DC Wonks Undermine the Anti-WalMart Movement
When Wal-Mart's trucks break down, no one expects the government to pay to repair them. Wal-Mart pays to fix them and the costs are included in the price of the goods they sell.
Yet moderate Democrats apparently think that when workers get sick, companies don't have the responsibility to "repair" their workers. The new talking points from think tank Washington -- echoing what Ezra says -- is that it's not Wal-Mart's responsibility to take care of sick workers:
The controversy over Wal-Mart's benefits may mask what some experts see as an unraveling of the employer-based system of health coverage. "These are indications of the gaps in the health care system that are exposed by Wal-Mart," said Len Nichols, a health economist at the New America Foundation, an independent public policy group in Washington. "You can't blame Wal-Mart."So it's nice to know that when we on the labor left mobilizing against Wal-Mart feel the knife in our back, we know who put it there.
But what's odd is that the coterie of "free trade" Democrats usually tell workers that free trade is an imperative, because you MUST allow the marketplace to set the price of products, workers jobs be damned (not theirs of course), But when it comes to including the market costs of health care for workers within the goods sold by corporate America, that's the point where the DC free trade crowd suddenly become socialists, all for artificially lowering the costs of goods to benefit corporate profits.
So why not have taxpayers subsidize machine repair for corporations?
Or let corporations pollute the environment at will and leave it to the taxpayers to clean up the toxic spills?
Why do corporations get a free pass in responsibility for health care costs, but not the other social costs like pollution -- "externalities" in wonk speak -- that business inflicts on society?
Now, there is a pragmatic argument to relieve companies of that responsibility for health care costs to gain an advantage in global trade, but that's just a variant on a whole range of trade subsidies that I thought the free trade crowd was against?
On basic economics, this new talking point from the DC wonks is nonsensical and a bit hypocritical from folks who seem to be heartless about manufacturing workers losing their jobs to "free trade", but awfully compassionate about the burdens on corporate profits from health care costs due to that same international competition.
In the abstract, I'd love to have single-payer health care, as well as fair trade, and worker-owned companies for that matter. But at the moment, with a GOP filibuster sitting there to block the creation of single-payer health plan, this DC wonk strategy of attacking the employer-based health care system is ridiculous, especially the talking point that Wal-Mart is not a bad actor just because they provide less health care to their employees than other large employers.
Strategically, the moderate DC wonks are rhetorically screwing over the labor unions and other groups that have spent the last few years attacking Wal-Mart to force the company to provide better health care. Some of that pressure led to Wal-Mart increasing its health care coverage and other benefits as it feels the pressure from union organizing drives.
And on the legislative front, right now the broadest and currently most successful campaign for expanding health care for Americans is based on strengthening the employer-based health care system by requiring employers not providing health care for their employees to do so. New York City, and Suffolk County just passed laws requriing large retailers like Wal-Mart to provide health care to their employees-- and Maryland passed a similar law through their legislature, only to see their GOP governor veto it.
And what was the rhetorical strategy used to get those laws passed? Arguing that companies have a responsibility to provide health care for their employees. See this flyer from the New York City Health Care Security Act::
This New York City law would help responsible businesses to continue offering health care and expand access to health care for tens of thousands of working New Yorkers.This is the message progressives are trying to deliver.
The new law would level the playing field for businesses. Many responsible business owners are being hurt by unfair competition from owners who recklessly cut health benefits to lower their costs.
Irresponsible employers who refuse to provide health care -- despite the fact that their competitors are doing so -- are shifting to taxpayers the cost of caring for their workers.
Responsible business owners support this bill because it helps them continue providing health care for their employees without worrying about being hurt by competitors that cut employee benefits in order to lower costs.
Obviously, groups like the New America Foundation have the free speech right to say anything they want, but when groups like that deliberately promote rhetoric that undermines current progressive organizing efforts, it's clear that they can't be trusted as allies by grassroots organizations.
Here's the difference between conservative and a lot of DC liberal intellectuals. Conservatives are actually disciplined in using the privileges they have in think tanks to support the conservative movement out in the field. But much of the DC liberal policy wonk crowd-- whether supporting free trade or the new talking point that Wal-Mart has no responsibility to provide health care -- seem to not give a damn if they are writing Wal-Mart's campaign ads.
Believe me, Wal-Mart will happily quote the New America Foundation to bloster their case on why New York City or various state governments shouldn't be forcing them to provide health care to their employees. And they will turn around and lobby against any universal health plan that the DC crowd promotes.
The only way Wal-Mart won't lobby against a broader health plan is if the company has already been forced to provide health care for their employees. New York City and Suffolk County have already done so in their jurisdictions and the more states follow suit, the less the Wal-Marts of the world will fight more universal health care solutions.
But with Wal-Mart employees showing up at emergency rooms with sick children whose parents had been unable to afford care until their medical problems became critical, it's just an obscenity to excuse Wal-Mart, one of the richest corporations on earth, for its failure to provide health care to its employees.
DC free trade crowd suddenly become socialists, all for artificially lowering the costs of goods to benefit corporate profits.
This is a bogus argument. Most "free-traders" are not for Darwinian capitalism where there are no public police departments, no public transportation and no national highway systems. It just depends on whether you think health care is a commodity to be offered as a perk of employment or whether you think of it as a basic building block of modern civilization.
Nothing will happen on the development of single payer unless a significant number of corporations are screaming bloody murder on health care costs. Same as in 1991. (Look at how the GOP is suddenly attacking the oil companies to invest profits! Wonder why that is! Could it be that that other corporations are screaming about energy costs and they see the writing on the wall?)
Noting this does not even mean one is removing Wal-Mart from one of a targeted axis of corporate evil. (Though I noted that earlier this year that the not-DLC-enough- for-Clinton Robert Reich thought some reframing was appropriate even on that.)
Sometimes from your posts I wonder if you understand the nature of democracy, of how one needs to build coalitions to get anything done. Attacking the DLC on making what you see as naughty nuance on this issue is simply: not smart. I see no evidence that they are in love with Wal-Mart. You are in effect alienating a natural ally.
If you want to advance the cause of universal health care, this argument of yours is not the way to go. It appears to me to be the "anti-Canadian system" argument? The corporations-should-take-care-of-all-our needs argument? The return-to-the-company-town-and-company-store argument?
It's simple: the more publicity on what Wal-Mart and others are doing on health care, the better. No matter what you say about it. Makes folks realize what liars Harry and Louise were. The best way to go is this: hey people, look at how the boss-men are all being squeezed and passing on the squeeze on health care, and point out in that process how some corporations are trying to handle it honorably and others are not. But the main point to make is that health care costs are once again causing problems. Wal-Mart and its ethics are a secondary issue to the goal of getting a better health care system in this country.
October 29, 2005 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably I'm missing some nuances here, but I don't see what is wrong with pointing out inconsistencies in most Democrats' positions re corporate/worker interests. They're "competition" minded when workers' fates are involved, and "protectionist" minded when corporate fates are involved.
Re: 'Most "free-traders" are not for Darwinian capitalism where there are no public police departments, no public transportation and no national highway systems.' It seems to me that they certainly are, as my local police dept is more terrorist than service, my local public transit is a joke, and the highways crumble away daily. In a "traditionally Democratic" state and city.
October 29, 2005 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it isn't Wallmart's responsibility to repair 'workers', unless you want to implement some abominable system whereby the workers become the official property of Wallmart.
October 29, 2005 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Artappraiser-- Back in 1993, when folks like me were organizing for single payer health care, it was the DLC types who fought like hell against it, and the result was Clinton didn't even push for health care that year, instead making NAFTA-- the DLC issue -- his priority.
So with the Clinton and the DLC having spent much of 1993 pushing to pass a bill that two-thirds of Democrats opposed, we ended up with Clinton's bizarro boondoggle plan in 1994, where it went down to defeat as most major bills in election years do.
NOW- with Wal-Mart under real pressure from unions and community groups, you suddenly see DLC-types talking about single payer and why it's not Wal-Mart's fault that they can't afford health care.
So call me a bit skeptical about folks who supported NAFTA ripping apart the safety net for so many workers, who now turn around and defend corporate America from claims that they should pay for the health care of their employees.
All the talk about single payer now isn't going to deliver any change in legislation, but it is a real useful rhetorical diversion from the actual union-led fight to get Wal-Mart workers decent health care.
I'm not tagging Ezra or other real liberals with that intent, although I think they're reacting to the propaganda coming from the end of K Street.
October 29, 2005 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Most free traders are not social Darwinists"? Oh come on...
Free traders are by definition those who advocate the increasing movement of social functions, services and goods to a competitive market place, without external regulation. Artappraiser might have his own definition of "free trader", but his definition doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the last 30 years' history of the development of free trade ideology and globalisation.
Either way though, a definition of "free trader" is not really what this post is all about. What this post is all about is who and what political institutions are out there representing the interests of working people... In this case, probably about 80% plus of the population.
With the above on mind, Nathan's post highlights a real problem in the relationship between the Democratic Party and working class people. In a nutshell, after years of subsidizing the Democratic Party with monetary contributions and foot soldiers, labor unions are starting to question what this work and contributions have really done for working class people.
Of course, non-union workers have been stating the relevancy of the Democratic Party to their issues by either, a.) not voting, or b.) getting taken in by right wing wedge issues in the absence of real differences in the two parties regarding social and economic justice issues.
The problem with the cited "DC wonks" is that once again, they have chosen to "ape" (apologies to primates of all stripes) the corporate agenda of the rightwing, rather than stick with their increasingly dissatisfied constituency, which would unfortunately require some boldness and moral courage on the part of many Democratic Party leaders.
I'm really not kidding here. There is a serious re-evaluation of labor's commitment to the Democratic Party at all levels of the unions, including the top leaderships of a number of unions. Likewise, there seems to be a fury with the Democratic Party leadership among non-labor Democratic Party activists. This non-labor rage seems to focus around eceonomic issues like healthcare, and becomes especially hot around the Democrats' lack of opposition the Iraq War, the capitulation of the Democratic Party in what looked like two stolen elections, the lack of meaningful opposition to ugly Supreme Court nominees, the lack of opposition around mis-handled natural disasters, all topped of with an increasing frustration with the Party leadership who are seen as actively trying to suppress the issues these activists care about.
For years, there has been a cynical mindset among many DP leaders that goes something like, "Well, where else are they (the union activists, the Party activists) going to go?" I'm pretty much convinced at this point, that these rather cynical leaders are going to find out where these activists are going to go. It ain't gonna be to the Republicans; to the other side, that's for sure. Maybe some will go to the Greens, maybe a new third party, lots will probably just drop out of political involvement. In my state of Oregon, I know many activists who are still calling themselves Democrats, but are having increasing difficulties working for Democratic candidates.
Opinions like those expressed by the cited "DC Wonks" will only heighten the conflicts inside the Democratic Party. This is because elections are won or lost in the neighborhoods and streets, not the Washington power establishment.
More positively put, it seems to me that a Democratic resurgence is best fostered by giving previously self-disenfranchised voters a reason to vote, rather than fight with the Republicans over who can out rightwing whose rhetoric.
Chuck Wynns
Salem, Oregon
October 29, 2005 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, here's something to keep in mind about "the people":
....I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs....
Barack Obama, September 30, 2005
I dunno, maybe I'm dense, but I just get the impression that a larger majority of "the people" care more about health care than Wal-mart. Just the way things are, have always been; you don't care about a union movement unless you're in it. It's not about majority politics. All of my working class relatives back in the Midwest, for instance, shop at Wal-mart and I doubt anything will convince them to stop except higher prices, and not coincidentally they really do believe the government is capable of fixing something like health care but just haven't cared enough about the people with health insurance problems to try.
Don't get me wrong, it's great to give Wal-mart bad press for all the bad things they do, but it's just not majority politics. The party has to think priorities, not special interests.
You're right on one thing: what they did back then is not what they should do now, it was a failure. Mho, leaving business concerns out of it now would be an even bigger failure.
October 29, 2005 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
link for the above quote.
And while I'm here, a p.s.: the DLC line about everyone playing by the rules is a good one in this situation. We don't have any rules right now on health insurance. I think promoting the idea that there should be rules about what kind of insurance your employer should give you promotes the idea that employers should be the ones providing health insurance in this country. I think we should be selling new rules: you are dependent on your employer for health insurance.
October 29, 2005 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops correction to above:
I think we should be selling new rules: you should not be dependent on your employer for health insurance.
October 29, 2005 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point about the DLC Democrats on one hand being for single-payer for the purpose of shooting down corporate responsibility while they weren't so big on single payer itself in 1993-4. This is a classic ruse, more commonly found among Repuglicans and among ostensibly "left" copperheads than among Democrats, except of course your Al From types.
The point is this is anything but a mere nuance. The urgent question for corporate health care today is what responsibility do they have NOW, since any kind of single payer plan is many years down the road. The intellectual trick, and it is just that, a trick, is to back into a hypothetical future with single payer, and then use the public coverage of health care in Xanadu to argue against the need for corporate responsibility now. That isn't just a nuance and it is good to call them on it. I would say anyone who comes up with doubletalk like that is never never to be trusted. And of course, anyone familiar with the union movement knows that one of the keys to success when it occurs is a long memory.
Incidentally, it has long been my feeling that Hillary was part of the Bill the Shill Clinton program of defeating reform and promoting the Repuglicans in Congress in that crucial 1993-94 period; the health care plan was a part of that political program. It was ridiculous and supported by no one. It made the Miers nomination look like FDRs 100 days, and with much greater political consequences. If you want to get single payer, you have Congress (a Democratic one, necessarily) pass a broad resolution favoring the idea in principle, including a number of parameters (cost controls etc) and then establishing a blue ribbon commission and national hearings to publicly draw up plans and programs that fit that broad resolution. At that point you have, with little political risk, raised public awareness and debate, and then an overall proposal, which should not be employer centered at all, and should cover everyone in its final form, can be made.
In the interim, coming up with plans that get us closer to that, like Kerry's, make sense, while we need to completely repeal the Medicare scam passed by the Bushies. These things don't require great statesmanship on the part of the Democratic leaders, but it does require sincerity -- that they sincerely represent the masses and not some Bourbon/deconstructionist alliance of creepy elites who could give a crap about the masses.
October 30, 2005 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan's original point is right. We cannot let Wal-Mart off the hook here. Wal-Mart has pushed the envelope a long way on reducing overall employee compensation as part of its competitiveness strategy. On the subject of globalization, there's lots of evidence that Wal-Mart pushes down wages in the Third World! Even the Chinese, who are building their economy on low-wage production, have complained about Wal-Mart pushing for lower wages.
So, we should be hammering the people who are lamenting that it's not Wal-Mart's fault.
Like Nathan, I was involved in organizing for single-payer health care in 1993-94. Bill and Hillary Clinton made a strategic choice to keep that option off the table.
The trade-off was supposed to be that health insurance providers would buy into their complex scheme.
The health insurance industry responded to this opening with the Harry and Louise ads.
While we're bashing the New America Foundation and other shills for Wal-Mart, let's now lose our focus.
The Chambers memo repeats several times that among the main aims is winning a seat at the table for Wal-Mart on the health care debate.
Wal-Mart's favored approach paralells Bush's favorite approach:
Health Savings Accounts with high deductibles.
For older, sicker and poorer Americans, this approach is a disaster.
For the financial services and health insurance executives and like-minded parasites, it's a full employment program.
So, let's bash Wal-Mart and its apologists. At the same time, let's engage the New America Foundation and others on the need for a struggle for a genuine social insurance approach (Medicare for everyone) to health insurance. And fight the "ownership society" approach. It's coming at us fast.
Jack Clark
October 31, 2005 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink