Give me your tired, Your poor...

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Something tells me Republicans can't keep a straight face when they read those words on the Statue of Liberty. The GOP could care less about the less fortunate among us, and just the thought of having to help the "wretched" must send chills up their spines. As evidence, consider their recent track record: NO to health care reform. YES to protecting Wall Street. And perhaps the most egregious example is Arizona, where they recently passed an immigration bill that makes them look more like a police state than a democracy.

And don't forget the Tea Party. Republicans have gone out of their way to promote and defend these people because they're primarily white, wealthy men - a.k.a. their base.

The GOP may claim they don't have a double-standard when it comes to race in this country, but Alternet asks us to imagine this: What If the Tea Party Were Black?

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters — the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protesters — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? ...

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

You get the picture. Republicans have a double-standard, and so do tea party members. How else to explain their silence about Arizona's immigration law? I'd like to hear them answer this question that someone asked over at Washington Monthly:

Shouldn't the tea party crowd be having a cow over this new immigration bill that Arizona just passed? Doesn't that sound like big government tyranny to them? Giving the police the power to demand "papers" from someone just on their own suspicion?

I somehow doubt we'll see them marching in the street in defense of their Hispanic brothers and sisters. They only care about their own sorry, white butts. This is what "white privilege is all about" (as anyone who lived through the civil rights era knows only too well):

The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be...

Recent events - and votes - tell us who Republicans really represent: White America, the wealthier the better.


(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

Senate Health Bill Provides Enormous Help To Poor

Everyone seems to be trashing the Senate's health reform bill. That's fine, dissent is good, but I don't think we should let it blind us to the positives, such as the enormous good the bill will do for the poor and middle class. (Via Jonathan Cohn at TNR.)

This bill would mean Medicaid coverage for an additional 15 million people a year, all of them living below or just above the poverty line. For a sense of scale, that's more than double the entire population now covered by the state Children's Health Insurance Program.

This bill would also subsidize coverage in the exchanges for (roughly) another 15 million people a year, the majority of whom would also qualify as low-income by any reasonable standard.

"Do the math," he says, and we'll see that this bill is "arguably, the single most progressive initiative in a generation."

And if you don't believe Cohn, he asks you to consider what his colleague Harold Pollack at the Huffington Post had to say [emphasis mine]:

Fully implemented, the bill would provide about $200 billion per year down the income scale in subsidies to poor, near-poor, and working Americans.

$200 billion is a big number. It exceeds the combined total of federal spending on Food Stamps and all nutrition assistance programs, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Head Start, TANF cash payments to single mothers and their children, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the National Institutes of Health.

That money won't be allocated to wars or tax cuts for the rich, it's going to help the poor and middle class.

Trash the bill if you want, but don't let yourself lose sight of the good it will do.


(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

The Crime No One Talks About - Wage Theft

I haven't had much time to read lately, but Kim Bobo's book, Wage Theft in America: Why Millions of Working Americans Are Not Getting Paid - And What We Can Do About It, will be the next one I pick up. Bobo is the Executive Director of Interfaith Worker Justice.

Here's a short synopsis from Joe's Union Review:

Bobo says wage theft in America is the crime wave no one talks about, and she is right. Billions of dollars' worth of wages are stolen from millions of workers in the United States every year. The scope of these abuses is as staggering as it is wrong - paying workers far less than the legal minimum wage, purposefully misclassifying employees as independent contractors, and illegally denying workers overtime pay. But now people are starting to take notice -- and it is my hope that they do so starting with this very good book.

Chapter 5: Organizing to Stop Wage Theft: Why Unions Matter, starts with a story of 39 year-old Mercedes Herrerra. She came to this country from Mexico, lives in Houston since 1994 and works as a janitor for staffing agencies cleaning buildings and sports facilities. Bobo says she was never paid for overtime!

Her employers would tell her, "There is no overtime. After 40 hours you work for someone else." (This is not legal).

The story continues that after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the worker was hired by a cleaning firm contracted to clean the Reliance Center. She was in charge of keeping the bathrooms clean. Her staffing agency charged her $100 per week for her shoes, gloves, masks, cleaning supplies, and shuttle rides to the Center. She wasn't told when she was hired that such charges would be taken from her paycheck. As a result, her hourly wage fell significantly below minimum wage. (This is not legal).

The lower paid workers in our country are treated like crap. Union activists have been saying this for a long time. Some claim we blow it out of proportion or distort the reality -- for Herrerra, according to Bobo, worse than the wages stolen was her ill treatment. Managers would scream at her and her colleagues. Some would tell workers they were old and worthless.

You can read more here and here. Ted Kennedy has said the book offers "bold, practical, and progressive solutions for how policymakers and advocates can end the growing crisis of wage theft in America."

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Hate Crime Legislation Vote Later This Week

I don't keep up with gay rights as much as I should, so I was surprised to read that Deb Price now writes the first nationally syndicated column on gay issues. Good for her. I only know her work in the Detroit News. (Does anyone else find it ironic that she writes for them?)

Anyway, outside of reading quite a bit about gay marriage in recent months, I didn't realize the Obama administration has been reaching out to the gay community in so many ways. Here are some highlights from Price's recent column, including a mention about the hate crimes legislation that lawmakers will be voting on later this week.

The Obama White House invited gay leaders to the health care and fiscal responsibility summits, the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls, and an online town hall. Gay parents were encouraged to bring their kids to the Easter egg roll. [...]

The White House outreach has included Mara Keisling of the National Center for Transgender Equality and Rebecca Fox of the National Coalition for LGBT Health. [...]

And Obama is salting gay talent through his administration. Most noteworthy is John Berry, confirmed by the Senate as director of the Office of Personnel Management. That puts a gay man in charge of the 1.9 million federal employees, including overseeing their benefits.

Other appointees include Emily Hewitt, an ordained Episcopal priest, as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. A peek at Hewitt's biography on her official court site shows the comfort Obama's gay choices feel: "Chief Judge Hewitt is married to Eleanor Dean Acheson."

Obama tapped Fred Hochberg to chair the U.S. Export-Import Bank, Harry Knox to serve on the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and Nancy Sutley to chair the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Price also reports that Obama told two leaders of the Human Rights Campaign that he intends to sign the hates crimes legislation when it reaches his desk, and he supports the need for a federal ban on job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Hate Crime Legislation (H.R. 1913) was introduced by John Conyers and has 42 sponsors. The House Judiciary Committee is set to vote on the bill this Wednesday. Language in the bill includes “sexual orientation," which has some "family groups" going bonkers. The Traditional Values Coalition released this statement:

“The so-called hate crimes bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, Christian counselors, religious broadcasters and anyone else whose actions are based upon and reflect the truths found in the Bible.”

Not surprisingly, their position is inaccurate and irrational. The bill does not restrict free speech. In fact, the ACLU's support for this bill was contingent upon a provision that is the strongest protection for free speech in the entire federal criminal code.

It'll be interesting to see how Republicans vote. Will they pander to extremists or vote to send the message that violent hate crimes have no place in our country?

Americans View the Rich With Rising Skepticism

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me."

That segue leads me to an article I read in the LA Times about Americans attitudes toward the wealthy. For decades they've been held up as examples of what we can achieve through hard work and determination, but recent events have people looking at them in a different light, and the belief that the wealthy are worthy is waning.

Thanks in part to AIG, BOA and men like Bernie Madoff, Americans are beginning to realize that the rich have added little value to our economy, and in the case of corporate executives, their huge salaries weren't even based on performance. They made millions even when they failed at their jobs.

And they made millions even when they didn't work. Dumb luck explains their wealth in many cases.

By my count, roughly one-quarter of the names on the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans got there by inheritance (and by no means have all of them enhanced the family fortune with their own toil or brainpower). A few years ago, it was common to think of the rich as a special breed. We may soon come around to George Orwell's view that the only difference between rich and poor is income -- "The average millionaire," as he put it, "is only the average dishwasher dressed in a new suit."

Except, the average millionaire can still afford health care, a roof over his head and the cost of a college education, while the rest of us struggle to keep our homes, fund retirement accounts, etc. Meanwhile, inequality is now at levels not seen since the Great Depression.

It's no surprise that a recent CNN poll shows that Americans are losing confidence in their ability to keep their current standard of living. People need jobs, good paying jobs, and that means we'll probably need a second stimulus plan, along with progressive tax increases on the wealthy.

But, but, higher taxes make it harder for the wealthy to invest and create jobs, right? Wrong.

It's proper to note that years of study have unearthed no consistent evidence that taxation causes the rich to alter their investing behavior much, at least not until their tax burden reaches a point vastly higher than what Obama contemplates.

"The real rich -- the top 1% -- work very hard for reasons other than money," Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, a tax historian at the University of Michigan, told me this week. The quest for prestige, political power and self-esteem, the ability to control things and people, are all factors in their behavior.

Actually, the original case for a progressive income tax was directed at the real wealthy. Our Founding Fathers sought to break up concentrations of wealth, inherited or otherwise, because they considered these to be undemocratic -- markers of "an aristocratic society, not a free and virtuous republic."

IMHO, it all boils down to two things. Morality: Taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor is a moral issue. And it's also a religious issue: If God provides abundantly it is only for the purpose of you in turn giving to those in need.

Fair Pay Act Passes Senate

Change is coming in the area of wage discrimination and it's long overdue. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed the Senate yesterday.

The Senate approved landmark worker rights legislation on Thursday that will make it easier for those who think they've endured pay discrimination to seek legal help. The vote was 61-36.

The House of Representatives approved a similar measure on January 9, three days after the 111th Congress convened. Because the Senate made modest changes in the House version, the House must pass it again. Once it does, as is assured, this will be one of the first bills that President Barack Obama signs into law.

Senators Levin and Stabenow voted yes, as did all the other female senators and Democrats (except for Kennedy and two vacant seats). Five Republicans supported the bill - Collins, Hutchison, Murkowski, Snowe, and Specter - and 35 Senate Republicans voted against it, including Alabama's two senators, Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions. Here's the roll call.

(When the House voted earlier this month, Michigan Republicans Ehlers, Hoekstra, Camp, McCotter, Miller, Rogers and Upton voted no.)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicts President Obama will sign the bill because "this administration stands for equality and fairness."

Those Republicans who voted against the bill aren't too concerned with fairness and equality.

"This bill is about effectively eliminating the statute of limitations on pay discrimination," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "Job creators have enough to worry about these days. We shouldn't add the threat of never-ending lawsuits."

Great. Not one ounce of concern for workers like Ledbetter who have been victims of discrimination. Mitch and other Republicans are clueless, or missing the point as Steve Benen puts it.

To hear opponents of the bill tell it, making it easier to challenge pay discrimination will lead to more lawsuits. That's almost certainly true. But therein lies the point -- if American workers are facing unjust wage discrimination, there should be more lawsuits. Those are worthwhile lawsuits, challenging an injustice. Ideally, employers would stop discriminating, as most already do, and in turn, there'd be fewer lawsuits.

Challenging injustice. Ending discrimination. That's the kind of change Americans want. Haven't Republicans been paying attention?


(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

Why do Republicans hate the poor?

Just when I think Republicans can't stoop any lower, I come across something like this from the National Low Income Housing Coalition that makes my blood run cold. [My emphasis]

WASHINGTON, DC - Responding to pressure from Ranking Member Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee appears to be on the verge of diverting funds designated for a housing trust fund for housing for the poorest Americans to pay for Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd’s (D-CT) new program to refinance homeowners facing foreclosure.

In his bill “The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008,” Chairman Dodd proposes to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure refinanced mortgages of homeowners who face foreclosure. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this new program creates a potential liability for the federal government of $1.7 billion.

Reports are that Senator Shelby will only agree to the new FHA program if it is paid for by non-taxpayer funds. Senator Dodd’s bill also creates a housing trust fund with resources from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to build or preserve rental housing for extremely low and very low income people. Senator Shelby wants those funds to be used to pay for the new FHA program instead.

“After the $30 billion taxpayer guaranteed bail out of Bear Sterns and the $25 billion Senate-passed taxpayer funded bail out for homebuilders, for Committee Republicans to insist that the taxpayers should not pay $1.7 billion to prevent homeowners from losing their homes, has to be called what it is - hypocrisy,” said Sheila Crowley, President of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

In a letter today to Chairman Dodd, the National Housing Trust Fund Campaign urged him to “identify other resources to pay for the new FHA program besides the only ones in this broad housing package that are dedicated to serving the poorest families in our country.”

I can think of two sources off the top of my head: They could roll back the tax cuts on the richest Americans or ask those billionaire fund managers to pay the same tax rates on wages the rest of us do.

The Republicans continued attacks against our most vulnerable citizens is cruel and immoral, and I honestly can't understand why they continue to do so much for the rich at the expense of those with the least. I'm dumbfounded by their mean-spiritedness.

h/t Dean Baker

Cross-posted here.

We've tried it their way, and it hasn't worked.

Cliff Schecter on the real John McCain:

"It is dangerous for a democracy when a presidential candidate can lie with impunity, change positions on a whim, and physically and verbally threaten others and virtually none of it is reported by a besotted media eagerly awaiting the next moment when he might slap their backs in friendship."

It's also dangerous for democracy that so many Americans support McCain, or any Republican for that matter. Jared Bernstein reminds us that the GOP had their chance and they blew it.

...anyone interested in a future that looks quite different from the present, and most Americans are leaning in precisely that direction, needs to remember but one mantra. It's one of the most important arguments progressives can make between now and November, and it's simple, compelling, and unarguably true: we've tried it their way, and it hasn't worked.

Whether it's the economy, the environment, foreign policy, fiscal policy, government competency, judicial fairness... you name it... we've tried it their way, and it hasn't worked.

They've particularly failed in what matters most to working families:

Employment grew one third as fast as the average over the 2000s business cycle and the unemployment rate, though low on average, was higher at the end of the cycle than at the beginning. Perhaps the most damning indictment is this: for the first time on record, going back to the mid-1940s, the income of the typical, middle-income family was slightly lower last year than at the prior peak in 2000 (see their figure A).

The reason, of course, is that the benefits of the economy's growth flowed largely to those at the top of the scale, an outcome long associated with YOYO'ism [your on your own'ism]. In the history of income inequality data going back to 1913, income is now more concentrated among the top 1% of households than in any other year, bar one: 1928.

So there you have it: the great, neo-con economic experiment is over and the results are in. Outside of the top 1%, there's less income growth than in any past business cycle. The key macro-indicators, such as employment, GDP growth, and investment have also faired uniquely poorly. The anti-government, deregulatory agenda has led to fatal incompetence, a massive housing bubble, ailing global credit markets, and near-recessionary growth for the US. The "ownership society" is a cruel joke: homeownership rates are falling for the first time in decades. [emphasis mine]

I disagree with Bernstein on only one point - "the great, neo-con experiment." It wasn't an experiment. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Fighting over crumbs

Here's something to ponder as you're filling up your gas tank or digging deep into your pocket to pay for groceries.



In case you're interested, the gentleman in the video has a blog:
The Hillbilly Report.

Jesus: The illegal immigrant

I read something Libby posted at the Impolitic yesterday that I can't get out of my head: What if Jesus is an illegal immigrant?

Mainstream Christianity pretty much teaches that Jesus will return in "glory" from a cloud or the sky with trumpets and singing, but Libby asks, "What if He shows up announced?" Or what if He comes back as a hated minority, as Jesus Manuel Cordova?

PHOENIX - A 9-year-old boy looking for help after his mother crashed their van in the southern Arizona desert was rescued by a man entering the U.S. illegally, who stayed with him until help arrived the next day, an official said. [...]

The van vaulted into a canyon and landed 300 feet from the road, he said. The woman, from Rimrock, north of Phoenix, survived the impact but was pinned inside, [Sheriff] Estrada said.

Her son, unhurt but disoriented, crawled out to get help and was found about two hours later by Jesus Manuel Cordova, 26, of Magdalena de Kino in the northern Mexican state of Sonora. Unable to pull the mother out, he comforted the boy while they waited for help.

The woman died a short time later.

"He stayed with him, told him that everything was going to be all right," Estrada said.

As temperatures dropped, he gave him a jacket, built a bonfire and stayed with him until about 8 a.m. Friday, when hunters passed by and called authorities, Estrada said. The boy was flown to University Medical Center in Tucson as a precaution but appeared unhurt. [...]

"For a 9-year-old it has to be completely traumatic, being out there alone with his mother dead," Estrada said. "Fortunately for the kid, (Cordova) was there. That was his angel."

Angel indeed. The boy's father died just two months ago and now he loses his mother. I can't begin to imagine the pain and fear he felt alone in the desert, and then along came Cordova to comfort him and stay with him until help arrived. I call that divine intervention.

I'll let Libby speak for me from this point on:

Think about that. Jesus was entering the US illegally and had to know he would be arrested. He could have just kept walking. Or he could have built a fire and walked away. He could have fled at any time to avoid facing the authorities but he stayed to comfort and protect a child until help came. Which is more than we can say for the hunters who were presumably legal residents.

For his humanitarian efforts, he's now in jail awaiting deportation. What a sad commentary on the politics of hate that has so poisoned America, that we would penalize another human being for such a selfless act of kindness. Surely in this case, an exception to the rules could and should be made.

Amen. We could use more role models like Cordova in this country. He put the needs of that small boy ahead of his own. Imagine that.

It's time to redefine compassion

I have to give credit where credit's due. The person responsible for "compassionate conservatism" was a marketing genius. He/she managed to paint Republicans as people who really care about the needs and concerns of average Americans. The public knows otherwise now and sees the hypocrisy behind the words, but I wonder if the person responsible for that term ever felt any remorse?

Moving along, Mother Jones has a rather lengthy list of the ways all that compassion dings the poor and middle class. You can read the whole thing for yourself, but here's a sample.

1 in 4 U.S. jobs pay less than a poverty-level income.

During the 1980s, 13% of Americans age 40 to 50 spent at least one year below the poverty line; by the 1990s, 36% did.

Bush’s tax cuts (extended until 2010) save those earning between $20,000 and $30,000 an average of $10 a year, while those earning $1 million are saved $42,700.

Bush has proposed cutting housing programs for low-income people with disabilities by 50%.

83% of those earning $75,000 or more work for companies that offer insurance, versus 24% of those who earn less than $25,000.

2 in 5 elderly live on less than $18,000 a year, including Social Security benefits.

Since 1983, college tuition has risen 115%. The maximum Pell Grant for low- and moderate-income college students has risen only 19%.

Credit card late fees are 194% higher than in 1994.

And the item I found absolutely horrifying was this one:

Last fall, Minnesota firefighters let an elderly man’s mobile home burn down because he hadn’t paid a $25 “fire fee.”

Why is that allowed to happen in a country as rich as ours? Is that how a "compassionate" country treats their elderly?

Reading through that list again, I find myself shaking my head and asking is that how a "compassionate" country treats their poor, their uninsured, their students, and the people who work hard to provide for their families?

It's time for the Democrats to step up and redefine "compassion." The Republicans have corrupted and twisted the term to exclude the majority of us. They don't even respect our troops serving our country, as witnessed by their unwillingness to give them more time at home with their families between tours of duty. In fact, they don't even respect our troops after they serve. The Bush administration said it will resist restoring full educational benefits for returning veterans.

Some compassion, eh? You have to be a corporate crony if you expect to get any compassion from the Bush bunch.

Bishop yields to the First Amendment

In an about face, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop capitulated today and agreed to restore full access to Blogging for Michigan. (See previous post.) He released the following statement:

"I stand by the position that Senate employees should be not be using taxpayer equipment to view political blogs pursuant to Senate Rule 1.401(c). These blogs are of questionable content and employees who are paid to conduct the business of the people of Michigan should not be interacting with them during business hours.

"Senate Democrats seem intent on making this a debate on censorship and their right to view questionable political content during business hours. Senate Republicans believe this a discussion of the proper use of taxpayer resources and appropriate conduct during business hours and establishing strict guidelines on employee use of the Internet and websites.

"Access to the site in question has been restored. Given the evolving nature of the Internet in politics and the emergence of blogging in political commentary, I am directing the Secretary of the Senate to perform a full review of the Senate's current policies concerning employees' use of the Internet."

Senate Democrats were right to make this a debate on censorship. Bishop didn't block access to blogs on all sides of the aisle. He only blocked access to one, Blogging for Michigan, a liberal site that holds his feet to the fire and keeps him accountable. It also bears noting that Democrats weren't the only ones crying foul, Nick De Leeuw who runs the blog Right Michigan also said blocking the liberal website was censorship.

Our constitutional rights are too sacred to be taken lightly, Sen. Bishop. Next time you have an issue with a partisan site, stop, step back, and ask yourself how you'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot and Democrats were blocking a conservative blog.

Sen. Levin: Bush was wrong...

When President Bush commuted the sentence of Fibby Libby, I was incensed and dashed a letter off to Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) and Sen. Carl Levin (D) expressing my anger. I haven't heard from Stabenow, but I received the following email response from Sen. Levin today [emphasis mine]:

Dear Mrs. xxxxx:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the prison sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney. I am disappointed that President Bush undermined the application of justice by commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence.

As you know, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in charge of investigating the leak of the identity of an undercover Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee, filed court papers on April 5, 2006, that indicate that President Bush directed Scooter Libby to leak classified intelligence to a newspaper reporter to defend statements made by President Bush prior to the war in Iraq. Mr. Libby was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation into the leak of the CIA employee’s identity. These charges focused on Mr. Libby’s intentionally misleading statements to federal investigators and a grand jury. On March 6, 2007, a federal jury convicted him on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, as well as one count of making false statements to federal investigators. He was subsequently fined $250,000 and sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. After a brief appeals process reaffirming the jail sentence, on July 2, 2007, President Bush announced his decision to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence.

The power of the pardon is derived from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.” The Supreme Court has widely interpreted this language to give the President power to pardon or commute the sentence of any convicted felon for any reason. Critics of this power argue that pardons are sometimes used for political purposes, rather than to correct judicial error as originally intended by the framers of the Constitution. Although President Bush’s pardon was within his Constitutional authority, I believe it was wrong to block the punishment ordered by a federal judge and jury by commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin

Thank you for responding in such a timely manner, Senator. Your disapproval of Bush's pardon mirrors that of 66% of Americans who also said Bush should not have intervened on Libby's behalf.

Priorities

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. was hospitalized Monday after suffering a seizure. He underwent a thorough neurological evaluation and is expected to make a full recovery. Roberts' medical workup probably included “a good M.R.I., CAT scan and EEG.” How fortunate that Roberts has federal health insurance to cover his hospitalization, tests and ongoing care.

We should all be so lucky. The U.S. is the richest country in the world, so there's no reason we shouldn't all have health care, living wages, secure retirements, etc. It all boils down to "Priorities" according to WorkingLife TV's inaugural film, a documentary filmed during the first few days of John Edwards' Road to One America poverty tour.

Law & Order for the Rich

State Republicans are concerned that releasing prisoners early is a risk to the public. I wonder if they'll have anything to say about this news from the WaPo:

Paris Hilton was released from a Los Angeles County jail early Thursday because of an unspecified medical problem and will fulfill the remainder of her sentence in home confinement, a sheriff's spokesman said.

Due to confidentiality laws, Hilton's medical condition couldn't be divulged (how convenient), but unless she's terminal, I don't see why that should have prevented her from serving the entire 23 day sentence. Sick people go to jail all the time.

In fact, did you catch Larry King's interview of Jack Kevorkian the other night? Dr. Death described what conditions were like in prison for someone like him who suffers from diabetes, heart disease and hepatitis C.

KING: [..] We're in suburban Detroit, Michigan with Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who has been out of prison now for about 72 hours.

What was that like?

KEVORKIAN: Prison?

KING: Yes.

KEVORKIAN: Well, where I was -- the last one I was at didn't seem like a prison. It seemed more like a geriatric ward. There were sick, crippled people all over. There were wheelchairs and canes everywhere. And there were no bars and the doors were freely open and accessible to anybody.

I sense a double-standard. If an old, poor man assists someone in committing suicide, the system says he must do the time regardless of his health. However, if a pretty, young heiress gets charged with reckless driving and operating a vehicle without a license, the system says she can get out of jail because of her health.

By the way, Kervorkian served 8 of his 10-25 year sentence. Compare that to this WaPo description of Hilton's time served:

According to the sheriff's department's generous math, Hilton has served five days in jail (checking in late Sunday and out early Thursday), and will now have to remain in home confinement for another 40 days.

Geesh.

Injustice Index

Check out the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy 2006 Injustice Index. As they describe last year, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

Here's a sample from their list:

Wages that an average CEO earns before lunchtime: more than a full-time minimum wage worker makes in a year

Ratio of the average U.S. CEO’s annual pay to a minimum wage worker’s: 821:1

Years of unused vacation time that American workers collectively give back to their employers each year: 1.6 million

Percentage of women earning less than $40,000 per year who receive no paid vacation time at all: 37

Number of times that Congress has reduced the estate tax since it last raised the federal minimum wage: 9

Amount in tax breaks and subsidies that last year’s energy bill paid out to the gas and oil industry during a period of record profits and higher prices at the pump: $6 billion

Total Wal-Mart received in government subsidies, sometimes called “corporate welfare” by activists, in 2005: $3.75 billion

Ratio of compensation of CEOs of publicly traded defense companies to privates before September 11th, 2001: 190 to 1

Ratio in 2006: 308 to 1

Percentage increase in out-of-pocket medical expenses for the average American in the past 5 years: 93

Estimated amount the U.S. would save each year on paperwork if it adopted single-payer health care: $161,000,000,000

This kind of economic injustice typifies the Bush administration. They've catered to corporations and the rich, while leaving families at the middle and lower rungs behind.

King's Message on Economic Inequality

Martin Luther King is most often associated with racial equality and non-violence; however, King was also very outspoken about economic inequality and poverty. John Nichols points us to a message King delivered to a bible camp in Wisconsin in 1956, where he asked his audience to ponder what the Apostle Paul would say to them.

"I understand that you have an economic system in America known as Capitalism," said King, as he read an imaginary letter from the apostle. "Through this economic system you have been able to do wonders. You have become the richest nation in the world, and you have built up the greatest system of production that history has ever known. All of this is marvelous. But Americans, there is the danger that you will misuse your Capitalism. I still contend that money can be the root of all evil. It can cause one to live a life of gross materialism. I am afraid that many among you are more concerned about making a living than making a life. You are prone to judge the success of your profession by the index of your salary and the size of the wheel base on your automobile, rather than the quality of your service to humanity."

"The misuse of Capitalism can also lead to tragic exploitation," the letter continued. "This has so often happened in your nation. They tell me that one tenth of one percent of the population controls more than forty percent of the wealth. Oh America, how often have you taken necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes. If you are to be a truly Christian nation you must solve this problem. You cannot solve the problem by turning to communism, for communism is based on an ethical relativism and a metaphysical materialism that no Christian can accept. You can work within the framework of democracy to bring about a better distribution of wealth. You can use your powerful economic resources to wipe poverty from the face of the earth. God never intended for one group of people to live in superfluous inordinate wealth, while others live in abject deadening poverty. God intends for all of his children to have the basic necessities of life, and he has left in this universe "enough and to spare" for that purpose. So I call upon you to bridge the gulf between abject poverty and superfluous wealth."

In the words of John Nichols, "Today, as we mark the 77th anniversary of King's birth in an era when some Christians still attempt to use their Bible as a justification for discrimination and hatred, it is more important than ever to remember the message of an apostle that was delivered fifty years ago."