Jonathan Tasini

Health care is in the air--and there are somewhat dueling camps here in Denver, which reflect what's happening day-to-day in labor. Last night, I attended a lively reception hosted by a variety of groups--the California Nurses Association and Progressive Democrats of America--who support HR676, the bill that would enact essentially a single-payer system. The bill's major champion  is Rep. John Conyers. Conyer was at the reception but I couldn't stay to here is remarks.

At the reception, besides Conyers, were CWA president Larry Cohen, Greg Junemann, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers and, though not officially on the program, Karen Ackerman, political director of the AFL-CIO. Readers here know that I don't quite understand why the labor movement isn't solidly behind single-payer...but, regardless, it's good to see some folks are ready for the fight. At least for the time I was there, nothing unusual was said other than to emphasize that the polls show that the people would embrace a single-payer system. So, you kind of wonder, "what the fuck is holding us back?" Pardon my french but this is a particularly annoying thing to me.

   Today, other pieces of labor will hold two rallies on health care. The first one will be a morning "parade the politicians" affair hosted by SEIU and Families USA at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts.Besides Andy Stern and SEIU Secretary Treasurer Anna Burge (you can see her address to the convention last night here), other speakers include SEIU Healthcare Chair Dennis Rivera and a slew of elected officials, including Hillary Clinton. Later on, at 3 p.m., there will be an outdoor rally and march, including Chuck D, Ben Gibbard and Chris Walla of Death Cab for Cutie. That particular rally is sponsored by  SEIU, Healthcare United, Health Care for America Now (HCAN), the National Education Association (NEA), Colorado for Health Care, Families USA, the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), and Jobs With Justice.

   If you were to characterize this constellation of folks, you would say that they are not wedded to single-payer and would support some form of universal health care that kept the private insurance industry in the game. I think that's a mistake. BUT--I hope we can have a debate that doesn't pit slogans like "naive/unrealistic" versus "sell-outs"--it will just feel like the trade debate which falsely pits the debate as one between "free trade" and "protectionism". It doesn't shed much light on the topic.

   Anyway, I'll get some details on the rallies--might not be til later.

Health care is in the air--and there are somewhat dueling camps here in Denver, which reflect what's happening day-to-day in labor. Last night, I attended a lively reception hosted by a variety of groups--the California Nurses Association and Progressive Democrats of America--who support HR676, the bill that would enact essentially a single-payer system. The bill's major champion  is Rep. John Conyers. Conyer was at the reception but I couldn't stay to here is remarks.

At the reception, besides Conyers, were CWA president Larry Cohen, Greg Junemann, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers and, though not officially on the program, Karen Ackerman, political director of the AFL-CIO. Readers here know that I don't quite understand why the labor movement isn't solidly behind single-payer...but, regardless, it's good to see some folks are ready for the fight. At least for the time I was there, nothing unusual was said other than to emphasize that the polls show that the people would embrace a single-payer system. So, you kind of wonder, "what the fuck is holding us back?" Pardon my french but this is a particularly annoying thing to me.

   Today, other pieces of labor will hold two rallies on health care. The first one will be a morning "parade the politicians" affair hosted by SEIU and Families USA at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts.Besides Andy Stern and SEIU Secretary Treasurer Anna Burge (you can see her address to the convention last night here), other speakers include SEIU Healthcare Chair Dennis Rivera and a slew of elected officials, including Hillary Clinton. Later on, at 3 p.m., there will be an outdoor rally and march, including Chuck D, Ben Gibbard and Chris Walla of Death Cab for Cutie. That particular rally is sponsored by  SEIU, Healthcare United, Health Care for America Now (HCAN), the National Education Association (NEA), Colorado for Health Care, Families USA, the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), and Jobs With Justice.

   If you were to characterize this constellation of folks, you would say that they are not wedded to single-payer and would support some form of universal health care that kept the private insurance industry in the game. I think that's a mistake. BUT--I hope we can have a debate that doesn't pit slogans like "naive/unrealistic" versus "sell-outs"--it will just feel like the trade debate which falsely pits the debate as one between "free trade" and "protectionism". It doesn't shed much light on the topic.

   Anyway, I'll get some details on the rallies--might not be til later.

   No, I have not just been sleeping in bed. Yes, it was a long night--again...the hot party of the night was at The Samba Room, courtesy of Planned Parenthood, where a darn good DJ kept the place hopping (I, of course, participated in the close-contact sport of dancing). It's just hard to blog here first thing when you're running from one place to another (and also trying to comply with the very dumb DNC credentialing procedure, which requires that you get your ass over to a hotel to get a new credential each day...what a waste of time).

   Anyway, just came from a panel discussion on a new movie called "The Battle in Seattle". The flick describes the events in 1999 when tens of thousands of trade activists, mostly union members, shut down Seattle during the meetings of the World Trade Organization. It was a turning point in the fight against so-called "free trade", which culminated in the collapse of the trade talks in Doha. The panel brought together Teamsters president Jim Hoffa and Steelworkers president Leo Gerard, both of whom lead the labor protests in Seattle; the director, Stuart Townsend, and actress Charlize Theron, who is one of the cast in the film.

   To get to the activism part right away, if you go the film's website, you can actually arrange to have the film seen. Do it. People need to be reminded, as Gerard said, what happened in Seattle. As Gerard described it, the protests lifted the rock up that had covered up what the WTO was up to. Hoffa spoke positively about the "chaos" that was created--and essentially said we need more chaos these days to continue to shake up the status quo.

   One thing I liked about Townsend's perspective--he wanted to do a feature film, not a documentary, because he wanted people to be entertained and inspired at the same time. Jeez, if only progressives could understand that there is not a contradiction between entertainment AND politics.

   To really make sure the stake is driven through the heart of so-called "Free trade", this movie needs to get wide distribution. Hollywood did not want it made--the financing came from outside the country and it was filmed in Canada. So, it's up to union members. leaders anad activists to give it a home.

   Of course, in typical convention fashion, mojitos, margaritas and other drinks were served to the audience at the restaurant where the panel took place--at 11 a.m.!!! I declined to drink. I can't start at 11 and make it the whole day--not at my advanced age.

   No, I have not just been sleeping in bed. Yes, it was a long night--again...the hot party of the night was at The Samba Room, courtesy of Planned Parenthood, where a darn good DJ kept the place hopping (I, of course, participated in the close-contact sport of dancing). It's just hard to blog here first thing when you're running from one place to another (and also trying to comply with the very dumb DNC credentialing procedure, which requires that you get your ass over to a hotel to get a new credential each day...what a waste of time).

   Anyway, just came from a panel discussion on a new movie called "The Battle in Seattle". The flick describes the events in 1999 when tens of thousands of trade activists, mostly union members, shut down Seattle during the meetings of the World Trade Organization. It was a turning point in the fight against so-called "free trade", which culminated in the collapse of the trade talks in Doha. The panel brought together Teamsters president Jim Hoffa and Steelworkers president Leo Gerard, both of whom lead the labor protests in Seattle; the director, Stuart Townsend, and actress Charlize Theron, who is one of the cast in the film.

   To get to the activism part right away, if you go the film's website, you can actually arrange to have the film seen. Do it. People need to be reminded, as Gerard said, what happened in Seattle. As Gerard described it, the protests lifted the rock up that had covered up what the WTO was up to. Hoffa spoke positively about the "chaos" that was created--and essentially said we need more chaos these days to continue to shake up the status quo.

   One thing I liked about Townsend's perspective--he wanted to do a feature film, not a documentary, because he wanted people to be entertained and inspired at the same time. Jeez, if only progressives could understand that there is not a contradiction between entertainment AND politics.

   To really make sure the stake is driven through the heart of so-called "Free trade", this movie needs to get wide distribution. Hollywood did not want it made--the financing came from outside the country and it was filmed in Canada. So, it's up to union members. leaders anad activists to give it a home.

   Of course, in typical convention fashion, mojitos, margaritas and other drinks were served to the audience at the restaurant where the panel took place--at 11 a.m.!!! I declined to drink. I can't start at 11 and make it the whole day--not at my advanced age.

   So, friends, here in Denver, I've finally gotten strapped to my chair after a very busy morning (okay, it was a groggy one given the...eh...number of margaritas that I was forced to consume last night--only in the service of talking to people to bring you the best info).

  Yesterday, I attended two briefings held by labor leaders that gave very concrete outlines to labor's battle plan for the 2008 elections: where resources will be deployed and how much money will be spent. Both briefings were sparsely attended by the traditional media--and, while the traditional media is, again, obsessed by polling snapshots, it is missing an important component to the election battle ahead that polls don't catch--but which will count for millions of mobilized voters. I think this will be the difference in the election. Here's why.

  The first briefing was conducted by the Service Employees International Union in a meeting space in the Opera House in Denver's Performing Arts Center. Andy Stern, president of SEIU; Anna Burger, the secretary-treasurer of SEIU and the chair of the Change To Win federation; and Pauline Beck, an SEIU member, spoke.

  Beck was the SEIU homecare worker from California with whom Barack Obama spent a day following around as Beck did her daily job. It was part of a program, called "Walk A Day In My Shoes", SEIU put in place to encourage--maybe even force--candidates who were seeking the union's endorsement to take part in. Beck talked about Obama's day with her (he apparently held up his end). You can see that video here.

  SEIU is committing $85 million do the 2008 cycle. A slice of that money has already been spent, a ton will be spent in the next two months and, fair warning to the Democratic Party, a piece will be spent AFTER the election to hold elected officials accountable; $10 million will be reserved for "hard money" for candidates who potentially would be funded for primary challengers to elected officials who stray from their commitments to the union's agenda.

More after the jump...

  John Youngdahl, the union's political director, said that 1,463 SEIU members will take time off from their jobs in 25 states to work full-time for the campaign; two-thirds of the efforts will be messages targeted to the general public.

  Right after the SEIU briefing, AFL-CIO Political Director Karen Ackerman gave a very detailed presentation on the federation's plans at the nearby Convention Center. Ackerman believes the election will very close and the AFL-CIO is launching the "broadest, biggest efforts in its history": 250,000 volunteers in 24 priority states will be deployed. Just this week, the AFL-CIO has sent a mailing to 1 million union households in just five states to make the case for Obama.

  Ackerman focused a lot on Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Her view is that without Ohio, Obama's chances of winning are 24 percent (no one asked how that specific number was arrived at). Without Michigan and Ohio, Obama's chances are 0.07 percent...

  Here are some pretty interesting numbers to keep in mind. In 2004, and in previous elections, Democrats tended to lose white men and white womne, born-again evangelicals, weekly churchgoers, married people and rural voters--EXCEPT IF THEY WERE UNION VOTERS. In 2004, John Kerry won the union vote in Michigan by 24 points but lost the non-union vote by 11 points; he won the union vote by 25 points in Pennsylvania but lost the non-union vote by 10 points; and he won the union vote by 16 points in Ohio but lost the non-union vote by 12 points. Contemplate that thought--a few point in the union vote or a few points less in the non-union vote and John Kerry would have won Ohio--and the election.

  The AFL-CIO's expenditure this cycle will be $53.4 million; if you add to that the money individual unions will spend, the total will be somewhere between $200-$250 million (just to clarify, individual unions are part of the umbrella of the AFL-CIO Federation; they each pay a certain amount of money per member into the federation's overall political program, and, then, spend their own dollars on top of that).

  Another interesting feature is the role Working America will play in the election. Working America was set up as a kind of affiliate to the AFL-CIO to solve this problem: with labor only representing 12 percent of the workforce, and less than 8 percent in the private sector, how could unions each voters who, polling showed, supported the labor movement on issues of wages, job security and general workplace fairness.

  Working America sent canvassers out across the country, focusing on battleground states. They knocked on doors of non-union homes and, when successful, signed up people to the organization. Get this: Working America now has 2.5 million members...

  So, what does this mean? Ackerman gave a pretty interesting example. Using a Google map, she showed a visual of zip code 55912 in Minnesota. Within that zip code, blue dots represented union households: 1,634. Then, she added the Working America red dots signifying non-union households: 1,819. So, in theory, a voter mobilization effort, motivated by economic issues, could turn out at more than double the number of voters--at least in this particular area. And, presumably, this will be true in other districts.

  I thought Ackerman made some interesting points about the question of whether Obama will be able to win the non-educated white working class voters. First is this: because of the economic crisis facing the country, she said that "these voters generally don't want to vote for McCain." Second, Obama is actually winning those voters who are union members by 20-30 points more than the non-union voters. From there she addressed race in a very complex and sophisticated way. Her basic message: yes, race is an issue for SOME union members but not something that is a broad problem. Race will be something to address and be up front about but the overwhelming number of union members are far more interested to know how a president will fix the economic crisis facing workers, and, if they are convinced a candidate has the answer or at least a semblance of the right direction, race will be a secondary issue.

  So, the bottom line: just between the AFL-CIO, its individual unions and SEIU, you are looking at an expenditure of up to $300 million. And an army of people deployed in precincts around the country.

  Last thought: so, we've heard this before. Why is this different? I do sense an even more heightened sense of urgency within labor. This is an overused cliche but the labor movement really believes this election is a matter of life and death. If it can't get a president that will not have a huge boot stomping on the neck of unions every single day, it may pass the point of no return in the next four years or eight years if a Republican president is re-elected in 2012.

   So, friends, here in Denver, I've finally gotten strapped to my chair after a very busy morning (okay, it was a groggy one given the...eh...number of margaritas that I was forced to consume last night--only in the service of talking to people to bring you the best info).

  Yesterday, I attended two briefings held by labor leaders that gave very concrete outlines to labor's battle plan for the 2008 elections: where resources will be deployed and how much money will be spent. Both briefings were sparsely attended by the traditional media--and, while the traditional media is, again, obsessed by polling snapshots, it is missing an important component to the election battle ahead that polls don't catch--but which will count for millions of mobilized voters. I think this will be the difference in the election. Here's why.

  The first briefing was conducted by the Service Employees International Union in a meeting space in the Opera House in Denver's Performing Arts Center. Andy Stern, president of SEIU; Anna Burger, the secretary-treasurer of SEIU and the chair of the Change To Win federation; and Pauline Beck, an SEIU member, spoke.

  Beck was the SEIU homecare worker from California with whom Barack Obama spent a day following around as Beck did her daily job. It was part of a program, called "Walk A Day In My Shoes", SEIU put in place to encourage--maybe even force--candidates who were seeking the union's endorsement to take part in. Beck talked about Obama's day with her (he apparently held up his end). You can see that video here.

  SEIU is committing $85 million do the 2008 cycle. A slice of that money has already been spent, a ton will be spent in the next two months and, fair warning to the Democratic Party, a piece will be spent AFTER the election to hold elected officials accountable; $10 million will be reserved for "hard money" for candidates who potentially would be funded for primary challengers to elected officials who stray from their commitments to the union's agenda.

More after the jump...

  John Youngdahl, the union's political director, said that 1,463 SEIU members will take time off from their jobs in 25 states to work full-time for the campaign; two-thirds of the efforts will be messages targeted to the general public.

  Right after the SEIU briefing, AFL-CIO Political Director Karen Ackerman gave a very detailed presentation on the federation's plans at the nearby Convention Center. Ackerman believes the election will very close and the AFL-CIO is launching the "broadest, biggest efforts in its history": 250,000 volunteers in 24 priority states will be deployed. Just this week, the AFL-CIO has sent a mailing to 1 million union households in just five states to make the case for Obama.

  Ackerman focused a lot on Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Her view is that without Ohio, Obama's chances of winning are 24 percent (no one asked how that specific number was arrived at). Without Michigan and Ohio, Obama's chances are 0.07 percent...

  Here are some pretty interesting numbers to keep in mind. In 2004, and in previous elections, Democrats tended to lose white men and white womne, born-again evangelicals, weekly churchgoers, married people and rural voters--EXCEPT IF THEY WERE UNION VOTERS. In 2004, John Kerry won the union vote in Michigan by 24 points but lost the non-union vote by 11 points; he won the union vote by 25 points in Pennsylvania but lost the non-union vote by 10 points; and he won the union vote by 16 points in Ohio but lost the non-union vote by 12 points. Contemplate that thought--a few point in the union vote or a few points less in the non-union vote and John Kerry would have won Ohio--and the election.

  The AFL-CIO's expenditure this cycle will be $53.4 million; if you add to that the money individual unions will spend, the total will be somewhere between $200-$250 million (just to clarify, individual unions are part of the umbrella of the AFL-CIO Federation; they each pay a certain amount of money per member into the federation's overall political program, and, then, spend their own dollars on top of that).

  Another interesting feature is the role Working America will play in the election. Working America was set up as a kind of affiliate to the AFL-CIO to solve this problem: with labor only representing 12 percent of the workforce, and less than 8 percent in the private sector, how could unions each voters who, polling showed, supported the labor movement on issues of wages, job security and general workplace fairness.

  Working America sent canvassers out across the country, focusing on battleground states. They knocked on doors of non-union homes and, when successful, signed up people to the organization. Get this: Working America now has 2.5 million members...

  So, what does this mean? Ackerman gave a pretty interesting example. Using a Google map, she showed a visual of zip code 55912 in Minnesota. Within that zip code, blue dots represented union households: 1,634. Then, she added the Working America red dots signifying non-union households: 1,819. So, in theory, a voter mobilization effort, motivated by economic issues, could turn out at more than double the number of voters--at least in this particular area. And, presumably, this will be true in other districts.

  I thought Ackerman made some interesting points about the question of whether Obama will be able to win the non-educated white working class voters. First is this: because of the economic crisis facing the country, she said that "these voters generally don't want to vote for McCain." Second, Obama is actually winning those voters who are union members by 20-30 points more than the non-union voters. From there she addressed race in a very complex and sophisticated way. Her basic message: yes, race is an issue for SOME union members but not something that is a broad problem. Race will be something to address and be up front about but the overwhelming number of union members are far more interested to know how a president will fix the economic crisis facing workers, and, if they are convinced a candidate has the answer or at least a semblance of the right direction, race will be a secondary issue.

  So, the bottom line: just between the AFL-CIO, its individual unions and SEIU, you are looking at an expenditure of up to $300 million. And an army of people deployed in precincts around the country.

  Last thought: so, we've heard this before. Why is this different? I do sense an even more heightened sense of urgency within labor. This is an overused cliche but the labor movement really believes this election is a matter of life and death. If it can't get a president that will not have a huge boot stomping on the neck of unions every single day, it may pass the point of no return in the next four years or eight years if a Republican president is re-elected in 2012.

   Yesterday, I wrote about whether Joe Biden was good for labor. Relatively speaking, the answer is yes. Relative speaking because Paul Wellstone is not alive and, compared to the other people being considered, Biden was a decent choice.

   In the analysis, I used a quick-and-dirty look at 12 years of the AFL-CIO's legislative scorecard. Several people who e-mailed me correctly pointed out that what I did not bring up was Biden's role in leading the push to pass the toxic and awful bankruptcy bill. No question about it: that was not his finest hour and, arguably, it was a piece of legislation that had in its cross-hairs many millions of working people.

   For folks with only a dim memory of the bill: the bill made debtors have to pay a lot more to creditors so that any bankruptcy filing would leave a family with a heavier debt load; and basically increased the paper work and barriers so that getting through bankruptcy would become more stressful, time-consuming and expensive. Organized labor fought hard to defeat the bill. The main forces behind the bill were a coalition of Visa, MBNA America, Mastercard, Citicorp and other major credit companes who poured millions of dollars into the effort. Biden wasn't the only Democratic champion of the bill--when a cloture vote came up to end a filibuster against the bill, Biden was joined by Tim Johnson (South Dakota), Tom Carper (Delaware), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) and Bill Nelson (Florida), all voting to crush the filibuster.

   I talked yesterday to a labor lobbyist who was deeply involved in the fight against the bill. The lobbyist's take: Biden was really bad on the bill and its a black mark on his record. But, at least, from the lobbyist's perspective, Biden was arguing for the bill based on jobs, given that the credit card industry makes its home in Delaware. And, at the end of day, the lobbyist says union leaders and members in Delaware love Biden.

   So, take that info for what it's worth.

   Yesterday, I wrote about whether Joe Biden was good for labor. Relatively speaking, the answer is yes. Relative speaking because Paul Wellstone is not alive and, compared to the other people being considered, Biden was a decent choice.

   In the analysis, I used a quick-and-dirty look at 12 years of the AFL-CIO's legislative scorecard. Several people who e-mailed me correctly pointed out that what I did not bring up was Biden's role in leading the push to pass the toxic and awful bankruptcy bill. No question about it: that was not his finest hour and, arguably, it was a piece of legislation that had in its cross-hairs many millions of working people.

   For folks with only a dim memory of the bill: the bill made debtors have to pay a lot more to creditors so that any bankruptcy filing would leave a family with a heavier debt load; and basically increased the paper work and barriers so that getting through bankruptcy would become more stressful, time-consuming and expensive. Organized labor fought hard to defeat the bill. The main forces behind the bill were a coalition of Visa, MBNA America, Mastercard, Citicorp and other major credit companes who poured millions of dollars into the effort. Biden wasn't the only Democratic champion of the bill--when a cloture vote came up to end a filibuster against the bill, Biden was joined by Tim Johnson (South Dakota), Tom Carper (Delaware), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) and Bill Nelson (Florida), all voting to crush the filibuster.

   I talked yesterday to a labor lobbyist who was deeply involved in the fight against the bill. The lobbyist's take: Biden was really bad on the bill and its a black mark on his record. But, at least, from the lobbyist's perspective, Biden was arguing for the bill based on jobs, given that the credit card industry makes its home in Delaware. And, at the end of day, the lobbyist says union leaders and members in Delaware love Biden.

   So, take that info for what it's worth.

   As a whole, Joe Biden is considered a friend of labor. But, he doesn’t have a perfect voting record as far as labor is concerned. Lifetime, he has an 85 percent voting record on votes the AFL-CIO considers crucial over the past 12 years (that is the time period available on-line…and that’s the best you are going to get on a Saturday morning). You have to keep in mind that the AFL-CIO usually creates its scorecard, like many other organizations, based on specific votes deemed particularly crucial, not the hundreds of votes a Senator might cast in a given term.

If you want the specifics below, go for it—I mostly highlighted votes below where he and labor parted company, or where there are votes that indicate positions that are relevant to issues coming up in the future. But, for the lazy, and more sane people who want to have a life on Saturday morning, here’s what I would say generally. Throughout his career, Biden has been a strong supporter of labor rights here in the U.S., from union organizing rights to protecting prevailing wage laws. He is a co-sponsor of the number one priority for labor, the Employee Free Choice Act.

Where are the disagreements? Mostly over trade and immigration. Biden, initially, was a strong support of so-called “free trade” but he seems to have shifted his position a bit in the past few years. That could have been partly partisan—his votes for so-called “free trade” came during the Clinton Administration, but he tended to vote more against so-called “free trade” during the Bush Administration. But, it also may be a shift in overall philosophy—and his votes seem to indicate that he shares a similar view on trade with his potential boss. That is, that trade deals have to include enforceable labor and environment provisions (I’ve written repeatedly that this is not sufficient but I’ll not digress here).  It is also worth noting that so-called “free trade” bills have, generally, received more Democratic votes, proportionally, in the Senate than in the House.

On immigration, he has, on occasion, voted for increasing caps for certain immigration visas that the AFL-CIO has opposed. So, that will be something to keep an eye on since immigration will be back on the policy agenda in the new Administration.

Okay, for some specifics:

In 1996, out of a total of 7 key pieces of legislation, Biden voted “right” on 6 and wrong on 1. He was a strong labor supporter when it came to basic legislation such as defeating “right to work” legislation and protecting prevailing wage laws. The one “wrong” vote was Bill Clinton’s “welfare reform” bill which the AFL-CIO said: “The bill’s cuts in food stamp and assistance to legal immigrants were projected to push 1 million children of working parents into poverty and deprive hard-working families help in times of need. It also creates the potential for large-scale job displacement in the public and private sectors. The "workfare" provisions could penalize low-wage unskilled workers by forcing them to compete for jobs with welfare recipients earning sub-minimum wages”.

In 1997, he scored a relatively poor voting record for labor, clocking in at just 57 percent based on seven votes. He voted “wrong” by helping to kill a filibuster that would have blocked “fast track” authority, one of the most insidious powers the president has had for a number of years (though it finally expired and has not been renewed): it allows the president to submit a trade deal to Congress for a straight up-or-down vote, with no amendments allowed. He also voted for the balanced budget amendment, thought it failed by just one vote to get the two-thirds needed to pass it on to the states for ratification.

In 1998, he voted “right” 7 out of 8 times. His one “wrong” vote was a “yes” vote on an immigration bill that would allow, as the AFL-CIO explained it, “agriculture employers an almost unlimited number of foreign workers under the immigration law's H2A program, and to gut existing worker protections.”

In 1999, his one “wrong” vote out of nine votes measured came on a trade bill that expanded the failed so-called “free trade” NAFTA model to sub-Sahara Africa. The AFL-CIO’s view: “Trade polices should include worker and environmental protections and provide economic benefits to workers. But H.R. 434, which the Senate amended to include Caribbean Basin Initiative nations, authorized a new trade and investment policy for sub-Sahara Africa without enforceable worker protections and extended NAFTA to CBI countries. It also allowed transshipments of foreign textiles and apparels through African countries, giving other nations the trade benefits intended for African nations. It also did nothing to address one of the major problems the sub-Saharan countries face, a crushing debt burden to developed nations. The Senate passed its version of H.R.434 76-13, Nov. 3, 1999.The bill was sent to conference and no further action was taken in 1999”

In 2000 record, Biden really annoyed labor, voting wrong on 3 out of the 8 votes measured. In my view, the worst vote was his “yes” vote to allow China into the World Trade Organization, a move that came without any attempt to try to enforce basic labor standards as a condition of WTO admission. And we know how that worked out for this country and the world. Biden also voted for school vouchers, which certainly did not endear him to teachers’ unions (though it is not clear where he stands now on school vouchers). Finally, he voted “wrong” on an immigration bill again to raise the number of H1B visas (visas that are supposed to be for higher-skilled workers where there is an alleged shortage in the U.S. ) from 115,000 to 195,000.

In 2001, during George W. Bush’s first term, Biden had a 100 percent voting “right” record, abstaining on one vote out of 16 measured. Interestingly, he did vote with the winning majority to ban trucks from Mexico, which was seen as a somewhat trade-related vote but was mostly couched as a safety standards issue.

In 2002: here again, Biden had a 100 percent voting record.  Interestingly, he voted right on several trade-related pieces of legislation He voted against a “fast track” conference report that, as the AFL-CIO viewed it, “contained weak and flawed provisions on workers' rights and environmental protections, essentially ruling out enforceable standards in future Fast Track trade agreements.” He also voted for an amendment (it failed) that would have required U.S. trade negotiators to “seek enforcement provisions that would equal those negotiated in the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. That agreement, negotiated under the Clinton administration, contained meaningful enforceable workers' rights provisions.” As part of the “fast track” legislation, he voted for an amendment that would have protected health insurance for steel industry retirees whose companies had gone bankrupt. The amendment was blocked by a filibuster. He also voted to kill a Republican amendment that would have required new onerous union reporting rules.

In 2003, Biden batted 100 percent again based on 13 votes. And, here we find a more pronounced shift on his votes on trade. He voted no on both the U.S.-Singapore and U.S. Chile so-called “free trade” deals. I have not gone to look at his floor statements (c’mon, it is after all Saturday morning) but the main argument against these deals was that they failed to include strong, enforceable labor rights standards. Both of the deals passed.

Biden continued his perfect labor record in 2004, voting “right” on 11 votes. The two interesting votes in 2004 had to do with exporting jobs and immigration. He voted for a bill that would have required multi-national companies to pay federal taxes on income from foreign factories where goods are shipped back to the U.S. The bill would also have required companies to give notification when jobs were being off-shored. What makes this interesting is that Barack Obama has pledged to change federal tax laws that benefit companies who off-shore jobs.
He also voted “right” on a bill that, as the AFL-CIO described it, “was a bipartisan immigration reform proposal that would provide an avenue for 500,000 undocumented farm workers to qualify for permanent residency status through an earned legalization program.” The bill failed to pass for complicated procedural fights that blocked an actual vote (Biden’s right vote was on the filibuster fight).

In 2005, Biden slipped a bit, only getting 13 out of 14 votes “right”.  The one vote where he was “wrong” was an energy bill, where the Democratic caucus was split; frankly, I didn’t have time to look into the details of this vote but it was considered a job-creation bill by the AFL-CIO; Biden voted “no”. More important, he did vote no on the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The bill passed.

In 2006, Biden’s only “wrong vote out of 15 measured was on an amendment in the comprehensive immigration reform bill that sought to strike a new program to admit 500,000 guest workers per year on H-2C visas in a variety of occupations. The AFL-CIO’s view: “The new visa program lacked sufficient protections for existing wages and benefits. The H-2C visa program would allow employers to petition for temporary workers without a requirement that the work be seasonal or truly temporary, essentially granting employers the ability to turn long-term, skilled work into temporary jobs filled with an easily exploitable workforce, resulting in lower pay and benefits for all.” Biden voted to table the amendment and it was killed. But, he continued his newly-found opposition to so-called “free trade” by voting against the Oman Free Trade Agreement. The deal passed.

In 2007, he was all good, voting 14 out of 14 times “right”, including amendments to two immigration guest-worker bills that the AFL-CIO opposed.

So, there you have it.

   As a whole, Joe Biden is considered a friend of labor. But, he doesn’t have a perfect voting record as far as labor is concerned. Lifetime, he has an 85 percent voting record on votes the AFL-CIO considers crucial over the past 12 years (that is the time period available on-line…and that’s the best you are going to get on a Saturday morning). You have to keep in mind that the AFL-CIO usually creates its scorecard, like many other organizations, based on specific votes deemed particularly crucial, not the hundreds of votes a Senator might cast in a given term.

If you want the specifics below, go for it—I mostly highlighted votes below where he and labor parted company, or where there are votes that indicate positions that are relevant to issues coming up in the future. But, for the lazy, and more sane people who want to have a life on Saturday morning, here’s what I would say generally. Throughout his career, Biden has been a strong supporter of labor rights here in the U.S., from union organizing rights to protecting prevailing wage laws. He is a co-sponsor of the number one priority for labor, the Employee Free Choice Act.

Where are the disagreements? Mostly over trade and immigration. Biden, initially, was a strong support of so-called “free trade” but he seems to have shifted his position a bit in the past few years. That could have been partly partisan—his votes for so-called “free trade” came during the Clinton Administration, but he tended to vote more against so-called “free trade” during the Bush Administration. But, it also may be a shift in overall philosophy—and his votes seem to indicate that he shares a similar view on trade with his potential boss. That is, that trade deals have to include enforceable labor and environment provisions (I’ve written repeatedly that this is not sufficient but I’ll not digress here).  It is also worth noting that so-called “free trade” bills have, generally, received more Democratic votes, proportionally, in the Senate than in the House.

On immigration, he has, on occasion, voted for increasing caps for certain immigration visas that the AFL-CIO has opposed. So, that will be something to keep an eye on since immigration will be back on the policy agenda in the new Administration.

Okay, for some specifics:

In 1996, out of a total of 7 key pieces of legislation, Biden voted “right” on 6 and wrong on 1. He was a strong labor supporter when it came to basic legislation such as defeating “right to work” legislation and protecting prevailing wage laws. The one “wrong” vote was Bill Clinton’s “welfare reform” bill which the AFL-CIO said: “The bill’s cuts in food stamp and assistance to legal immigrants were projected to push 1 million children of working parents into poverty and deprive hard-working families help in times of need. It also creates the potential for large-scale job displacement in the public and private sectors. The "workfare" provisions could penalize low-wage unskilled workers by forcing them to compete for jobs with welfare recipients earning sub-minimum wages”.

In 1997, he scored a relatively poor voting record for labor, clocking in at just 57 percent based on seven votes. He voted “wrong” by helping to kill a filibuster that would have blocked “fast track” authority, one of the most insidious powers the president has had for a number of years (though it finally expired and has not been renewed): it allows the president to submit a trade deal to Congress for a straight up-or-down vote, with no amendments allowed. He also voted for the balanced budget amendment, thought it failed by just one vote to get the two-thirds needed to pass it on to the states for ratification.

In 1998, he voted “right” 7 out of 8 times. His one “wrong” vote was a “yes” vote on an immigration bill that would allow, as the AFL-CIO explained it, “agriculture employers an almost unlimited number of foreign workers under the immigration law's H2A program, and to gut existing worker protections.”

In 1999, his one “wrong” vote out of nine votes measured came on a trade bill that expanded the failed so-called “free trade” NAFTA model to sub-Sahara Africa. The AFL-CIO’s view: “Trade polices should include worker and environmental protections and provide economic benefits to workers. But H.R. 434, which the Senate amended to include Caribbean Basin Initiative nations, authorized a new trade and investment policy for sub-Sahara Africa without enforceable worker protections and extended NAFTA to CBI countries. It also allowed transshipments of foreign textiles and apparels through African countries, giving other nations the trade benefits intended for African nations. It also did nothing to address one of the major problems the sub-Saharan countries face, a crushing debt burden to developed nations. The Senate passed its version of H.R.434 76-13, Nov. 3, 1999.The bill was sent to conference and no further action was taken in 1999”

In 2000 record, Biden really annoyed labor, voting wrong on 3 out of the 8 votes measured. In my view, the worst vote was his “yes” vote to allow China into the World Trade Organization, a move that came without any attempt to try to enforce basic labor standards as a condition of WTO admission. And we know how that worked out for this country and the world. Biden also voted for school vouchers, which certainly did not endear him to teachers’ unions (though it is not clear where he stands now on school vouchers). Finally, he voted “wrong” on an immigration bill again to raise the number of H1B visas (visas that are supposed to be for higher-skilled workers where there is an alleged shortage in the U.S. ) from 115,000 to 195,000.

In 2001, during George W. Bush’s first term, Biden had a 100 percent voting “right” record, abstaining on one vote out of 16 measured. Interestingly, he did vote with the winning majority to ban trucks from Mexico, which was seen as a somewhat trade-related vote but was mostly couched as a safety standards issue.

In 2002: here again, Biden had a 100 percent voting record.  Interestingly, he voted right on several trade-related pieces of legislation He voted against a “fast track” conference report that, as the AFL-CIO viewed it, “contained weak and flawed provisions on workers' rights and environmental protections, essentially ruling out enforceable standards in future Fast Track trade agreements.” He also voted for an amendment (it failed) that would have required U.S. trade negotiators to “seek enforcement provisions that would equal those negotiated in the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. That agreement, negotiated under the Clinton administration, contained meaningful enforceable workers' rights provisions.” As part of the “fast track” legislation, he voted for an amendment that would have protected health insurance for steel industry retirees whose companies had gone bankrupt. The amendment was blocked by a filibuster. He also voted to kill a Republican amendment that would have required new onerous union reporting rules.

In 2003, Biden batted 100 percent again based on 13 votes. And, here we find a more pronounced shift on his votes on trade. He voted no on both the U.S.-Singapore and U.S. Chile so-called “free trade” deals. I have not gone to look at his floor statements (c’mon, it is after all Saturday morning) but the main argument against these deals was that they failed to include strong, enforceable labor rights standards. Both of the deals passed.

Biden continued his perfect labor record in 2004, voting “right” on 11 votes. The two interesting votes in 2004 had to do with exporting jobs and immigration. He voted for a bill that would have required multi-national companies to pay federal taxes on income from foreign factories where goods are shipped back to the U.S. The bill would also have required companies to give notification when jobs were being off-shored. What makes this interesting is that Barack Obama has pledged to change federal tax laws that benefit companies who off-shore jobs.
He also voted “right” on a bill that, as the AFL-CIO described it, “was a bipartisan immigration reform proposal that would provide an avenue for 500,000 undocumented farm workers to qualify for permanent residency status through an earned legalization program.” The bill failed to pass for complicated procedural fights that blocked an actual vote (Biden’s right vote was on the filibuster fight).

In 2005, Biden slipped a bit, only getting 13 out of 14 votes “right”.  The one vote where he was “wrong” was an energy bill, where the Democratic caucus was split; frankly, I didn’t have time to look into the details of this vote but it was considered a job-creation bill by the AFL-CIO; Biden voted “no”. More important, he did vote no on the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The bill passed.

In 2006, Biden’s only “wrong vote out of 15 measured was on an amendment in the comprehensive immigration reform bill that sought to strike a new program to admit 500,000 guest workers per year on H-2C visas in a variety of occupations. The AFL-CIO’s view: “The new visa program lacked sufficient protections for existing wages and benefits. The H-2C visa program would allow employers to petition for temporary workers without a requirement that the work be seasonal or truly temporary, essentially granting employers the ability to turn long-term, skilled work into temporary jobs filled with an easily exploitable workforce, resulting in lower pay and benefits for all.” Biden voted to table the amendment and it was killed. But, he continued his newly-found opposition to so-called “free trade” by voting against the Oman Free Trade Agreement. The deal passed.

In 2007, he was all good, voting 14 out of 14 times “right”, including amendments to two immigration guest-worker bills that the AFL-CIO opposed.

So, there you have it.

  It's not a hard intellectual or political lift to say that a President Obama would be leaps and bounds much better for working people than John "Third Bush Term" McCain--partly because the bar has been set so low in the past eight years. But, it's worth being clear-eyed about what we can expect.

  I've been thinking about this topic for a long time and have a much more detailed look in the works. But, for the time being, an upcoming long article in The New York Times magazine gives some food for thought. Written by David Leonhardt, the piece is called "How Obama Reconciles Dueling Views on The Economy".

  Leonhardt's basic view is this:

John McCain’s economic vision, as he has laid it out during the campaign, amounts to a slightly altered version of Republican orthodoxy, with tax cuts at the core. Obama, on the other hand, has more-detailed proposals but a less obvious ideology.[emphasis added]

  And:

Some of the confusion stems from Obama’s own strategy of presenting himself as a postpartisan figure. A few weeks ago, I joined him on a flight from Orlando to Chicago and began our conversation by asking about his economic approach. He started to answer, but then interrupted himself. "My core economic theory is pragmatism," he said, "figuring out what works."[emphasis added]

  I'm all for pragmatism--if we were pragmatic, we would have a single-payer health care system because it's the system that would save the most money and be better economically for companies and business.

  But, pragmatism can sometimes--sometimes--cloud over some very important clear choices. That is, to take the health care system again, some would say that being pragmatic means constructing a universal health care system that is not single-payer because, pragmatically, it doesn't seem like a winnable fight to eliminate the insurance industry from the picture (a position that I don't agree with). "figuring out what works" can have two meanings. Either, literally, can it work economically and/or will it work politically.

  Part of the problem with Leonhardt is that he poses the differences on economic policy in a fairly narrow and conventional framework. Here are two examples that stand out:

The new Democratic consensus isn’t complete, obviously. Labor unions, in particular, would prefer more trade barriers than many other Democrats. During the primaries Obama nodded, and at times pandered, in this direction. Since then, he has disavowed that rhetoric, to almost no one’s surprise.

  And:

But it’s not entirely clear what the alternative is, at least in the broad sense and at least for the time being.

A much more left-wing agenda than Obama’s would consist of erecting new trade barriers, reregulating various industries and otherwise getting the government even more involved in the economy than Obama would

. This program has the dubious distinction of being disliked by both voters and experts alike. Populism hasn’t won a national election, or even the Democratic nomination, in decades, and economists can point to any number of ways why it wouldn’t work anyway.

  Most unions don't want to erect "trade barriers". This is a subtly different way of throwing out the old "protectionist" epithet. What unions want is to forge a trade policy that isn't based on the lowest common denominator. Or, more specifically, a trade policy that isn't based on the search for the lowest wage.

  But, Leonhardt does make a few observations that are worth considering. For the sake of brevity, I want to focus mostly on the tax issue:

Obama’s agenda starts not with raising taxes to reduce the deficit, as Clinton’s ended up doing, but with changing the tax code so that families making more than $250,000 a year pay more taxes and nearly everyone else pays less. That would begin to address inequality.

  That is a good thing. However, I've taken a close look at Obama's tax policies and, frankly, it's small-bore. Leonhardt is right when he says:

McCain, by continuing the basic thrust of Bush’s tax policies and adding a few new wrinkles, would cut taxes for the top 0.1 percent of earners — those making an average of $9.1 million — by another $190,000 a year, on top of the Bush reductions. Obama would raise taxes on this top 0.1 percent by an average of $800,000 a year.

  That shows the stark difference between Democrats and Republicans. But,   then, Leonhardt says:

To put it another way, the wealthy have done so well over the past few decades, with their incomes soaring and tax rates plummeting, that Obama’s plan would not come close to erasing their gains. The same would be true of households making a few hundred thousand dollars a year (who have gotten smaller raises than the very rich but would also face smaller tax increases). As ambitious as Obama’s proposals might be, they would still leave the gap between the rich and everyone else far wider than it was 15 or 30 years ago. It just wouldn’t be quite as wide as it is now.[emphasis added]

  The point here is this: leaving this wide gap between rich and poor is unconscionable. And unnecessary. We could raise the higher rates far more than Obama suggests, generate a lot more revenue for investments in jobs, health care and energy--and still leave the rich quite well off, thank you very much. But, there is a fear of doing so that has nothing to do with economics.

  Probably since the 1980s, the Democrats have fallen into the ideological straight-jacket that requires that they come up with some gimmicky promise to cut taxes. Sen. Obama is no different.

  Looking at how Sen. Obama addresses taxes makes the point--and I think underscores his general views about taxes. He often refers to "tax relief". A change election—-a change in the way things are done in Washington and, more important, a change in the rhetorical phrases that frame policy—-means tossing out the nonsense about "tax relief". As George Lakoff has pointed out:

The word relief evokes a frame in which there is a blameless Afflicted Person who we identify with and who has some Affliction, some pain or harm that is imposed by some external Cause-of-pain. Relief is the taking away of the pain or harm, and it is brought about by some Reliever-of-pain.

The Relief frame is an instance of a more general Rescue scenario, in which there is a Hero (The Reliever-of-pain), a Victim (the Afflicted), a Crime (the Affliction), A Villain (the Cause-of-affliction), and a Rescue (the Pain Relief). The Hero is inherently good, the Villain is evil, and the Victim after the Rescue owes gratitude to the Hero.

The term tax relief evokes all of this and more. Taxes, in this phrase, are the Affliction (the Crime), proponents of taxes are the Causes-of Affliction (the Villains), the taxpayer is the Afflicted Victim, and the proponents of "tax relief" are the Heroes who deserve the taxpayers' gratitude.

Every time the phrase "tax relief" is used and heard or read by millions of people, the more this view of taxation as an affliction and conservatives as heroes gets reinforced [emphasis added]

.

  So, political leaders should stop talking about "relief", as if somehow taxes are an affliction—as opposed to the dues we pay to live in a decent society—and focus on the real problem: that rich people and corporations are either not paying their fair share of their dues or dodging taxes (Wal-Mart is a prime example ).

  On its merits, Sen. Obama’s tax cut plan, which Leonhardt discusses, is quite modest: He proposes a $250 immediate tax cut for 150 million workers and their families—-$50 lower than the recent Bush Administration’s $300-a-person tax "rebate" that was widely derided as a political ploy that would do very little to alleviate the economic stress facing workers. And, if economic circumstances get worse, the new Administration will send another $250 per person. The cost to the U.S. Treasury would be $70 billion if both $250 rebates were implemented—-a likely scenario given the economic crisis underway.

   But, the truth is that the proposed tax cut is a distraction and an unnecessary drain on the U.S. Treasury when far more important challenges face American workers. Tossing American workers a few hundreds bucks out of the Treasury, which will further hobble the government’s ability to do its job, will undercut the ability to launch national health care, fund infrastructure projects and move the economy towards a carbon-free future.

  For the sake of brevity, I will end with this passage, which gives some insight into Obama's instincts:

In Obama’s second book, "The Audacity of Hope," he goes further: "Reagan’s central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing that pie — contained a good deal of truth." [emphasis added]

The partial embrace of Reaganomics is a typical bit of Obama’s postpartisan veneer. In a single artful sentence, he dismissed the old liberals, aligned himself with the Bill Clinton centrists and did so by reaching back to a conservative icon who remains widely popular. But the words have significance at face value too. Compared with many other Democrats, Obama simply is more comfortable with the apparent successes of laissez-faire economics.[emphasis added]

  I'll post more on this topic down the line. I view these discussions as important to have. I think you can hold complicated ideas at the same time: that Obama is light years ahead of McCain for workers, that he could, in fact, be an extraordinary president and, that, finally, if he becomes a great president, he will do so because a movement that kept building moved him to move the country even further in a progressive direction.

  It's not a hard intellectual or political lift to say that a President Obama would be leaps and bounds much better for working people than John "Third Bush Term" McCain--partly because the bar has been set so low in the past eight years. But, it's worth being clear-eyed about what we can expect.

  I've been thinking about this topic for a long time and have a much more detailed look in the works. But, for the time being, an upcoming long article in The New York Times magazine gives some food for thought. Written by David Leonhardt, the piece is called "How Obama Reconciles Dueling Views on The Economy".

  Leonhardt's basic view is this:

John McCain’s economic vision, as he has laid it out during the campaign, amounts to a slightly altered version of Republican orthodoxy, with tax cuts at the core. Obama, on the other hand, has more-detailed proposals but a less obvious ideology.[emphasis added]

  And:

Some of the confusion stems from Obama’s own strategy of presenting himself as a postpartisan figure. A few weeks ago, I joined him on a flight from Orlando to Chicago and began our conversation by asking about his economic approach. He started to answer, but then interrupted himself. "My core economic theory is pragmatism," he said, "figuring out what works."[emphasis added]

  I'm all for pragmatism--if we were pragmatic, we would have a single-payer health care system because it's the system that would save the most money and be better economically for companies and business.

  But, pragmatism can sometimes--sometimes--cloud over some very important clear choices. That is, to take the health care system again, some would say that being pragmatic means constructing a universal health care system that is not single-payer because, pragmatically, it doesn't seem like a winnable fight to eliminate the insurance industry from the picture (a position that I don't agree with). "figuring out what works" can have two meanings. Either, literally, can it work economically and/or will it work politically.

  Part of the problem with Leonhardt is that he poses the differences on economic policy in a fairly narrow and conventional framework. Here are two examples that stand out:

The new Democratic consensus isn’t complete, obviously. Labor unions, in particular, would prefer more trade barriers than many other Democrats. During the primaries Obama nodded, and at times pandered, in this direction. Since then, he has disavowed that rhetoric, to almost no one’s surprise.

  And:

But it’s not entirely clear what the alternative is, at least in the broad sense and at least for the time being.

A much more left-wing agenda than Obama’s would consist of erecting new trade barriers, reregulating various industries and otherwise getting the government even more involved in the economy than Obama would

. This program has the dubious distinction of being disliked by both voters and experts alike. Populism hasn’t won a national election, or even the Democratic nomination, in decades, and economists can point to any number of ways why it wouldn’t work anyway.

  Most unions don't want to erect "trade barriers". This is a subtly different way of throwing out the old "protectionist" epithet. What unions want is to forge a trade policy that isn't based on the lowest common denominator. Or, more specifically, a trade policy that isn't based on the search for the lowest wage.

  But, Leonhardt does make a few observations that are worth considering. For the sake of brevity, I want to focus mostly on the tax issue:

Obama’s agenda starts not with raising taxes to reduce the deficit, as Clinton’s ended up doing, but with changing the tax code so that families making more than $250,000 a year pay more taxes and nearly everyone else pays less. That would begin to address inequality.

  That is a good thing. However, I've taken a close look at Obama's tax policies and, frankly, it's small-bore. Leonhardt is right when he says:

McCain, by continuing the basic thrust of Bush’s tax policies and adding a few new wrinkles, would cut taxes for the top 0.1 percent of earners — those making an average of $9.1 million — by another $190,000 a year, on top of the Bush reductions. Obama would raise taxes on this top 0.1 percent by an average of $800,000 a year.

  That shows the stark difference between Democrats and Republicans. But,   then, Leonhardt says:

To put it another way, the wealthy have done so well over the past few decades, with their incomes soaring and tax rates plummeting, that Obama’s plan would not come close to erasing their gains. The same would be true of households making a few hundred thousand dollars a year (who have gotten smaller raises than the very rich but would also face smaller tax increases). As ambitious as Obama’s proposals might be, they would still leave the gap between the rich and everyone else far wider than it was 15 or 30 years ago. It just wouldn’t be quite as wide as it is now.[emphasis added]

  The point here is this: leaving this wide gap between rich and poor is unconscionable. And unnecessary. We could raise the higher rates far more than Obama suggests, generate a lot more revenue for investments in jobs, health care and energy--and still leave the rich quite well off, thank you very much. But, there is a fear of doing so that has nothing to do with economics.

  Probably since the 1980s, the Democrats have fallen into the ideological straight-jacket that requires that they come up with some gimmicky promise to cut taxes. Sen. Obama is no different.

  Looking at how Sen. Obama addresses taxes makes the point--and I think underscores his general views about taxes. He often refers to "tax relief". A change election—-a change in the way things are done in Washington and, more important, a change in the rhetorical phrases that frame policy—-means tossing out the nonsense about "tax relief". As George Lakoff has pointed out:

The word relief evokes a frame in which there is a blameless Afflicted Person who we identify with and who has some Affliction, some pain or harm that is imposed by some external Cause-of-pain. Relief is the taking away of the pain or harm, and it is brought about by some Reliever-of-pain.

The Relief frame is an instance of a more general Rescue scenario, in which there is a Hero (The Reliever-of-pain), a Victim (the Afflicted), a Crime (the Affliction), A Villain (the Cause-of-affliction), and a Rescue (the Pain Relief). The Hero is inherently good, the Villain is evil, and the Victim after the Rescue owes gratitude to the Hero.

The term tax relief evokes all of this and more. Taxes, in this phrase, are the Affliction (the Crime), proponents of taxes are the Causes-of Affliction (the Villains), the taxpayer is the Afflicted Victim, and the proponents of "tax relief" are the Heroes who deserve the taxpayers' gratitude.

Every time the phrase "tax relief" is used and heard or read by millions of people, the more this view of taxation as an affliction and conservatives as heroes gets reinforced [emphasis added]

.

  So, political leaders should stop talking about "relief", as if somehow taxes are an affliction—as opposed to the dues we pay to live in a decent society—and focus on the real problem: that rich people and corporations are either not paying their fair share of their dues or dodging taxes (Wal-Mart is a prime example ).

  On its merits, Sen. Obama’s tax cut plan, which Leonhardt discusses, is quite modest: He proposes a $250 immediate tax cut for 150 million workers and their families—-$50 lower than the recent Bush Administration’s $300-a-person tax "rebate" that was widely derided as a political ploy that would do very little to alleviate the economic stress facing workers. And, if economic circumstances get worse, the new Administration will send another $250 per person. The cost to the U.S. Treasury would be $70 billion if both $250 rebates were implemented—-a likely scenario given the economic crisis underway.

   But, the truth is that the proposed tax cut is a distraction and an unnecessary drain on the U.S. Treasury when far more important challenges face American workers. Tossing American workers a few hundreds bucks out of the Treasury, which will further hobble the government’s ability to do its job, will undercut the ability to launch national health care, fund infrastructure projects and move the economy towards a carbon-free future.

  For the sake of brevity, I will end with this passage, which gives some insight into Obama's instincts:

In Obama’s second book, "The Audacity of Hope," he goes further: "Reagan’s central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing that pie — contained a good deal of truth." [emphasis added]

The partial embrace of Reaganomics is a typical bit of Obama’s postpartisan veneer. In a single artful sentence, he dismissed the old liberals, aligned himself with the Bill Clinton centrists and did so by reaching back to a conservative icon who remains widely popular. But the words have significance at face value too. Compared with many other Democrats, Obama simply is more comfortable with the apparent successes of laissez-faire economics.[emphasis added]

  I'll post more on this topic down the line. I view these discussions as important to have. I think you can hold complicated ideas at the same time: that Obama is light years ahead of McCain for workers, that he could, in fact, be an extraordinary president and, that, finally, if he becomes a great president, he will do so because a movement that kept building moved him to move the country even further in a progressive direction.

   I'm working on Denver time now and, after being out drinking a lot of wine, I'm strapped back into the saddle. Now, this is really good news and a lot of kudos go out to the leadership of the New York State AFL-CIO: at its most recent statewide convention this past week, the State Fed unanimously endorsed single-payer. Here is the text of the resolution.

   Apparently, a lot of the push came from four different labor bodies: IATSE Local One; Capital District Area Labor Federation, AFL-CIO; United University Professions/AFT; and AFSCME Local 154/DC 37. Here is a letter that went out from IATSE's Robert Score, who was one of the main leaders of the pro-resolution forces:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

It is with extreme pride and pleasure that I can report to you that at the August 18, 2008 general session of the NYS AFL-CIO Convention, the resolution proposed by your Union for the NYS AFL-CIO to endorse H.R. 676, U.S. Congressman John Conyers’ bill for single payer health care for all, was unanimously approved.

The Local One delegates in attendance included President James J. Claffey, Jr., Vice President William J. Walters, Treasurer Robert McDonough, Business Manager Ed McMahon, Trustees John M. Diaz, Sr. and William Ngai, Local One Organizer Dan Gilloon, Westchester Rep James Edmiston and yours truly.

The NYS AFL-CIO now becomes the 37th State AFL-CIO to endorse H.R. 676 along with more than 400 union organizations in over 48 states and over 100 Central Labor Councils and Area Labor Federations.

We now look forward to the endorsement from the NYC Central Labor Council and the NYC Council.

This historic occasion could not have happened without the relentless, dedicated work of our deceased Brother Ephraim Dunsky, Card 700. Brother Dunsky was a visionary when it came to H.R. 676. He personally introduced me to Rep. Conyers, was responsible for the over fifteen hundred signatures on a petition calling for the NYC Council to endorse H.R. 676 and constantly reminded the membership of Local One about the importance of the passage of H.R. 676. Brother Dunsky was the social conscience of Local One on many issues but H.R. 676 was particularly close to his heart. I am positive that on this very momentous day he is looking down upon us all and smiling.

Fraternally & Sincerely,

Robert C. Score
Recording-Corresponding Secretary

   This is really great work and great news. It's been disappointing to me that labor, as a whole, has not been solidly behind HR676 and single-payer health care. By arguing for something short of single-payer, the labor movement is fumbling the ball and losing a great opportunity to make a major, long-term difference in the lives of every American.

   Now, hopefully, the NY State folks can push hard throughout the Federation.

   I'm working on Denver time now and, after being out drinking a lot of wine, I'm strapped back into the saddle. Now, this is really good news and a lot of kudos go out to the leadership of the New York State AFL-CIO: at its most recent statewide convention this past week, the State Fed unanimously endorsed single-payer. Here is the text of the resolution.

   Apparently, a lot of the push came from four different labor bodies: IATSE Local One; Capital District Area Labor Federation, AFL-CIO; United University Professions/AFT; and AFSCME Local 154/DC 37. Here is a letter that went out from IATSE's Robert Score, who was one of the main leaders of the pro-resolution forces:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

It is with extreme pride and pleasure that I can report to you that at the August 18, 2008 general session of the NYS AFL-CIO Convention, the resolution proposed by your Union for the NYS AFL-CIO to endorse H.R. 676, U.S. Congressman John Conyers’ bill for single payer health care for all, was unanimously approved.

The Local One delegates in attendance included President James J. Claffey, Jr., Vice President William J. Walters, Treasurer Robert McDonough, Business Manager Ed McMahon, Trustees John M. Diaz, Sr. and William Ngai, Local One Organizer Dan Gilloon, Westchester Rep James Edmiston and yours truly.

The NYS AFL-CIO now becomes the 37th State AFL-CIO to endorse H.R. 676 along with more than 400 union organizations in over 48 states and over 100 Central Labor Councils and Area Labor Federations.

We now look forward to the endorsement from the NYC Central Labor Council and the NYC Council.

This historic occasion could not have happened without the relentless, dedicated work of our deceased Brother Ephraim Dunsky, Card 700. Brother Dunsky was a visionary when it came to H.R. 676. He personally introduced me to Rep. Conyers, was responsible for the over fifteen hundred signatures on a petition calling for the NYC Council to endorse H.R. 676 and constantly reminded the membership of Local One about the importance of the passage of H.R. 676. Brother Dunsky was the social conscience of Local One on many issues but H.R. 676 was particularly close to his heart. I am positive that on this very momentous day he is looking down upon us all and smiling.

Fraternally & Sincerely,

Robert C. Score
Recording-Corresponding Secretary

   This is really great work and great news. It's been disappointing to me that labor, as a whole, has not been solidly behind HR676 and single-payer health care. By arguing for something short of single-payer, the labor movement is fumbling the ball and losing a great opportunity to make a major, long-term difference in the lives of every American.

   Now, hopefully, the NY State folks can push hard throughout the Federation.

   On Monday, Reuters had this piece:

Tensions Mount Inside Actors Union Over Contract
By REUTERS

Filed at 9:28 p.m. ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Tensions within the Screen Actors Guild mounted on Monday as the union's Hollywood-based leaders rejected a call by SAG's New York branch to bring in a federal mediator to break a deadlock in contract talks with major studios.

Members of the New York regional board also publicly challenged the assertions of SAG president Alan Rosenberg and chief negotiator Doug Allen that the union is holding informal talks with studio representatives in a bid to close a deal.

And they accused SAG negotiators, in a resolution passed unanimously last week by the 23-member New York board, of "failing to bargain realistically ... and remove unattainable items from the table."

"There's no discernible plan here," New York division board member Paul Christie told Reuters. "You can't have a plan that just says, 'We're holding secret meetings.' And our question is just what the hell does that mean?"

Rosenberg condemned the resolution as "political" in nature and "an attempt to damage SAG's negotiations."
 

   A lot of the tension comes out of the feud between SAG and AFTRA. Speaking of Rosenberg:

Both accuse his coalition of straining relations with SAG's smaller sister union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, through SAG's failed campaign to scuttle a contract negotiated separately between AFTRA and the studios.

   This is all pretty sad. SAG has had internal battles for the past couple of decades. But, AFTRA skates free from criticism in this article--and it shouldn't. AFTRA was equally at fault in creating the tension, as I observed back when this whole thing bubbled up.

   On Monday, Reuters had this piece:

Tensions Mount Inside Actors Union Over Contract
By REUTERS

Filed at 9:28 p.m. ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Tensions within the Screen Actors Guild mounted on Monday as the union's Hollywood-based leaders rejected a call by SAG's New York branch to bring in a federal mediator to break a deadlock in contract talks with major studios.

Members of the New York regional board also publicly challenged the assertions of SAG president Alan Rosenberg and chief negotiator Doug Allen that the union is holding informal talks with studio representatives in a bid to close a deal.

And they accused SAG negotiators, in a resolution passed unanimously last week by the 23-member New York board, of "failing to bargain realistically ... and remove unattainable items from the table."

"There's no discernible plan here," New York division board member Paul Christie told Reuters. "You can't have a plan that just says, 'We're holding secret meetings.' And our question is just what the hell does that mean?"

Rosenberg condemned the resolution as "political" in nature and "an attempt to damage SAG's negotiations."
 

   A lot of the tension comes out of the feud between SAG and AFTRA. Speaking of Rosenberg:

Both accuse his coalition of straining relations with SAG's smaller sister union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, through SAG's failed campaign to scuttle a contract negotiated separately between AFTRA and the studios.

   This is all pretty sad. SAG has had internal battles for the past couple of decades. But, AFTRA skates free from criticism in this article--and it shouldn't. AFTRA was equally at fault in creating the tension, as I observed back when this whole thing bubbled up.

   I'm always in favor of a little street theater and humor in this oh, so, serious business. So, there's been a bus tour underwritten by the Consumer Electronics Association called "America Wins With Trade", drummed up to try to generate a pulse for the quickly dying so-called "free trade" agenda. Some clever folks in Oregon, organized by the Oregon Fair Trade Campaign and Portland's Jobs With Justice, had a unique way of greeting the tour, as this release and pic show:

Affluent Traders of Oregon Welcomes the  “Corporate America Wins with Trade” Tour to Portland

Portland, OR — Affluent Traders of Oregon (ATO) helped welcome the “Corporate America Wins with Trade” tour during its visit to Triad Speakers, Inc in northeast Portland this morning.  The bus tour, sponsored by the Consumer Electronics Association, is traveling the United States to drum up support for the Bush administration’s stalled free trade pacts with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

“The public relations subcontractors running this bus tour are fighting the good fight.  Free trade agreements may not be popular with voters, but they are absolutely crucial if corporations are to continue shifting jobs around the globe to where labor is the cheapest and environmental protections the weakest,” said ATO Communications Director Rob Depoor.  “Those rare businesses like Triad that still manufacture in the U.S. are wise to keep their options open.  There is still a killing to be made in offshoring.”

ATO joined the Consumer Electronics Association in calling on Congress to immediately pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, arguing that the ongoing human rights violations in Colombia make for a sound investment climate that affluent traders are eager to exploit.

“Some people find the murder of trade unionists in Colombia distasteful, but in tough economic times like these, a cooperative labor pool is essential in order to ensure rising returns on investment,” said Depoor.  “Until people are voluntarily willing to accept a couple dollars a day in wages and be happy about it, partnerships with military and paramilitary regimes are simply a fact of life in the business world.  If that reality makes Americans uncomfortable, they should stop paying attention.” 

“The ‘Corporate America Wins with Trade’ tour is just what we need to jumpstart support for continued NAFTA expansion,” said ATO President Ivanna Slavesbach.  “My only hope is that next time they will find a jet or a helicopter for their tour.  Quite frankly, this whole bus theme is a little trashy.  Overall, great work though!”
 

   Nice.

   I'm always in favor of a little street theater and humor in this oh, so, serious business. So, there's been a bus tour underwritten by the Consumer Electronics Association called "America Wins With Trade", drummed up to try to generate a pulse for the quickly dying so-called "free trade" agenda. Some clever folks in Oregon, organized by the Oregon Fair Trade Campaign and Portland's Jobs With Justice, had a unique way of greeting the tour, as this release and pic show:

Affluent Traders of Oregon Welcomes the  “Corporate America Wins with Trade” Tour to Portland

Portland, OR — Affluent Traders of Oregon (ATO) helped welcome the “Corporate America Wins with Trade” tour during its visit to Triad Speakers, Inc in northeast Portland this morning.  The bus tour, sponsored by the Consumer Electronics Association, is traveling the United States to drum up support for the Bush administration’s stalled free trade pacts with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

“The public relations subcontractors running this bus tour are fighting the good fight.  Free trade agreements may not be popular with voters, but they are absolutely crucial if corporations are to continue shifting jobs around the globe to where labor is the cheapest and environmental protections the weakest,” said ATO Communications Director Rob Depoor.  “Those rare businesses like Triad that still manufacture in the U.S. are wise to keep their options open.  There is still a killing to be made in offshoring.”

ATO joined the Consumer Electronics Association in calling on Congress to immediately pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, arguing that the ongoing human rights violations in Colombia make for a sound investment climate that affluent traders are eager to exploit.

“Some people find the murder of trade unionists in Colombia distasteful, but in tough economic times like these, a cooperative labor pool is essential in order to ensure rising returns on investment,” said Depoor.  “Until people are voluntarily willing to accept a couple dollars a day in wages and be happy about it, partnerships with military and paramilitary regimes are simply a fact of life in the business world.  If that reality makes Americans uncomfortable, they should stop paying attention.” 

“The ‘Corporate America Wins with Trade’ tour is just what we need to jumpstart support for continued NAFTA expansion,” said ATO President Ivanna Slavesbach.  “My only hope is that next time they will find a jet or a helicopter for their tour.  Quite frankly, this whole bus theme is a little trashy.  Overall, great work though!”
 

   Nice.

   Well, Wal-Mart has a union...but not in the U.S...across the border, and only because a judge imposed the union on the Beast. Shows you what a slightly better legal system can do for union organizing. Here's what The Wall Street Journal has today:

An arbitrator has imposed a contract on a Wal-Mart Canada auto center in Quebec that received union certification three years ago.

The auto center, Tire & Lube Express, is part of a store in Gatineau, near the Ontario border. It was union-certified in 2005 and its first collective agreement has been expected since the binding-arbitration process ended in June.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is known for strongly opposing unions. Back in 2005, Wal-Mart shut a Quebec store in Jonquiere after it was unionized; Wal-Mart said the store wasn't profitable. The Supreme Court of Canada recently decided to hear a case challenging the closure.

   Even in Canada it took three years for workers to get justice. Which makes me still leery that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is the nirvana that we hope for. From where I sit, it's employer neutrality that is really needed--something EFCA does not require. Does anyone believe that employers won't come up with new and "improved" tactics if EFCA is passed? Hopefully, we will get to test that environment.

   Well, Wal-Mart has a union...but not in the U.S...across the border, and only because a judge imposed the union on the Beast. Shows you what a slightly better legal system can do for union organizing. Here's what The Wall Street Journal has today:

An arbitrator has imposed a contract on a Wal-Mart Canada auto center in Quebec that received union certification three years ago.

The auto center, Tire & Lube Express, is part of a store in Gatineau, near the Ontario border. It was union-certified in 2005 and its first collective agreement has been expected since the binding-arbitration process ended in June.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is known for strongly opposing unions. Back in 2005, Wal-Mart shut a Quebec store in Jonquiere after it was unionized; Wal-Mart said the store wasn't profitable. The Supreme Court of Canada recently decided to hear a case challenging the closure.

   Even in Canada it took three years for workers to get justice. Which makes me still leery that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is the nirvana that we hope for. From where I sit, it's employer neutrality that is really needed--something EFCA does not require. Does anyone believe that employers won't come up with new and "improved" tactics if EFCA is passed? Hopefully, we will get to test that environment.