THE PLANK MARCH 20, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Brad and Marc Ambinder say that George Stephanopoulos
has a big scoop: Democrats have chosen to put health care but not cap
and trade through the "reconciliation" process, which probably means
that health care will pass but cap and trade won't. But I'm not sure
Stephanopoulos actually has the goods here. Here's Stephanopoulos's
item:
When the White House released its budget, I said the president's effort to reform health care and cap carbon emissions were "scorpions in a bottle" -- only one could make it through Congress this year. This week, the White House and House Democrats made their choice: health care is the survivor.As the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post
have reported, House Democrats (backed by the White House) plan to
write a budget resolution that allows health care to be passed by a
simple majority (through the so-called "reconciliation" process) if a
bipartisan compromise isn't reached by September.Cap and trade will not get the same budget protection, and there are nowhere near 60 votes for it.
Note
that he's only reporting on what the House is doing. Nowhere here does
he say that the Senate has decided to to this. And of course the Senate
is key. So I'm not sure this is a done deal.
Meanwhile, the National Right to Work Committee, a right-wing anti-labor group, emails what does seem to be a real scoop:
As early as next Tuesday, corporate executives with the bulk retailer Costco,
the grocery store chain Whole Foods, Inc. and the coffee giant Starbucks appear
ready to endorse a so-called "compromise version" of Big Labor's top legislative
priority, the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill (H.R. 1409, S. 560)."These huge companies are apparently willing to sell out hundreds of thousands
of small ones under the guise of making some phony and misguided compromise with
Big Labor," said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work
Committee. "We believe we have this draconian bill defeated
outright, so these actions may well lead to the bill's passage."
Take away the NRTWC's
loaded terms and outrage, this seems like important news. Companies
that have humane labor policies have every reason to support broader
unionization. And if there's a compromise bill to make it harder for
employers to stymie union drives -- the details of which NRTWC doesn't
explicate -- that's big news, too.
By the way, I love the subhead on the email:
Companies appear ready to betray own employees,
customers, stockholders, and fellow employers
I
get the point about "employees" and "customers" losing when unions come
in -- the NRWTC claims that prices will rise and employees will lose
their jobs. But stockholders? Fellow employers? I know that right-wing
business groups believe that unions will bring higher wages, coming at
the expense of profits and the ability of fellow businesses to keep
wages and benefits low. But they're not supposed to say that. They're just supposed to focus on the poor, poor workers and customers who they really care about.
--Jonathan Chait
4 comments
Sounds like appropriate prioritization to me in terms of the first "scoop". Here's hoping it's is true.
On Card Check, I'm not in favor of workers being intimidated by either employers or labor unions. What's wrong with the secret ballot, after all? It's seen universally as a basic marker for free and fair elections.
- Robert Powell
March 21, 2009 at 7:50am
So, does this session not fit with go for broke strategy where Obama will demand the hill take one shot at his budget and all he needs is 50 +1 votes? The above may be viewed as the administration negotiating with itself and preparing to turn a deaf ear to 535 voices when the debating begins. I see it as nailing down versions of policies they won't dally with because they realize each opportunity to let a voice on the hill gripe is hundreds of feet on a slippery slope.
I'm all for it as the opposition won't be less organized as time passes (and Rush or Steele don't get a vote). Of course going for broke does pose the risk of not prevailing but I'd still not bet against Barack.
And getting his way will mean more people will be pissed. He better get that dog, fast.
- michael
March 21, 2009 at 12:07pm
<i>Companies that have humane labor policies have every reason to support broader unionization</i>
You know, this is kind of a poor argument, which is surprising for Chait. You can be a liberal in good standing who strongly supports humane labor policies and yet also be concerned that card check will force a trade-off between jobs and wages (not a great idea in a sour economy), that it will disproportionately affect small business and that there's something on its face kind of undemocratic about removing the secret ballot and letting union bosses officiate.
- aazlant
March 21, 2009 at 11:32pm
Aaz, I think the point Chait is making is that companies that have humane labor practices have an incentive in further unionization: it helps force their competitors to be have humane practices of their own, rather than uncercut them in the marketplace based by skimping on labor costs. He's not saying they'd support further unionization because it's nice for their good liberal hearts, but because it's beneficial to their cold, hard bottom lines.
- Crock1701
March 22, 2009 at 4:09pm