Tag: state government
Andy Beshear

Republican Legislators Want To Abolish Lunch Hour -- Seriously

In Kentucky, a bill sponsored by Republican State Rep. Phillip Pratt would, among other things, eliminate workers' rights to lunch breaks and rest breaks. House Bill 500 has been advancing in the Kentucky State Legislature, and Pratt's proposal — according to the Louisville Courier-Journal— is getting a scathing analysis from labor rights activists.

Louisville-based employment law attorney Michele Henry slammed HB 500 as "simply unfair to employees who are spending eight or more hours a day at the workplace."

Henry told the Courier-Journal, "They should be entitled to time off to eat and to engage in other activities. Eliminating breaks increases the chance of injuries and burnout."

Duane Hammons of the Kentucky Education and Labor Cabinet is vehemently critical of HB 500 as well.

Hammons told the Courier-Journal, "Paid breaks and mealtimes are essential workplace standards that contribute to the mental and physical wellbeing of each and every employee we have in this commonwealth…. Employers would have no liability for not paying employees who must travel to several locations for work, such as HVAC, repair work plumbers, electricians, landscapers, construction workers."

During a Kentucky House of Representatives hearing on HB 500, Jerald Adkins of the Kentucky AFL-CIO commented, "Why the sudden urgency to repeal laws that are in place to protect Kentucky's workers?"

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Obama Immigration Program, Blocked By Texas Judge, Wins 14 States’ Support

Obama Immigration Program, Blocked By Texas Judge, Wins 14 States’ Support

By Joseph Tanfani, Tribune Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Fourteen states are joining in the push to salvage President Barack Obama’s plan to grant legal protection to millions of people in the U.S. illegally — even if it’s only revived in their parts of the country.

A federal judge has frozen the immigration program while a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states proceeds. Those states, mostly led by Republican governors, contend Obama is forcing their taxpayers to pick up the financial burden for millions of immigrants.

Now, 14 mostly Democratic-led states — some with the highest populations of immigrants eligible for Obama’s program — are presenting an alternative argument: They say allowing immigrants some protections would actually benefit them, in the form of increased tax revenues and stronger families.

Lawyers for these states and the District of Columbia filed a brief Thursday arguing that a federal appeals court should lift the lower court’s order — or at least limit its effect to Texas and perhaps the other 25 states that are also suing.

“A single state cannot dictate national immigration policy,” the states wrote in their legal argument, filed in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

The filing, part of a legal strategy coordinated with the Obama administration, cements a political rift between red and blue states on the president’s executive action. It also signals an effort by the immigration plan’s supporters to sustain momentum while the program is held up in court.

Justice Department lawyers also asked the appeals court Thursday for an emergency ruling that would allow the program to go forward, saying that the lower-court judge’s decision halting it was “unprecedented and wrong.”

The motion says states have no business interfering in the federal government’s job to enforce immigration laws. Allowing the decision to stand would hurt the Department of Homeland Security’s ability to police the border, the appeal says, by preventing authorities from concentrating on deporting criminals.

The dispute is probably headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the administration is trying to move the case along quickly — and to get the program up and running while Obama is in office. It asked the appellate court for a decision on the stay within 14 days and for arguments on the constitutional issues in the case to be held by June.

Announced last year, Obama’s plan would grant a three-year protection from deportation to up to 5 million people living in the country illegally. The largest piece, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, would offer three-year work permits to parents of U.S. citizens or other legal residents. It wouldn’t be open to recent arrivals or to people with serious criminal records.

In the friend-of-the-court brief, California, New York, Illinois and the other states say that giving temporary legal status to millions of immigrants will have “far-reaching” benefits to local economies, by allowing people to earn higher salaries and pay taxes.

The majority of immigrants eligible for what the administration calls “deferred action” live in those states: California, with 1.5 million, New York, with 338,000, and Illinois, with 280,000. Texas has the second-highest number of eligible immigrants, with 743,000, according to estimates by the Migration Policy Institute.

The left-leaning Center for American Progress says that Obama’s program could increase California’s tax revenues by $904 million over five years, and that Texas could get an estimated $338 million.

“With over 1 million hard-working Californians eligible … our state has a major stake in the successful implementation of the president’s immigration actions,” state Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a statement.

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen froze the program nationwide based on Texas’ claim that the program would force them to incur costs by issuing drivers licenses to immigrants. The federal government and their allied states call that claim bogus, but say that even if the injunction stands, it should only apply to Texas, or the other states that oppose the program.

“There is no basis for forcing the injunction on us,” California and the states say in their brief.

The competing arguments from warring states underscore the point that only the federal government should decide questions of immigration and national security, immigration attorney David Leopold said.

“For states to stick their noses in it really is a violation of all notions that we have about how to run this country,” he said.

Some experts say it’s not likely the courts would allow the program to go forward only in parts of the country.

“If what they are doing is unlawful, it doesn’t make sense to allow them to do it in some states and not others,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law, who filed a brief in the case supporting the coalition led by Texas.

Aside from the legal questions, it likely would be a logistical nightmare to only partly open the deferred action program. Applicants are to mail in paperwork that would be processed at a center in Virginia.

“In practice, it would be hard to have a program in some states and not other states,” said Marc Rosenblum, a deputy director at the Migration Policy Institute. “It’s just a little hard to imagine how that would be enforced, since no one is checking where these people live.”

Photo: President Barack Obama receives a standing ovation as he takes the stage to discuss college affordability and access to quality higher education at Georgia Tech on Tuesday, March 10, 2015, in Atlanta.   (Curtis Compton/Atlanta Journal-Constitution/TNS)

Reclaiming Our State Budgets

Reclaiming Our State Budgets

I live in Chicago, a city of dramatic skylines and gleaming office towers for titans of business and finance. My state of Illinois is home to 17 billionaires, and our downstate farmers are the country’s second-largest corn and soybean producers.

And yet new Illinois governor Bruce Rauner says we’re so broke that we must slash $6 billion from our state budget this year — nearly all of it in programs for the poor and middle class. We’re so broke, he says, that there are no other options but to make deep cuts to basic services like mental health programs, drug treatment, and bus subsidies for the elderly.

He also wants to cut housing support programs for people who’ve experienced homelessness and eliminate dental and podiatry services for folks on Medicaid — all programs and services that have actually reduced the state’s overall costs.

Similar budget battles are happening in many states across the country.

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, for example, aims to cut $300 million from public universities over the next two years. Kansas governor Sam Brownback wants to slash classroom funding by $127 million. And even in Maryland, the country’s third-richest state, Governor Larry Hogan has proposed cutting Medicaid and state employee salaries.

Despite the growing signs of a national economic recovery, these and many other state officials are whipping up budget hysteria and claiming that the only solution is to crack down on overspending.

I don’t see signs of overspending. When I look away from the skyline and the lakefront, I see young people with nothing to do after school. I see overfilled waiting lists for affordable housing. I see the rusty underbelly of our deteriorating elevated train tracks. I see social services agencies struggling to do more with less.

Draconian budget cuts on the backs of hardworking families and the most vulnerable aren’t the solution. We need more revenue from those most able to pay.

If you’ve ever walked along Chicago’s “Magnificent Mile” — an upscale stretch of skyscrapers and high-end shops along Michigan Avenue — you know we have no shortage of wealthy people.

What’s shocking is that the strip’s luxury store customers pay the same individual income tax rate as struggling working families. Illinois is one of eight states that apply such “flat taxes,” which favor the wealthy.

Many profitable corporations also get away without paying their fair share. In fact, two-thirds of corporations operating in Illinois pay no state corporate income taxes whatsoever.

A network of grassroots organizations called National People’s Action is connecting ordinary folks around the country who are fighting similarly senseless and painful budget cuts. In Illinois, I’ve joined up with ONE Northside and Fair Economy Illinois, two organizations that are bringing together social justice, labor, and faith-based groups to develop detailed proposals for an alternative approach to state budgeting.

The goal is to ensure that our thriving financial sector, our wealthiest residents, and our most profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes so we can make the investments we need for a healthy economy — one that works for everyone.

Remember, we live in the richest country in the world. We’re not broke — we’re just keeping too much of our wealth in too few pockets.

Susan Gries is the Chief Financial Officer for a nonprofit provider of supportive housing and services in Chicago and co-chair of Fair Economy Illinois.

Cross-posted fromOther Words

Photo of Governor Bruce Rauner: Metropolitan Planning Council via Flickr

Immigration Changes Wouldn’t Solve Health Issues

Immigration Changes Wouldn’t Solve Health Issues

By Tim Henderson, Stateline.org (TNS)

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s controversial executive action on immigration has highlighted a thorny health care issue for states: Potentially millions of immigrants could legally stay here and work, but still lack health insurance.

Unauthorized immigrants have limited access to health care coverage, and the president’s action likely will make them ineligible for most Medicaid services and bar them from purchasing insurance on the federal and state exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Some states have sought to solve the problem for low-income immigrants with separate state-funded insurance programs. Those that have not are wrestling with the consequences of a population that is going without routine care, which can drive up costs when preventable illnesses become serious health emergencies.

Treating kidney disease as an emergency condition, for instance, costs almost five times what it would with routine care denied to unauthorized immigrants, according to a Baylor College of Medicine study published by the Texas Medical Association last year.

Unauthorized immigrants without health insurance present other problems for states. In Maryland, for instance, state attorneys face cases of criminally insane defendants who are no longer deportable but can’t get the follow-up care required for release into the community.

The issues arise from what the Annenberg Public Policy Center calls “a curious intersection” between the ACA and the president’s executive action that defers deportation for many unauthorized immigrants: The action allows them to live and work here legally, but not to get insurance under the ACA.

The president’s action, Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), defers deportation for immigrant parents of U.S. citizens and it expands the 2012 program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which deferred deportation for immigrants who arrived unlawfully before they turned age 16.

The action is on hold because of an injunction issued Feb. 16 by a federal judge in Texas after 26 states filed suit. The Obama administration is appealing. But even if the president wins, the health care issue likely remains for the immigrants who are allowed to stay and work.

“People granted DAPA or expanded DACA will not be eligible for federal health coverage programs,” the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute recently wrote on its policy blog.

Only states with state-funded alternatives, such as California’s Medi-Cal, are considering plans to accept expanded DACA/DAPA recipients. California, along with Washington, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and the District of Columbia use state or local funds to offer some health insurance to DACA recipients, according to the National Council of State Legislatures.

California and New York have been the most successful in bridging the gap, according to a Migration Policy Institute study of unauthorized immigrants. In both states, unauthorized immigrants are more likely to have health insurance than the general population.

Illinois was planning a state-funded insurance exchange open to all, including unauthorized immigrants, under Democratic Governor Pat Quinn. Republican Governor Bruce Rauner, who replaced Quinn in January, has not said whether he will continue the plan.

Many immigration and health care advocates hope the situation will change nationally, and DACA and DAPA recipients will be allowed to purchase insurance on all exchanges and be covered by employer plans under the ACA. Dozens of state and local advocacy groups have asked the federal government to open up more health insurance options for DACA and future DAPA recipients.

“There is some hope that the work authorization will allow people granted DACA or DAPA to obtain jobs that provide health insurance benefits,” Georgetown’s Health Policy Institute said. “However, many people in low-wage, part-time and seasonal jobs will continue to be left out of employer-sponsored health insurance or unable to afford their required share of the premiums.”

More than half of unauthorized immigrant adults have no health insurance, and 1 in 5 lives in poverty, according to Pew Hispanic Center estimates (Pew also funds Stateline). That creates problems, even in criminal cases.

At a recent meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General in Washington, D.C., Assistant Attorney General Rhonda Edwards of Maryland said she’s finding it increasingly hard to deal with mental hospital inmates who are unauthorized immigrants because of their lack of insurance.

Without insurance, it’s difficult or impossible to release patients from mental hospitals and free the beds for other patients, she said.

“Treatment for mental illness is afforded to illegal mentally ill immigrants who are court-committed to state-run facilities at governmental expense,” Edwards wrote in a paper on the subject. “However, once these individuals are released, no governmental funding is allocated for their care and treatment for mental illness symptoms that may cause them to be a danger in the community.”

Unauthorized immigrants without insurance are entitled to emergency care, including childbirth care, through a federal-state Medicaid safety net fund costing $2 billion a year, according to a 2013 report from Kaiser Health News. Routine care is often left to safety net clinics that also get federal funding, but politically sensitive care like birth control can be inconsistent from state to state.

A recent University of Kentucky study found that lack of insurance drives many immigrant women to cross the border into Mexico to get oral contraceptives.

“If you’re an undocumented woman, you’re really reliant on these clinics,” said Kinsey Hasstedt, a public policy associate for the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health advocacy group.

The issue of health insurance came up in arguments before U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen, who issued the injunction that blocked DAPA and the expansion of DACA.

States argued that DACA and DAPA recipients would have an unfair advantage over citizens in competing for jobs because employers wouldn’t have to buy insurance for them.

Expanding deferred deportation could “create a discriminatory employment environment that will encourage employers to hire DAPA beneficiaries instead of those with lawful permanent status in the United States,” Hanen wrote in a memorandum opinion in issuing the injunction. “If an employer hires a DACA beneficiary, it does not have to offer that individual healthcare nor does it incur a monetary penalty for the failure to do so.”

But employment experts said such a tactic is not as easy as it sounds. Any employer of more than 50 people must provide health insurance for all employees unless every single one is exempt, said Ken Jacobs of the University of California, Berkeley Labor Center.

“There is a penalty that applies to employers that do not provide affordable coverage,” Jacobs said. “That rule applies to all workers.”

Angel Padilla, a health policy analyst at National Immigration Law Center, agreed. He pointed to a brief released in December by the Annenberg Public Policy Center debunking the idea.

“It would be extremely unlikely for DACA and DAPA grantees to allow an employer to skirt the employer mandate and there are a number of existing protections to keep this from happening,” he said.

States have always been free to make their own health care provisions for unauthorized and other immigrants, who are generally barred from government health benefits such as Medicaid for five years after they attain legal status.

Several states, such as Alaska and Massachusetts, provide state funding for selected unauthorized immigrants (such as children and pregnant women) for some services, according to a Pew report released last year. But other states, such as Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming, deny Medicaid even to some immigrants with green cards who have been legal for five years.

Many states are opposed to providing help to unauthorized immigrants on ethical and financial grounds. Foes say it’s wrong to reward illegal entry into the country, and that more demand on health care resources will strain budgets and harm the quality of care. Opinion polls often favor withholding health care subsidies from illegal immigrants, according to a review by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group seeking to stop illegal immigration.

But without affordable health insurance, advocates say unauthorized immigrants will continue to have health issues.

“With a growing undocumented immigrant population in Texas, our state legislators must be aware of and address this problem before it evolves into a health care crisis,” researchers warned in last year’s Baylor College of Medicine study on health care for undocumented immigrants.

Photo: President Obama sits down with Telemundo MSNBC’s anchorman Jose Diaz-Balart, left, during a town hall meeting on immigration at Florida International University in Hialeah, Fla., on Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2015. (Pool photo by Pedro Portal/Miami Herald/TNS)