Question: What does Bush have against little kids?

Answer: Nothing, really. It just looks that way.

This week the committee that meets to work out differences between House and Senate legislation came up with a final version of the SCHIP bill, renewing and expanding the program that makes health care available to children whose parents cannot afford to purchase private medical insurance.

The next step is to submit the bill to the House and to the Senate separately for final passage by each body.

After that, the bill goes to the President for veto.

Now, the President famously doesn’t veto very often, but he says he feels very strongly that continuing to provide medical insurance for 6.6 million poor children at the levels established ten years ago is bad enough, but he sure doesn’t want another 4 million added to the program.

Nosiree, Bob. I mean, that would SO offend the health insurance industry – you know, the good folks who brought us Harry and Louise back in the 20th century – no doubt they would much prefer to have poor families who can’t afford to buy insurance just go away. Or go without medical care. Or take their petty little fevers and broken bones to the emergency room and drive up the cost of care for the rest of the population (but don’t worry, your insurance company will just increase your premiums to cover this).

What? I shouldn’t pick on the insurance companies, those warm and caring folks you just love having to beg for treatment approval?

Well, how about Big Tobacco, then, who would be just as offended, in this case by the mere IDEA of raising the tax on cigarettes to pay for the expanded SCHIP program. (Interestingly, raising the cigarette tax would tend to discourage some people from smoking, thus eliminating quite a bit of emergency room traffic.)

Republican opponents of SCHIP have objected, saying that “Everyone knows that a cigarette tax hike would disproportionately affect the poor.” Translation: More poor folks smoke (smoking relieves stress). Get it?

Must be those compassionate conservatives. You think?

Why would Big Tobacco object to reducing smoking? After all, they spend lots of money telling us smoking is hazardous to your health even while they are sending people to the doctor. You don’t suppose they are still making money, after all that effort? Could it be all about the money? Please, say it isn’t so!

To be fair to the President, however, he’s not said anything about any obligation to either the insurance companies or Big Tobacco.

What he has said is that he thinks SCHIP is too expensive, and so he has proposed funding levels of only a third of what the program is projected to need, with restrictions that would not only prevent expanding coverage to more children but would take it away from some of those presently served.

But don’t think this is all about saving money – after all, if saving money were really important . . .

No, it’s bigger than that. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Bush has vowed to veto any SCHIP bill that greatly expands funding, saying it was a move toward socialized medicine.”

Ah.

Paying for private insurers to insure kids is NOT government-run health care, as the President claims. And directing eligible families into Medicaid does not involve government-run health care because Medicaid, like Medicare, pays private doctors chosen by the patient.

SCHIP is different from Medicare because the States use the funds to buy insurance rather than to pay medical bills. Makes you wonder why the insurance companies are so opposed, doesn’t it?

This is where I tell the funny story I heard from one of the candidates for President: When he was talking about his plan for universal health care a lady in the audience stood and asked him to promise that he “won’t let the government get its hands on my Medicare!”

As I’ve written before, “socialized medicine” is really nothing more than a slogan designed by an advertising agency back around 1950, but lately some reasonable writers — Ezra Klein jumps to mind — have nicely distinguished “socialized” from “single-payer”: “Socialized” would describe the health system in England, where doctors are hired and paid by the government; “single-payer” would describe the Canadian system, where folks go to whatever private doctor or hospital they choose and the bill gets paid by the government.

Just like Medicare, actually.

Both the British and the Canadian systems provide universal health care, which means, at its most basic, that everyone gets coverage and emergency rooms are reserved for emergencies.

So, why can’t Medicare, which provides universal health care for seniors in a single-payer structure that is not socialized medicine, be the model for the rest of us?

That would make SCHIP totally unnecessary and save the President all this angst!

China Dog and Pony Show

“Life with Father” has always been one of my favorite movies, even after all this time — it came out in 1947, though I may have seen it first in the 1950’s, and I’ve seen it two or three times since then.

Certain scenes are classic, as any fan of the show will tell you, like the parade of children filing down the stairs to greet the new maid who, filled with Irish superstition, anxiously signed a digital anti-hex at the sight of each young red-head.

Father’s roaring temperament held sway over the family; Mother, very much in love with him, was doting, but like the Edith Bunker many of you may know better, managed the work-arounds that kept things running smoothly.

Here lately the movie came back to mind, in all its Technicolor glory, because of a recollection of what I call the china dog affair. It began when Mother bought a life-size bulldog figurine at the local department store.

Such ceramic ornaments were popular around the turn of the century, and it was perfect for the parlor. It was only $15.00, though that was not cheap in those days.
At the same time, even though Father really didn’t want to spring for a new suit for one of the boys, she told her son to go ahead and order it while picking up the bulldog; she was sure she would convince Father of the need.

When Father came upon the bulldog in his parlor he hit the ceiling; $15.00 was a lot of money and he considered it an eyesore in any event, and he ordered that it be returned to the store immediately.

Once her son pointed out to Mother that returning the china dog to the store would mean a $15.00 credit to their account that would just pay for the suit, the suit purchase was completed. Mother never could understand why Father didn’t see that it didn’t cost him a cent, after all!

When George Bush sent our sons and daughters to war in Iraq he took all the ones available from the ranks of the Army, the Navy, the Marines and the Air Force, and reached into the military reserves and the National Guard for more.

As time and the war went on, and it became clear that normal rotations would leave the field commanders without the numbers of troops they needed, some tours were extended from 12 to 15 months.

Some who had gone home were called back before their promised time at home had ended.
Some Guard and reserves who were due to go home were stop-lossed — told they must continue to serve beyond their original commitment.

As a result, many have served three and four tours in as many years.

Last week we were told that finally some troops will be coming home. Not a huge number, mind you, certainly not the number the most vocal war opponents have demanded, but some.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is that life with Bush is turning out to be a lot like “Life with Father,” except that in this case Bush is both Father and Mother: on the one hand running the family home with demands for more and longer service that approach tyranny, and on the other expecting us to believe that there is a generous 5,000 or so troop reduction about to happen because “we are making progress.”

When Senators asked General Petraeus how he could call the plan to bring those troops home between now and March a “reduction,” let alone because of progress, given that those troops had reached the absolute end of their tours and were due to come home anyway, he replied (I paraphrase):

“Well, yes I know they were due to come home anyway, but I could have requested they be extended, and in fact I was thinking about doing that, but I didn’t.”

And thanks to Mother’s china bulldog, those pants didn’t cost a thing.

IT’S THE STUPID ECONOMY

Setting aside for the moment the dreadful situation for many American families created by the subprime lending meltdown, let’s look at the problems in the broader economy.

Sad, isn’t it, that the people and institutions with the power to do something remedial about it don’t seem to notice or care about problems until the stock market twitches?

The whole notion that a surging stock market and related “good economic news” mean the economy is in great shape is delusional, almost a shell game.

The ultra-wealthy one or two percent of the population took their five- and six-figure tax cuts and invested in the stock market, which naturally caused various indicators to surge with glee. And in a kind of parallel universe to ours, those with lots of money to spend have been investing like crazy, buying and selling and raking in profits, making it look like the economy is strong and growing, while the rest of us are borrowing money to pay for car repairs so we can get to the second (or third) job that we’ve had to take just to get by.

Is there anyone who works for someone else for a living who hasn’t noticed for quite some time that things are not as hunky-dory as Mr. Bush and his minions keep assuring us? After all, claiming that when the stock market is doing well we are all doing well totally ignores the fact that stocks and bonds are the source of income for investors, not for working stiffs.

There have been some unpleasant truths lurking beneath apparently never-ending home appreciation and our ability to buy more and more new clothes, running shoes, toys, kitchenware and flat-screen TVs—an ability that, on the face of it, has helped us live the American dream and then some.

First, there are the ritual assurances that unemployment is low: The government’s report on unemployment bases its assessment on the number of active claims for unemployment. But no one tracks the folks who gave up replacing a manufacturing or computer software job that was outsourced and went into floor sales for Home Depot or Wal-Mart, or the folks who have been unemployed so long their benefits have run out.

Ironically, the at-home mom who took a job to help make up the income loss is counted as a new hire, resolving that particular family struggle in a way that only contributes to the lie.

But the economy must be doing well, you may think—just look at how consumer spending is still up and the way we continue to party on!

What’s not talked about much is how many folks went for the terrific deals offered by MasterCard and Visa, seducing new “pre-qualified” borrowers with “introductory” low interest rates, knowing full well that the cards, used to pay for everything from groceries to weddings, would accrue balances well into higher interest rates. Or how many of those folks have paid down credit card debt with home equity loans, sold with such fervor on the TV ads, only to run them back up again to maintain a standard of living.

And what’s not talked about, too, is how many folks have been surviving for a while on the equity in their homes that, because of the remarkable increases in housing values over the past decade, has allowed them to borrow money and keep on keepin’ on.

We are beginning to understand the hidden cost of those clothes, shoes, toys, kitchenware and TVs in lost jobs and lower wages, but I suspect there are not many folks who have read the occasional buried news story telling how the typical American family income went flat several years ago.

Back in the 1990’s things were booming and America seemed to love the way folks were getting rich from the new information technology. But it wasn’t until recently that I learned how displaced that affection may have been.

According to an August 21, 2007 report in the New York Times, in every year from 2000 to 2005 the average income earned by Americans went down; in 2005, it was nearly 1% less than in the year 2000.

Now get this: “The White House said the fact that average incomes were smaller five years after the Internet bubble burst ‘should not surprise anyone.’”

In addition, the Times article went on to explain that growth in total incomes, the number from which the average is derived, “was concentrated among those making more than $1 million. . . . These individuals, who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000.”

This week in Congress the debate will continue as to whether private equity fund and hedge fund managers, whose earnings include a percentage of the profits, called “performance pay,” from sale of the capital assets they manage, should pay taxes like the rest of us. Currently the tax law allows those earnings to be taxed at the capital gains rate of 15% rather than at the 25% to 35% they would pay if their earnings were called earnings.

Lobbyists for the status quo argue that such earnings are essentially a payout for taking entrepreneurial risk, and thus properly taxed as a capital gain.”

(Y’know, if this is true, then I think we’ll see a whole new world open up for real estate firms hit by the subprime implosion!)

Supporters of the legislation point out, however, that capital gains income is not subject to the 2.9% Medicare tax paid by the rest of us, and that if fund managers were taxed the same way as the rest of us are, it would raise as much as $1 billion annually and cover the cost of insuring about 98,000 people!

Now I didn’t write all this just to get you depressed. And I don’t want you to think the situation is something we are stuck with, that it’s beyond our control, that there’s nothing we can do about it.

I just want you to know what’s going on, what’s lurking beneath the headlines, what’s causing the pinch for the American family.

Paraphrasing Molly Ivins, I just think it helps if the people know what is going on. What they do about it is up to them.

Play It Again, Joe Hill!

Labor Day is here, and with it another wonderful three-day holiday. It’s time for family get-togethers, backyard cookouts and, for the politically addicted, speeches and rallies. But somewhere between parades and picnics I hope folks will give a moment’s thought to what Labor Day means.

It’s more than a day off for workers. It is a day to celebrate unions, and especially the American worker for whom they have toiled for over a century.

Not surprisingly, employers have tried to get rid of unions ever since they became a force to be reckoned with. With the help of Congress, they finally dealt organized labor a massive blow in the mid-20th century, selling us the idea that a “right to work” was antithetical to collective bargaining. Sort of like the Healthy Skies Initiative actually relaxed controls on polluters. It was pretty much downhill from there.

From time to time over the last couple of decades, as unions have struggled to remain a force in our economic dialogue, there have been speculations about their possible resurgence. Unfortunately for folks at levels lower than management, in most cases that is still a dream.

In fact, sad to say, some people question whether unions are any longer relevant.

No doubt it has something to do with the globalization of the economy, which at the end of the last century and since has really affected what Americans buy and sell, the way we manufacture and distribute goods, the ways we are employed—or not, and of course our quality of life.

Labor unions came into being in the 1880’s because workers were being exploited by their employers, more so in some industries than in others—the Pullman Railroad Company and the coal mines come to mind as among the worst. Then someone figured out that there was strength in unity, and as collective bargaining for wage increases and benefits went forward, working conditions gradually improved.

After laws were passed to protect workers from abuse, to abolish sweatshops and in particular to eliminate the use of children as laborers, matters such as wages, benefits and job security were addressed.

There is no doubt that all working Americans have benefited from union accomplishments, whether or not they belong to a union themselves. Although many trades, such as secretaries and bookkeepers, were never able to organize themselves effectively in the private sector, the laws that were passed because of union effort were to their advantage as well: more and more frequently, employers began to offer sick leave, periodic pay raises, paid holidays and annual vacations, and other benefits that have trickled into the mainstream.

Unions became a powerful force in America, and often set the pace for improved working conditions in other parts of the world. But after awhile, when it seemed to some that certain unions were asking too much, demanding raises when people in non-union jobs were barely holding their own, it didn’t go down well. And it didn’t help matters whenever a union flexed its muscle in defiance—as in the case of the Teamsters’ threat to bring the whole country to a standstill unless they got what they wanted. And here and there corruption surfaced, giving the whole movement a bad name.

All along, of course, those who resisted unions from the beginning fought to keep them out of their particular shops were working tirelessly to get rid of them; they would not have succeeded without the unions’ own successes that made them less urgent, and without the self-destructive behavior that power seems to invite.

It seems to me not surprising, given all these circumstances, that unions faded from prominence back then; neither is it surprising, given today’s circumstances, that they have a legitimate function again.

With the globalization of the economy, American workers are confronted once again with low wages, sweatshop conditions and the exploitation of children as laborers. But this time the problems are too far away to be resolved by American workers demanding improved working conditions—it is the worker in a distant land who is being exploited, whose low pay leads to downsizing in an American industry trying to compete. What good is it to complain, or to demand, when the situation is so far out of our control?

The functions of the labor unions, this time around, are vigilance and education, since there is little hope they can get over there and organize the garment workers in China and Thailand, or the rug makers in Pakistan (where UNICEF estimates children aged 4 to 14 make up 90 percent of the carpet workforce). Vigilance can lead to education of the consumer and resulting public pressure on the American importers, which has already shown to be effective in closing down or at least reducing these practices.

Most of us consumers lament the effect of the new economy on America, even as we buy shoes made in Korea, electronics made in China, hats from El Salvador, toys from Romania, and designer garments handcrafted in Thailand. The least we can do for ourselves—and ultimately for the American worker—is to insist on knowing that we are not furthering the exploitation of children and the dehumanization of adults in order to save money. If enough Americans refuse to buy goods made with what amounts to slave labor, we will help to end it.

In the meantime, our labor unions can keep up the pressure on Congress to make trade laws that address these issues, and to change laws that subsidize American companies’ exportation of jobs to other countries into laws that reward companies who choose to keep jobs here.

Back in the day, as they say, we were told that if you want to criticize the farmer, don’t do it with your mouth full.

On this Labor Day I suggest that if you want to complain about labor unions, don’t do it while you’re on your paid holiday!