That does not excuse a legitimate newspaper from creating an online push-poll using skewed language which asks respondents to make a choice between unfeasible, destructive options and a coded language slur constructed to bias the public against comprehensive immigration reform. According to Newsday here are the only opinions one can have on immigration policy (and the percentage they poll right now).

What kind of immigration reform should Congress pass?

14.7%
Tougher border and visa control (57 responses)
70.2%
Tougher control, deportation of undocumented (273 responses)
8.7%
Tougher control, some kind of amnesty (34 responses)
3.1%
Tougher control, amnesty (12 responses)
1.5%
Amnesty (6 responses)
1.8%
None, it's fine as it is (7 responses)

Ok so according to Newsday I'm either infected with Lou Dobb's inventive form of leprosy of the brain and I'm under the impression that walling off America is 1. feasible 2. desirable OR I think that everything in our broken immigration system is fine just the way it is (with people forced to work under the table for substandard wages and thereby possibly reducing the quality of jobs available for all workers) OR I think that the US shouldn't even bother to have an immigration policy and then in that response I'd be forced to describe my feelings with a term created by immigration opponents to frame the creation of a path to citizenship negatively - as if workers were getting something for nothing.

How about I vote "none of the above".
How about I vote for "immigration policy that supports the contributions immigrants make to the economy and also protects the workplace rights of Americans and immigrants".

How about readers at least get the option to vote for choices that reflect the actual range of opinions held by the American public in honest, unbiased language. I know that objectivity in journalism is a myth but can we at least as aim for accuracy in phrasing? And maybe this would be a helpful time to educate the public about what the range of options in immigration policy really are.

Critics of the recently proposed immigration legislation aren't necessarily (and I'd argue, usually are not) saying that everything is fine the way it is. We agree that the system is broken. Some of us believe that the proposed legislation didn't do enough to protect the interests of the American middle class. I urge the newspaper to look into the real debate on immigration rather than relying on inaccurate frames developed by biased interest groups with hidden agendas. The least the public deserves is an accurate range of options to choose from on immigration policy.

The immigration bill, although reviled by many progressives and immigration activists for its many horrible provisions, was effectively killed by the right. Two hours after the vote, I got an email from Californians for Population Stabilization, declaring a HUGE VICTORY, thanking everyone for derailing the bill and asking for donations. While it’s difficult to say whether the death of the bill is a good or bad thing – immigration advocates have been under tremendous pressure from the base to keep alive the path to citizenship, even if it meant accepting some horrible compromises. The undocumented immigrants I’ve been interviewing for my book on immigrants and the restaurant industry keep asking me if something is going to pass; until it does they have no security and separated from their families. They will likely to have to wait at least two more years, since the 08 election campaign has started a million months too early and immigration is too hot for the candidates to take risks with. But the fact that the right killed this bill indicates that, without new interventions from the immigrant rights community, future plans are likely to be worse rather than better. This is the time for the movement to try to broaden our immigration demands to try to drive the debate in our direction.

Clearly, Brown is not dead, immigrants will continue to fight, but this week has made me realize the severe limitations of this Congress. This week confirms my feeling that last week’s panelists on conservatism at the Take Back America conference were terribly premature in predicting the downfall of conservatism. Our ideas aren’t dead, and neither are those of our opponents.

It was one of those terrible times when almost everybody wanted to do something. At Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), we knew there had to be information that could explain why our government failed Katrina's victims.

So, we did what CREW does. The week after Katrina hit, on September 7, 2005, CREW sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request [pdf] to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where FEMA is housed. CREW asked for all records related to the federal government's long-term planning for a hurricane on the Gulf Coast as well as its immediate preparations for and response to Hurricane Katrina. In January 2006, CREW sued to force DHS to comply with the FOIA.

CREW documented its findings in a report released this week, The Best Laid Plans: The Story of How the Government Ignored Its Own Gulf Coast Hurricane Plans [pdf].

Best Laid Plans is based on the 7,500 records DHS provided in response. What we found is disturbing -- and dangerous.

Critically, CREW found that FEMA did have a plan for exactly what happened. The agency had created a "Southeast Louisiana Catastrophic Hurricane Plan" (SLCHP), which forecast a range of specific consequences. Many of the forecasts actually came to fruition, including the prediction that New Orleans would be flooded with 14-17 feet of water, the levee system inundated with at least 10 feet of water and the hurricane would move into Mississippi.

The SLCHP included plans to protect citizens through evacuations, providing power, water and ice to survivors; and providing both short-term shelter and longer-term housing.

Despite the comprehensive SLCHP, CREW found that the plan was never implemented. Top officials at FEMA never even received the plan.

On August 28, 2005, the day before Katrina hit, FEMA Deputy Director Patrick Rhode sent an email to Deputy Chief of Staff Brooks Altshuler and Michael Heath, Special Assistant to FEMA Director Michael Brown, with the subject line, "copy of New Orleans cat plan" stating, "I never got one – I think Brown got my copy – did you get one?"

Did you get one?

A plan only works if those in charge both know about the plan and know how to implement it. The Best Laid Plans catalogues our government's failure in responding to the most significant natural disaster ever faced by the United States.

When CREW released the report, Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, asked a question that should resonate with all of us, "The next national emergency -- whether another natural disaster or a terrorist attack -- undoubtedly will require both adequate preparation and competent execution; based on the findings in this report, what confidence can the American people have that our government will be ready to face those challenges?"

The cases in question, Parent Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District and Meredith, custodial parent and next friend of McDonald V. Jefferson County Board of Ed et al , had to do with the right of school districts to use race as a minor factor in determining school placement in certain circumstances (the decision applied to both cases). The two plans, one in Louisville and one in Seattle, are not easily summarized, but Louisville’s involves school transfers for parents who want their children to attend a school outside of their assigned district and Seattle’s is for determining which high school a student is assigned to.

Several things are very interesting about these cases. The mother who brought the case against Louisville missed kindergarten registration and thus could not enroll her child in her neighborhood school or second choice school because both were over their racial quotas. Two years later, she reapplied to the neighborhood school and her son was granted a transfer to his neighborhood school. In seven of the ten district high schools in Seattle, race wasn’t used as a factor at all in determining admissions; race is only considered after a school has more students than spots at the school and the school is outside of the racial quotas set by the district, and as secondary “tie-breaker” factor (the first tie-breaker in their system is whether the student has a sibling at the school already). Both districts adopted the policies voluntarily, to promote student integration, and are popular among parents. The issue in question was whether a school district can ever use race as a determining factor, no matter how minor that factor is, if a school district is not under court orders to desegregate.

One thing to remember is this: in most of the school districts in the country, parents have no say at all in where their children go to school. The majority of school districts limit registration to neighborhood schools, so where you live is where you go. The two districts in question allow their students a great deal of freedom in deciding where to go; in the terms of Justice Kennedy in oral arguments,

“the question is whether or not you can get into the school that you really prefer. And in some cases that depends solely on skin color. It's like saying everyone can have a meal but only people with separate skin can get the dessert."

The court has decided that denying some students the dessert of deciding what school they want to go to is so important that it rules out all of the proven benefits of integration[pdf]. Even Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, said of the Seattle case in the appeals court, “that a student is denied the school of his choice may be disappointing, but it carries no racial stigma and says nothing at all about that individual's aptitude or ability”

Likewise, the decision only affects the small number of schools who have decided that they will not tolerate the residential segregation that exists in their districts, and have voluntarily adopted plans to promote integration. These districts desire integration so that all children can experience the benefits of learning with those of different races or cultures.

The argument that is bandied about by conservatives is that government needs to be colorblind. In this line of thinking, denying a child a school transfer from one integrated school to another is the same as denying a child the chance to be educated with his peers of a different race. While colorblindness would be a worthwhile quality for the government to have if our society were colorblind, this is simply not the case. Minorities in this country are much more likely to be in poverty, to be steered to predominately minority neighborhoods or not adequately helped by real estate agents, to lack health insurance, and to generally face a different world than whites face. Since the world is not colorblind, there is no reason that government should not act as a force for good and try to rectify the injustices that minorities still face today.

We could talk for days about the societal conditions that have kept intact a world where segregation is not legal, but still very much a reality. Segregation is very real today, and well-documented. One of the only ways that districts can ensure that students are educated in an integrated environment, and thus uphold the spirit of the Brown v. Board decision, is through using race as one of the considerations in school assignment. As of today, that is no longer an option.

The New York Times reported yesterday that immigration reform is not completely dead but may be in death throes in the United States Senate. Today will tell the story.

Whatever passionate arguments supporters and opponents of the bill may have, the New York Times notes "polls have shown that most Americans reject the idea of mass deportations and see the legislation as a reasonable solution, while most immigrant groups are strongly in favor." People, by and large, have a personal relationship with the immigrant community. We know people who were born in another land or have parents or grandparents who were. The human connection is important and in the end of the day laws don't just impact policy, they impact people.

Drum Major Institute (DMI) has a good framework for evaluating immigration policy. In a nut shell, policy should bolster the contribution of immigrants and strengthen their rights in the work place. DMI posits that policy that achieves both these goals will not only be good for immigrants workers, entrepreneurs, taxpayers and consumers but it will be good for America's struggling middle class and those fighting their way into the middle class.

Recognizing the people, the human factor, Ellen Chesler wrote this week in The Nation, "For now, immigration reform has died an inglorious death in the US Senate, beaten to death by John Cornyn, Republican from Texas, and others of his party who seem to think that behind every effort to facilitate the entry of foreigners seeking employment in this country, and to legalize the status of nearly 12 million hardworking immigrants already here, lurks an open invitation to criminals, terrorists and other undesirables from whom the country needs protection. Given this decidedly unflattering view of the character and motivation of America's immigrant population, it comes as no surprise that Senator Cornyn and others in his party of family values also see no reason to provide additional visas for foreigners who seek to be reunited with close family members already in the country as US citizens or lawful permanent residents, another stumbling block to passage of compromise legislation."

My colleague Professor Chesler notes, "Here at Hunter, approximately one-third of our students are foreign born, and many more are the children of immigrants, most of them first-time college graduates in their families. Hunter students hail from some 150 different countries and speak nearly 100 languages. Here in the city that has welcomed the world's downtrodden for more than two centuries, we continue to educate and offer opportunity to a proverbial melting pot of talented and ambitious young people--or, as former New York Mayor David Dinkins liked to call them, the "gorgeous mosaic" that illustrates our noblest aspirations for our city and country and offers the greatest promise for our future."

The Welfare Rights Initiative at Hunter College (the organization of which I am co-director) cheers Professor Chesler's piece and the praise she has for all of our students. WRI is reflective of Hunter College, a third of our program's student leaders are immigrants. Some with family members without legal status. Our students are bright, energetic, indomitable. They face not only challenges on the immigration front but with poverty as well yet they are doing all they can to succeed. We have students excelling academically, socially, volunteering and working to make education policies better for us all.

What happens today with immigration legislation in the Senate will not end the debate and certainly not the rancor. But it can. If leaders from legislatures and colleges, to neighborhoods and factories, see and respect the humanity of the people effected by immigration policies. As Professor Chesler says after writing the profiles of some of Hunter College's finest, "So there you have it. Each one of these extraordinary young people is likely to bring distinction to his or her family, city, and adoptive country. Not a likely subversive among them. Each one deserves to be treated with basic human dignity and accorded full benefits of citizenship."

Right on Chesler!

“Tax relief.”

It wasn’t in an editorial by David Brooks. It wasn’t in a quotation from the President. It was in an article, an every day article, a piece of journalism, a supposedly dispassionate report that was now adopting the most pernicious but successful frame offered by the right-wing.

Tax relief.

As in, “There were accomplishments in the governor’s first six months in office… He and lawmakers increased property tax relief by $1.3 billion.” (New York Times, June 22, 2007)

As in, “But here’s the rub for Mr. Schumer. There is a good chance raising taxes on really rich people will come attached to bills to provide education credits or tax relief to the not so rich.” (New York Times, June 22, 2007).

As in, “It would also provide about $110 million in sales tax relief by eliminating city sales taxes that now apply to clothing and shoe purchases of over $110…”. (New York Times, June 14, 2007).

I’m not saying that I think all taxes are fantastic. They aren’t. I’ve met many a tax I didn’t like, contrary to popular belief. Sales taxes, for example, are inherently regressive and should be reduced. But it’s the choice of language that matters here. Instead of saying that these taxes were cut, or instead of talking about the amount of money that would no longer flow into the city treasury, Ray Rivera wrote of “sales tax relief.” Why not just say, “It would also eliminate city sales taxes that now apply to clothing and shoe purchases of over $110, a tax cut valued at $110 million in total.”

I hate to sound like George Lakoff, but these terms matter. Tax relief signals that taxes are a burden we need relief from, not the gas that fuels a government that provides regular people with the schools and clean and safe streets and police officers we rely on. Taxes are bad, they say, because government is bad, they say. The very adoption of the term by The New York Times in their reporting, no less, is a victory for the conservative right, and sloppy reporting by the New York Times. (And, thanks for DMI intern Margaret Goodwin’s analysis, I can say for sure that the Times used this phrase repeatedly over the last month, several more times than the Daily News and New York Post. An overreaction to contrived accusations of liberal media bias?)

I gave a lecture last week to some bright students at Metropolitan College as part of their Urban Dialogues series. My talk was based on the notion that “ideas matter,” and that the notions that we hold are so important to how we see people, policy and politics. The students were very smart, yet the very questions they asked proved my point. When I talked about the estate tax, one young woman asked if I meant “the death tax.” They thought that there are too many lawsuits, that teachers unions were bad, and that lawyers were greedy. One questioner asked if programs that address poverty would facilitate complacency.

I was altogether depressed. I’m not saying anything new here – we all know that the conservative right has been overwhelmingly successful at mainstreaming the frames that, in sometimes subtle ways like “tax relief,” convey their politics. And, we all know that the way we think about taxes, the way we think about poor people, the way we think about our civil justice system has profound implications for the kinds of policies we adopt (or don’t).

This is a warning for all of us. Win the Congress, win the White House. All good. But if we allow Conservatives to continue to dominate the terms of the debate and control the lens through which the majority of Americans understand (and read about) their world, our victories will be limited.

Get ready, folks. We’ve got a bumpy ride ahead.

Over the past month, the Senate proposal has had me on a constant yo-yo. It’s alive, it’s dead. Good amendments (that stand up for humane and smart principles for immigration policy and how it affects the middle class), bad amendments (that stonewall immigrant contributions to our economy and society). Check out one of my past ruminations on the specifics of this bill, which in its latest version does little to protect the rights and honor the hard work of immigrants, and does a lot to enshrine an underclass of immigrant workers.

With reports of a deal between the bipartisan group of Senators who crafted this package of legislation (so variegated it resembles Joseph’s coat of many colors - pardon the Broadway show reference) to introduce 22 different amendments this week to the Senate's immigration reform package, it is easy to become lost in the political maneuverings of this debate. So I think it would be helpful to get away from the politics and instead focus on the principles that should be informing the policy, principles that informed not by partisan power plays but by the intention to create a solution that benefits not only immigrants but the vast majority of Americans. I think it's time to revisit our basic principles on immigration.

Here’s our take on those principles:

* Immigrant workers and their families make important contributions to our economy and to our society. Immigration policy needs to allow immigrants to stay in the country to continue enriching our economy, which helps the American middle class. Immigrant workers are 15% of our civilian workforce, and fueled half of American labor force growth in the past 10 years. Immigration policy must respect these immigrants (both undocumented and those who are in the US legally) and what they bring to our economy as entrepreneurs, taxpayers, workers, and consumers. As I’ve said before, immigrants produce goods and services for the American middle class; they contribute more as taxpayers at both the local and national level than they use in public services such as schools and hospitals; and they propel consumer markets with their rapidly-expanding purchasing power and entrepreneurial spirit.

Many immigrants are part of mixed-status families where, for example, an undocumented parent has a child who’s a US citizen and a sister with a green card. Regardless of their status, both of those adults are providing important fuel to our economy, so much so they actually increase the annual earnings of native-born workers - to the tune of $37 billion a year.

As I said last week, we need to move past the myth of immigrant freeloaders to realize just how crucial immigrants are to our economy, our workforce, and ultimately the economic well-being of the American middle class. This well-being will increase exponentially if undocumented immigrants are able to legalize their status: immigrant workers will be able to demand higher wages (simultaneously raising wages of the native-born middle class and those who hope to join it) and unionize, not to mention the ability to build deeper roots in a regulated economy and give back even more as consumers.

Oh - and let’s not forget the $6-$7 billion undocumented immigrants pump into the Social Security system annually - benefits most will never claim due to their immigration status. Let’s remember the American middle class’s retirement depends on Social Security benefits; so immigrant workers paying into the Social Security safety net make a real difference to the future economic security of middle class workers by putting more money into the pot and literally keeping the whole program afloat.

*Immigration policy must bolster and protect the rights of immigrant workers. As DMI has said before, immigrant workers, particularly those who are undocumented, are often forced to accept low wages, substandard working conditions, wage and hour violations, and employer harassment - all because in an informal labor market, unscrupulous employers can hold their immigration status (or lack thereof and the fear of deportation) over their head. A recent Brennan Center for Justice report on the unregulated workforce outlines the nasty nexus of immigration status and worker exploitation well:

“The best inoculation against workplace violations is workers who know their rights, have full status under the law to assert them, have access to sufficient legal resources, and do not fear exposure or retaliation when bringing claims against their employers.”

This is why organized labor came around to support the principles of immigration reform: they understand how the futures of immigrants and their middle-class members (who, depending on the industry, may be one and the same) are inextricably linked.

Immigration status becomes a trump card to discourage undocumented immigrant workers to speak up for their rights as workers and unionize (among other strategies) to demand fair wages and working conditions. Once this two-tiered labor market (one for undocumented immigrants subjected to low wages, workplace violations, and harassment, another for legal immigrants and native-born workers) is leveled, immigrant workers can ask for and benefit from higher wages and improved working conditions. The end result? Wages of both immigrant and native-born workers can rise, benefiting not only immigrant workers but the American middle class.

Protecting immigrants’ rights in the workplace also means a guest worker program is a no-go. The current immigration reform proposal does not create real reform, and is a recipe for disaster – one that assigns guest workers to two-year stints of employer harassment and workplace violations instead of decades of abuse, low wages, and intimidation.

Phew, that makes me feel better.

Does anyone else remember the bracero program of the 1940s, where tens of thousands of Mexican workers were exploited as low-wage temporary workers in the US, then ultimately cheated out of their promised Social Security benefits after they returned to Mexico? (Ok, I may not be old enough to remember the bracero program personally, but you catch my drift.) Check out Amy Traub’s breakdown of the insanity of a guest worker proposal, and just how much it would to do to erode immigrant and native born workers’ rights and doom fair immigration policy: a la David Brooks, it’s all about the huddled masses yearning to maximize earnings during each two-year window…

For those of you who are visual learners, I think this cartoon really outlines just how messed up a guest worker program would be – can’t we get it right, people? We know it didn’t work in the past, why go there again?

In today’s maelstrom of politics, posturing, and panic on immigration, it’s time to go back to basics. It’s the only way the country can come up with a truly progressive immigration policy.

I just want to stop for a second and applaud this bill. For those of us who've received public assistance and who work with poor families every day, it's a big, big deal to even see language like this come from a bill's sponsors:

"In the rush to reduce welfare rolls under federal welfare reform, many welfare recipients have been placed in low-paying jobs. In particular, initial studies of women moving from welfare to work indicate that the vast majority of women move into jobs that do not lift them and their children out of poverty. These jobs are typically in industries, such as food service and home health care, which are traditionally populated by women workers."

A few things are at play here. People receiving welfare are being funneled into low-paying jobs. This problem is even more acute for women, because the process of being funneled into into low-paying work is compounded by being funneled into traditionally female-dominated industries, which pay less than male-dominated industries across the board. Oh, and then there's the fact that women make 77 cents to the man's dollar for equal work.

The whole situation pretty much amounts to layers and layers of barriers between a person leaving public assistance and the possibility of making a living wage.

When it comes to rectifying these problems - at least as far as welfare policy is concerned - this bill provides a modest solution, one option for getting the ball rolling forward.

The purpose of the bill is to require social services districts to consider education and training for sustainable wage jobs and nontraditional employment opportunities in their public assistance employment programs. Those receiving public assistance will be assessed for skills and given employment plans that take into consideration jobs which will pay at least 185% of poverty line, currently $13,690 for a family of two. "Nontraditional employment" means jobs whose makeup consists of less than 25% women, and are usually eschewed by social service agencies, who primarily refer women receiving public assistance to lower-paying, female dominated positions such as child-care jobs, nail technicians, and bank tellers. Skilled trade occupations that pay more—by 20 to 30 percent—are overwhelmingly male.

When it comes to the nuts and bolts of welfare policy, gender-segregated job referral systems are a huge problem. Welfare policy is important for individual families to mitigate economic crises and to help people work their way into economic security. After family crises are stabilized, it's important that people receiving welfare have access to living wage jobs. And it's exactly this access that this new law will address. As the bill's sponsors write, "A 2001 study of job training for low-income people, particularly women leaving welfare, found a clear pattern of gender segregation in job training referral and placements. Programs training for jobs as bank teller and nail technician had 100% female enrollment, while programs training for higher paying jobs such as appliance technician and automotive technician had overwhelming male enrollments."

New York State has a role in the development of lifelong skills for the long-term economic security of all New Yorkers, people receiving welfare included. Welfare law allows for 30% of people receiving public assistance in each state to be in education and training programs. New York's training and education programs are currently under capacity by almost 20%, so this bill will fill a much-needed roll of inspiring local service agencies to increase their focus on education and training for nontraditional employment and all jobs that pay a living wage.

This bill is assuredly a step in the right direction towards rectifying the problems facing women receiving public assistance. And the Governor should sign it into law.

But the conversation can't stop there. This bill is an incremental step. Pay equity is still a long time coming. We do need job training integrally connected to our public assistance programs, and we need to change the rates of women entering low-paying jobs. This bill does some important work, but it's got to be remembered that the pay gap remains overwhelmingly unchanged, and leaves women with another day, another 77 cents.

In 2006, as the U.S. State Department completed its $20 billion “reconstruction” program in Iraq, the only new rebuilding money requested was for prisons. State Department Iraq coordinator James Jeffrey asked Congress for $100 million for the sole significant building project --- prison construction (or, in the administration’s bureaucratic-speak, for “additional bed capacity for the Iraqi legal system”). This year, the United States has sought expansion of its prisons as its “security” operations around Baghdad have increased.

Even amid the human rights horrors of torture at Abu Ghraib and indeterminate detention at Guantanamo Bay,
the United States has built, maintained and expanded its prison complexes in Iraq, steadily filling them with more and more people. Stick to what you’re good at, right? Not so good at peace, let’s try prisons! We’ve managed to incarcerate 2.3 million inside of our own country, and turn prison construction into one of our most profitable enterprises, why not take our show on the road?

Many of these new prisons have been established at military bases and airports, such as the US Military compound at Al-Dhiloeia, Camp Cropper at Baghdad International Airport, the Hilla military compound, as well as in old Iraqi military barracks and public buildings, including schools and colleges across Iraq converted into detention centers.

And as prisons are being built, they are being filled. In June 2004 there were less than 5,500 people being held by American forces in Iraq. By June 2006 that number has risen almost three times to 14,500. Today, it stands at 21,000 (which does not include over 20,000 people being held in Iraqi custody or others detained outside of Iraq in the CIA’s secret prisons operating outside of the reach of international law).

While prisons in the United States are harsh and unforgiving, in Iraq they are worse. According to Amnesty International, for example, after a joint Iraqi-Multi-National Force team inspected Site 4 detention center in Baghdad, where 1,431 detainees were held under the control of the Interior Ministry, it found that detainees had been systematically abused and were being held in unsafe, overcrowded and unhealthy conditions.

Much like the prisoners stuck in Guantanamo’s abyss, thousands of people have been held by Multi-National Forces in Iraq without charge or trial, deprived of the right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Many have been released absent explanation after years in detention, while many others continue to be held without any effective remedy.

One of the few unfiltered glimpses of life inside the Pentagon's detention operations came from Donald Vance, a Navy veteran and American security contractor detained in error for 97 days at United States military's maximum-security detention site in Baghdad (Camp Cropper). He described being shackled, blindfolded, interrogated, and forbidden to cover his face to block light, noise and cold. He also described a haphazard system of detention and prosecution, where detainees are often held for long periods without charges or legal representation.

So as America has found “liberation” to be a far more bloody and complicated issue than anticipated, it has yet again turned increasingly to one of its favorite (and most disastrous) short-term solutions to any social, economic, and political quagmire (in addition to preemptive acts of military aggression): incarceration.

As I've shown in the past unions not only helped to create the American middle class in the last century, they continue to propel millions of Americans into the middle class today, empowering members to demand jobs that are capable of sustaining a middle-class standard of living, with dignified wages, leave policies, health care, and retirement plans. The benefits of union membership are most pronounced for people of color and for women. In areas where unions represent a high proportion of workers a particular industry, they can even help to raise industry standards across-the-board: improving wages and job quality even for workers who don't belong. Not surprisingly, as union membership has declined over the past decades, the middle-class squeeze has intensified.

Giving more Americans the choice to join a union would be a significant step toward rebuilding the American middle class and alleviating the squeeze. That makes the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) one of the most important bills Congress has considered this year.

At it's core, EFCA would make it easier for Americans to decide on union representation without being threatened and harassed by their employers. Of course, it's already illegal for employers to threaten and harass employees -- we’re already supposed to have a free choice about whether we want a union -- but in practice illegal harassment and even firings are common and usually go unpunished. We need a new system for guaranteeing the right to decide on union membership, and that's what EFCA provides.

Check out Elana's post from March when the bill passed the House for more details on what the act would do and some of the deceit and misinformation being used to discredit the bill and provide cover to policymakers who vote against it.

Regulating product safety is the perfect case in point.

The New York Times reports that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has experienced staff cuts of 10 percent in the last couple of years and now has only 100 inspectors across the country looking into the safety of tens of billions of dollars worth of toys and other products.

The results of this lax oversight? Most recently, there's the recall of a supposedly high-quality brand of toy trains, found to be adorned with lead paint -- a poison particularly hazardous to the brain development of children. As my son is just about the age where he puts everything into his mouth (cue the photo) the thought of toxic toys keeps me up at night.

For the love of country, couldn't we just pay some more taxes and hire enough inspectors to make sure my baby's toys aren't poisoned? And while we're at it, could we make sure tainted food and toxic medicine aren't on the market for me to give him? A little clean air and water wouldn't hurt either. And I wouldn't mind if that college fund I'm trying to set up for him weren't wiped out by fraudulent business practices. Didn't there used to be some kind of agency that looked into that?

If I were becoming more conservative, perhaps I'd find a way to take more personal responsibility for all of this. I could bone up on my aeronautics and personally inspect the airplane we're taking to visit the grandparents next month.

But so far the conservatizing influence of parenthood eludes me. And it's not just about regulating safety, either. It's about thanking my stars that I had prenatal care and that the kid gets to see a doctor for his well-baby check-ups-- unlike 8 million other children in this country who lack health insurance.

And it's about what happened when my son was born last year, and both my husband and I took time off to nurture and cherish him, an opportunity we had because of the decent human resources policies of our employers. It's hard to imagine not having that intimate time together during the first few months of his life. But millions of American families don't get paid family leave, and can't afford to take much (or any!) unpaid time off work. California and Washington State are the only states in the country that mandate paid leave. New York
and New Jersey just missed their opportunities to provide it this year.

It's about access to high-quality preschool education for every kid-- something New York State did manage to move toward this year, along with many other state and local governments. And what about quality education beyond preschool? What about affording college? What about global warming and the viability of the planet my baby will inherit? What about the kids growing up poor even though their parents work long hours every day? What about the kids with a parent in prison? What about the kids who parents are disqualified from the legal protection of marriage?

Parenthood hasn't made me more conservative. I can scarcely imagine how it could.

In the audience, over 250 people chatted with each other, snacked on deep-fried crab cakes (so good), and cheered the particularly great lines in the presenters' speeches. This blog post is really for you - it means a lot to us that so many people attended our benefit, and showed that they too are interested in out-thinking the Right and in public policy that makes peoples lives better and our economy fairer. The crowd last night was definitely a huge motivation for us to continue doing our work, and doing it well. Thank you.

We'll have photos and transcripts and more multimedia fun from the benefit up soon, but in the meantime here are a few of the best quotes from last night's program:

"My only fear is that we'll call on DMI so much that they'll change their phone number." - Speaker Christine Quinn

"This battle will not just be on the ground. We need to fight this in the intellectual sphere, in the ideological sphere, in the moral sphere." - Cornel West

"Every time I hear the words 'Drum Major,' I think about the best American this country has ever produced, Dr. Martin Luther King." - Tavis Smiley

"DMI's Congestion Pricing paper is one of the best analyses I've seen. Their point about congestion pricing being good for the middle class is a really important part of this conversation." -Mayor Bloomberg

"Rev. Forbes may not be at the Riverside Church any longer, but he's taken on a new title: CSO, our Chief Spiritual Officer" - Bill Wachtel

More than six bucks for a gallon of gas. That's what we'd be paying if the price at the pump increased at the same mind-boggling rate as going to college has over the last three decades.

But if you are - or aspire to be - a student in Maine, the League of Young Voters and Opportunity Maine have your back.

That is, they just pushed through a groundbreaking initiative that revolutionizes how states can deal with the vexing problem of student debt. And low college enrollment.. and "brain drain"...and job loss...and a lagging state economy.

Their solution is simple: give any person who graduates from a Maine college or university - and then stays to work and live in state - a tax credit to help pay back their student loans.

And the result is a quadruple play for Maine - or other states that want to model the Legislation (wink, wink - Opportunity Ohio in '08?).

* It makes college affordable
* Encourages people of all ages to enroll
* Graduates are encouraged to stick around
* The now educated workforce attracts new employers

Oh, and it more than pays for itself: the new employers and higher paying jobs will benefit Maine's tax base by $14 million in 2018.

Maybe it's a quintuple play?

That's why the Maine Legislature acted decisively and did two things they don't normally do.

First, the Maine House unanimously - UNANIMOUSLY - approved the initiative 142-0. And when the Senate followed suit, passing the Bill 27-8, it was only the sixth time in the history of Maine's citizens' initiative process that the Legislature themselves approved policy instead of sending it to the voters - which was the campaigns initial goal.

With record high costs for pursuing a higher education, Opportunity Maine stands to be one of the most promising solutions to student debt this generation has ever seen. The Maine Legislature's lone World War II veteran, Rep. Walter Wheeler, who used a previous generation's solution - the GI Bill, agrees.

And Ohio I'm looking at you again.. stay tuned over the next few weeks and I'll tell you more about what made this initiative successful and how we're going to roll it out in Maine and beyond.

In a parallel development, an international trade association of pre-paid cards announced an “education” offensive, designed to counter negative attitudes towards pre-paid cards. Like the Wal-Mart card, global pre-paid cards are aimed at the “unbanked”. This global trade association is focusing on the fact that their cards can serve as an alternative to remittances by helping migrants send and use money across borders.

On the surface this all might sound innocent enough. But there’s a reason why pre-paid card have received some bad press in the past. Although they are touted as a tool for the “unbanked” they actually do nothing to encourage savings or help the user actually establish a bank account. Pre-paid cards also are not covered with many basic consumer protections that come with bank accounts.

And perhaps most importantly, pre-paid cards can be an expensive habit for users, who incur fees when they load the card with money and every time they use it. It just becomes another way in which poor people pay more for inferior banking services.

Operators in the fringe financial services industry argue that not everyone uses or likes banking accounts and that services like check cashing and the pre-paid cards enable people to escape the hegemony of banks. There actually is a lot of validity to this argument. But as long as banks, credit card companies and pre-paid providers see poor people as a bunch of powerless people who have no alternatives but to buy exploitatively priced products, justice and fairness for the “unbanked” will remain a nice, but fleeting, idea.

For the past few years, Georgia has been embroiled in a bitter debate over whether the state can enforce its voter ID law. The law requires all voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. This seems benign enough, until the issue is looked at a little more closely. The law was passed under the pretense of preventing voter fraud. Fine, I guess. Except for the little fact that Georgia has never had any instances of in-person voter fraud.

In addition to solving this non-problem, Georgia's voter ID law does something much more damaging : it loosens restrictions on absentee ballots, making the most predominate type of voter fraud easier to perpetuate.

So, why exactly was the law passed? In order to find out, we must take a look into Georgia's racial politics. The state legislature is currently held by Republicans, and backed by Republican Governor Sonny Perdue. Meanwhile, most of the state's 30% black population tend to vote for Democratic candidates, as do many elderly residents. People for the American Way reports that 700,000 Georgia voters do not have drivers licenses (the most common form of government-issued photo IDs); most of these people are poor, elderly, or racial minorities. Is it a coincidence that the voter ID law will disenfranchise those who usually vote against Republicans? Maybe not, though it seems likely.

Changes to the ID law in 2006 required the state to provide free photo ID cards to everyone lacking a drivers' license, but this so far has not been done. But even if free ID cards are made available, many of those who need them either lack the necessary documents (such as birth certificates) needed to obtain the cards, do not have access to transportation to go get the cards, or must work during the business hours when cards would be made available. Erecting such onerous obstacles to voting in the absence of a voter fraud problem is not only unnecessary, but also wastes taxpayer money - money that could be better spent elsewhere. And then there's the whole issue of disenfranchisement, specifically of those whose voices are already on the margins.

Courts have blocked this law, not allowing it to be enforced since 2005, by deeming it unconstitutional, an undue burden on voters, and outside of the public's best interest. Then, last week, Georgia's Supreme Court overturned a lower court's declaration of the law as unconstitutional, thus opening the door for enforcement. The Supreme Court did not actually disagree with the lower court, but instead ruled that since the plaintiff in the case would have been a new voter in 2006 and thus exempted from the photo ID requirements, she did not have grounds to bring suit. Though the voter could have been affected by the law after her first time voting (for the next election cycle, or possibly a run-off election), the Georgia Supreme Court decided to side with the Republican governor and legislature, who overwhelmingly support the law.

It remains to be seen whether or not Georgia can now require voters to show photo IDs, as there is a federal case about the same law currently awaiting appeal. Similar ID laws in Indiana and Ohio are currently being upheld, and states around the country that have had their voter ID laws overturned are appealing their cases to higher courts. Meanwhile, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform found "no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting".

No cases of voter ID laws have reached the U.S. Supreme Court yet, though there certainly is the promise of that in the near future. The question at the heart of the issue is this: will our courts pander to those who wish to erode the Constitutional rights of our most vulnerable citizens, or will they protect the rights of everyone and uphold the Voting Rights Act? That question has just been answered in the state of Georgia.