for investigations into cronyism and abuse at FEMA’s regional offices. It seems like you are paying attention to the district’s issues, and you were an immigration attorney. Surely you must know that conservative policies have been destructive to immigrant communities. You vote with Democrats on SCHIP and the omnibus. Your district is +28 Dem in the Cook Political Report. If the Dems can solidify around a decent challenger, your term as the the first Vietnamese American Congressman might just last two years.

Personally, I like you and respect that you worked in the community. I like your honest and open face and how real you seem. I’d like to watch your career for a long time, and I don’t know if that can happen under the aegis of the GOP. And yeah, it shouldn’t matter what color someone is if they represent their constituents well, nor should it matter what party they belong to. And you can keep serving your community even if you lose your next election, but I suspect you’d rather do it from the House of Reps. So come out of the closet and be a real Dem.

http://www.aaa-fund.com/?p=1484

The American System is No Longer Sustainable

Catholics for Working Families explain need for Employee Free Choice Act

object width="425" height="344">

Some information on the Employee Free Choice Act from Catholics for Working Families:

The Employee Free Choice Act
Why do we need new federal legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act?

America’s working people are struggling to make ends meet, CEOs have all the power and our middle class is disappearing. The best opportunity for working men and women to get ahead is by uniting with co-workers to bargain with their employers for better wages and benefits.

But the current labor law system is broken. Corporations routinely intimidate, harass, coerce and fire people who try to organize unions—and today’s labor law is powerless to stop them. Every day, corporations deny working people the freedom to make their own choice about whether to have a union:

• Employees are fired in one-quarter of private-sector union organizing campaigns;

• 78 percent of companies require supervisors to deliver anti-union messages to the workers whose jobs and pay they control;

• And even after workers successfully form a union, 44 percent of the time they are not able to get a contract.

What does the Employee Free Choice Act do?

It does three things to level the playing field for employees and corporations:

1. Strengthens penalties against companies that illegally coerce or intimidate employees in an effort to prevent them from forming a union;

2. Brings in a neutral third party to settle a contract when a company and a newly certified union cannot agree on a contract after three months; and

3. Lets employees decide how to express their choice to organize, either by balloting or by majority sign-up, meaning that if a majority of the employees signs union authorization cards, validated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a company must recognize the union.

What’s wrong with the current law?

The National Labor Relations Act states: “Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations….” It was designed to protect employee choice on whether to form unions, but it has been turned upside down. The current system is not like any democratic election held anywhere else in our society. Employers have turned the NLRB election process into management-controlled balloting—the employer has all the power, controls the information workers can receive and routinely poisons the process by intimidating, harassing, coercing and firing people who try to organize unions. On top of that, the law’s penalties are so insignificant that many companies treat them as just another cost of doing business. By the time employees vote in an NLRB election, if they can get to that point, a free and fair choice isn’t an option. Even in the voting location, workers do not have a free choice after being browbeaten by supervisors to oppose the union or being told they may lose their jobs and livelihoods if they vote for the union.

What is majority sign-up, and how does it work?

When a majority of employees votes to form a union by signing authorization cards, and those authorization cards are validated by the federal government, the employer will be legally required to recognize and bargain with the workers’ union. Majority sign-up is not a new approach. For years, some responsible employers such as AT&T have taken a position of allowing employees to choose, by majority decision, whether to have a union. Those companies have found that majority sign-up is an effective way to allow workers the freedom to make their own decision—and it results in less hostility and polarization in the workplace than the failed NLRB process. But currently, the choice of whether to allow majority sign-up belongs to the company, not the workers. And most companies reject that method, forcing employees to use the failed election process.

Does the Employee Free Choice Act take away so-called secret-ballot elections?

No. The Employee Free Choice Act puts the choice of how to form a union in the hands of workers. Currently, corporations have that choice. If one-third of workers want to have an NLRB election at their workplace, they can still ask the federal government to hold an election. “Elections” may sound like the most democratic approach, but the NLRB process is nothing like democratic elections in our society—presidential elections, for example—because one side has all the power. The employer controls the voters’ paychecks and livelihood, has unlimited access to speak against the union in the workplace while restricting pro-union speech and has the freedom to intimidate and coerce the voters.

Does the Employee Free Choice Act silence companies or require that they remain neutral about the union?

No. Companies are still free to express their opinion about the union as long as they do not threaten or intimidate workers.

Will employees be pressured into signing union authorization cards?

No. In fact, academic studies show that workers who organize under majority sign-up feel less pressure from co-workers to support the union than workers who organize under the NLRB election process. Workers who vote by majority sign-up also report far less pressure or coercion from management to oppose the union than workers who go through NLRB elections. In addition, it is illegal for anyone to coerce employees to sign a union authorization card. Any person who breaks the law will be subject to penalties under the Employee Free Choice Act.

Isn’t this law really about unions wanting to increase their membership?

This law is about restoring to working people the freedom to improve their lives through unions. More than half of people who don’t have a union say they would join one tomorrow if given the chance. After all, people who have unions earn 28 percent more than people without unions and are much more likely to have health care and pensions. With a free choice to join unions, working people can bargain for better wages, health care and pensions to build a better life for their families. With the economic pressures on working people today, the freedom to pursue their dreams is crucially important.

Who supports the Employee Free Choice Act?

The Employee Free Choice Act has the support of hundreds of members of Congress of both parties, academics and historians, civil and human rights organizations such as the NAACP and Human Rights Watch, most major faith denominations and 73 percent of the American public. (For a detailed list of supporters, visit www.EmployeeFreeChoiceAct.org.)

Who opposes the Employee Free Choice Act?

Corporate front groups are waging a major campaign to stop the Employee Free Choice Act. They do not want workers to have the freedom to choose for themselves whether to bargain through unions for better wages, benefits and working conditions. The anti-union network includes discredited groups like the Center for Union Facts, led by lobbyist Richard Berman, who is infamous for fighting against drunk driving laws and consumer and health protections, and the National Right to Work Committee and Foundation, the country’s oldest organization dedicated exclusively to destroying unions.

www.catholicsforworkingfamilies.org

Report Finds 86.7 Million Americans Uninsured During 2007-2008

Families USA Reports Three Out of Four of Those without Health Coverage Were Uninsured for At Least Six Months; One Out of Three Non-Elderly Americans Were Uninsured At Some Point in that Two-Year Period

March 4, 2009

Washington, D.C. – Approximately 86.7 million Americans – one out of three people
(33.1 percent) under 65 years of age – were uninsured at some point during 2007-2008, according to a report released today by the health consumer organization Families USA.

The report, based on data from the Census Bureau and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, shows that most of those who were uninsured lacked coverage for lengthy periods of time: nearly three-fourths (74.5 percent) were uninsured for at least six months, and almost two-thirds (60.2 percent) were uninsured for nine months or more.

“If you weren't convinced of the need for health care reform, the data in this report will do the job,” said U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA). “We are not simply talking about numbers; tens of millions of Americans are faced with the fear and uncertainty of a lack of health care coverage.”

The data in the Families USA report supplement other Census Bureau data that are commonly used, such as the 45.7 million people deemed to be uninsured for the entire 2007 calendar year. The report provides important insights about the people who did not have health coverage for all or part of the latest two-year period (2007-2008).

“The huge number of people without health coverage is worse than an epidemic,” said Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA. “At this point, almost everyone in the country has had a family member, neighbor, or friend who was uninsured – and that’s why meaningful health care reform can no longer be kept on the back burner.”

Key findings in the report include the following data for non-elderly people:

Four out of five (79.2 percent) of the uninsured were in working families: 69.7 percent of the families included a worker who was employed full-time and 9.5 percent a worker who was employed part-time.

More than half (52 percent) of individuals and families with incomes between the poverty line and twice the poverty line – between $21,200 and $42,400 of annual income for a family of four in 2008 – went without health insurance at some point in 2007-2008.

More than one-third (33.7 percent) of individuals and families with incomes between twice the poverty line and three times the poverty line – between $42,400 and $63,600 of annual income for a family of four in 2008 – went without health insurance at some point in 2007-2008.

White, non-Hispanics constituted half (49.8 percent) of the people who were uninsured. However, the likelihood of being uninsured was higher for minorities: one-quarter (25.8 percent) of non-Hispanic whites were uninsured at some point in 2007-2008 compared to 40.3 percent of African Americans and 55.1 percent of Hispanics.

“Inaction on health care reform in 2009 cannot be an option for the tens of millions of people who lack or lose health coverage each year,” said Pollack. “The cost of doing nothing is much too high: More and more people would fail to get the health care they need or would risk being bankrupted by unaffordable health care costs.”

The report also catalogues the potential dire consequences of people being uninsured. According to the report, the uninsured are less likely to have a usual source of care outside of an emergency room; they often go without screenings and preventive care; they delay and forgo needed medical care; they are sicker and die earlier than those who have insurance; and, when they do receive care, they pay more for that care.

“While over 15 percent of Americans are uninsured, we now have another harsh fact in the crisis in health care in America: one in every 3 Americans under age 65 were uninsured at some point over the past two years,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “Our mandate is clear: to provide affordable health insurance coverage and to control the growth in health care costs in order to fund more health care services. This is a year of decision in health care, and I am committed to succeeding in passing comprehensive health care for all Americans.”

“For those who believe we can afford to wait to fix our broken health care system, this is a reality check,” said U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). “Every American family deserves health care they can count on, and that means comprehensive coverage within a delivery system that provides high quality, efficient, accessible, coordinated, and affordable care.”

“This report by Families USA demonstrates how we have reached a point of crisis that requires real action,” said U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ). “Fortunately, we have already begun to act. As President Obama stated in his national address to Congress last week, we have done more to reform our health care system in the past 30 days, than in the past decade. However, our work has just begun. Tomorrow, the president will host a summit on health reform and next week my subcommittee will begin hearings to better inform us on how best to go about producing real and meaningful health care reform. We have real momentum with us right now. We must not squander this opportunity.”

“If every American had a one-in-three chance of developing a life-threatening condition in the next two years, modern medicine would be working nonstop to find a cure,” said U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) “Being uninsured is just such a life-threatening condition. Any effort to cure this public health epidemic will require a commitment to cover the uninsured.”

The Families USA report was based on data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and the Survey of Income and Program Participation as well as the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey used by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. The data were compiled with the assistance of The Lewin Group, a distinguished health policy and data consulting firm.

A copy of the report is available at: http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/americans-at-risk.pdf

Rep. Alan Grayson Battles Against Home Foreclosures In Central Florida

America's farmers are critical to our economy, national security

Neil Young sings "Comes a Time" at a 1986 Farm Aid concert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJLsgAd4YAM

Famed singer-songwriter Neil Young explains the need to help America's farmers in a op-ed piece for the Boston Globe (www.boston.com).

Comes a time to fight for farmers
By Neil Young
Boston Globe
February 26, 2009

WHEN Abraham Lincoln formed the US Department of Agriculture in 1862 he referred to it as the "People's Department" because it served the common interest of so many Americans. America's concerns about food and the economy were addressed and investments in cutting-edge research guaranteed the nation's food security.

More than 200 years later, we are in the midst of a historic financial crisis and part of the solution lies with the "People's Department." It's time for our newest federal leaders to recognize the unmatched ability of family farmers to strengthen local economies. We can all learn from the ingenuity and innovation that family farmers demonstrate time and time again in the face of challenge.

In the 1980s, American farmers found themselves in a fight for their lives. Low prices for farm products, plummeting land values, rising interest rates, and skyrocketing production costs overloaded farmers with crashing debts that forced tens of thousands to lose their land. In response, the Credit Act of 1987 freed up credit for farmers and allowed for loan restructuring so farmers could honor their debt. Farmers were able to stay on their land and create a thriving network of local and regional food systems that provides jobs and food for their neighbors today.

Yet again farmers are faced with seemingly insurmountable financial hardship. The credit farmers need in order to pay for their seasonal start-up costs is tight, like credit is for the rest of the country. Instability in market prices and threats from weather-related disasters make it hard for banks to guarantee their investment, discouraging lending and encouraging high interest. At the same time, rising operating costs and declining prices for their products are making it nearly impossible for farmers to keep up with their debt. Many farmers have to put their homes up as security on their farm loans, which means if they fall behind on their farm loan payments they can lose their businesses and their homes.

The USDA, with help from other agencies, should restore fair credit, prices, and practices for family farmers. As Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack makes plans to implement the 2008 Farm Bill, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would be well served to consider lessons from the 1980s and extend loan protections under the federal bailout to family farmers, preventing home foreclosures and bankruptcy among farmers and ranchers. As a condition of receiving any federal government funds, Treasury needs to require banks providing farm credit to restructure loans when farmers are unable to make payments due to circumstances beyond their control, such as market- and weather-related disasters. Requiring no additional funding, this simple action would prevent thousands of farmers from joining the ranks of the jobless and homeless while guaranteeing a safe, secure food supply and creating local job opportunities.

Vilsack can also act quickly to get funds to farmers who need it most. Farmers who were hit hard by disasters in 2007 and 2008 still have not received the funding available in Farm Bill disaster relief programs. And the USDA needs to get the word out fast about additional funding for direct operating loans that Congress included in the stimulus bill. If farmers are having trouble accessing the credit they need for this year's growing season, the Farm Service Agency might just be able to help. Swift implementation of already enacted legislation can mean the difference between losing more farmers and keeping those farmers on the land.

Family farmers are a national resource with the potential to help solve the challenges we currently face. The agriculture sector is projected to have contributed more than $130 billion to the US economy in 2008. The hard work of family farmers is strengthening local economies, reducing the nation's reliance on fossil fuels, protecting natural resources, and increasing national security. The United States is re-laying the groundwork of its economic stability, and family farmers are the key to a strong foundation.

Neil Young, along with Willie Nelson, John Mellencamp, and Dave Matthews, is a board member of Farm Aid (www.farmaid.org).

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/26/comes_a_time_to_fight_for_farmers/

The Value Added Tax System