From the Dispatch

Seattle Becomes 4th Major City to Enact Paid Sick Days

Charles Monaco — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:09:07 +0000

This week, Seattle’s City Council voted 8-1 to make their city the fourth major city in the nation — following Washington, D.C., Milwaukee and San Francisco — to enact legislation ensuring that workers will not have to choose between keeping their jobs and getting the health care they or a family member need. Earlier this year, conservative state legislators struck down Milwaukee’s law, enacted by a 70-30 percentage majority in a 2008 ballot initiative, by passing a bill stripping local governments of the power to regulate family and medical leave. This victory for Seattle families continues the positive national momentum of paid sick days legislation, which was also enacted statewide in Connecticut earlier this year, and which promises to continue to be a priority for lawmakers seeking economic security for their constituents across the nation in cities and states next year. It also comes at a time when some tragic, real-life stories of families affected by a lack of paid sick days are emerging, reinforcing the need for this critical measure.

According to the Economic Opportunity Institute, approximately 200,000 working Seattlites currently lack paid sick days. The legislation passed in Seattle would go a long way towards aiding those families while protecting small businesses. Among the provisions of the bill, which would take effect in September of 2012, are that very small businesses (with fewer than five employees) would not be required to offer sick leave, businesses with between 5 and 49 workers would be required to offer one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked, and large businesses with over 250 employees would need to give their workers 1.5 hours for every 30 hours worked. The impact of the law would also be required to be measured by an independent evaluator.

In an analysis of the economic effects of the Seattle measure, Forbes contributor Mark Bergen lays to waste some of the common misconceptions of businesses on the economic effect of requiring paid sick leave, noting accurately that “by some measures, covering sick days is cheap, and pretty popular” and that “complaints that paid sick leave measures will undercut a city’s competitive advantage suffer from the wrong assessment of our economic malaise.”

Mayor Mike McGinn indicated his support for the Seattle measure in a statement: "Paid Sick Leave levels the playing field in Seattle by supporting public health and economic justice. Seattle residents shouldn't have to choose between staying home sick and keeping their job."

Sadly, reminders emerged this week that the very situation described by Mayor McGinn is not hypothetical for many families. In Philadelphia, where a paid sick days measure was passed by the city council earlier but vetoed by Mayor Nutter, news media reported the story of a mother who was fired from her job for taking time off to donate one of her kidneys to her ailing son. The woman, Claudia Rendon, had already used up her vacation days after both the death of her mother and caring for her father who was diagnosed with leukemia. Philadelphia’s city council is seeking to either override the Mayor’s veto or find some compromise to move the bill forward and begin to protect families like Claudia’s.

Also this week, the Family Values @ Work consortium took advantage of the attention being focused on the release of the fictional movie Contagion — which portrays the terrifying effects of a worldwide flu epidemic — to highlight in a web video the real-life stories of five of the 44 million people across the nation who are at risk of being forced to go to work while they are sick. (You can view the video here.)

The success in Seattle is encouraging other municipal paid sick days efforts. In Denver, voters will decide on a ballot initiative on paid sick days this November (an effort which also saw a step backwards this week when Colorado Gov. Hickenlooper came out in opposition to the measure). Denver’s initiative would require businesses with ten or more employees required to offer nine paid days to employees per year, and smaller businesses five days per year. And in the nation’s largest city, advocates are pushing the New York City Council for a vote on paid sick days. The bill, which would grant over one million workers access to sick leave for the first time, is sponsored by a veto-proof majority of city councilors but has been prevented from coming to the floor by leadership.

Elected officials everywhere should be encouraged by recent polling in Connecticut that clearly shows a strong bipartisan majority of voters look favorably on legislators who voted for the state’s paid sick days law earlier this year. According to the poll released over Labor Day, “73 percent of registered voters in Connecticut support the new law, including 61 percent of Republicans, 70 percent of independents and 87 percent of Democrats.” Support in the poll was particularly strong among women — 83 percent of whom favored the law.

Full Resources from this Article

Seattle Becomes 4th Major City to Enact Paid Sick Days

National Partnership for Women and Families — For Labor Day, New Poll Shows Paid Sick Days Standards Are a Bipartisan Voting Issue
National Partnership for Women and Families — Victory in Seattle!
Progressive States Network — 2011 Blueprint for Economic Security: Paid Sick Days
Seattle Coalition for a Healthy Workforce — Why Paid Sick Days?
Forbes — Seattle Takes the Paid Sick Leave Plunge
CBS Denver — Paid Sick Days Supporters Gain Momentum From Other Cities

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/cm2091511.jpg

Connecticut Moves Forward on Landmark Workers’ Rights Bill

Tim Judson — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:10:28 +0000

Last week, the Connecticut Senate approved landmark legislation (SB 913) to establish paid sick leave as a vital economic and health security measure. The bill is now before the House of Representatives, where it enjoys strong support. Governor Daniel Malloy has advocated the legislation throughout the session, and campaigned as a champion of the policy in both the primary and general elections last year. Enactment of SB 913 would set a precedent as the first state-wide law broadly granting workers the right to accrue paid time off.

Connecticut advocates and policymakers have trumpeted the importance of advancing policies that improve the economic security of working families, particularly now. Rep. Zeke Zalaski, Chair of the House Labor and Public Employees Committee emphasized the national importance of the bill, saying “this is a great opportunity for us to send a message to the rest of the country that we in Connecticut value our workers. This is a landmark bill that is as important as other precedent setting gains like child labor and civil rights laws.”

“It will give some peace of mind for low wage service employees who are at risk of losing wages, or even their job, every time they get sick,” said Jon Green of Connecticut Working Familes, noting the basic standards of decency SB 913 guarantees workers. “It will allow working [parents] to stay home when their toddlers are sick instead of sending them to school.”

Despite a strong and growing body of evidence that the policy will actually be good for businesses, opposition by the business lobby has been intense because of the bill’s precedent-setting potential. Relying on cookie-cutter arguments that paid sick leave will be a “job killer” and make Connecticut “uncompetitive” with neighboring states, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA) and the Connecticut Restaurant Association (CRA) have ignored recent studies demonstrating that such claims are unsubstantiated. Those studies include:

An Economic Policy Institute (EPI)reportshowing that the direct costs of paid sick leave policies are miniscule, both compared to other major business costs and as a portion of total sales.
An Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) papershowing that SB 913 would reduce health care costs and significantly improve health care outcomes.
An IWPR surveyof San Francisco businesses and workers showing that the city’s paid sick leave law has neither been burdensome to business nor caused job losses.
A Connecticut Voices for Children (CVC) paperdemonstrating that the state’s tax rates are at worst on par with those of neighboring states, and the total tax burden for higher income earners in Connecticut is actually lower when all taxes are taken into account.

Connecticut Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams took the business lobby’s arguments in stride as examples of the tired "crying wolf" line of attack used in opposition to all manner of policies necessary for realizing the American dream and creating the middle class. Child labor laws, the 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, and collective bargaining rights were all established for the first time, as Sen. Williams reminded, “in the depths of the Great Depression.”

The importance of Connecticut’s progress on paid sick days this year cannot be overemphasized, but the state is not alone in advancing workers’ rights. The California Assembly passed its own landmark bill extending basic labor protections to domestic workers (AB 889). The vote sets the stage for California to be the second in as many years to do so. New York enacted the nation’s first Domestic Workers Bill of Rights last year, correcting seventy years of injustice after domestic employees were left out of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1937 to appease pro-segregationist legislators who would not support extending workers’ rights to the then largely African-American workforce.

Full Resources from this Article

Connecticut Moves Forward on Landmark Workers’ Rights Bill

Progressive States Network - Blueprint for Economic Security: Ensuring Job Security by Protecting Workers
National Partnership for Women and Families - Briefing Book on Paid Sick Days
National Opinion Research Center - Paid Sick Days: Attitudes and Experiences
Cry Wolf Project - Exposing Myths About the Economy and Government: Paid Sick Leave
Institute for Women’s Policy Research - San Francisco’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance: Outcomes for Employers and Employees
Institute for Women’s Policy Research - 44 Million U.S. Workers Lacked Paid Sick Days in 2010
Restaurant Opportunities Center - Serving While Sick: High Risks and Low Benefits for the Nation’s Restaurant Workforce, and Their Impact on the Consumer

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/psn/images/dispatch/tj060311.jpg

Common-Sense, Pro-Worker Law Enacted with Bipartisan Support in Maine

Tim Judson — Thu, 26 May 2011 16:41:35 +0000

Last week, lawmakers in Maine enacted the first significant pro-worker law to come out of this year’s session. The Work-Sharing Bill, LD 269, creates a program that will help save thousands of jobs in future economic downturns. It passed with unanimous support in both legislative chambers in a session that has been characterized, like many other states’ sessions, by attacks on workers’ rights and the middle class.

The bill was introduced by State Rep. Diane Russell (D), who became a national voice in defense of workers’ rights this year when she left Maine for nearly two weeks to join the protests against the attacks on collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin. At the hearing on the Work-Sharing Bill, which followed her return from Wisconsin, Russell framed the legislation as a common-sense economic security measure, one which saved at least 30,000 jobs in neighboring states during the Great Recession by giving employers additional flexibility, through state unemployment insurance programs, to retain their entire workforce rather than being forced to resort to layoffs to get through the downturn. Conservative and Tea Party members alike recognized the value of the bill and agreed to shepherd it through, though what seemed to make it most palatable was the angle of “added flexibility” for employers.

This libertarian precept also undergirds the Tea Party’s rationale for bills attacking workers’ rights, both in Maine as well as in other states. The bills rolling back child labor laws in Maine (LD 516 and LD 1346) have also been couched by their supporters as win-wins: for employers, by increasing their flexibility in scheduling and “allowing” them to hire more children; and for children by increasing job opportunities and enabling them to save money for college. The worse of the two bills (LD 1346) died in committee earlier this month, but some of its provisions are being folded into LD 516, which passed both chambers last week.

Despite the right’s rhetoric, no one has yet convincingly explained how “enabling” children to work 24 hours rather than 20 hours per week is more beneficial to their future employment prospects than having that time to do homework or prepare for college entrance exams (or to sleep, for that matter). Clearly, workers are more likely to lose ground than gain it as long as people think the main obstacle to creating jobs and opportunity are the basic rules and regulations protecting people at work and the public interest.

However, two measures attacking collective bargaining rights have encountered trouble in Maine this session, as their backers have had a difficult time holding together the conservative rank-and-file. A bill repealing collective bargaining for workers at large poultry farms (LD 1207) initially failed to get out of committee; and two so-called “Right-to-Work” bills (LD 309 and LD 788) appear headed to the dustbin, as leadership does not believe it can sustain enough votes to pass them. (The poultry farm at the center of debate over the farmworker bill is notorious, not only for violating workers’ rights, but for environmental and public health violations going back decades.)

By aligning themselves so clearly with unpopular business interests, conservatives have opened a crack in the door of public opinion, which can be used to advance some common-sense legislation like work-sharing to improve economic security. Yet progressives must wedge that door open and fundamentally change the debate on workers’ rights -- by calling attention to the unsustainable erosion of basic labor standards like the minimum wage and paid sick days, so that people understand intuitively that what is good for workers is good for the economy. Otherwise, it won’t be that long before the door could shut on the middle class completely.

Full Resources from this Article

Common-Sense, Pro-Worker Law Enacted with Bipartisan Support in Maine

Center for Law and Social Policy – Work Sharing: An Alternative to Layoffs for Tough Times
Katherine G. Abraham and Susan N. Houseman – “Short-Time Compensation Is a Missing Safety Net for U.S. Economy in Recessions”
Economic Policy Institute – Labor market moving in two directions at the same time
In These Times – Missouri Legislator Wants to Increase Child Labor

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/tj052611.jpg

Blueprint: Ensuring Job Security by Protecting Workers

Tim Judson — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:32:02 +0000

Ask voters in any state what single issue concerns them the most, and the answer is likely to be the same: the economy and jobs. More than two years removed from a crisis that caused the greatest economic downturn in generations, Americans with a job still feel as vulnerable as ever, while those out of work through no fault of their own worry every day about finding an increasingly scarce commodity: a good job that will allow them to provide for their families.

Pair this with a tide of conservative victories on Election Day 2010, and American workers face evermore insecurity in their jobs as an all-out assault on workers’ rights in state legislatures across the nation ensues in 2011. But while conservatives view this moment as an opportunity to roll back labor standards that people fought and died for decades to establish, progressives know that now is the time we must do exactly the opposite.

At this historic moment, advancing measures that promise true job security -- protections that will stabilize the economic security of families, put more money in consumers’ pockets, and allow state economies to grow -- must be an essential priority for progressives in states across the nation.

While the electoral math may have made it more difficult to advance legislation to defend workers’ rights in many states, defending against anti-labor measures will not be enough to counter the Right. As conservatives shout misleading claims that their anti-worker proposals will inspire business confidence and economic growth, progressives must reveal these measures for what they are -- ideologically-inspired attacks that will lead to more job losses.

But to win back the hearts and minds of the nation, we must also demonstrate that we have better ideas for how true job security can ensure the economic security of the vast middle-class and working-class majority in this nation ,who have so far been left out of the economic recovery.

In fact, history shows that advancements in workers’ rights were a major factor in America’s recovery from the Great Depression, providing economic security for working families and making progress towards fulfilling the promise that everyone who is willing to work has the means to support their family. Progressives can continue this tradition by forcefully advocating for the job security policies outlined in Progressive States Network’s 2011 Blueprint for Economic Security:Paid Sick Days so that no worker risks losing a job just because they or a family member gets sick, cracking down on Wage Theft by unscrupulous employers stealing billions of dollars from hard-working Americans, and Restoring the Minimum Wage to ensure that no one who works full-time has to live in poverty.

Despite the onslaught of anti-worker measures in many states, strong legislation to advance workers' rights will also have its day in 2011, building upon what already exists in some states across the country. In fact, Connecticut is poised to make history by enacting the first state-wide Paid Sick Days law. Massachusetts will also move a strong Paid Sick Days bill, which has the support of the Governor and majorities in both chambers. Oregon has introduced a package of bills to strengthen Wage Law Enforcement. Maryland and Illinois are both advancing ambitious bills to Restore the Minimum Wage -- raising the wage to $10 per hour, and adjusting it annually for inflation. And California is advancing a bill to adjust the minimum wage annually for inflation.

Read below for much more on the policy solutions that progressive legislators and advocates across the nation are advancing in 2011 to ensure true job security for families -- and real economic security for states.

Paid Sick Days

There is no such thing as economic security when anyone can lose their job simply because they get sick. Yet that is precisely the case for millions of working families because we lack a basic labor standard for paid sick leave. Not having a paid sick days standard is devastating threat to people’s economic security when one in six people lose their job for taking sick time.

Our nation’s labor standards have failed to keep pace with changes in the workforce and no longer meet the needs of American families. Forty years ago a single wage-earner could support a whole household, today’s families depend on all adults working outside the home. And whereas one parent was usually available to take care of a sick child or take them to see a doctor, more and more such basic family duties involve an impossible choice between caring for a sick child and making ends meet.

In fact, because it is legal for employees to be fired for missing work when sick, many are denied unemployment insurance benefits but still face long-term joblessness. Just as we established other major labor standards in the 1930s to help lift us out of the Great Depression -- such as the minimum wage and the right to join a union -- we must take the opportunity now to improve the economic security and health of American workers.

The Solution: Paid Sick Days Model Legislation
This legislation would require employers to allow their employees to accrue paid sick leave time, at a minimum prescribed rate and capped at a specified level. Under model legislation, workers would accrue one (1) hour of paid sick leave time for every 30 hours of work, or up to nine (9) days per year. Employees must be able to use sick leave to care for their own health or that of a family member or domestic partner, including for ordinary medical appointments and preventative care. In addition, the “Safe Time” provision permits use of paid sick leave to seek assistance and relief for removing oneself from a domestic violence situation.

Download the model legislation and a guide for adapting it to your state.

Why It Matters

44 million working people in the United States (42%) lack access to a single day of paid sick leave.
77% of food service workers lack access to paid sick leave.
16% of workers (1 of every 6) report having lost a job for missing work due to illness.
23% of American families have experienced job loss or discipline at work -- or been threatened with it -- for missing work due to illness.
Workers without paid sick leave are 50% more likely to go to work while sick.
Workers are 250% more likely to take a sick child or family member to the emergency room when they cannot schedule medical appointments during their normal work hours.
Parents are 70% more likely to send a sick child to school when they lack access to paid sick leave.

Polling
A 2010 national study of Americans’ views on paid sick days shows that the there is unusually broad, bipartisan support for Paid Sick Days. The issue resonates deeply as a basic issue of fairness and equity, particularly because of its importance to families’ economic security. In fact, support for the policy is strongest for a universal standard applying to all workers and employers, and it decreases as compromises and carve-outs for certain businesses are built in. And candidates who support paid sick days enjoy a 41-point advantage over candidates who oppose the policy, even after hearing arguments on both sides.

The strength of public support for the policy, predicted by the polling, was demonstrated conclusively by its role in the Connecticut gubernatorial race last year. Newly elected Governor Dan Malloy used his strong support for paid sick days to distinguish himself from his opponents in both the primary and general elections and to illustrate his commitment to improving economic security for working families.

75% believe paid sick days are a basic workers’ right.
86% of Americans favor a law guaranteeing all workers 7 paid sick days per year. 69% strongly favor such a law.
80% feel that even small businesses should have to provide paid sick days.
Support is strongly bipartisan, including 59% of “strong Republicans,” 77% of “Independents” and 78% of “Republicans Leaning Independent.” Upwards of 90% of all categories of Democrats support paid sick days.
Support crosses every demographic: 88% of women, 64% of men, 75% of Hispanics, 77% of Whites, 90% of Blacks, 73% of those under 40 years, and over 80% of those over 40.
By a 33-point margin (47% to 14%), more voters say they would favor a candidate who supports paid sick days.
In message testing, even the weakest argument for paid sick days is more persuasive than the strongest argument against it.

Source: National Partnership for Women & Families

Messaging
Messaging on paid sick days should emphasize the fundamental issues of job and economic security for working families, and the vital role that basic labor standards play in supporting economic recovery.

“No one should lose their job because they get sick, yet without paid sick days that is happening to one out of every six American workers.”
“No parent should have to choose between caring for their child and keeping a roof over their head, yet that is the reality for nearly a quarter of working families.”
“Employers who do not provide paid sick days tend to be same employers that do not provide health insurance to their employees. The least those businesses can do is let their employees take care of their health without losing their paycheck.”
“The cost of providing paid sick days is minimal and will not put anyone out of business. Our basic labor standards have never hurt the economy -- they are what built the middle class and lifted us out of the Great Depression. The erosion of workers’ rights is what made the economy unstable, and it’s time we built them back up.”

Countering the Opposition
There is plenty of ground on which to shed doubt on opponents of paid sick days when they “cry wolf” with predictions of doom and devastation if the law is enacted. In addition to job-loss claims, opponents have also argued that employees will abuse the policy, even though the number of days are capped and have to be accrued. And since the recession, they have argued that this is simply not the right time, despite the fact that workers need the security provided by paid sick days more than ever, and advances in labor standards have frequently been an important part of economic recovery since the Depression. Here are the facts:

Opponents’ arguments to defeat Paid Sick Days have not stood up to scrutiny. In fact, business groups in San Francisco, which became the first place in the country to enact paid sick days in 2007, now say that their fears turned out to be unfounded and the issue is not a concern for local businesses. The city’s restaurant association says its predictions of employee abuse of the policy have not panned out, and in the end it has turned out to be “the best public policy for the lowest cost.”

These views are supported by strong evidence that paid sick days has no negative impact on jobs or the economy. Studies show that San Francisco County’s job market outperformed all neighboring counties since its paid sick days law went into effect. Between 2006 and 2009, San Francisco experienced a net loss of jobs of only 3%. All surrounding counties had greater job loss rates, by at least 30%; on average, San Francisco’s job market outperformed its neighbors by 70%. These figures stand up in looking at industries where the policy has the greatest impact: employment rates in retail, hospitality, and food service all performed two to three times better in San Francisco.

Providing paid sick days is good for business, and can even have a net positive economic impact on business performance. When employees have access to paid sick leave, they are healthier and more productive, they don’t infect their coworkers, and businesses experience lower rates of turnover. Decreasing turnover alone can help the bottom line for businesses, through avoiding the substantial costs in hiring, training, and lost productivity. Analyses of several states’ paid sick days bills reveal they would save businesses on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, including $959 million in California, $73 million in Connecticut, $272 million in Illinois, $130 million in Massachusetts, and $111 million in North Carolina.

Going On The Offensive
Progressives can use paid sick days as an effective counter to calls to roll back labor standards and workers’ rights. We have seen these threats to workers’ rights in Wisconsin and Florida, where those governors have stated that public sector workers must sacrifice pay, benefits, pensions -- and even their right to join a union -- to “level the playing field” with private sector workers:

“We can no longer live in a society where the public employees are the haves and taxpayers who foot the bills are the have-nots,” [Wisconsin Governor Scott] Walker, a Republican, said in a speech. “The bottom line is that we are going to look at every legal means we have to try to put that balance more on the side of taxpayers.”

Advocating for paid sick days is a powerful platform from which to call out such proposals as regressive efforts to use public employees as straw men (and women) to accelerate a race to the bottom for all workers.

Addressing an Agenda of Economic Security through Paid Sick Days
In addition to directly improving job and economic security, Paid Sick Days has important implications for other economic security issues.

Controlling health care costs: Workers who lack paid sick days often cannot access medical care (or preventative care) during normal business hours. For instance, they are twice as likely as people with paid sick days to seek medical attention in a hospital emergency room, and 2.6 times as likely to accompany a child or family member to the emergency room. Also, because it is harder for them to get preventative care, they are often more sick when they do seek treatment. All of which means that not setting a paid sick leave standard is unnecessarily driving up public health care costs. It also amounts to an uneconomical and wasteful government subsidy to businesses that fail to provide paid sick days, most of whom also do not provide health coverage to their employees.
Reducing the spread of disease: Particularly since the outbreaks of H1N1 flu virus, public health officials have emphasized how important it is for people not to go to work when sick, or to send a sick child to school. Those simple measures can substantially reduce the spread of disease, increasing productivity and lowering health care costs. Workers without paid sick days are 50% more likely to go to work while sick, and 70% more likely to send a sick child to school, simply because they cannot always choose their health over their job and keeping a roof over their head.

Cracking Down on Wage Theft

For millions of working people across the country, even having a job provides little economic security because their employers routinely refuse to pay them the wages they are owed under the law. Antiquated and ill-enforced wage laws have made it common for employers -- particularly in low-wage industries with low unionization rates -- to illegally withhold pay from their employees. Many employers also misclassify their employees as “independent contractors” to avoid wage laws, employment taxes, and workers compensation insurance.

In just three cities (Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York), wage theft amounts to $56.4 million in stolen wages each week -- a multi-billion-dollar drain on local economies and tax revenues, and a vast redistribution of wealth from hard-working people to corrupt employers. As a result, low-wage workers lose on average 15% of their earnings -- thousands of dollars per year that are crucial to their families’ economic survival. These violations deprive both the economy of crucial consumer spending and state and local governments of tax and other revenues, while increasing the demand for public assistance and services.

The Solution: Wage Enforcement Model Legislation
Best practices in wage law enforcement consist of: increasing penalties to be an effective deterrent; preventing misclassification of workers as independent contractors; enabling workers to sue their employers directly; requiring employers to maintain complete and accurate payroll records; protecting employees from retaliation; and expediting the resolution of wage theft claims. Download model legislation here.

NOTE: Our model legislation assembles all of these provisions together in a single bill. However, in most states legislators and advocates will need to tailor it to amend their existing statutes.

Why It Matters

26% of low-wage workers report being paid less than the minimum wage.
- 60% of those workers are paid more than $1/hour less than the minimum wage.
76% of workers report not being paid the legally mandated time-and-a-half for overtime when they have worked more than 40 hours per week.
25% of hourly workers regularly have to start work earlier or stay later than their scheduled shift -- for which 70% receive no pay at all.
The U.S. Department of Labor has only one investigator for every 170,000 workers. In 1941, there was one DOL investigator for every 9,000 workers.
In just three cities, studies show that wage theft deprives workers of $56.4 million each week -- or more than $2.5 billion each year.
Low-wage workers on average lose 15% of their income to wage theft each year -- amounting to $2,634 out of $17,616 in total earnings.
43% of workers experience retaliation after complaining to their employer about wage violations, including everything from firing or pay cuts, to dangerous work assignments or calling immigration authorities.
10%-30% of employers misclassify employees as independent contractors. Misclassifying just 1% of the workforce costs $250 million per year in Unemployment Insurance fund contributions alone.
States lose millions of dollars each year in unpaid taxes. In 2005 and 2007 alone, California recovered over $170 million through auditing employers for misclassification scams.
Misclassified employees are ineligible for unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation, further exacerbating their economic insecurity.

Source: Harvard University Labor and Worklife Program, 2004

Polling
While there has not been a national poll recently on enforcing wage laws, there is every reason to believe that legislation to crack down on wage theft enjoys strong public support. National polls on other basic labor standards show that large majorities rank closely related policies as “very important.” For instance, a national poll on paid sick days asked people to say how important they think various labor standards are for protecting workers’ rights. 70% rated the minimum wage as very important, and 69% rated time-and-a-half pay for overtime as very important.

Those levels of support on principle also translate into high levels of support for specific policy proposals. While 70% also rate paid sick days as very important, 86% of those polled strongly support a law guaranteeing seven paid sick days per year. By the same token, 67% support raising the minimum wage by nearly $3 to $10 per hour -- including a slim majority of Republicans (51%) and nearly half of those who identify with the Tea Party (47%). Because wage enforcement legislation is aimed at cracking down on employers who are breaking the law and taking advantage of hard-working people, support is likely even stronger than for basic labor standards that apply to all employers.

Messaging
Messaging on wage law enforcement should emphasize basic issues of fairness and economic security, and its fundamental role in boosting consumer spending and rebuilding the economy:

“We must level the playing field between everyday, hard-working people and corrupt employers, who feel they can get away with dodging taxes and stealing their employees’ wages.”
“By failing to punish employers who violate our wage laws, we put law-abiding employers at a competitive disadvantage. In an economy like this, that failure is creating a race to the bottom, where working families are having the bread stolen from their mouths but can’t even report it for fear of losing their jobs.”
“When hard-working, law-abiding people lose, we all lose. With wage theft, this is an economic reality: the wages stolen from workers are needed to feed children, support local economies, and provide essential services.”

Countering the Opposition
Opponents of legislation to curb wage theft and misclassification typically argue that the laws will be burdensome to business and expose them to spurious complaints by workers. The truth is, workers have nothing to gain by making false wage claims: law-abiding employers who keep accurate records of hours worked and wages paid earn the respect of their employees and insulate themselves from frivolous complaints. Taking down a business is not in workers’ interest, as it only compromises their own job security. The high incidence of these crimes, and their devastating impact on families’ economic security, necessitates updating and improving wage law enforcement. Not improving enforcement only protects corrupt employers at the expense of workers and law-abiding businesses.

Going On The Offensive
Wage law enforcement provides a strong platform for pushing back against anti-labor measures, as well as unbalanced public sector job and program cuts.

Public Sector Program Cuts and Layoffs: Every year, states lose millions of dollars in revenue to corrupt employers who are dodging employment, income, workers compensation, and unemployment insurance taxes. As long as states have failed to recoup these lost revenues, there is no reason to cut essential programs and services. California’s audits of employee misclassification in 2005 and 2007 alone yielded $170 million in lost revenue and resulted in 45% of the audited employers reclassifying workers properly as employees. The audit also found a startling increase in the problem, with the incidence of misclassification increasing 54% from 2005-07.
Right-to-Work and Dues Check-off: Adding tough wage enforcement provisions to anti-union legislation can help divide support among conservatives. Alternatively, wage enforcement can be used as a good platform from which to lead fights against these anti-union measures. The purpose of right-to-work (for less) and legislation barring dues check-off provisions in collective bargaining agreements is fundamentally to weaken unions by making it more difficult to collect membership dues. This is bad for both states and for workers, as unions serve an accountability role to make sure that employers obey the law and pay workers what they are owed. Weakening them will only empower more employers to violate the law, depriving the state of even more revenue unless the state takes steps to crack down on wage theft and misclassification. Wage theft is an actual crime undermining the economic security of millions of families who have no one looking out for them in the workplace. Compared to that, how unions collect membership dues is a non-issue.
Repealing Prevailing Wage and Public Sector Wage Standards: Wage theft and misclassifcation are particularly rampant in the construction sector among employers that do not pay prevailing wage. Eliminating prevailing wage is a red herring: there is abundant evidence that prevailing wage requirements actually save states money on construction contracts, because the work is of higher quality and more often completed on time. Eliminating prevailing wage opens states up to disreputable contractors who will enrich themselves by stealing public resources owed to workers as wages -- wages that boost local economies and come back to state and local governments. Wage law enforcement levels the playing field for responsible, law-abiding businesses with which states contract for construction and services. Strategies for using wage enforcement to combat prevailing wage repeals include:

Introducing alternate legislation with a coalition of reputable contractors, labor unions, and worker and immigrant advocates.
Amending the prevailing wage repeal bill to include strong transparency and wage enforcement provisions that can help to divide backers of repealing wage standards.

Addressing an Agenda of Economic Security through Wage Enforcement
Passing wage enforcement legislation should be a part of an overarching agenda to bring economic security to our workers and their families, to our communities, and our states.

Revenue Generation: As indicated above, improving wage law enforcement offers an important counter-narrative to those who argue that the only way for states to meet their budgets is through devastating cuts in essential programs and services. Several states have studied the impact of misclassification, in some cases finding that upwards of 40% of workers are misclassified. In several states, revenues lost to misclassification alone amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Immigration: Wage law enforcement has proven to be extremely effective in changing debates on immigration and defeating anti-immigrant legislation. By focusing on corrupt employers who take advantage of workers, progressives can unite all working people behind a common agenda. In 2009, the Iowa Senate used this approach to defeat an anti-immigrant bill that had passed in the House of Representatives. In fact, inadequate wage law enforcement has contributed to the dysfunction of our immigration system and created a dangerous and corrosive labor market that undermines everyone’s economic security.

Restoring the Minimum Wage

Job security necessitates raising wage standards, so that those who work full-time are able to earn enough to rise out of poverty. Employers too frequently count on the expendability of underpaid workers, requiring them to depend on public services for health care and income assistance, and irresponsibly increasing the cost to everyone else. Low-wage industries, such as food service, also have very high turnover rates -- often approaching 200% or more per year.

In fact, raising wage levels is critical to everyone’s job security and to building a stable economy. To rebuild the middle class, we have to raise the wage floor to create a strong foundation of consumer spending to promote business expansion while allowing families to meet their basic needs. The build-up to the 2007-08 economic collapse was due more than anything else to stagnating incomes since the 1970s. During that time, the real value of the minimum wage declined precipitously by 50%, in parallel with sharply rising income disparity. In essence, the distribution of wealth had become too top-heavy, and helped topple the economy.

The Solution: Minimum Wage Policy Options
Campaigns to raise the minimum wage in at least two states in 2011 (Maryland and Illinois) are focused on the principle of restoring the minimum wage to its value in 1968 (~$10/hour), when the middle-class was its most robust and the gap between the rich and the poor was at a historic low. Model legislation would boost the minimum wage to $10-$10.50 per hour, and adjust it annually to ensure that wages never decline again. From that point, the law should provide for annual cost of living adjustments to the minimum wage. Additional features such as reducing or eliminating discounted wage rates for tipped employees and enhanced enforcement provisions are also important to consider.

Source: Institute for Policy Studies

Why It Matters

From 1968 to 2007, the minimum wage was cut nearly in half -- declining in value from $9.50/hour to $5.15/hour.
- In 2011, it represents a nearly 30% pay cut from 1968 -- and is falling each year.
The federal minimum wage is 20% less than the poverty level ($18,310 for a family of three).
In 2007, the wealthiest 10% brought home half (49.7%) of all personal income -- up from 35% in 1968. During this time:
- The top 0.01% saw their share of personal income quadruple
- The lower 90% saw their share decline by nearly 25%
The 2007-09 minimum wage increase produced a $10.4 billion increase in consumer spending.
In 2008, 42% of persons requesting emergency food assistance are fully employed, as are 19% of the homeless.
Between 1968 and 2008, productivity rose 111% while the average wage fell 3% and the minimum wage fell 34%, adjusted for inflation.

Polling
The minimum wage enjoys near-universal support, and large majorities are almost always in favor of increasing it.

70% believe the minimum wage is “very important” for protecting workers’ rights.
In a 2010 poll, 67% of Americans say they support restoring the minimum wage to its historic value of $10 per hour.
- 35% strongly support such an increase.
Support for the increase to $10 crosses all demographic lines, from 86% of Blacks and 84% of Latinos, to solid majorities of White evangelicals (58%) and White mainline protestants (56%).
80% of Maryland residents currently support a bill to restore the minimum wage to $10 per hour and adjust it annually according to the cost of living.
- Support crosses all demographic and regional lines in the state, including 72% of Eastern Shore residents, 60% of Republicans, and 62% of Tea Party members.
- Candidates who support restoring the minimum wage enjoy a 52-point advantage in voter preference over candidates who oppose it.
71% of Illinois residents currently support a bill to raise the minimum wage to $10.50 per hour, and 77% support annually increasing the wage rate to keep up with inflation.
- Strong support crosses all demographic and regional lines in Illinois, from 77% in Cook County (Chicago) to 63% in Southern Illinois
- Support is resilient to public debate. After hearing arguments on both sides, Illinois residents prefer restoring the minimum wage by a 2-to-1 margin (65% to 33%).
  
  Chart: Support for Increasing the Minimum Wage to $10 per hour:
  Source: Public Religion Research Institute, 2010
  
  Messaging
  - Messaging on the minimum wage should emphasize basic issues of fairness and economic security, and its fundamental role in boosting consumer spending and rebuilding the economy, while ensuring families can meet their basic needs.

“No one who works full-time should have to live in poverty.”
“People in America didn’t need sub-prime mortgages when a hard day’s work meant you could actually pay the bills and put food on the table.”
“Our small businesses can’t grow and create jobs unless their customers have more money in their pockets.”
“The real reason the economy collapsed is that we failed to prevent the redistribution of wealth in this country -- from working- and middle-class Americans to the wealthiest and most privileged. An America that doesn’t work for working people is not an America that works.”

Countering the Opposition
For opponents of the minimum wage, there has never been a good time to raise wage standards: when the economy is bad, they argue that it will make things worse; and when the economy is good, raising wages will make things bad. When it comes to the state minimum wage, they argue that rising wage standards will chase jobs over the state line. The truth is, these arguments are just “crying wolf” : raising wage standards has never had a negative impact on jobs and economic security; in fact, it has been an important factor in stabilizing the economy and helping the country recover from economic crises going back to the Great Depression when the national minimum wage was first established.

Opponents of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act claimed that the minimum wage would spell economic doom, by removing workers’ incentive to work hard, forcing companies out of business, and, according to Georgia Rep. Edward Cox, “destroy[ing] small industry.” Of course, none of those things happened, and the nation embarked on the greatest period of shared prosperity in world history, with a thirty-year trend of rising incomes and shared wealth. Since then, opponents have continued to cry wolf with their “job-killer” arguments, howls of pain, and predictions of socialist takeover, despite the clear fact that rising minimum wage levels and other labor standards clearly contributed to rising income levels, economic stability, and the development of a large middle-class.

New research on the impact of minimum wage increases shows conclusively that raising wage standards does not “kill jobs” or chase away industry. Researchers looked at every county on opposite of the border of every state that raised its minimum wage, from 1990 to 2008. They found no evidence that raising the minimum wage caused job losses or increased unemployment, though it did have a demonstrably positive effect on workers’ incomes. The researchers also found that raising the minimum wage decreases turnover and raises productivity in restaurants and small businesses by making it easier for them to attract and retain qualified, dedicated workers. They also point out that the minimum wage work tends to be concentrated in service and retail industries that serve local needs and markets, and in which employers cannot just pull up stakes and relocate.

Going On The Offensive
The decline in the value of the minimum wage is the single, most clear example of why we need to raise our labor standards and boost workers’ rights -- not to go the other way by continuing to contribute to workers’ economic insecurity.

Public Sector Program Cuts and Layoffs: Raising the minimum wage is an instant revenue generator for state and local governments, just like cracking down on wage theft and employee misclassification. And by rapidly increasing spending in local communities, it shores up state economies and makes it possible for businesses to grow and create jobs. Tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy are simply windfall profits that create no incentive to expand businesses, because they reward companies and those flush with capital for doing nothing.
Pension Cuts and Privatization: Restoring the minimum wage can be an important tactic for shifting the conversation away from hyperbolic attacks on public employees’ modest retirement plans and attempts to confuse the public about short- versus long-term financial problems. The retirement security problem facing most people is not that some people have pensions, but that most people have no retirement security of their own. That is a direct result of the stagnation of personal income for everyone but the wealthy over the last thirty years. Many people began speculating on their own homes and were seduced by sub-prime mortgages because they had no other option to fund their retirements. Raising the minimum wage will generate revenues for states and boost local economies -- but it will also shore up people’s long-term economic security so that no one is without retirement security.
Repealing Prevailing Wage and Public Sector Wage Standards: Restoring the minimum wage is an important platform for changing the debate on efforts to repeal prevailing wage and other wage standards in government contracts. Eliminating prevailing wage is a straw man: there is abundant evidence that prevailing wage requirements actually save states money on construction contracts, because the work is of higher quality and more often completed on time. The problem is not that workers earning prevailing wage earn too much -- it’s that workers earning minimum wage earn too little. Eliminating prevailing wage opens states up to disreputable contractors who enrich themselves by underpaying and misclassifying employees -- practices that come back to cost states in Medicaid and other public services low-wage workers and their families rely upon to get by. Restoring the minimum wage will save states money, generate additional revenue, and shore up local economies by boosting spending.
Right-to-Work and Dues Check-off: Restoring the minimum wage is important for developing a powerful counter-narrative that all workers can buy into by speaking to how we can concretely bolster families’ economic security. The growth of America’s middle-class was made possible by raising labor standards and the expansion of union membership. Those institutions made sure not only that working people shared more equally in the nation’s prosperity -- they fueled the growth of the economy through boosting families’ financial security. Attempts to weaken unions have gone hand-in-hand with the decline in the minimum wage and the perilous economic disparities and insecurity that devastated our economy in 2008 and continue today. If conservatives are successful in undermining unions, the next thing they will go after is the minimum wage. States can do far more to benefit workers and grow the economy by taking the opposite tack and restoring the minimum wage. Union workers typically earn 21%-32% more than non-union workers -- far more than what any union members charge themselves in dues. Workers who don’t want to join a union or pay dues don’t have to, but those that do will be better off and have greater means of job security through union membership.

Chart: Real Value of Minimum Wage, 1938-2005 (2005 Dollars):
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Addressing an Agenda of Economic Security through Restoring the Minimum Wage
Restoring the minimum wage supports a wide range of economic security issues -- it is the essence of economic security in itself. At the same time, it can contribute toward advancing several other economic security issues, most directly tax reform and health care reform.

Progressive Tax Reform: Restoring the minimum wage concretely supports progressive revenue reforms by providing a wider, more stable and evenly distributed tax base. It also increases revenue from lower income brackets without having to increase their taxation rates. At the same time, by lifting families out of poverty, it reduces the cost of federal and state safety-net programs the working poor rely upon.
Health Security: Much of the debate on health care reform has centered on the requirement that people not covered by their employer obtain their own insurance. That concern will resonate much less by improving job security and raising incomes. In conjunction with progressive insurance exchange models that will lower the cost of insurance, restoring the minimum wage will make it easier for families to manage the cost of health care and their overall economic security.

Full Resources from this Article

Paid Sick Days

Reports
National Partnership for Women and Families -- Briefing Book on Paid Sick Days
Public Welfare Foundation -- Paid Sick Days: Attitudes and Experiences
U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee -- Expanding Access to Paid Sick Leave: The Impact of the Healthy Families Act on America's Workers
Institute for Women’s Policy Research -- 44 Million U.S. Workers Lacked Paid Sick Days in 2010
Drum Major Institute -- Paid Sick Leave Does Not Harm Business Growth or Job Growth

Advocates
Family Values at Work Consortium -- www.familyvaluesatwork.org
National Partnership for Working Families -- www.nationalpartnership.org
Center for Law and Social Policy -- www.clasp.org
Institute for Women’s Policy Research -- www.iwpr.org
MomsRising -- www.momsrising.org
9to5/National Association for Working Women - www.9to5.org
Restaurant Opportunities Centers United -- www.rocunited.org

Cracking Down on Wage Theft

Reports
National Employment Law Project (NELP) -- Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers: Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America’s Cities
National Employment Law Project (NELP) -- Independent Contractor Misclassification Imposes Huge Costs on Workers and Federal and State Treasuries
Seton Hall University, Center for Social Justice -- All Work and No Pay: Day Laborers, Wage Theft, and Workplace Justice in New Jersey
Change to Win and NELP -- The Big Rig: Poverty, Pollution and the Misclassification of Truck Drivers at America’s Ports
Chinese Progressive Association -- Check, Please! Health and Working Conditions in San Francisco Chinatown Restaurants
Kim Bobo, Interfaith Worker Justice -- Wage Theft in America: Why Millions of Working Americans Are Not Getting Paid - And What We Can Do About It

Advocates
National Alliance for Fair Contracting - http://www.faircontracting.org/independent_contractor.html
National Employment Law Project -- www.nelp.org
Interfaith Worker Justice -- www.iwj.org
Restaurant Opportunities Center United -- www.rocunited.org

Restoring the Minimum Wage

Reports
Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign -- Raising the Minimum Wage in Hard Times.
Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester, and Michael Reich - Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders: Estimates Using Contiguous Counties
Pew Research Center -- One Recession, Two Americas: Those Who Lost Ground Slightly Outnumber Those Who Held Their Own
Center for American Progress -- Creating Good Jobs in Our Communities: How Higher Wage Standards Affect Economic Development and Employment

Advocates
National Employment Law Project - www.nelp.org
Economic Policy Institute - www.epi.org
Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, UC-Berkeley -- www.irle.berkeley.edu
Let Justice Roll - www.letjusticeroll.org
Business for Shared Prosperity - www.businessforsharedprosperity.org

This article is part of PSN's email newsletter, The Stateside Dispatch.
View other items from this edition

Article Images

http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/blueprint.logo.png

Voters' Message To Lawmakers: Fix This Economy

Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:04:20 +0000

Voters' Message To Lawmakers: Fix This Economy

On Tuesday, voters around the nation, still reeling from an extraordinary economic downturn, voiced their strong displeasure by voting out an historic number of incumbent officeholders. State lawmakers were not spared in this national wave, as an older, more conservative, and less diverse electorate unhappy with both parties voted out hundreds of legislators. The result was nineteen state chambers flipping from Democratic to Republican control in an election fueled largely by continued discontent with the state of the economy.

The exit poll data from Tuesday shows clearly that this seemingly massive endorsement of right-wing candidates does not in any way reflect an endorsement of right-wing policies. Voters who came to the polls on Election Day voiced their disapproval of both parties. Exit polls showed the Democratic Party receiving almost exactly the same approval ratings as the Republican Party, despite an electorate that saw progressive-leaning demographic groups turn out in lower numbers than usual. In addition, the percentage of voters who thought deficit reduction should be the highest priority for Congress (39%) was nearly the same as those who said more government investment in jobs should be the top item on the agenda (37%). As the Pew Research Center wrote in their post-election analysis, "the outcome of this year's election represented a repudiation of the political status quo, rather than a vote of confidence in the GOP or a statement of support for its policies."

Despite massive, unprecedented amounts of corporate money spent on campaign ads, voters pinned the blame for the nation's economic situation primarily on Wall Street and the previous Presidential administration. Despite a national media narrative that claimed voters do not value government services, voters in Colorado and Massachusetts soundly rejected draconian anti-tax initiatives that would have harmed their states' economies. Despite oil companies spending millions to increase profits, California voters soundly rejected an effort to repeal a climate law that is a model for the green economy. Despite continued anti-immigrant campaign rhetoric, many candidates succeeded by building coalitions that stood strong against such fear-mongering. And, despite some efforts to preemptively roll back workers' rights, other candidates successfully ran for office ran with a message that promoted work-family balance.

If there is a lesson from this election, it is that enacting policies that positively affect people's lives matters. Voters worried about losing their jobs and houses are likely to lash out against those who currently hold power, even if that means they end up voting for the very people who obstructed efforts that would have increased economic growth. The only way to ensure progressive political success is to continue to work to enact progressive policies that reflect our shared values to make a difference in the lives of voters: rewarding work, helping families, promoting equal opportunity and justice, and ensuring the continued health of our economy, our democracy, and our communities.

Resources Comment Print Share:

Voters Reject Worst Of Right-Wing Anti-Tax Agenda

Altaf Rahamatulla

Economic frustration dominated ballot outcomes in this week's polls. Clearly, the lingering impacts of the recession -- high unemployment, wage stagnation, and financial insecurity -- have placed enormous pressure on working and middle class families. Moreover, although federal taxes are at their lowest level in decades, debilitating economic pain and a fervent and insidious conservative messaging campaign has fueled growing anti-tax sentiment.

Voters in traditionally conservative states enacted measures to restrict the ability of local and state government to generate revenue. In Indiana, voters approved a constitutional property tax limit. Missourians approved Proposition A to require the St. Louis and Kansas City electorate to vote on the continued use of the earnings tax, which comprises an extremely substantial portion of both cities' general fund revenues. Unfortunately, Washingtonians rejected an initiative to create a high-end income tax in their state, which currently employs the most regressive tax structure in the nation.

Fortunately, there were a number of relatively positive developments. For instance, California voters approved a measure to end the state's onerous two-thirds legislative majority requirement to pass budget or other appropriations-related issues other than tax increases. In Colorado, voters overwhelmingly rejected a slew of heinous proposals that would have decimated state and local budgets by reducing income and property taxes to unsustainable levels and would have led to a loss of over 70,000 jobs. Massachusetts voters rejected an initiative to repeal a recent sales tax increase, which would have significantly increased the state's budget deficit to $5 billion. Voters across the country also approved bond measures that will allow state governments to borrow to fund essential infrastructure development projects.

The takeaway is that the elections do not reflect support for the Right Wing's anti-government agenda. As noted above, exit polling from Tuesday showed that the number of voters who prioritized greater government investments in jobs was equal to those who favored cutting deficits.

Though tax and budget ballot outcomes were generally mixed, the major conclusion is that voters are seeking action to alleviate economic pain. To this end, job creation must be the top priority for lawmakers in the coming session. As Progressive States Network has documented in the past, federal and state governments must pursue bold job creation measures, enact progressive fiscal policy, and invest in necessary public structures as a means to ensure growth. Moving forward, transparency and accountability of state spending will additionally be a critical component of recovery as a means to protect taxpayers, promote sound fiscal practices, and encourage a more focused budget process.

2010 Midterms Highlight Lack of Disclosure in Independent Political Spending

Cristina Francisco-McGuire

The impact of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling on this year's election cycle is clear - 2010 will be remembered as the year of the costliest and least transparent midterm election in history. Citizens United, which gave corporations, unions, and independent groups the go-ahead to inundate elections with as much money as they pleased, has helped shatter previous midterm spending records. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, third-party groups like Crossroads GPS and American Future Fund spent nearly $300 million in the run-up to Election Day, more than what has been spent in every other midterm cycle since 1990 combined. Unsurprisingly, conservatives benefited from shadowy, undisclosed spending by a 6-to-1 margin among groups that failed to disclose the source of their money ($59 million to $10 million).

Though the staggering amount of money spent to sway the election is enough cause for concern, a glut of funding will not necessarily guarantee outcomes - as Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Linda McMahon, and 2/3 of defeated Democratic House candidates discovered. The biggest cause for concern is the fact that 42% of outside spending came from undisclosed donors, leaving voters without the benefit of knowledge through transparency. Knowing which billionaires are attempting to influence races through third-party groups in order to further their own agenda is key to making informed decisions at the polls. While the composition of next year's Congress makes federal level disclosure reforms more and more unlikely, Progressive States Network will be mobilizing legislators and advocates to enact meaningful reform on the state level.

Redistricting Initiatives: Three States Pave the Way for Democracy

Cristina Francisco-McGuire

Voters in California, Minnesota and Florida gave overwhelming support to ballot initiatives that will help reduce the amount of partisan gerrymandering in redistricting. Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, remarked, "This is a big win for holding government accountable to the people."

California's Prop 20, which sought to eliminate the state's forthcoming independent redistricting commission, was soundly rejected as voters simultaneously approved rival Prop 27, which expands the scope of the commission to include the reapportionment of Congressional districts.
In Minnesota, voters approved a referendum to remove political parties from the redistricting process. Instead, judges will appoint people to the commission using an application process.
Floridians approved two ballot amendments that set new rules for redistricting. Legislative and Congressional districts must be equal in population, amongst other requirements, and cannot be drawn to favor or disfavor incumbents or political parties.

Though the U.S. is the only Western democracy that allows incumbents to draw their own political districts, these three states are pioneering a new model that, hopefully, will mark the start of a trend toward giving people the representation that they deserve.

Environmental Policy: A Sound Win and a Silent Loss in California

Fabiola Carrion

California voters overwhelmingly opposed Proposition 23, a measure that would have suspended California's prominent anti-pollution law (AB 32). The vote signals that the state is willing to continue on a path toward a sustainable, clean energy economy through green businesses and jobs, rather than wait until the economy turns around without energy efficiency measures. A Los Angeles Times poll indicated that opposition to Proposition 23 even came from moderate and liberal Republicans. The vote reflects across-the-board support for businesses that generate renewable sources of energy, cut consumer's utilities costs, and reverse the environmental impact of climate change.

As the Progressive States Network has previously highlighted, the state's anti-pollution law has spurred a clean energy market that has grown at ten times the average rate of other California industries. The outcome also demonstrates voters' repudiation of out-of-state oil companies, who spent almost $50 million on the campaign in order to secure their own profits. Aside from being a step forward to a green economy, rejection of Proposition 23 reflects the public's support for a comprehensive climate and energy plan. As a federal, comprehensive clean energy bill is unlikely to be realized any time soon, state legislators should learn from the California example and recognize that anti-pollution law will generate jobs and earn the support of their constituents.

If environmentalists and green businesses succeeded at the polls with Proposition 23, they cannot sing victory with the passage of Proposition 26, a measure that tightens how the state constitution defines taxes and regulatory fees. Dubbed the "evil twin" of Proposition 23, Proposition 26 was also funded by large oil-producing companies, who poured millions of dollars during the last two weeks of the campaign. This almost obscure initiative requires that two-thirds of state and local officials, rather than a simple majority, approve any increase on industry fees. As many clean energy programs depend on fees approved by state and local officials, environmentalists fear that Prop. 26 could undercut the very climate change initiative voters protected at the polls. However, a top California official said that Proposition 26 only applies to laws enacted after January 1 2010, and therefore will not affect AB 32, the landmark anti-climate change law signed in 2006. However, questions now abound about the implications for future conservation efforts in the Golden State. The implementation of Proposition 23 will make the creation of clean energy programs confusing, as investors will not be clear about how many and which types of fees their businesses will have to pay. One thing is for sure: the new law is likely to create uncertainty in the clean technology sector, thereby negatively impacting investment and job creation.

Another Win for Reproductive Rights: Colorado's Amendment 62

Fabiola Carrion

Progressives scored a victory in Colorado, where a pro-life initiative was defeated by a 3-to-1 margin. Amendment 62 sought to give constitutional rights to individuals "at the beginning of biological development." The vote marks the second time that Colorado voters rejected such attempt; in 2008 they rejected the "personhood" initiative by a margin of 73 percent to 27 percent. Hopefully, "personhood" advocates will now get the message that the people are ready to stand for their reproductive freedom and strongly support the right to choice upheld by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

Workers' Rights a Defining Issue in 2011, Going Forward

Tim Judson

As we reported last week, anti-worker ballot initiatives went before voters in five states (Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah). All five passed by large margins, ranging from 60-40 to 80-20. However, the success of those measures should not be taken as a barometer of public support for workers' rights: all five utilized misleading or ambiguous language to undermine important but relatively obscure rights and protections.

Notably, exit-polls indicate a strong concern for basic economic security and labor standards among voters. Surveys by the Associated Press found that 62% of voters named the economy as their top concern - far more than any other issue (health care was second at 18%) - with a solid majority of those people voting Republican. Further analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund shows that voters who were "very worried" about the economy (50% of voters), who described the state of the economy as "poor" (37% of voters), and those whose financial situation is worse than in 2008 (41% of voters) all voted strongly Republican (70%, 71%, and 63%, respectively). And although more voters blamed the economy on Wall Street (35%) than any single political leader (29% Pres. George W. Bush, 23% Pres. Obama), those individuals preferred the GOP by a significant margin (56-42%).

Tuesday's results show clear indications that progressives have much to gain by embracing peoples' concerns about jobs and economic security. For instance, in Connecticut, presumptive gubernatorial winner Dan Malloy distinguished himself from his opponents in both the primary and general election through his concern for working-class issues and support for economic security issues like job creation and paid sick days.

"To be clear, making Connecticut more business friendly does not mean making it less worker friendly. As with so many other arguments I've heard over the years, I reject this false choice. We can and should do both, simultaneously. That's one of the reasons I support a smart mandatory paid sick days policy; studies have shown that implemented in the right fashion, this produces a healthier, more efficient, more effective workforce, and actually saves money."

Should he be declared the official winner, Malloy will have reversed a 24-year state trend of electing Republican governors in a year that heavily favored the GOP. While the new political composition of many legislatures will make it harder to enact pro-worker legislation in the next session, advocating strongly for jobs and economic security is essential to changing the political environment in the coming years.

Growing the Progressive Movement in the States is More Important than Ever

The different messages sent by voters on Tuesday were rooted in unprecedented frustration with an economy that they see as still broken and a political system from Congress down to the states that has so far not proven itself up to the task of fixing it. With the forecast for Washington, D.C. now predicting even more gridlock, states will increasingly remain the places where lawmakers can most effectively work to impact the daily lives of their constituents. In this new political environment, the work of state legislators to join with colleagues and advocates in building a national progressive movement - one capable of positively influencing both the national debate and the everyday lives of the families they represent - will be more important than ever.

Full Resources from this Dispatch

Article Images

http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/toughtimes110510.jpg

What's on Your Ballot? States Decide on Taxes, Clean Energy, Pot, and More on Tuesday

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:28:54 +0000

What's on Your Ballot? States Decide on Taxes, Clean Energy, Pot, and More on Tuesday

On Tuesday, in addition to electing federal, state, and local officials to a new term, voters in 37 states will decide on approximately 160 ballot measures, including statewide initiatives, proposed amendments to state constitutions, and legislative and popular referenda. The total number of ballot measures across the nation is down this year from recent highs in midterm election years - according to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, there were 224 ballot measures nationwide in 2002 and 226 in 2006.

While in previous years conservatives attempted a coordinated effort to flood ballots across the nation with divisive measures on issues like reproductive rights, affirmative action, and same-sex marriage, this year the focus of ballot initiatives across the nation seems to be largely on economic and tax and budget issues. Proposals to address widespread state budget crises range from raising revenue through instituting progressive tax policies (Washington) to cutting corporate tax loopholes (California) to decimating state economies through conservative revenue-slashing measures (Colorado and Missouri). A few largely symbolic right-wing measures to nullify the new health care law qualified for the ballot this year, as did a collection of corporate-backed initiatives intended to further obstruct workers' rights. Also on the ballot in multiple states are measures regarding marijuana laws, energy and the environment, election reform, and reproductive rights. Below is a roundup of some of the most notable ballot measures facing voters on Tuesday.

Tax and Budget on the Ballot: Progressive Solutions vs. Right-Wing Budget Recklessness
Health Care Initiatives: Symbolic Attempts to Obstruct Reform
California's Proposition 23: Taking Aim at the Clean Energy Economy
Anti-Labor Initiatives: Corporate Attacks On Workers' Rights
Election Reform Initiatives: Focus on Redistricting, Clean Elections
Anti-Reproductive Rights Initiatives: More Restrictions on Women's Health
Marijuana Reform Initiatives: Drug Policy as a Budget Issue
Anti-Immigrant Initiatives Fail to Qualify for The Ballot

Tax and Budget on the Ballot: Progressive Solutions vs. Right-Wing Budget Recklessness

Altaf Rahamatulla

On November 2, voters in a number of states will consider tax-related ballot initiatives that could have dramatic impacts on the direction of fiscal policy and the provision of essential services. As states deal with the lingering effects of the severe economic downturn, taxes have become one of the most highly contentious political issues - so much so that over 25 percent of ballot measures to be considered on election day relate to tax and budget policy.

As the Citizens for Tax Justice noted, "[w]ith a couple of notable exceptions, these ballot initiatives would make state taxes less fair or less adequate (or both)." Several ballots will feature misguided measures that would threaten economic recovery prospects and impede on a state's ability to provide funding for essential services, including efforts to implement property tax caps and require super-majority approval to generate revenue. However, there are a few noteworthy progressive initiatives.

Some of the most prominent proposals will appear on the ballot in California, Colorado, Missouri, and Washington state.

California
Californians will consider Proposition 24 next week, which would eliminate three corporate tax breaks the Legislature enacted in 2008 and 2009. According to proponents of the initaitve, including the California Teachers Association, the League of Women Voters of California, and the California Tax Reform Association, these policies only benefit about 2 percent of the state's companies, overwhelmingly favoring large corporations and out-of-state corporate entities over small businesses.

Passed at a time of extreme fiscal duress, the tax breaks are both economically inefficient and extremely costly. If voters approve this proposition, the state will save approximately $1.3 billion in revenue, that would be better directed towards funding essential programs and creating jobs through more effective investments in infrastructure and other public structures.

Proposition 25 will additionally appear on the ballot, an effort to end the state's current two-thirds requirement to pass the budget or other appropriations-related issues other than tax increases. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains, the "requirement has often enabled a small number of legislators to hold the budget captive." Considering the perpetual delays and budget fiascoes California has experienced in recent years, approval of this measure would undoubtedly be a step in the right direction.

Colorado
Colorado is confronting a package of particularly heinous proposals, Amendments 60, 61, and Proposition 101, crafted by anti-government advocate Doug Bruce. Dubbed the "Bad 3," they would limit the ability of the state and local governments to invest in communities.

Amendment 60 would require school districts to cut property taxes in half by 2020, void previous elections that retained property tax revenues above TABOR limits, and force the state to fill the gap in school funding.
Amendment 61 would prohibit any state debt financing and place a limit on local bonds for school, fire, and hospital construction.
Finally, Proposition 101 would cut state income taxes to 3.5 percent and would eliminate all state and local taxes and fees on telecommunications services. The proposition defines telecommunications services as including phone, pager, cable, television, radio, internet, computer, and satellite services (although some of these are not even taxed in the first place). State fees that would be eliminated include those that help telephone companies provide service to rural communities, working families, and disabled populations.

These measures reflect extreme fiscal irresponsibility. If approved, the proposals would cause a cumulative loss of 73,000 jobs, mainly in transportation, health care, and construction, and lead to a cumulative state and local deficit of $4.2 billion.

Progressives have fought diligently to oppose these "backward-thinking" initiatives. Organizations, such as ProgressNow Colorado, the Colorado Progressive Coalition, the Bell Policy Center, the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, and countless others have expressed their opposition. Notably, several conservative lawmakers have also refused to support them. As reported in the Denver Post, 23 of 27 GOP lawmakers in the state House and 5 of 14 GOP state senators have signed a letter stating that these measures are "so far overreaching that it will ultimately kill Colorado jobs and strip local governments' ability to provide police and fire protection and to educate our children."

Current polling indicates that a majority of Coloradans are opposed to these reckless ballot initiatives.

Missouri
Next week, Missourians will decide on Proposition A, an effort to prohibit the state and local governments from employing an earnings tax, which currently is only utilized in St. Louis and Kansas City. The proposition would require residents of those cities to vote every five years to allow the continued use of the 1 percent earnings tax and, if voters decide to end the tax, it would be phased out over 10 years. Rex Sinquefield, a retired financier and right-wing activist, authored the proposition and has subsequently donated over $10 million to push for its passage.

The earnings tax comprises a substantial portion of both St. Louis' and Kansas City's general fund revenue, 32 and 40 percent respectfully. As the Missouri Budget Project points out, "[e]liminating the earnings tax would devastate the ability of St. Louis and Kansas City to provide public services. These...include police protection, fighting fires, schools, after school programs, street cleaning and...maintenance, services for seniors...and more. This would happen at a time when local budgets are already strapped."

A diverse set of organizations is fighting back against this fiscally irresponsible initiative, including AFSCME, the International Association of Fire Fighters, and the Missouri Federation of Teachers, several business interests, and hospitals.

Missourians can ill-afford to approve such a rash proposal at a time of heightened revenue pressures.

Washington

Washingtonians will decide on what is likely the most substantial tax reform initiative on the ballot this election season. If approved, Initiative 1098 would institute a statewide income tax of 5 percent on joint filers above $400,000 and 9 percent on filers over $1 million. The state currently does not employ an income tax and in fact, has the most regressive tax structure in the nation, placing a much higher burden on working and middle class families. The lowest 20 percent of earners in the state pay 17.3 percent of their income in state and local taxes, while the richest 1 percent contribute only 2.6 percent.

I-1098 would generate $2 billion annually and only impact about 1 percent of the state. In addition to providing the state with greater ability to support education and health care, the initiative will reduce the state property tax by 20 percent and increase the small business tax credit from $420 to $4800, which would provide most of Washington state's small businesses with much-needed tax relief.

As the Progressive States Network has detailed in previous Dispatches, progressive revenue generation, such as modest high-end income tax reform, promotes economic growth, provides necessary funds for public structures, benefits the middle class and small business, and does not cause out-migration of wealthy residents.

A wide array of businesses, progressive organizations, elected officials and notable individuals support the ballot measure, including Gov. Chris Gregoire, Bill Gates Sr., the Economic Opportunity Institute, the Yes on 1098 campaign, and the Washington State & Budget Policy Center.

Simply put, the measure "offers Washingtonians an opportunity to enact important long-term reforms to our state's inadequate revenue structure. The measure would reduce taxes for homeowners and small businesses while providing additional resources for education and health care." The initiatve garnered 42 percent of respondents' support in a recent poll.

Health Care Initiatives: Symbolic Attempts to Obstruct Reform

Charles Monaco

As Progressive States Network has documented, in the vast majority of states where the right wing has introduced bills to nullify federal health care reform, legislatures have rejected their efforts. Measures backed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have failed in at least 28 states, while at the same time almost all 50 states, including many suing the federal government, are moving forward on implementation of the law.

Despite this broad rejection, a handful of constitutionally dubious efforts have resulted in ballot initiatives that will go to the voters this year. Voters in Arizona, Colorado, and Oklahoma will decide on largely symbolic measures targeting the individual mandate, while an effort by right-wing legislators in Florida to place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot was rejected by a judge due to its "manifestly misleading" language. Despite right-wing intentions to use measures like these as symbolic rallying cries and to motivate turnout nationwide, there is little evidence to indicate that they will succeed in doing so. After Missouri voters approved a nullification ballot proposition in their August primary, the New York Times reported that the measure "seemed not to capture the general population's attention."

California's Proposition 23: Taking Aim at the Clean Energy Economy

Fabiola Carrion

Among the most most watched initiatives in the country is California's Proposition 23, seeking to repeal the state's anti-climate change law (AB 32). The law, the Global Warming Act of 2006, has served as a model for states seeking to cut greenhouse gas emissions and promote a clean energy economy. According to the California Employment Development Department, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created due to the Global Warming Act of 2006 and subsequent policies. Also thanks to the Act, the clean energy market has grown at ten times the average rate of other California industries.

If passed, Proposition 23 would damage California's clean-energy economy and lower unemployment levels by crippling emerging clean energy industries. A study conducted by U.C. Berkeley Law School's Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment concluded that passing the measure would lead to direct job losses.

Behind this damaging initiative are Texas-based companies Tesoro Corp. and Valero Energy Corp., who are seeking to secure their own profits by perpetuating America's dependence on foreign fossil fuels. According to a study conducted by the University of Massachusetts, Tesoro and Valero are among the largest corporate air polluters in the country. The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the California Environmental Justice Alliance have also concluded that these oil companies are the two biggest polluters in the state of California.

Anti-Labor Initiatives: Corporate Attacks On Workers' Rights

Tim Judson

Ballot measures intended to block implementation of a key provision of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) are set to be voted on in four states: Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. Under the moniker of an organization called "Save Our Secret Ballot" (SOS Ballot) - largely an instrument of major corporations - the initiatives seek to amend state constitutions to mandate that union representation elections are carried out solely through a "secret ballot" voting process. The measures in South Dakota and Utah also apply the requirement more broadly to include mandating secret ballots in state and local government elections.

The ostensible purpose of the SOS Ballot initiatives is to undermine EFCA's so-called "card check" provision, which would grant workers the right to join a union without an election being held if a majority of company employees sign cards authorizing a union to represent them. However, in most of the states where SOS Ballot has attempted to introduce measures, they have either failed to gain enough signatures to qualify, or they have been thrown out as illegitimate. For instance, Arkansas' Attorney General refused to certify an SOS Ballot measure because it was too vague to have a meaningful legal application. From a constitutional standpoint, the initiatives are frivolous and would be federally pre-empted by EFCA should it pass with a card-check provision. However, the main purpose of the initiatives is to further anti-union and anti-EFCA political organizing. Tellingly, all of the initiatives being voted on were introduced legislatively.

Another anti-worker initiative is on the ballot in Georgia. Amendment 1 would strengthen the ability of employers to prevent employees from taking jobs with competing businesses. While framed as a policy to support business by "upholding reasonable competitive agreements," it relates specifically to clauses in employment contracts which workers are required to sign. The measure would authorize greater interference by employers in workers' ability to freely seek work when, how, and where they choose - and thereby exert unfair leverage over employees as a condition of employment.

Election Reform Initiatives: Focus on Redistricting, Clean Elections

Cristina Francisco-McGuire

State legislatures will be redrawing the boundaries of congressional seats in 2011, a notoriously partisan process that can result in dramatically skewed results. In Texas, for example, Republicans redrew the congressional map in 2003 to give themselves a 2-1 advantage over Democrats, which translated into an additional six seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Fortunately, ballot initiatives to create or expand independent redistricting commissions are on the ballot in California, Florida, and Minnesota.

California actually boasts two initiatives, which are making headlines because they directly oppose each other. Proposition 20 would expand the independent redistricting commission that voters approved two years ago by referendum to include congressional districts - groups as diverse as California Common Cause, California Chamber of Commerce, and the California State Conference of the NAACP argue that a nonpartisan commission will end biased gerrymandering and force elected officials to be more accountable to voters. However, rival Proposition 27, supporters of which include U.S. House speaker Nancy Pelosi and AFSCME, would abolish the aforementioned commission. Supporters fear the unpredictability of a commission that is not accountable to the public, and raise concerns about cost as well as the weakening of California's house delegation vis-a-vis other states that do not have similar commissions.

As outside groups continue to pump more money into judicial elections ($206.9 million was spent nationwide between 2000-2009, more than double the previous decade) voters in Nevada will decide whether to replace state Supreme Court elections with a nonpartisan judicial merit selection system, in which a state commission screens three applicants before a final decision is made by the Governor. A review of the appointed judge would be conducted after two years by a separate commission and include input from jurors, attorneys, and staff. The ballot measure, Question 1, is being championed by retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who notes, "The kind of merit selection system being proposed in Nevada - now used in two-thirds of states in some form - protects the impartiality of the court without sacrificing accountability... When you enter one of these courtrooms, the last thing you want to worry about is whether the judge is more accountable to a campaign contributor or an ideological group than to the law." Nevada was ranked 8th in the nation between 2000 and 2009 for most money raised for Supreme Court elections.

Though public financing significantly reduces the impact of special interest money in elections and allows voters' concerns to be heard above the din of lobbyists and corporations, clean election systems across the country have spent the better part of the year fending off attack. Florida is no exception - voters in the state will determine whether to repeal a law that provides public funding for statewide candidates.

Anti-Reproductive Rights Initiatives: More Restrictions on Women's Health

Fabiola Carrion

The restriction of reproductive freedom has long been one of the core issues galvanizing the right. The heaviest hitting of their anti-reproductive health initiatives is the push to define "personhood" in order to give legal rights to embryos and challenge the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade. In Colorado this year, Amendment 62 seeks to give constitutional rights to a fertilized egg. Not only would this mean a constitutional ban on abortion, but also a ban on many forms of birth control and the end to assisted reproductive technology and stem cell research. Other unpredictable impacts of passage may even include criminal investigations against women for their miscarriages. This is the second time that Coloradans will vote on the measure - in 2008, Colorado voters overwhelmingly rejected it by a margin of 73 percent to 27 percent. A similar proposal received enough signatures for the Mississippi ballot in 2011; however, it is now the subject of a pre-election court challenge.

Two months ago, Alaska voters approved Proposition 2, which requires that a young woman obtain parental permission 48 hours before obtaining an abortion. The measure did not make any exceptions for a young woman in an abusive home, creating a series of obstacles for young women in this circumstance - they would need to obtain a court order, a signed and notarized statement from a law enforcement officer, or a statement of one of a small qualifying group of family members attesting to personal knowledge of abuse.

Fortunately, reproductive rights advocates have also been successful in defeating anti-choice initiatives in North Dakota and Montana. On balance, voters are standing up for choice, but ultra-right wing measures continue to plague the states, draining resources to defend health care options for women.

Marijuana Reform Initiatives: Drug Policy as a Budget Issue

Charles Monaco

In California, Proposition 19, which has received national attention, would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana while giving local governments the authority to tax and regulate the drug, simultaneously addressing both the inefficiency of current drug policy and the severity of state and local budget crises. Analysts have noted - and polls have shown - that young and progressive voters are particularly motivated by the intiative, and that measures similar to Proposition 19 may hold potential for increasing voter turnout among those groups nationwide. Voters in other states including Arizona, Oregon, and South Dakota will also decide on ballot measures to legalize and/or regulate medical marijuana.

Anti-Immigrant Initiatives Fail to Qualify for The Ballot

Suman Raghunathan

Despite the national media focus on Arizona's anti-immigrant law and subsequent promises by many in other states to pursue copycat efforts, including proposed ballot initiatives, actual voter support for anti-immigrant initiatives this year is almost nonexistent. In two states, proposed initiatives announced with much fanfare failed to even qualify for the ballot. In Nevada, an attempt to gather signatures for an Arizona-style initiative failed in the face of a lawsuit and an effective challenge by a coalition of legislators, Latino organizations, and business leaders to defeat it. In doing so they avoided the economically disastrous fate that has befallen their neighbor since the passage of SB1070. And in Arkansas, the anti-immigrant group Secure Arkansas also failed in their attempt to get even 10,000 signatures to qualify an anti-immigrant proposal for the ballot - a measure which would have simply reiterated existing federal law by seeking to bar undocumented immigrants over the age of 14 from receiving public assistance. The failure of these two efforts underscores the fact that contrary to conventional wisdom, support for draconian anti-immigrant policies like Arizona's is simply not materializing in other states.

Full Resources from this Dispatch

Tax and Budget on the Ballot: Progressive Solutions vs. Right-Wing Budget Recklessness

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Ballot Questions Will Have Big Impact on State Services
Citizens for Tax Justice - State Tax Issues on the Ballot on Election Day
Initiative & Referendum Institute - Election 2010 Preview: Not About the Economy

CALIFORNIA
California Budget Project - Proposition 24: Should the State Reverse Recent Business Tax Breaks to Move the Budget Toward Balance?
California Budget Project - Proposition 25: Will a "Majority Vote Budget" Help Solve California's Budget Problems?
Legislative Analyst's Office - Proposition 24
Yes on 24 - The Tax Fairness Act

COLORADO
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center - Colorado
Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute - What Kind of Colorado Do You Want? We Can Decide
Coloradans for Responsible Reform - No on 60, 61, and 101 Toolkit
Progressive States Network - Even GOP Rejecting Reckless Revenue-Slashing Initiatives
Stop the Bad 3 - Amendments 60, 61 and Prop 101

MISSOURI
Missouri Budget Project - Proposition A: How Missourians Are Harmed by Repeal of City Earnings Taxes

WASHINGTON
Economic Opportunity Institute - Why I-1098 is Right for Washington
Progressive States Network - Revenue Options in 2010: Making the Case and Debunking the Myths
Washington Budget & Policy Center - I-1098 Would Fund Improvements in Health Care and Education, Cut Taxes for Homeowners and Small Businesses
Yes on 1098

Health Care Initiatives: Symbolic Attempts to Obstruct Reform

Progressive States Network - ALECFail: Failure of Right Wing Obstruction in the States
Washington Independent - State Ballot Props on Health Care Repeal, Marijuana Could Drive Turnout
The Nation - 2010 Ballot Initiatives: The Good, The Bad, and The Crazy

California's Proposition 23: Taking Aim at the Clean Energy Economy

Progressive States Network Ð Polluters Fund Effort at Ballot to Rollback Clean Energy Programs in California
Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division - California's Green Economy
University of California, Center for Law, Energy & the Environment - California at the Crossroads: Proposition 23, AB 32, and Climate Change
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and California Environmental Justice Alliance - The Toxic Twins: Soiling the Southland

Anti-Labor Initiatives: Corporate Attacks On Workers' Rights

American Rights At Work - The Anti-Union Network
SEIU - Yet Another Corporate Front Group: "Save Our Secret Ballots"
Progressive States Network - State Laws Allowing Majority Sign-up for Unions Show why Employee Free Choice Act is Fair Option for Workers
Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner for Economic Policy Institute - No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing
Universities of Illinois, Rutgers, Cornell and Oregon - Majority Authorizations and Union Organizing in the Public Sector: A Four-State Perspective
AFL-CIO - The Employee Free Choice Act: Will it Lead to Coercion of Workers by Unions?
Wisconsin State Senate Resolution 7 in support for federal Employee Free Choice Act
American Rights At Work - Free and Fair? How Labor Law Fails U.S. Democratic Election Standards
Center for American Progress Action Fund - How Not to Join a Union: Labor Law Gives Workers a Raw Deal
Human Rights Watch - Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States under International Human Rights Standards

Election Reform Initiatives: Focus on Redistricting, Clean Elections

Initiative and Referendum Institute - Ballotwatch
Demos - Supreme Court Victory for Maine Clean Elections Program
The Huffington Post - Supreme Court Blocks Public Financing in Arizona Elections
San Jose Mercury News - Dueling ballot measures will decide who draws the lines
Capitol Weekly - Redistricting: Tense political leaders watch, wait
Nevada Appeal - Abby Johnson: Approve Question 1, for a fair and impartial judiciary

Anti-Reproductive Rights Initiatives: More Restrictions on Women's Health

The Denver Daily News - A62 Campaign Announced 'Personhood' proponents launch campaign to essentially ban abortion in Colorado
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center - Colorado to vote on anti-abortion initiative in November
Center for Reproductive Rights - Ballot Initiatives in 2011-2011: Personhood and Parental Notice

Marijuana Reform Initiatives: Drug Policy as a Budget Issue

Just Say Now - California Proposition 19
Public Policy Polling - Assessing Prop 19
Wall Street Journal - Democrats Look to Cultivate Pot Vote in 2012

Anti-Immigrant Initiatives Fail to Qualify for The Ballot

Progressive States Network - Anti-Immigrant Proposals Continue to Fail in Wake of Arizona's Law
Colorlines - The Far-Right Movement Behind Arizona Copycat Bill

Article Images

http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/votesign102810.jpg

Paid Sick Days Legislation has Overwhelming Support, Polling Shows

Tim Judson — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:56:56 +0000

86% of the public favors legislation that would mandate seven paid sick days per year for all employers, according to study sponsored by the Public Welfare Fund in collaboration with the National Partnership of Women and Families (full results here). Even when the public is asked about mandating nine paid sick days per year, 71% still support the proposed legislation. The study found that paid sick days legislation enjoys deep public support across all demographics and political leanings, including large majorities of Republicans as well as Democrats.

In response to the statement, “Paid sick days is a basic worker right, just like being paid a decent wage,” not only did 75% of public agree, but on a scale of 1 to 10 signifying agreement, 43% rated the statement a 10 and 64% agreed strongly (rating it an 8 or higher).

The issue strongly colors how voters view elected officials, with 47% saying they would favor a candidate who supports paid sick days, while only 14% said they would not support that candidate.

Job Losses Suffered Due to Need for Sick Days Drives Opinion: Driving the poll numbers is the reality that too many workers have lost a job or been threatened with losing a job because they needed to take a sick day for themselves or to care for a family member. One out of every six people (16%) has lost their job for missing work due to illness, and one in four (25%) has been told they would either lose their job or be suspended or punished. And while 64% of workers are “eligible” for paid sick leave, the real picture is much more dire:

Less than half of the workforce (47%) can take a paid sick day to care for a sick child or family member, meaning most parents either have to risk their job to care for their children or send them to school sick.
Most workers (58%) whose employers offer only generic “paid time off” get a total of 10 days or less per year to cover vacation, personal, and sick leave.
55% of people without paid sick days have had to go to work sick, compared to 37% of workers who can take a paid sick day.
24% of those without paid sick days have had to send a sick child to school because they couldn't get the day off, while only 14% of those with paid sick days had to do so.

Public Does Not Believe Paid Sick Days Hurts Business Bottom Line: While paid sick days legislation has faced vigorous opposition from some in the business community, in most of the 23 states where it has been introduced, the public overwhelmingly rejects the typical arguments that paid sick days will harm jobs or individual businesses. The research indicates that their messages are not persuasive to voters:

54% of those polled find "very convincing" the argument that "Requiring paid sick days doesn't hurt employers' bottom line" because paid sick days increases worker productivity.
By contrast, only 26% of those polled found the opposition argument "very convincing" that "Given the economic downturn we are now in, businesses can't afford to add new benefits like paid sick leave."

In fact, while almost all of the arguments in favor of paid sick days were viewed by majorities as "very convincing," no arguments by opponents were considered "very convincing" and only four of seven opposing arguments were seen as even "somewhat convincing" by more than half of those surveyed.

Reinforcing the polling numbers is the reality that where paid sick days have actually been implemented, such as the City of San Francisco, even original opponents of the policy, are now applauding its success. In a recent Business Week article, the such as the Golden Gate Restaurant Association stated that paid sick days has been “the best public policy for the least cost" since the policy was enacted.

Resources
Public Welfare Fund - Paid Sick Days: Attitudes and Experiences

Article Images

http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/chart.sick.days.150.gif

Workplace Tragedies Point to Need for States to Take Lead in Workplace Safety

Tim Judson — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:20:18 +0000

April has seen two major industrial accidents that have captured the national eye. Explosions at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia and the Deepwater Horizon oil rig off the coast of Louisiana claimed the lives of forty workers and injured thirty-eight. Much of the media attention on these tragedies has focused on the culpability of employers and enforcement capacity at federal agencies responsible for regulating mine and offshore drilling safety. However, there are proactive steps states can take to address occupational safety hazards and ensure people do not have to sacrifice their personal safety in exchange for a paycheck.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) not only established a federal enforcement system, it also created a matching-funds program for states to operate their own safety enforcement programs. OSHA will provide a 50-50 match to help states cover the cost of enforcement programs that meet or exceed the federal agency standards. State participation in the program is crucial to enhancing enforcement capacity nationwide. For instance, OSHA does not cover state and local government workplaces, so there are currently an estimated 8 million public sector workers without occupational safety oversight. To date, twenty-one states have established qualifying programs, while four more states (Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York) have enforcement programs limited to covering public sector employees.

The AFL-CIO released a report this week documenting the serious lack of federal safety enforcement capacity. The report analyzes recently published data by the Bureau of Labor Statistics which shows higher than normal casualty rates among immigrant and Latino workers, as well as construction workers. Nationally, the US has only 16% of the total number of inspectors recommended by the United Nations' International Labor Office (ILO). (The ILO sets a standard of one inspector per 10,000 workers. The US had only one inspector per 60,723 workers as of 2008.) Given this deficit, states have a powerful opportunity to bridge this gap by bolstering workplace safety enforcement that prevents work-site tragedies like those seen this month.

Under the Obama administration, the federal government is taking steps to improve occupational safety, but requires state cooperation to establish the necessary enforcement capacity. To this end, Congress introduced two pieces of legislation this year. The Protecting America’s Workers Act strengthens federal safety standards, while the Ensuring Worker Safety Act would enable a more cooperative relationship between OSHA and state safety agencies. The availability of federal matching dollars makes it possible for states to improve workplace safety at a manageable cost, when combined with innovative enforcement mechanisms that generate revenue for the state at low cost. For instance, private attorneys general provisions being included in wage enforcement and misclassification bills increase enforcement capacity by enabling workers to file claims using their own lawyers, with the state receiving a portion of the fines levied by the court against guilty employers. A similar provision in state occupational safety programs would assist states in ramping up enforcement capacity while limiting budgetary exposure. As with paid sick days, occupational safety programs can be an innovative, cost-effective step states can take to ensure that working and middle class families do not lose basic workplace standards as the economy improves.

Resources:
AFL-CIO - Death on the Job Report, 2010
AFL-CIO - Protecting America’s Workers Act
International Labor Organization — Programme on Safety and Health at Work and in the Environment
Nevada Rep. Dina Titus - Testimony on OSHA Legislation Before Nevada Legislative Commission Subcommittee
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - State Occupational Safety and Health Plans
OSHA - Sec. 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act — State Jurisdiction and State Plans
OSHA - How does a State establish its own program?
OSHA - Directory of States With Approved Occupational Safety and Health Plans
Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association (OSHSPA)The Nation - Hilda Solis: Labor's New Sheriff

Article Images

/sync/images/dispatch/MinerGraves.jpg

A First Look at How McCain and Obama's Policies Would Affect the States

PSN — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:55:59 +0000

A First Look at How McCain and Obama's Policies Would Affect the States

There are stark differences between the two presidential campaigns' approaches to federal-state relationships. Differences range from the amount of funding appropriated for programs run by the states to whether the candidates would strengthen or weaken state regulatory authority.

In the current economic crisis, a key difference between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain can be seen in their proposals to revive the economy. Earlier in the year, Sen. Obama proposed sending $50 billion to the states to pump up the economy: $25 billion for fiscally ailing states and $25 billion to help states build and fix highways, roads, bridges, airports and rail systems. Sen. McCain has said little on the subject but he opposed a recent bipartisan proposal by two governors, California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and Pennsylvania’s Ed Rendell (D), for a stimulus package devoted entirely to helping states rebuild infrastructure. With Congress preparing a second stimulus package, in the order of $100 billion to $150 billion, the debate on help for the states could determine whether we are able to weather the financial storm without making massive cuts in state programs like education and Medicaid.

The continuing debate around economic stimulus is just one example of the campaigns' very different approaches to federalism. This Dispatch will examine how the candidates' health care plans differ from a state perspective, followed by how Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain would affect energy, infrastructure and other pressing issues.

Obama and McCain - Miles Apart on Health Care and the States

Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama have struck markedly different tones on health care reform and on the role of state governments in the health care field. Sen. Obama would build on the strengths of the current employer-based and public/private health care system, including current state regulatory authority, while Sen. McCain would largely eliminate both the existing health care system and state regulations that currently protect consumers, favoring instead the deregulation of insurance markets.

Funding Medicaid and SCHIP: Broadly, Sen. Obama would increase eligibility and funding to states for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), while McCain would cut funding. This difference was exemplified when earlier this year Congress passed a five-year $35 billion expansion of SCHIP; Obama supported the SCHIP expansion while McCain opposed it. The measure was vetoed by President Bush.

Sen. McCain's health care plan would gut federal Medicaid spending by $419 billion over ten years, forcing states to roll-back their Medicaid programs or require them to come up with alternative funding to replace depleted federal matching funds. In a time of recession, such cuts would be devastating for state economies-- for example, a new report from the New Mexico Fiscal Policy Project shows that state Medicaid/SCHIP programs "created an estimated $3.36 billion in economic activity, 43,639 jobs, and almost $1.53 billion in wages and salaries for New Mexicans" that would be undermined by such cuts.

Maintaining vs. Undermining Employer-Based Coverage: Sen. Obama's plan would require large employers to offer health insurance to their employees or contribute to the cost of coverage programs. Small businesses would be eligible for tax credits to offset the costs of premiums and families would be eligible for income-based premium subsidies.

Conversely, Sen. McCain's plan would seek to replace employer-based coverage with a system of individual health care vouchers. 160 million Americans would have to pay income tax on their employer-provided health insurance, receiving instead a tax credit for the purchase of health insurance - $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. Many employers are likely to drop coverage, increasing the number of residents subscribing to state Medicaid and SCHIP rolls, increasing costs for the states.

Insurance Market Regulation versus Deregulation: Small group and individual insurance plans are primarily regulated by the states, including requirements that companies cover necessary medical care, preventing insurers from denying coverage for a pre-existing condition, and requiring state approval of hikes in premiums to ensure that new rates are fair and justifiable.

While Obama would protect most state regulation, McCain proposes to allow insurance companies to sell policies in any state, ignoring regulations in states outside their home state-- much as banks now make a home in low-regulation states and sell predatory loans all over the country. Allowing the insurance market to promote lower premium coverage with poorer benefits would push workers and their families into insurance plans with fewer benefits and higher out of pocket costs. Sen. McCain's defacto deregulation of state insurance markets would leave families vulnerable to the lowest standards found in the most unregulated state market.

High Risk Pools versus Public Plans: For individuals who might find it hard to get insurance, Obama proposes the creation of a public health plan modeled after the coverage provided to federal employees and members of Congress. Like recent proposals in Wisconsin and Connecticut, the idea is to create a broad-based plan guaranteeing affordable health insurance to anyone. Furthermore, building on the Massachusetts Connector, Sen. Obama would create the National Health Insurance Exchange, offering a medley of private and public health plans to small businesses, the self-employed, and people without access to employer-based coverage. Insurers would be required to offer coverage to all applicants and would not be able to hike premiums based on health status.

McCain's plan would instead herd consumers denied regular coverage by insurers into state high risk pools, funded by $7 billion to $10 billion in federal funds. An Urban Institute analysis indicates that the tax increases and deregulation of insurance markets under Sen. McCain's plan would result in a run on high risk pools as older and sicker Americans seek coverage after being denied in the individual market or in the face of exorbitant premiums. To meet the demand, funding needs for the high risk pools would approach $100 billion, far above what Sen. McCain has indicated.

Overall Effectiveness: While spending similar amounts of money, the Tax Policy Center estimates that Sen. Obama's plan would reduce the uninsured by 34 million people over ten years while McCain would reduce the uninsured by only 2 million people. And while states would preserve crucial regulatory tools to rein in insurance company abuses under Obama's plan, they would lose most of their regulatory authority under McCain's deregulatory approach.

More Resources

Clean Energy, Transportation and Broadband

For this section, we borrow heavily from the comparison made by our allies at the Apollo Alliance, who have highlighted what the Presidential candidates' plans mean for achieving energy independence and green jobs for American workers.

Climate Change: While both campaigns support some version of "cap-and-trade" reductions in emissions, as pioneered in the states, Obama's plan is considered more aggressive and emphasizes solar, win and clean vehicles, while McCain puts more emphasis on nuclear and so-called "clean carbon" technologies. More broadly, Obama supports strong federal government incentives to utilities and individuals to use alternative energy and alternative-fuel vehicles. Obama would condition state funding on meeting energy conservation and "smart growth" goals, while McCain has not proposed a policy in this area.

Transportation: Obama supports reforming federal transportation policy to direct more funds to states for clean energy transportation infrastructure, while McCain has no clean energy transportation objectives. Overall, McCain's focus on cutting earmarks means he has historically fought many transportation bills funding state projects; he was one of only four Senators to vote against the current transportation legislation, SAFETEA-LU. While Obama supports expanded support for mass transit and inter-city train systems, McCain has called for the "privatization" of Amtrak and cutting federal financial support.

Offshore Drilling: Obama supported the recent compromise legislation that would allow some offshore drilling between 50 and 100 miles off the coast, but only with the agreement of state governments. McCain, on the other hand, opposed the plan in favor of even broader mandates for offshore drilling, leaving it unclear whether states would have any voice in whether drilling happened off their shores in a McCain administration.

High-Speed Broadband Deployment: Obama 's technology plan calls for reform of the Universal Service Fund to support broadband deployment in the states, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives, to increase wide-spread broadband adoption. McCain's policy promotes a "market" approach to deployment with a few tax incentives for delivering services to rural and poor neighborhoods.

Although Internet services provided by local governments have run into opposition in many state legislatures because they are seen as competition to private providers, both candidates support community-based and municipal broadband efforts.

More Resources

Other Key Issues

Workers Rights: Obama and McCain sharply differ on federal labor policy, with Obama supporting policies to increase the freedom of workers to form unions, including conditioning money for states on supporting prevailing wages, while McCain has generally opposed policies that do so. McCain also has a history of not only opposing the minimum wage but of supporting amendments that would void state minimum wage laws in certain cases.

Education: With states complaining about unfunded mandates in the No Child Left Behind law, Obama proposes more funds to cover states’ expenses and would increase federal education spending by about $18 billion, with much of the money going to pre-kindergarten programs, teacher training and mentoring programs. Instead of increasing help for states to improve schools, McCain supports vouchers to allow parents to send their children to private schools, a plan that would likely further reduce money for public schools.

Immigration: While Obama and McCain both support comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level, Obama has more recently emphasized strong enforcement of federal laws, combined with financial support for states to encourage citizenship and giving states the freedom to provide drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. McCain has emphasized criminal enforcement almost exclusively before moving to any kind of comprehensive reform.

Paid Family Leave: Obama would encourage each state to adopt a paid leave system for parents to stay home with a child or to care for a sick family member. He would provide $1.5 billion to help states start paid sick day initiatives, as well as to offset the cost to employees and employers. McCain called Obama's proposal to expand family and medical leave a "big-government solution" and said sick days should be negotiated between management and labor.

Abortion and Reproductive Rights: Sen. Obama has said he's committed to upholding Roe v. Wade, which restricts state regulations of abortion in favor of court protection of reproductive rights. On the other hand, Obama supports federal funding for contraception and teen pregnancy prevention programs to lessen the number of abortions. Obama also supports the funding for states and local community groups in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Conversely, Sen. McCain advocates overturning Roe v. Wade and restoring the ability of states to ban abortions across-the-board, but he has generally opposed federal funding for contraception and pregnancy prevention. McCain has voted in the past against VAWA.

Gay Rights: Both Obama and McCain, in 2006, voted against a proposed federal constitutional ban on gay marriage. Further, both say the issue should be left up to the states. At the state level, McCain has supported state constitutional bans on gay marriage, while Obama, although not advocating for gay marriage, has opposed anti-gay marriage amendments.

More Resources

Resources

Obama and McCain - Miles Apart on Health Care and the States

Center for American Progress - McCain's Latest Health Care Strategy
Commonwealth Fund - The 2008 Presidential Candidates' Health Reform Proposals: Choices for America
Families USA - Premiums Versus Paychecks: A Growing Burden for Workers
Urban Institute - An Analysis of the McCain Health Care Proposal
Urban Institute - An Analysis of the Obama Health Care Proposal
Urban Institute - Can a Public Insurance Plan Increase Competition and Lower the Costs of Health Reform?
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured - Headed for a Crunch: An Update on Medicaid Spending, Coverage and Policy Heading into an Economic Downturn

Clean Energy, Transportation and Broadband

Stateline.org, McCain vs. Obama: The difference for states
Apollo Alliance, Comparing Energy Plans: The New Apollo Program, New Energy For America, The Lexington Project
Brookings Institution, Candidates on Transportation

Other Key Issues

Stateline.org, What would an Obama win mean for states?
Stateline.org, McCain vs. Obama: The difference for states
Family and Work Institute, First Ever Presidential Platforms on Work Life Issues

Article Images

http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/obama-mccain.jpg

The Financial Bailout and the Challenge for the States: De-Leveraging Working Families

Nathan Newman — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:09:42 +0000

According to The Wall Street Journal, "Fed and Treasury officials have identified the disease. It's called de-leveraging, or the unwinding of debt. During the credit boom, financial institutions and American households took on too much debt."

But let's not buy into a false equivalence of "financial institutions" and those "American households" borrowing beyond their means. Wall Street leverage was built on obscene wealth looking to become only more obscene, while the leveraging and debt of working families was driven by expanding income inequality, stagnant wages and rising health care costs that left families with less and less money available to gain a basic foothold in the American middle class.

As this Dispatch will emphasize, policymakers need to not just “de-leverage" the burden of debt speculators in the financial casino; they need to take action to reverse the economic burden on working families that has forced so many of them into debt in the first place.

The Real Crisis Facing Working Families

Let's be clear: the crisis we're talking about today is not shareholders losing a few dollars or even a few firms ceasing to exist and their traders losing their jobs. That just reflects the real crisis that has been sweeping across this nation for years. For regular families, it is not about financial speculation, but being driven into debt by what New York Times writer Steven Greenhouse has called in his recent book the Big Squeeze:

The bottom 90% of households saw only a 10% increase in real income in the three decades between 1976 and 2006, while the richest 1% saw a 232% income increase in the same period.
In the most recent 2000s business cycle, employment increased at only one-third of the pace of the 1990s cycle.
A quarter to thirty percent of the jobs actually created since 2000 were due to the housing bubble, a froth of jobs that are quickly disappearing. Yet, between 1995 and 2005, our nation has lost 3 million core manufacturing jobs that represented real wealth creation, almost all of that loss occurring during the 2000s business cycle.
Real costs burdening families have been escalating. The recent jump in energy prices comes on top of rising education costs, day care costs, and most punishingly, health care costs. One study found that 49 million Americans under 65 lived in families where more than 10 percent of family income went to health care costs, with 19 million spending 20 percent of income on health care.

The result of this squeeze of stagnant incomes and rising costs is unsurprising. With less money in their pockets, families were pushed into greater debt, which became a vice pushing many of those with homes into foreclosure as the housing bubble bursts and prices fall, especially as the predatory terms of their "subprime mortgages" sprung into action.

More Resources

State Leaders Saw the Subprime Mortgage Crisis Coming - But Feds Block Reforms

Even as those economic realities building up over years were ignored by national politicians and the mainstream media, those same national political leaders and media were lauding and even encouraging "financial innovation." At its core, this "innovation" meant using advanced technology to skirt regulation of things previously prohibited under the law and taking risks with debt that previous generations of regulators would have prohibited without the capital on hand to back up failed loans.

That those loans are going bad in communities across the country speaks to the real economic burdens on families; many families facing these burdens were lured into mortgages with "subprime" terms that left them in economic traps when the housing market went south.

Some in Congress actually recognized the problem of under-capitalized mortgages as early as 1994, when they passed the Homeownership Opportunity and Equity Protection Act. This law required the Federal Reserve to regulate the loan-origination standards of mortgage companies that were not otherwise government-regulated. But Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan failed to implement the law.

States Took Action but Feds Blocked Reform: Community organizations began agitating against "subprime loans," the polite term for predatory lenders targeting vulnerable working families. Pushed by these advocates, 30 states in the 1990s and 2000s passed laws to implement tougher standards on mortgage companies since the federal government was failing to implement the 1994 Act.

But adding insult to injury, the federal government not only failed to use the 1994 law to restrain predatory lending, it went to court claiming that law preempted state protections. As PSN detailed last year, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency claimed in 2004 that federal law preempted Georgia's Fair Lending Act, which had offered protection against predatory lending, including outlawing extreme prepayment fees or penalties, unreasonable monthly payments, and increased interest rates after default. This was followed by the OCC preempting New Jersey's Home Ownership Security Act, which prohibited abusive lending practices, which was followed by OCC challenges to other state laws. The federal courts largely backed this federal preemption of state authority with federal courts striking down predatory lending laws in a number of states.

Whatever the courts decide now, the damage has been done. During the critical period of the recent housing bubble, as speculation and predatory lending ran amok, state regulators were so involved in defending their laws in court that their effectiveness was undermined and the costs are being borne by some of the most vulnerable borrowers in the market. A report by the Center for Responsible Lending released in December 2006 showed that as many as 2.2 million subprime borrowers face foreclosure on their home loans, but few at the federal level listened to the warnings.

While some national leaders and media are saying "we" all have to cut back to pay for the excesses of the financial failures, state leaders should be loud in proclaiming that most of us didn't create this crisis; in fact, most advocates for working families and most state legislatures took action early on to try to restrain subprime predatory lending. It was colossal stupidity and greed by the wealthiest financial corporations in the country, along with lax federal financial regulation and their active assault on those state anti-predatory lending laws that created this crisis. So responsibility and the costs should be borne by those who caused the problem and those who benefited from those excesses.

State leaders need to speak up against bad federal policy: One thing state leaders should be vigilant on is making sure that supposed "reforms" don't undercut their present ability to protect working families. Earlier this year, the Bush Administration, led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, proposed a sweeping new proposal, its Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure, to "reform" regulatory oversight of different financial sectors. But the proposal was little more than an industry wish list, including replacement of state regulation of insurance with a single federal regulator, which would likely preempt stronger consumer insurance protections at the state level. At the time, Michael McRaith, insurance director for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, noted that insurance companies, "[v]ery large, wealthy companies would get to choose the lesser level of regulations," much as banks were able to escape tougher state mortgage regulations for lax ones at the federal level. Even now, rightwing politicians are seeking to use the financial crisis to gut state insurance regulations. So state leaders should be loud in demanding that any federal policies not weaken the ability of state regulators to be an alternative check on financial abuses.

More Resources

Lessons from the $700 Billion Bailout: States Should Take Bold Action to Help Working Families

Now Washington is discussing stabilizing the financial system with $700 billion in federal investments. After an initial proposal that was a pure giveaway to the banks, some improvements by progressive national leaders may provide some taxpayer protections, though the proposal will still hardly address the real burdens facing working families. The final plan for some improvements, including some taxpayer protections, the principle of an equity stake for the government in firms bailed out, and helping mortgage holders. But given that the plan is initially being implemented by the same federal regulators who failed in the first place, these principles may well not be implemented in practice.

However, state leaders can learn some lessons from the whole credit crisis debacle and the bailout bill:

The Feds Won't Save Working Families by Themselves: While there were some discussions about increasing aid to states to help working families as part of the deal, this was largely blocked by conservatives at the federal level. The bottom line is that state policy leaders should not depend on the federal government to take on the fundamental challenge of easing the burdens on working families that underlie the original demand for subprime mortgages in the first place. State leaders should demand and lobby for whatever aid Congress will allocate to help states and families, but the states need to take leadership on this issue. The worst thing possible is for state governments to slash spending on education, health care and help for those same families in the middle of a recession.
Big Problems, Big Investments Needed: But the $700 billion committed by the federal government, whether this particular proposal is the right one or not, shows that our nation has the resources to address big problems if we have the political will. States need to make similarly bold, not incremental plans to address the real needs of working families. While the temptation is for states to cut back in hard times, they should instead be increasing their spending to counterbalance lower spending by working families.
Investments in Economic Growth Pay Dividends in the Future: In principle, the new version of the federal bailout would require banks whose debt is purchased to give the federal government an equity stake in those firms, so if they recover financially, taxpayers would see more of their investments paid back. The idea is that while government may make initial upfront investments, returns from economic growth and contributions from the wealthy who most benefit should ultimately fund such long-term investments. Just as the feds are projecting that upfront investments in the financial system will lead to a financial recovery and higher asset values that will help pay off initial investments in troubled assets, an even better investment is for states to help working families "de-leverage" their financial burdens. Investing in job growth, whether through education or transit or other means, will pay off in the longer term with higher tax revenues.
States May be the Only Institution that Can Borrow and Invest Effectively: A key lesson is that in an economic credit crunch, it is government and often only government that can continue to borrow and invest to keep the economy moving forward. State tax and bonding authority, if focused on real investments, can create jobs and put money in the hands of working families in a time of economic crisis. Notably, states have access to credit at less expensive rates than a private sector caught in the credit crunch and can therefore be a critical player in jumpstarting a range of initiatives.
Taxing the Wealthy for Economic Investments Makes Economic Sense:If the borrowing needed does seem too daunting, financially or politically, then raise taxes from your wealthiest residents, the one group who saw their incomes triple in the last three decades. Taxing the wealthy to fund long-term investments is not a punitive goal, but an economically rational one. Not only do the wealthy benefit the most from economic growth, as the federal bailout plan acknowledges, but money in the hands of the wealthy does not, contrary to supply-side economics, trickle down to working families. In fact, much of it gets flushed down speculative toilets, as during the S&L scandal in the 1980s, the dotcom meltdown, and the current speculative subprime crisis. A dollar of taxes collected from the wealthy and put in the hands of working families is a dollar that is almost guaranteed to be spent on goods and services in the real, not speculative economy, and far more likely to stay circulating in your state to multiply into broader economic growth.

States should be emboldened to reject the remaining holdouts of rightwing ideology and reinvigorate their regulations on behalf of working families and investments in real economic growth.

Inexpensive Ways for States to Help De-leverage Working Families

There are basic standards that we can return to the workplace and our economy that don't cost the state treasury much if anything, yet will put more money in the hands of working families and help them cope with their costs and debt burdens.

Raise the Minimum Wage: The most obvious action is to further raise the minimum wage, whose value has been destroyed by inflation in the last three decades. Compared to 1968, when the federal minimum wage was the equivalent of $9.34 per hour accounting for inflation, even the highest state minimum wage rates have lost value against inflation. States should be aiming to raise their minimum wage rates to that level or a bit higher, and then index it to inflation to avoid erosion over time. Part of that effort should be toughening enforcement of the law, to assure that those owed the minimum wage and overtime receive it.
Help Balance Work and Family: Given that it usually takes at least two incomes to sustain a household budget these days, helping families navigate the tensions between the demands of work and family are critical. States moving to enact paid family leave and paid sick days laws guaranteeing all workers time to care for themselves and family members without fear of losing their jobs are desperately needed.
Raise Labor Standards and Union Rights: States should work to raise wage standards across the board, including strengthening the ability of all workers to join a labor union to help them demand a fairer wage share of profits generated from their employers. These can include using government contracting rules to promote stronger prevailing wage standards in more sectors, extending bargaining rights to agricultural industries and groups of independent contractors denied bargaining rights under federal law, and expanding general free speech rights in the workplace to better protect workplace-based advocacy for workers rights.

More Resources

Long-Term Investments to Create Strong State Economies

On the other hand, there is no getting around the fact that we need to shift our economy from one where speculation has soaked up trillions of dollars to one that invests in good jobs for working families. And some of those investments need to be by state governments, because while they may require significant upfront costs, the results will permanently strengthen state economies, lower costs for taxpayers, and save money for both government and household budgets over the long-term, helping to pay off any borrowing needed.

Health Care: The reality is that our health care system suffers from similar problems to Wall Street speculation; too lax regulation, too much profiteering, and too much waste without real returns. Investing in comprehensive health care for all state residents will not just help working families burdened by health care costs, it will likely save money. Even though the United States spends substantially more per person than any other country, the World Health Organization ranked our health care system 37th in the world in 2000 with working families paying out of pocket costs at twice the international average. Clearly, we spend more, but we get less. In Why Not the Best?, the Commonwealth Fund found that we would save $100 billion in administrative costs if we reached top efficiency benchmarks achieved elsewhere in more integrated government-managed health care systems. So the returns from comprehensive health care investments could easily pay for themselves over time.
Infrastructure Investments: A report last year by the Urban Land Institute found that 83 percent of the nation's transportation infrastructure is not capable of meeting the nation's needs over the next 10 years. There is a $1.6 trillion deficit in needed infrastructure spending through 2010 for repairs and maintenance, yet the U.S is spending less than 1 percent of its GDP on infrastructure. Making serious new investments in infrastructure is critical to increasing productivity, expanding economic growth, creating jobs, and making our states more economically competitive globally.
Broadband: It is estimated that widespread adoption of high-speed Internet will add $134 billion to the U.S. economy annually and create 1.2 million new jobs per year. A recent study found that for every 1% point increase in state high-speed Internet penetration, employment is projected to increase by 0.2% to 0.3%. Assuring that all residents have access to affordable, high-speed broadband is critical for long-term economic growth, especially when we are competing internationally with countries like Japan where households have access to broadband 8 times our average speed at roughly 1/2 of the cost. Again, these are investments that will build permanent economic strength and jobs for working families.
Green Jobs and Clean Energy: Investing in energy independence and green jobs -- from retrofitting homes to alternative fuels to mass transit -- promises some of the highest returns on state investment possible. More energy dollars will go to creating jobs at home and help eliminate wasted energy use. In many cases, families just need help making the energy investments and new technologies that will lower their energy bills far more over time - a clear place where states can help families in ways that, while requiring upfront state spending, will help pay for initial investments over time.

In a time of crisis for working families, state leaders need to step up with both the money and political will to make the investments that will create both more job and better wages for workers. The reward will not only be the de-leveraging of the debt burden for those families but, over time, the higher tax revenues needed to pay back any bonds used to pay for these initiatives.

More Resources