REPUBLICAN SNEAK ATTACK

If you don’t understand how Republicans in Congress use stealth tactics to attack what they don’t like and what does not benefit their benefactors, you are in for a long, hard ride to the bottom of the barrel.

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a strong, independent consumer protection agency that would have the tools to detect and rein in the tricks, deceits and traps of the financial industry, like the fine print in their contracts?  Wouldn’t it be terrific to have a financial regulator in Washington D.C. watching out for families instead of banks?

Guess what?  We already have it, and it’s called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (C.F.P.B.) created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  It is not as independent as one might like, but it does have potential to rein in the financial industry.

Fearful of its potential, Republicans (and some Democrats) in Congress made sure that it was not an entirely independent agency (its housed in the Treasury Department), that its rules are subject to appeal, its budget is capped by law, it is subject to Government Accountability Office oversight, and its executive officer must report annually to Congress. 

Even with those restrictions, three financial industry-courting Republicans are launching a sneak attack on the agency by targeting the very competent candidate to lead the agency, Elizabeth Warren (also attacked today by Sen. Mitch McConnell on Meet The Press).  First, they introduced three bills that would limit the agency’s potential: one, by replacing a single director with a five-member commission (guaranteed to obstruct rule-making); second, by lowering the number of votes that would be required to overturn a C.F.P.B. rule; third, by requiring Senate confirmation of the agency director.  These bills are intended to weaken the agency from its start, and to make it much harder to do its work.

Moreover, these bills have made it possible for the Republicans on the Financial Services Committee in the House to call the intended director before their Committee (when they hold hearings on any of the bills) and to harass her.  One House committee-watcher has said, “I cannot recall one witness treated so badly by so many.  Republicans on the Committee  are out to gut the consumer protection agency and to kneecap Warren.”

Why are the Republicans and Tea Partiers fighting so hard against this agency and its intended director?  Simple.  Consumer protection that is now scattered across at least 12 different federal agencies will be brought together in a quasi-independent Bureau that can regulate mortgage brokers, mortgage lenders and servicers, payday lenders, credit card companies, private student loan providers, and all banks with assets over $10 billion.  Mainly Republican campaign donors, patrons, and supporters are the heads of such financial institutions, so Congressional Republicans are under pressure to do something to stop this agency in its tracks.  Republicans in Congress are scared to death of the potential power of this agency and its director, not only because of its regulatory power, but because it draws its funding directly from the Federal Reserve, and only needs to go to Congress if additional funds are required.

President Obama needs to use a little stealth of his own and make a recess appointment of Ms. Warren to head the agency, and to get it underway.  Republicans may not like the idea of this agency, but consumers like us are going to love it!

Republicans Resist Available Government JOBs and Training

Republicans generally oppose government programs; they claim such programs make people less responsible for themselves, and more dependent on government to solve their problems and to provide funds as needed.  The GOP believes that most issues and problems and help should be addressed by and through the private sector.  Any help that desperate unemployed people might expect from government is being opposed or blocked by a party of ideologues who do not want any government-sponsored jobs program.  Indeed, this party is even reluctant to extend unemployment benefits for anyone out of work for more than 90 days. 

Of course, these same ideologues are often the first to feed at the government trough when they can benefit, or when they can benefit their home district or state which will ultimately benefit them when they campaign.  Their evident hypocrisy leaves the unemployed in a situation where no immediate help is forthcoming.  There will be no JOBs bill.  All that they will make available is their inadequate JOBs Plan, which gives unemployed persons one option: wait for private industry to start hiring again!

Amazingly, there are already several “job” or “job training” programs within various federal departments that could be used to help many people who are unemployed.  These programs could simply be expanded, without having to establish a new or tremendously expanded bureaucracy to oversee them.  Of course, instead of expanding them, the ideologues want to either consolidate them, under-fund them, or end them.

Corporation for National and Community Service

The Corporation for National and Community Service is a federal agency that engages more than five million Americans in service through Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America, and also leads President Obama's national call to service initiative, United We Serve.  The long and painful Great Recession means there is an increasing need for poverty services at a time when there are decreasing resources for government and nonprofit organizations that provide these services. National service workers can play a role in addressing these disparities.

Some National Service programs create full-time positions that are—in most cases—jointly paid for by public and private resources.  National service programs are not designed as long-term career positions, but they have historically helped boost job creation by providing opportunities for difficult-to-employ youth, senior citizens and recent college graduates, while also building nonprofit organizations’ capacity to continue this important social service.

AmeriCorps State and National  The largest of AmeriCorps programs provides funds to local and national organizations and agencies committed to using national service to address critical community needs in education, public safety, health and the environment.    AmeriCorps State and National programs are open to U.S. citizens, nationals, or lawful permanent resident aliens age 17 and older. Members may serve full- or part-time over a period not to exceed 12 months.  Members receive a modest living allowance, student-loan forbearance, health coverage, and child care for those who qualify. After successfully completing their term of service, they receive an AmeriCorps Education Award of up to $5,350. This award can be used to pay off qualified student loans or to finance college, graduate school, or vocational training at eligible institutions.

AmeriCorps VISTA is the national service program designed specifically to fight poverty. VISTA has been on the front lines in the fight against poverty in America for more than 40 years.  VISTA members commit to serve full-time for a year at a nonprofit organization or local government agency, working to fight illiteracy, improve health services, create businesses, strengthen community groups, and much more.
In return for their service, AmeriCorps VISTA members receive a modest living allowance and health benefits during their service, and have the option of receiving a Segal AmeriCorps Education Award or post-service stipend after completing their service.  It is open to both young people and mature adults.

AmeriCorps NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps) is a full-time, team-based residential program for men and women ages 18–24, assigned to one of five campuses.
Drawn from the successful models of the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s and the U.S. military, the mission of AmeriCorps NCCC is to strengthen communities and develop leaders through direct, team-based national and community service.  AmeriCorps NCCC requires an intensive, 10-month commitment. Members receive a living allowance of approximately $4,000 for the 10 months of service (about $200 every two weeks before taxes), housing, meals, limited medical benefits, up to $400 a month for childcare, if necessary, member uniforms, and a Segal AmeriCorps Education Award upon successful completion of the program.

Foster Grandparent Program:  Foster Grandparents serve children with special needs as role models, mentors, and a friend. Serving at one of thousands of local organizations—including faith-based groups, Head Start Centers, schools, and other youth facilities—they help children learn to read, provide one-on-one tutoring, and guide children at a critical time in their lives. Foster Grandparents, age 55 and older, serve up to 40 hours per week. Some volunteers with a low income can qualify to earn a tax-free, hourly stipend of $2.65 per hour. They also receive transportation reimbursement, pre-service orientation, training from the organization where they serve, supplemental accident and liability insurance while on duty, plus a meal while on duty.

Senior Companion Program:  Similar to the Foster Grandparent Program, the SCP serves older adults with special needs, especially helping persons who are frail to remain in their own homes. Whether giving families or professional caregivers much-needed time off, running errands, or simply being a friend, Senior Companions make a difference that strengthens and helps preserve an individual’s independence.  SCs also join with thousands of others to help control the rising costs of health care.   SCs are age 55 and older, serve up to 40 hours per week, and receive a stipend (if qualified), and other benefits listed for FGP.

Find out more at: www.nationalservice.gov

Office of Personnel Management:

STEP provides part-time federal jobs to students that can last as little as one summer or as long as the duration of a college career. STEP positions are paid. The work does not have to be related to one’s field of study.  To be eligible applicant must be in high school, college, vocational school, or graduate school, and must be a U.S. citizen or national in most cases.  If the hiring agency’s appropriation act permits non-citizen employees, and the  client is eligible to work under U.S. immigration laws, participation is allowed.

SCEP allows applicant to gain experience working for the government in a job related to his field of study. Most positions are paid and some also provide academic credit towards a degree.  To participate in SCEP, the hiring agency must have a formal agreement with client’s educational institution. SCEP positions are available to undergraduate and graduate students. Must be a U.S. citizen or national in most cases. However, if eligible to work under U.S. immigration laws, non-citizen applicants can participate in the program.  Successful completion of 640 hours of work within the SCEP program means a person is eligible to be hired to a permanent position without going through the traditional hiring process. Recent additions to the program allow agencies to waive up to half of the required 640 hours for students with certain job-related experience. 

The Presidential Management Fellows Program (PMF) is a prestigious two year program which is designed to prepare a participant for upper-level management positions in the federal government. Must be in the final year of a graduate program and must receive a nomination from applicant’s school before being considered for the PMF program.
For more, see www.opm.gov

Government needs to fill medical jobs and maintain the staffs at 153 Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals and 745 community based clinics, plus there are health care job vacancies at many other federal agencies. When you include civilian medical personnel at military hospitals and administrative personnel that are needed under the new health care legislation, many more are needed.
For more, see http://federaljobs.net/healthcarejobsva.htm

Job Corps of America Job Corps is a free 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. For eligible young people at least 16 years of age that qualify as low income, Job Corps provides the all-around skills needed to succeed in a career and in life.  Transitioning from the military and starting a new career can be challenging.  Job Corps can help also help Vets through the VETS Demonstration Project.

Preparation for work in nontraditional fields is a major pathway out of poverty for women, but the only federal grant program specifically designed to train women for nontraditional occupations is the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO), which is 17 years old, funded at only $1 million, and focused entirely on construction.

A number of states are using short-time compensation programs to prevent layoffs and maintain employment. Short-time compensation, also called work sharing, is an option within the federal-state UI system that provides some employers with an alternative to layoffs. Employers can reduce work hours instead of laying people off, and workers can collect partial UI benefits to help make up for lost wages. Seventeen states have short-time compensation programs. Some of these states have experienced a dramatic increase in the program’s use.

Congress should consider appropriating additional funds into the WIA Title I youth program to allow the extension of jobs and supports beyond summer for out of school youth ages 16 to 24. Congress should also consider an additional appropriation to reactivate Youth Opportunity (YO) Grants that are already authorized in the WIA legislation. These grants direct funding to areas of concentrated poverty to implement education, training and employment activities directed at getting disconnected youth connected to pathways to employment. 

Enough for now.  Republicans in Congress are simply short-sighted (or myopic) because of their so-called principles.  There are plenty of ways they could get jobs to people immediately, but they continue to resist, unsympathetic to the very basic needs of real people.  More next time on alternative approaches to this problem of JOBS.

Rhetoric: JOBs, JOBs, JOBs; Reality: NO JOBs

A Republican JOBs Bill?  Who do they think they’re kidding?  It’s an absolutely flagrant misuse of the word.  What their JOBs Bill really is: more profit for the rich and powerful;  more blatant attacks on the federal government as an unworthy source of jobs, and as an incompetent organization.  By the way, this isn’t the first time that the GOP has equated incentives, deductions, and exemptions for small and big businesses as a “Jobs Bill.”  In 2004, G.W. Bush signed the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 that was simply chock full of “goodies” for businesses (the tax breaks estimated to cost $143 billion over 10 years).  That “job creation” resulted in more layoffs, more closings, more shipping of jobs overseas.  In the latest rejuvenation of this formula for “creating jobs” we can expect similar results!

First, they say that “government should not try to create jobs by growing the size of government”.  On the surface, that looks like a reasonable statement, but it’s not because we need JOBs now, no matter from where they emanate.  Besides, adding government-sponsored JOBs does not necessarily mean an expansion of bureaucracy.  Several departments of national and state governments already have responsibility for job creation and training and they are not looking to expand their departments. 

Second, they say “it’s time for a new approach. Government should create an environment for private sector growth through fiscal discipline and pro-growth…policies.”  Then, they trot out all the old remedies that haven’t worked for the last 30 years; the same policies and programs that have widened the gap between the rich and the broad middle class in the last generation. 

Third, corporations are already boasting record profits, but they are not sinking profits back into their U.S.-based businesses.  Instead, corporations continue to close plants, lay off workers and ship jobs overseas where they can minimize wages, benefits, taxes and unionization.  In addition, they are currently sitting on nearly $2 trillion in profits, without turning that into jobs.  So, Republicans want to increase profits and earning-power for executives while not creating job one for the rest of us!  Their JOBs Plan is one of the biggest FARCEs ever perpetrated on the American people.  R U Bamboozled?

The first part of their proposal is to “live within our means” by requiring a Balanced Budget Amendment, a statutory spending limit, and deficit reduction. These ideas may have some merit in themselves as possible ways to deal with government spending, but not one of them can guarantee the creation of one JOB. 

Their second mantra is that “we must create incentives for our entrepreneurs to invest in the future, innovate and grow.”  Certainly a worthwhile objective, but how they say we get there is through the same old, tired canards that have not served us (the middle class) well in the past 30 years:
--Reduce business and individual tax rates (by which they mean the rates for the 1-2% at the top of the ladder who have been pocketing their gains at the expense of everyone else!);
--Make research and development tax credit permanent:  a worthy goal if targeted to the United States, and if made broadly available, not just to large corporations
--Extend and make permanent the Small Business Investment Tax Incentive: letting small businesses immediately write-off equipment purchases as tax deductions.  Unfortunately, larger businesses, by “branching” into smaller units, have been able to claim this deduction that they don’t deserve.  The definition of “small” businesses is key here.  To be totally fair, the same incentive should be given to the self-employed, so that they might grow into small businesses.    
--Reduce taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends: once again, who benefits the most? And who sits on the profits?  There is no incentive here for creating JOBs; just for making the rich richer!

They also want to remove burdensome regulations on businesses.  But that’s one of the big reasons why we got into the huge economic trouble we’re in: deregulation and less governmental oversight led to abuses in financing, mortgage-lending, banking, Wall Street investments, Big Oil gouging and lack of safety provisions, etc.  Government regulation is key to keeping the excesses of capitalism under control to the benefit of a broad working middle class.  This idea of deregulation is not a prescription for JOBs, but it is a prescription for robbery, fraud, and abuse.  Don’t buy any of it!  That being said, truly burdensome, poorly conceived, and biased regulations are not helpful to anyone. 

There does need to be a broader input mechanism for opinion, data, and suggestions for regulations from those immediately affected, and from those indirectly affected.  There does need to be a sunset provision on each set of rules and regulations so that they will be reviewed (and reformed) on a reasonable timetable.  Rule-making and regulation-formulation are the mode by which laws are executed.  There needs to be as much attention to this process as there is to legislating the laws of the land, because rules and regulations have the force of law.

The GOP Plan calls for two measures that, they say, would help to create a “competitive” workforce:  reform of federal training programs and stopping “card-check”.  Once again, the GOP is using code words to cover their true intentions.   The intention is not to reform federal job training, but to gut it, so that it becomes a shadow of what it is.  They intend to do this by combining all training programs into one (smaller) program that then will present training on a very limited basis, unable to meet the needs of very different clients who have entirely different needs and issues.  So, they are advocating a situation where “one size fits all.“  Not at all what is needed.  AND YET, on the very next subject of  “Card-Check (a euphemism for “unionization”), they say specifically that the reason this is unacceptable is because it “creates a one-size-fits-all approach to wages and benefits.”  So apparently, it’s o.k. to have a one-size-fits-all approach to training, but not for an approach to wages and benefits.  Why is that, you ask?  Because in one case (training) it works to undermine job training, but in the 2nd case, it works against their anti-union ideology!

While making a brief reference to “the imperative” of educating our children to be the innovators, entrepreneurs and workers of tomorrow, the Republicans otherwise steer clear of the role of public schools in job preparation.  Are they prepared to take the steps necessary for enhancing public education so that our children can compete with the rest of the developed nations?  Not on your life.   Public education is a key priority in the training of leaders and workers, but the GOP and Tea Partiers are intent on privatizing education in this country so that government will no longer be able to exercise any control over what happens in our schools.  That means no strategic planning for the future jobs market, or for anything else that begins with a public education. 

The rest of the Plan is devoted to equally inane recommendations, most of which have more to do with political in-fighting than with JOB creation, i.e. increasing exports, doing more oil-drilling on the outer continental shelf and on federal lands, and addressing health care reform by malpractice reform, allowing purchase of insurance across state lines, risk pools for small businesses, and strengthening HSAs. 

All of which brings us again to the question: where are the JOBs?  The GOP speculates that the measures they propose will create an “environment” in which growth will occur.  But what if it simply doesn’t do that?  What if their provisions do what they have done before: create an atmosphere in which the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets robbed and stagnated? 

What we need is a REAL JOBS plan.  More next time…

What About REAL Medicare Reform?

Republican Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, told David Gregory today on Meet the Press that the Ryan Plan for Medicare is the best proposal available right now, and that anyone with a better idea should come forward and make a serious proposal. 

First, we need to ask: how much research went into Paul Ryan’s proposal to put Medicare on a premium-support (government voucher) basis?  Well, apparently not much, since the Congressional Budget Office made it clear that he didn’t take into consideration that his Plan would actually add to the total debt, cost more for seniors buying private plans, and that typical 65 year olds would be required to pay 68 percent of the total cost of their coverage (premiums, deductibles, other out-of-pocket costs), compared with the 25 percent they would pay under current law!

Second, Ryan’s Plan does nothing to solve the issue of affordable and effective health care for seniors (and for those who are younger but disabled). Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in 2010 went only part-way toward reforming health care costs and provisions, it at least tried to do so in a timely manner.  Ryan’s provisions for vouchering premium support for Medicare would not take effect until 2022!  His changes to Medicare are really not intended to solve the problem of health care administration, but ostensibly to address the problem of debt reduction!  His Plan does neither and Sen. Rubio is much to blame for not proposing a better solution (other than denigrating Obama’s health care reform bill by which Rubio solves absolutely nothing). 

This is exactly what many have come to fear from Tea Baggers and Republicans (as well as some Democrats): they knowingly divert public attention from the real issues to political theater which is totally unproductive.  No wonder so many out here feel they are being bamboozled!

Third, perhaps Sen. Rubio has missed the fact that there actually are other proposals for addressing health care in this country (along with the national debt), at least one of which has not received the attention it deserves because of over-protection of private insurance giants and private drug companies by Congress, and because of the false bogey-man of socialism. 

Here’s what Physicians for a National Health Program have to say about a Single Payer System:

“Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.
Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($8,160 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 51 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

“The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy.
Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.

“Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $400 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do (underlining added).

“Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

“Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO/group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

“A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.”  >http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources>

It’s time to get serious about REAL HEALTHCARE REFORM, and a single-payer system like this is worth an in-depth look.  At least it would do what Senator Rubio and Congressman Ryan so inadequately proposed to do.  It would potentially replace Medicare and Medicaid, but this time, with a much better system available to all citizens!!