Pacific Progressive

Reality Television Writers and the Future of Labor Organizing

by: Mike Ludwig, t r u t h o u t | Report

They write and produce popular reality television shows "American Eats" and "Cash Cab." They are freelancers working unpaid overtime and paying for healthcare out of pocket while the big media bosses rake in the profits. They are fed up and getting organized.

The Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE) announced on Wednesday that hundreds of writers and producers of nonfiction basic cable shows are now campaigning for union representations at several television studios in New York City.

The WGAE, a union for entertainment workers, is forging new territory in labor organizing by developing new models of representation for this youthful set of urban creative workers.

The campaign has already gained momentum. In late 2010, writers and producers working for Atlas Media and ITV Studios voted to become the first reality television workers represented by the WGAE. ITV has appealed the union victory, but WGAE organizers expect the elections will soon establish collective bargaining agreements for about 150 workers at the two studios.

WGAE spokesperson Elana Levin told Truthout that the writers' interest in organizing is good news for a labor movement that is struggling to find a future in an America with fewer industrial jobs than in the past. Urban creative professionals represent new and important demographics for the labor movement, and many are learning about the benefits of being organized for the first time.

Think Again: Call it 'Craven News Network'

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Eric Alterman 

It’s no simple matter to sum up all that’s wrong with the “thinking” that characterizes contemporary news coverage. But if I had to pick a potent symbol of just how rudderless are the allegedly “responsible” media executives making the decisions about who and what constitute “news” these days, I’d have to go with CNN’s decision to carry Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address.

Remember, Rep. Bachmann is just a mere member of the House of Representatives. She was actually rebuked by her own party when she ran for a leadership position in the current congressional class. She has no standing whatsoever to represent anything other than a majority of her Minnesota district to the rest of the nation. And yet CNN decides to treat her rant as an alternative State of the Union because the Tea Party—representing fewer than a fifth of the nation’s views according to most polls—anointed her as its spokesperson. To get a liberal equivalent of Rep. Bachmann, CNN would have had to turn over their cameras right afterward to Ward Churchill.

How do they justify it?

Health Reform at Work Today and Tomorrow: Improvements That Began Last Year Will Continue

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Karen Davenport

2010 was a momentous year for the American health care system. In March, Congress passed—and President Barack Obama signed—landmark legislation that reforms the health insurance market, provides all Americans with affordable access to health coverage, and reduces the growth of health care costs.

The Department of Health and Human Services and other parts of the executive branch have begun to implement the new law in the subsequent 10 months. The Affordable Care Act, or ACA, includes many benefits for Americans who have health insurance today and those who have struggled to find and maintain health coverage. Many of these benefits came on-line in 2010.

Signature achievements include:

• Establishing pre-existing condition insurance plans in every state so that individuals with health problems who cannot find coverage in the regular market have a reliable source of coverage
• Requiring employer-sponsored health plans to offer coverage to the young-adult children of policyholders
• Helping employers with unpredictable health care spending for retired workers
• Providing more than 1 million rebate checks to Medicare enrollees who incurred high out-of-pocket prescription drug spending in 2010
• Prohibiting health insurance plans from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions
• Protecting individuals with high health care costs from the financial risk of absurdly low annual and lifetime limits on their benefits
• Prohibiting health insurance plans from rescinding coverage when a policyholder gets sick

'The Inquisition of Climate Science' - An Interview with Author James Powell About the New Book

This article was first published by Science Progress.

By Sean Pool 

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Right click to download

In The Inquisition of Climate Science, former Reed College president and National Science Board member James Powell elucidates the landscape of climate denial; diagrams, analyzes, and debunks the most frequently used denier arguments; and advances a progressive vision for what science communication could become in the 21st century. Prepublication reviewers summed up the book: “A devastating, crushing blow against the deniers. I would not want to meet Powell in a dark alley.”

At once a quick read and an informational reference guide, The Inquisition of Climate Science is a must for climate science advocates as well as casual readers. Powell’s meticulous research makes the book a useful all-in-one guide to the science, politics, messages, and media coverage of climate change. At the same time, his engaging narrative style grabs the reader and makes the pages seem to fly by.

From the very first chapter, The Inquisition makes crystal clear the distinction between science and pseudoscience, and arms the reader with the tools to dispel common misconceptions. Powell opens the book with accounts of two dichotomous climate change conferences that exemplify the difference between legitimate, fact-based debate, and political demagoguery. The first, held by the American Geophysical Union, consisted of presentations by scientists about new data and findings about climate change.

New Mexico Governor Violating Constitution for Polluters

by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Report

A coal power plant in New Mexico. The state's newly elected governor's financial ties to oil and gas producers has attempted to subvert her own State Constitution to prevent a plan that reduces carbon emissions from taking effect. (Photo:glennia)

In an effort to tackle the climate change crisis, on December 6, 2010, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) adopted New Energy Economy's (NEE) rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3 percent per year from 2010 levels, with a goal to reduce emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

According to NEE, this rule enables effective and efficient carbon pollution reduction that will foster both clean energy job creation and prosperity for New Mexico's families and communities. By taking the lead on this critical issue, New Mexico and NEE have created a practical, transportable model for the rest of the country to follow.

The problem is, New Mexico's newly elected conservative governor, Republican Susana Martinez - who has financial ties to oil and gas producers and individuals - has attempted to subvert her own state constitution in order to stop this plan to begin reducing her state's carbon emissions.

Extreme Abortion Coverage Ban Introduced: Rep. Smith's Bil Goes Too Far

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Jessica Arons 

Download this memo (pdf)

No one should be fooled by the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, or H.R. 3, which was introduced today in the House of Representatives. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), the main sponsor, claims that his bill would “only” codify, or make permanent, the Hyde Amendment, which is the annual appropriations rider that restricts Medicaid funding for abortion. But it would do much more than that. Rep. Smith’s bill would go far beyond current law, seriously compromise women’s access to reproductive health care, and hamstring government operations.

A hard look at the bill, as it was introduced in August, shows that it would:

• Impose a permanent, blanket prohibition on any and all federal spending for abortion care. Under current law only specific programs have abortion funding restrictions, and those must be reauthorized every year.
• Enact the rejected Stupak Amendment by denying federal credits or subsidies to private health insurance plans that cover abortion even when the cost of abortion coverage is paid for entirely with private funds. This would have the effect of banning abortion coverage in the new health insurance exchanges that will be established by 2014 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act allows insurers to offer abortion coverage and accept federal offsets for premiums if enrollees make a separate premium payment for the cost of abortion coverage from private funds and if insurers keep those funds separate from federal premium payments and credits.
• Impose tax penalties on those who pay for abortion care or coverage by:
  • Denying tax credits to employers or other entities that pay for health plans that cover abortion
  • Denying tax credits to individuals or entities that pay for abortion care
  • Disallowing medical deductions for payments for any health plan that includes abortion coverage or for any medical expenses related to abortion care
  • Treating as income any amounts paid for an abortion from a tax-preferred trust or account, such as a health savings account

Dollars for Docs Sparks Policy Rewrite at Colorado Teaching Hospitals

by Tracy Weber and Charles Ornstein ProPublica

The University of Colorado Denver and its affiliated teaching hospitals have launched an overhaul of conflict of interest policies after a ProPublica database revealed extensive ties between its faculty and pharmaceutical companies.

At a meeting of the faculty senate last week, Dr. Richard Krugman, vice chancellor for health affairs, said he hoped members would soon consider a policy to clearly ban facultyfrom delivering talks for drug companies.

Without such a clear rule, he said, the school faces a loss of public trust, damage to its reputation and the specter of it physicians parroting industry-designed materials.

"While we value and want to increase our relationships with industry around [drug] discovery … we're going to just have to say we're not going to be involved with these speakers bureaus because they're primarily marketing," Krugman said in an interview Wednesday.

The meeting followed a ProPublica story last month that detailed how physicians at leading universities and academic medical centers, including UC Denver, were taking drug company money in apparent violation of their institutions' rules. Other universities have indicated they plan similar reviews and crackdowns on faculty who are violating their policies.

Big Oil Sings the Same Song: Industry Pushes Expanded Offshore Drilling Without New Safeguards

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Daniel J. Weiss

“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”
(The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

— Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, 1849

Monsieur Karr’s 160-year-old epigram neatly captures the state of the American oil industry in 2011. Big Oil continues to lust after huge profits at the expense of the health and welfare of the American people. This reckless money chase occurs even though the production, combustion, and reliance on oil pollutes the water and air, and forces the United States to rely on oil from some unfriendly regimes.

Case in point: The leader of the American Petroleum Institute rashly advocated a speedy return to expanded offshore oil drilling last week even though the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (also known as the commission) will today issue its recommendations for additional safeguards for future offshore oil production.

Oil prices are steadily climbing toward $100 per barrel and Big Oil’s congressional allies are poised to use this price spike to reanimate the “drill, baby, drill” war cry to justify expanded drilling off our nation’s coasts without implementing safety measures to reduce prospects for another oil disaster. This rush to drill first, reform later ignores projections that American oil production will increase nearly twice as fast as oil demand over the next 10 years. There is time to make sure future drilling is safer than pre-BP.

Some States Have Options to Help Consumers Find Individual Health Coverage

This article was published by Kaiser Health News.

By Michelle Andrews

Q. Are there other health insurance options besides high-risk pools for people who can't get coverage in the individual market because of a preexisting condition?

--Tom McCracken, Oak Hill, Va.

A. Under the current health insurance system, people who have to buy coverage on their own rather than through an employer often find themselves in a tough spot. Insurers often charge high rates for individual coverage if people have even minor health problems, or they refuse to cover them at all.

Starting in 2014, under the health-care overhaul passed last year, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage because of preexisting health conditions, nor charge higher rates. (Implementation of the new health law is going forward despite court and congressional challenges.) State-based health insurance exchanges will provide "marketplaces" where individuals and small businesses with up to 100 employees can shop for coverage.

More From This Series Insuring Your Health

Will Our Economy Ever Recover From the "Greatest Recovery?" Part II

by: Mark Provost, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

In a Jauary 2009 ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos, then President-elect Barack Obama said fixing the economy required shared sacrifice: "Everybody's going to have to give. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game." [1]

For the past two years, American workers submitted to the president's appeal - taking steep paycuts despite hectic productivity growth. By contrast, corporate executives have extracted record profits by sabotaging the recovery on every front - eliminating employees, repressing wages, withholding investment and shirking federal taxes.

The global recession increased unemployment in every country, but the American experience is unparalleled. According to a July Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, the US accounted for half of all job losses among the 31 richest countries from 2007 to mid-2010.[2] The rise of US unemployment greatly exceeded the fall in economic output. Aside from Canada, US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) actually declined less than any other rich country from mid-2008 to mid-2010.[3]

Washington's embrace of labor market flexibility ensured companies encountered little resistance when they launched their brutal recovery plans. Leading into the recession, the US had the weakest worker protections against individual and collective dismissals in the world, according to a 2008 OECD study.[4] Blackrock's Robert Doll explains, "When the markets faltered in 2008 and revenue growth stalled, US companies moved decisively to cut costs - unlike their European and Japanese counterparts." [5] The US now has the highest unemployment rate among the ten major developed countries.[6]

Obama's Administration's Balancing Act: Health Insurance Benefits Vs. Costs

This article was published by Kaiser Health News.

By Julie Appleby

KHN Staff Writer

Even as House Republicans press to repeal the health care law, government advisers this week are preparing to wade into one of the most contentious questions raised by the legislation: What benefits must insurers cover?

The answer will affect tens of millions of Americans beginning in 2014: those who buy their own insurance and those who get coverage through small employers.

While the law outlines 10 broad categories of coverage -- among them hospital and emergency services, prescription drugs, childbirth and pediatric care – it leaves the specifics to the government.

The Obama administration faces a tough balancing act: the benefits package must be broad enough to be comprehensive but not too broad as to be unaffordable. Patient advocates and industry lobbyists already are drawing up wish lists for items they want covered – including autism therapy, obesity treatments, infertility treatments and unlimited chemotherapy visits.

"This is an invitation for all kinds of lobbying from every conceivable disease group and provider group in the country," says Joe Antos, economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Which Senator Secretly Sabotaged the Popular Whistleblower Protection Bill?<

by Marian Wang ProPublica

After the lame duck session of Congress ended a few days before Christmas, watchdog groups were disappointed to learn that a bill expanding protections for government whistleblowers died in the Senate.The bill was a product of a 12-year lobbying effort [1] and had bipartisan support. An earlier form of it had passed the Senate unanimously, and it passed in the House after undergoing some changes. When the bill went back to the Senate for a final vote, a lone senator [2] put an anonymous hold on the bill, effectively killing it. Tom Devine of the Government Accountability Project explains how the manuever worked [2]:

A hold is like a passive filibuster of one. It can be removed only through the same process to defeat a filibuster: 60 votes along with days of procedural hurdles that paralyze all Senate business. While theoretically the secret senator must come out after six days, that rule is no help at session's end.

Now, WNYC’s On the Media—together with the Government Accountability Project—is trying to find out who killed the bill, and they’re calling on folks to contact their Senators to ask [3].

The killed bill had already had some protections removed, after some House Republicans—among them, Rep. Darrell Issa, who’d previously supported the bill—had raised concerns [4]that the bill would help WikiLeaks and enable disclosures of classified information.

A "Pledge of Resistance" to Defend Social Security (and Defund the Empire)

by: Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

For the third time in the last 20 years, establishment voices with high-profile slots in traditional media are trying to convince the public to accept cuts to Social Security by endlessly claiming such cuts are necessary, without giving coherent evidence to justify the claim. Twice, under former presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, these voices were defeated - but they didn't give up. And now they are in striking distance of their goal: the fact that Republicans have taken over the House, combined with the fact that the president appointed a deficit reduction commission which nearly recommended a cut in Social Security benefits - and might well have done so if Representative Schakowsky hadn't worked to undermine the co-chairs' plan - means that one can't be complacent; some reports have suggested that the president may indicate support for cuts to Social Security in his State of the Union speech. Of the two principal Washington political actors who will shape the outcome - the Republican leadership and the president's team - one is a determined adversary of the public interest, the other a very uncertain ally. The most successful anti-poverty program in US history is again in grave danger.

Moving Beyond Start, Stop, Restart with China's Military

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Rudy deLeon, Winny Chen 

At a time of almost constant strategic and economic dialogue between the United States and China, the relationship between the two countries’ respective militaries has been marked by a bumpy trajectory of start–stop–restart. As President Obama welcomes China’s President Hu Jintao to a White House summit today, the United States has a unique opportunity to advance a central but lagging component of the relationship: military-to-military relations.

During the 2009 presidential summit in Beijing, Presidents Hu and Obama committed to advancing strategic trust through an increased frequency of military-to-military exchange. The new level of exchange was intended to enhance practical cooperation and foster greater understanding of each other’s intentions within an increasingly complex global security environment. Events and reactions since the first summit have sorely tested this commitment.

Following the announcement of a U.S. arms package sale to Taiwan in January last year, China angrily cut off military exchange. Over the summer, a series of confrontations arose over the South and East China Seas, followed by tense disagreement over how to respond to North Korea’s attacks on South Korea’s Cheonan warship and Yeongpyeong island. Senior U.S. and Chinese military officials are now talking again, but there should be no illusion about the difficulty of this engagement.

Conservatives Need to Understand that Attacking Public Servants Isn't the Answer

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Christian E. Weller 

Public servants are under attack. Regular and repeated verbal assaults by conservative critics of public employees sadly have unnecessarily soured public discourse on the role of public service. The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and the six other victims who died in Tucson, AZ, makes it imperative that we change the tone of public discourse regarding public employees. Conservative rhetoric contributes to an environment in which public employees become the target of anger against public employees with baseless claims about the benefits of public employment, wages, and benefits. This only serves to divert attention from the real culprits for the Great Recession—previous conservative lawmakers and greedy speculators on Wall Street—while conservatives push through unjustified policy measures that would heap even more tax breaks on those who already do well at the expense of average Americans, including their public servants.

One popular conservative talking point is that the Recovery Act of 2009 served only to prop up public employment. Really? Public-sector employment actually fell as our economy began to recover from the economic and financial follies of the Bush administration, particularly in counties, cities, and towns, where almost two-thirds of public employees work. The largest share of local government employees, 55.5 percent to be exact, work in education, mainly as teachers. The rest are firefighters, police officers, nurses, bus drivers, and engineers, among others. Local government employment dropped by 2.4 percent during the recovery, from June 2009 to December 2010.