Security will be the operative word for the second session of the 107th Congress. Whatever Congress does or does not do will be done in the name of providing Americans with increased security. The sticking point will be how security is defined and what it will cost—both in terms of dollars and civil liberties. Congress has already shown it has no problem acquiescing to President Bush and his ultraright attack dog Attorney General John Ashcroft. The Administration is more than willing to let the Constitution and the Bill of Rights take a back seat to the pursuit of the radical right agenda.
New security spending will be debated against the backdrop of a non-existent budget surplus. After four years of record budget surpluses, the country is now faced with red ink. The Republicans say that the recession and new spending to combat terrorism caused the return of the deficit. The Democrats believe that Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy led to the incredible shrinking budget. The GOP vows that the tax cut will be repealed over the dead body of their President. The Democrats have resolved not to pass any economic stimulus that does not give assistance to laid off working men and women of this country and are considering delaying further implementation of the tax cut until the economy stabilizes.
On the spending front, there is bipartisan agreement to increase defense, homeland security measures and farm programs. The Democrats are pushing for spending increases in education, health care and an increase in the minimum wage, while the Republicans are pushing for a missile defense program.
While Congress agrees on increasing spending on defense and homeland security, the best approach to take is still in contention. Most Democrats want to spend more money on protecting our borders, and on increased infrastructure needs of our nation’s airports, sea ports and power plants. Bush wants to increase the budget for missile defense and spend more money to secure Russia’s stockpile of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.
Another challenge this Congress will face this session is the expiration of the welfare law. Almost six years ago Congress and President Clinton replaced the welfare system with work requirements and time-limited benefits. Progressives opposed the radical changes because families who, for whatever reason, could not adapt to the new changes would be ravaged with hunger, homelessness and despair. As the economy worsens, more families at the bottom rung of the economic ladder will suffer this fate.
The debate on reauthorizing the welfare law will likely break down along party lines. The Republicans believe that compassion can be found by working for a check—and there will be strings attached. Bush has expressed disappointment that welfare reform has failed to reduce the number of single-parent families in the system and wants to find ways to encourage marriage among recipients. He also has not given up on his faith-based initiative and wants to help religious groups get involved in the process.
Democrats want to increase benefits for recipients who cannot find work and assist those who have low-paying jobs to stay employed and move toward independence with such programs as day-care subsidies and job-training programs. Also on the table is restoring benefits for legal immigrants and renewing the food stamp program. The debate is expected to mirror that of welfare reform.
The Farm program has to be reauthorized this year. ILWU sugar workers in Hawaii and Crockett, California have an interest in the legislation. The ILWU is advocating a policy that would provide an environment in which American sugar workers can produce a high quality product at a reasonable price in the face of unfair competition abroad—ILWU members have to compete with child labor and exploited labor overseas.
The House of Representatives has passed a bill that hopefully will keep ILWU members working. The draft Senate bill sponsored by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) would accomplish this goal as well. Last year, the Senate Republicans filibustered the Harkin farm bill. But Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) will try to bring it up again for a vote early this year.
The health care debate in Congress the last couple years has been about patients’ rights in dealing with HMOs. The House and Senate once again passed different versions of a Patient’s Bills of Rights. The bills are widely different and have yet to go to conference, but a compromise may be reached early this year. The central sticking point is the health plans’ liability in insurance coverage disputes.
The House Bill puts tighter restrictions on a patient’s right to sue a health plan than the Senate version. In addition, the House Bill includes an expansion of tax-sheltered medical savings accounts. A central issue that has not been resolved is whether new federal standards would override liability and grievance review procedures that are in place in 16 states. The tone of the debate will be colored by the increase in health care costs and spending and the increasing number of uninsured working men and women resulting from the weak economy.
Although Bush is calling for Social Security reform, Congress has not expressed interest in taking up the issue. The bipartisan commission Bush appointed to give politicians cover for destroying the nation’s most popular program was unable to decide on any one plan for reform— so it submitted three. Two of the plans call for slower benefit increases and conclude that savings accounts by themselves would not guarantee the long-term solvency of Social Security.
Generally, the Democratic caucus believes that Social Security should remain, as it is—a retirement income program with minimum benefits guaranteed by the U.S. government. Republicans claim the program is outdated and want to gamble the safety net on private markets with hopes of generating a better return on the payroll taxes that working men and women pay into the system. With the recent downturn of the markets, this is unwise and even bizarre –particularly in light of the recent Enron scandal.
Congressional committees are investigating the scandal-plagued Enron corporation, the seventh largest company in America, that recently went bankrupt—the same corporation that stole billions of dollars from consumers in California when it drove up the price of energy in that state. Through a process of setting up secret shell companies created and run by Enron, the company made their financial performance look much better than reality by billions of dollars. When the truth came out about the actual health of the company the business collapsed in a matter of weeks.
More than 6,000 Enron employees lost their jobs and their life savings in the bankruptcy. While the bosses at Enron were selling more than $1 billion of their shares of Enron and getting richer in the process, they froze their employees 401 (k) accounts, leaving them to watch helplessly as their retirement evaporated.
At issue is the political nexus between this corrupt company and political leaders—particularly the Bush Administration. It is no secret that Enron is Bush’s largest career campaign donor and flew him on private jets during his campaign for the Presidency. Enron brass met repeatedly in secret with Vice-President Cheney to develop a national energy program. Enron’s long-term strategy was to line the pockets of corporate executives off policies supported by the Bush Administration— deregulation of electricity, water and natural gas. This sorry saga is nothing new—America’s workers get thrown overboard while the rich get richer and politicians amass campaign war chests with corrupt corporate money.
The real scandal in Washington is this constant profession from both major political parties and the President about the need to secure the jobs of Americans. Not one thing has been done to benefit America’s workers this Congress. President Bush can talk about his compassion for workers all he wants, but workers don’t need to.
