Your/Their/Our World: Who's selling us out ?
Listen to this as you read the articles posted below.
-------------
"Wal-Mart is the poster child for what's wrong with corporate America," said Louis Malfaro, president of the Austin Central Labor Council. He cited the coalition's independent study, which estimates that each Wal-Mart store costs taxpayers more than $400,000 per year in subsidies for poorly paid, uninsured workers who can't afford health and child care, housing, and even food. According to Texas Health and Human Services Commission data, 4,339 children of Wal-Mart workers were enrolled in the state's Children's Health Insurance Program for low-income kids in February 2005, three times more than the second highest-ranking employer on the list. On the environmental front, Wal-Mart was handed a $3.1 million fine for Clean Water Act violations in May of last year, the largest civil penalty ever assessed for environmental damages. Before that, they had already been fined $1 million in 2000 for virtually identical charges.
The $10-billion profit Wal-Mart chalked up in 2004, however, speaks to the fact that its stores have fans, regardless of the corporation's reputation. Even union members, whose attempts to organize within stores have been about as welcomed by management as a plague of locusts, use their credit cards at Wal-Mart more than any other location, according to Malfaro. And as reported in the Statesman, 5,000 people applied for the 427 jobs available at the new Slaughter Lane store.
So how do you convince big-box lovers that their favorite store isn't always a good corporate citizen and needs to be reined in?
---------------------
State budget offers little relief for the poor
Advocates: Legislature's big spending increase mostly benefits others
10:38 PM CDT on Friday, May 27, 2005
By GROMER JEFFERS Jr. / The Dallas Morning News
Araceli Ortiz of Dallas worries about health coverage for sons Sergio (right), 9, and Martin, 10. Still, some say the poor are better off than they were under the state's 2003 budget.
She has missed work ever since being robbed and assaulted in Dallas a few weeks ago. Her husband is unemployed, and she worries about finding health care coverage for her two sons.
She needs help. But advocates for the poor say that despite a big increase in overall spending, many Texans in similar positions won't get much relief out of the Legislature this year.
"I don't get it," said Ms. Ortiz, a 33-year-old East Dallas resident. "The system is not working. They don't help out."
Much of the new spending, advocates argue, is simply making up ground lost in 2003, when the state cut programs to close a $10 billion budget gap. And though much of that has been restored, several other measures could add new troubles for the poor, including potential sales-tax increases and cuts to programs such as those that help low-income Texans pay their utility bills.
"The good news is that things didn't get a whole lot worse," said Eva DeLuna Castro, budget analyst for the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an advocacy group for low-income Texans. "But Texas still doesn't provide enough training for better jobs, let its residents earn more money or have adequate access to child care."
Sen. Steve Ogden, the Bryan Republican who chairs the Senate's Finance Committee, said the Legislature has improved services for the poor.
"If you said the poor and the working class got hit hard because of the portions of the budget that benefited others, [advocates] should be pleased by the improvements made over 2003," Mr. Ogden said. "They may say it's still not enough, but it's a lot better than it has been."
Other lawmakers say that's not good enough, especially considering what lawmakers are doing for wealthier Texans and businesses.
"The people with more money get a decrease in their taxes, and the people who have less money get an increase in the taxes and that's backward," said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. "It's not Robin Hood anymore; it's robbing the hood."
Robert Black, a spokesman for Gov. Rick Perry, said the governor couldn't assess the budget's impact until it is finalized and sent to him, which lawmakers must do in the next few days. Many of the provisions could be tweaked over the weekend.
"Governor Perry has told House and Senate members to get him a budget that reflects the priorities of Texas and has urged them to maintain fiscal discipline while nearing the finish line of the session," Mr. Black said.
A double whammy
Proposals to overhaul state taxes – raising business and sales levies to offset a big cut in school property taxes – have particularly spotlighted the potential blows to the state's have-nots from this lawmaking session.
Many middle-income homeowners would break even or save a little. But the poor would see a double whammy – no cuts in property taxes because they rent, and a big blow from the sales-tax hike, which hits the poor hardest because a larger share of their income goes toward consumption.
Ms. Ortiz, for instance, rents a modest East Dallas apartment and probably won't see a property tax benefit passed on by her landlord.
She estimates that she and her husband spend $300 to $500 a month on groceries and supplies. And while food still won't be taxed, they could be paying a half-cent to a full-cent more in tax on other items for their young boys.
"I'm already spending more money than I used to," said Ms. Ortiz, who makes $9.50 an hour as a saleswoman for an auto parts store. "Sometimes we don't have enough to cover everything."
Various studies show that Texans who earn $22,800 or less annually pay the greatest percentage of their income in sales taxes. Those who make up to $41,400 pay the next largest percentage.
Silver lining
It's not all bad news, though. The Senate's tax plan would provide a rebate to Texans receiving government assistance, to ease the blow of the sales-tax hike. And Ms. Ortiz's concerns about health care for her boys could be resolved.
Two years ago, with the budget shortfall looming, lawmakers made eligibility changes that cut 180,000 children from the rolls of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which is designed to help the working poor. Ms. Ortiz had missed the income requirement for the program by $15.
This year, with her husband unemployed, they'll make the cut. And lawmakers have eased enrollment requirements somewhat by agreeing to check families' eligibility once a year, instead of every six months. That will allow families whose income fluctuates by seasons to remain on the rolls longer.
Dental, vision and mental health benefits for children, cut in 2003, were also restored. The state would also spend $55 million to pay for glasses, hearing aids, and mental health and podiatry services for adults on Medicaid.
And Mr. Ogden is pushing for a new sales tax holiday in December, similar to the back-to-school tax-free period.
Still, other funds for the poor were targeted. Lawmakers swept out the System Benefit Fund, which helps the poor with utility bills, and moved the money into the overall budget. That came on top of rate hikes announced by electricity provider TXU.
Rep. Sylvester Turner, a Houston Democrat who jokes that he leads the Poor Man's Caucus in the Legislature, managed to push through a bill that would restore the fund in 2008. But for now, needy residents won't be able to get the 10 percent discounts the fund provides.
Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, also tried to increase stipends used by nursing home residents to buy personal hygiene products. The personal needs allowance is now at $45, down from the level it was at in previous years.
She wants about $13 million to lift the allowance to about $60.
"They're not asking to go to Neiman Marcus or Saks Fifth Avenue," Ms. Thompson said. "They're asking to go to Wal-Mart."
Rep. Linda Harper-Brown, R-Irving, suggested concerns about the program were overblown.
"I've got to tell you that I don't spend that much money a month on my deodorant, my toothpaste and my toothbrush and those things," she said. "Isn't this a case of giving them pocket money that's probably more than they need for basic expenditures on a monthly basis?"
E-mail gjeffers@dallasnews.com
TAKING A HIT
Among provisions that will affect the poor:
Health coverage wasn't restored to about 180,000 needy children who were knocked off he Children's Health Insurance Program rolls since 2003.
Lawmakers raided the $150 million Systems Benefit Fund that would give Texans discounts on utility fees and using it for other budget items.
Cuts were made to a program that allocates $6 million to 4,000 welfare recipients who need job training.
A cash assistance program that gives 185,000 poor children a one-time summer payment – cut from $60 to $30 in 2003 – won't be restored to the full amount.
A plan to pay tuition for up to 90 credit hours for some high school students going to state community colleges was scrapped.
Gromer Jeffers Jr.
source: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052805dntexpoor.edcc5293.html
---------------
Veterans Left Behind as VA Continues Drastic Cut Backs: VVA
Vietnam Veterans of America
5/27/2005 11:02:33 AM
WASHINGTON, May 27 -- The Budget Resolution passed by both houses of Congress will result in staff reductions in every VA Medical Center at a most inauspicious time—as veterans return from the war in Iraq and as increasing numbers of veterans need care from the system, said Thomas H. Corey, National President of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA).
The impact will be significant among those returning troops who suffer from mental health issues such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), those who have sustained loss of limbs, and other serious injuries.
In addition to devastating decreases in the availability of care for veterans that will result from such budget cuts, the VA seems determined to contest even long-standing disability compensation for PTSD from veterans currently receiving VA benefits and health care. A recent VA Inspector General’s (IG) report concluded that following a brief review of certain grants of service-connected benefits for PTSD, the "subjectivity" involved in such determinations has resulted in over-granting of benefits.
As a result, the VA will be reviewing PTSD grants between 1999 and 2004, with an eye toward revoking benefits if the claim was adjusted incorrectly. "VVA believes that the "subjectivity" offered to the IG report is a euphemism for poor training and quality control of VA adjudication staff.
"We must make it crystal clear to Congress that the budget appropriation for fiscal year 2006 year is at least $3.5 billion less than what is needed to fund the VA medical programs adequately," Corey said. "This is a critical time. Without these resources, veterans will have longer waits to see specialists, much-needed maintenance will be deferred, and medical equipment will not be purchased.
"Together, through the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform veterans service organizations will demonstrate against these drastic cutbacks. Veterans’ health care is not a welfare program. It is a benefit earned by rendering honorable service to our country. If we don’t act forcefully now, we will continue to witness the erosion of what was one of the finest health care programs in the nation."
------
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) is the nation’s only congressionally chartered veterans service organization dedicated to the needs of Vietnam-era veterans and their families. VVA’s founding principle is "Never again will one generation of veterans abandon another."
source: http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=2767
-------------------------
End-Timers & Neo-Cons
The End of Conservatives
by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
January 19, 2005
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during 1981-82. He was also Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.
I remember when friends would excitedly telephone to report that Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy had just read one of my syndicated columns over the air. That was before I became a critic of the US invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration, and the neoconservative ideologues who have seized control of the US government.
America has blundered into a needless and dangerous war, and fully half of the country's population is enthusiastic. Many Christians think that war in the Middle East signals "end times" and that they are about to be wafted up to heaven. Many patriots think that, finally, America is standing up for itself and demonstrating its righteous might. Conservatives are taking out their Vietnam frustrations on Iraqis. Karl Rove is wrapping Bush in the protective cloak of war leader. The military-industrial complex is drooling over the profits of war. And neoconservatives are laying the groundwork for Israeli territorial expansion.
The evening before Thanksgiving Rush Limbaugh was on C-Span TV explaining that these glorious developments would have been impossible if talk radio and the conservative movement had not combined to break the power of the liberal media.
In the Thanksgiving issue of National Review, editor Richard Lowry and former editor John O'Sullivan celebrate Bush's reelection triumph over "a hostile press corps." "Try as they might," crowed O'Sullivan, "they couldn't put Kerry over the top." There was a time when I could rant about the "liberal media" with the best of them. But in recent years I have puzzled over the precise location of the "liberal media."
Not so long ago I would have identified the liberal media as the New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and the three TV networks, and National Public Radio. But both the Times and the Post fell for the Bush administration's lies about WMD and supported the US invasion of Iraq. On balance CNN, the networks, and NPR have not made an issue of the Bush administration's changing explanations for the invasion.
Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and National Review think there is a liberal media because the prison torture scandal could not be suppressed and a cameraman filmed the execution of a wounded Iraqi prisoner by a US Marine. Do the Village Voice and The Nation comprise the "liberal media"? The Village Voice is known for Nat Hentoff and his columns on civil liberties. Every good conservative believes that civil liberties are liberal because they interfere with the police and let criminals go free. The Nation favors spending on the poor and disfavors gun rights, but I don't see the "liberal hate" in The Nation's feeble pages that Rush Limbaugh was denouncing on C-Span.
In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.
The Iraqi War is serving as a great catharsis for multiple conservative frustrations: job loss, drugs, crime, homosexuals, pornography, female promiscuity, abortion, restrictions on prayer in public places, Darwinism and attacks on religion. Liberals are the cause. Liberals are against America. Anyone against the war is against America and is a liberal. "You are with us or against us."
This is the mindset of delusion, and delusion permits no facts or analysis. Blind emotion rules. Americans are right and everyone else is wrong. End of the debate.
That, gentle reader, is the full extent of talk radio, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal Editorial page, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and, indeed, of the entire concentrated corporate media where noncontroversy in the interest of advertising revenue rules.
Once upon a time there was a liberal media. It developed out of the Great Depression and the New Deal. Liberals believed that the private sector is the source of greed that must be restrained by government acting in the public interest. The liberals' mistake was to identify morality with government. Liberals had great suspicion of private power and insufficient suspicion of the power and inclination of government to do good.
Liberals became Benthamites (after Jeremy Bentham). They believed that as the people controlled government through democracy, there was no reason to fear government power, which should be increased in order to accomplish more good.
The conservative movement that I grew up in did not share the liberals' abiding faith in government. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Today it is liberals, not conservatives, who endeavor to defend civil liberties from the state. Conservatives have been won around to the old liberal view that as long as government power is in their hands, there is no reason to fear it or to limit it. Thus, the Patriot Act, which permits government to suspend a person's civil liberty by calling him a terrorist with or without proof. Thus, preemptive war, which permits the President to invade other countries based on unverified assertions.
There is nothing conservative about these positions. To label them conservative is to make the same error as labeling the 1930s German Brownshirts conservative.
American liberals called the Brownshirts "conservative," because the Brownshirts were obviously not liberal. They were ignorant, violent, delusional, and they worshipped a man of no known distinction. Brownshirts' delusions were protected by an emotional force field. Adulation of power and force prevented Brownshirts from recognizing implications for their country of their reckless doctrines.
Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy. I went overnight from being an object of conservative adulation to one of derision when I wrote that the US invasion of Iraq was a "strategic blunder."
It is amazing that only a short time ago the Bush administration and its supporters believed that all the US had to do was to appear in Iraq and we would be greeted with flowers. Has there ever been a greater example of delusion? Isn't this on a par with the Children's Crusade against the Saracens in the Middle Ages?
Delusion is still the defining characteristic of the Bush administration. We have smashed Fallujah, a city of 300,000, only to discover that the 10,000 US Marines are bogged down in the ruins of the city. If the Marines leave, the "defeated" insurgents will return. Meanwhile the insurgents have moved on to destabilize Mosul, a city five times as large. Thus, the call for more US troops.
There are no more troops. Our former allies are not going to send troops. The only way the Bush administration can continue with its Iraq policy is to reinstate the draft.
When the draft is reinstated, conservatives will loudly proclaim their pride that their sons, fathers, husbands and brothers are going to die for "our freedom." Not a single one of them will be able to explain why destroying Iraqi cities and occupying the ruins are necessary for "our freedom." But this inability will not lessen the enthusiasm for the project. To protect their delusions from "reality-based" critics, they will demand that the critics be arrested for treason and silenced. Many encouraged by talk radio already speak this way.
Because of the triumph of delusional "new conservatives" and the demise of the liberal media, this war is different from the Vietnam war. As more Americans are killed and maimed in the pointless carnage, more Americans have a powerful emotional stake that the war not be lost and not be in vain. Trapped in violence and unable to admit mistake, a reckless administration will escalate.
The rapidly collapsing US dollar is hard evidence that the world sees the US as bankrupt. Flight from the dollar as the reserve currency will adversely impact American living standards, which are already falling as a result of job outsourcing and offshore production. The US cannot afford a costly and interminable war.
Falling living standards and inability to impose our will on the Middle East will result in great frustrations that will diminish our country.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=76&ItemID=7056
<< Home