Civil Justice

Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act of 2009

hmoroz — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:00:26 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009

hmoroz — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:47:37 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Number of cases of illness, hospitalizations, and deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that are caused each year by foodborne disease: 76 million; 325,000; 5,000

Percentage of consumers that said they were confident that the food supply was safer than a year ago after the January 2009 salmonella outbreak: 22.5

Average frequency of the Food and Drug Administration’s inspection of food establishments: Once every ten years

Number of countries the typical American meal includes food from: 6

Number of Americans and Canadians sickened and killed, respectively, by Salmonella-contaminated peanut products from the Peanut Corporation of America between September 2008 and March 2009: 691; 9

Estimated annual cost in medical expenses, lost productivity, and pain and suffering due to foodborne pathogens: $357 billion

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. The outdated, overstretched, and underfunded food safety system continues to put middle-class consumers at risk. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there are 76 million cases of foodborne illness in the United States each year, resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. The Food and Drug Administrations is responsible for overseeing 80 percent of the food supply. Yet, much of this food never passes under the watchful eye of an inspector. While Department of Agriculture inspectors visit meat and poultry processing plants at least once a day, FDA inspectors average an inspection visit to a food facility once every ten years. Further, the current food safety system is reactive: current regulations mean that the agency springs into action only after an outbreak of illness. Recently, 691 individuals were sickened and 9 died from an outbreak of Salmonella in contaminated peanut products while health officials struggled to determine the source of the hazardous food.

The Food Safety Enhancement Act would modernize the food safety system to protect middle-class Americans who are increasingly concerned about the integrity of the food they eat. More frequent inspections – at least once every 18 months for high-risk facilities – and expanded access to records during these inspections would keep food plants honest, while the requirement for each facility to develop a food safety plan would shift the emphasis of the food safety system to preventing outbreaks of foodborne illness. More detailed descriptions of product origin will assist efforts to stem outbreaks and the FDA’s mandatory recall authority will be a vital tool to ensure that the public is protected if an outbreak does occur. The collection of registration fees adds an important source of funding for the expanded oversight activities. The Food Safety Enhancement Act will help make middle-class families safer and reinspire confidence in the food safety system.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Testimony of Carol L. Tucker-Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America on the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, before the Subcommittee on Health of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

“Food Safety,” from the Center for Science in the Public Interest

“Food,” from Consumers Union

Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006

hmoroz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:04:26 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Opposes

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Estimated number of Americans killed each year by medical errors in hospitals: 44,000 to 98,000

Number of medication errors that occur every year in American hospitals: 1.5 million

Estimated number of elderly and disabled Americans who live in chronically deficient nursing homes where they are at risk of harm: 300,000

Percentage of doctors responsible for nearly 60 percent of malpractice claims: 5.9

Percentage of the nation’s total health care spending accounted for by malpractice lawsuits: 2

Number of hearings held for this bill and other medical malpractice legislation in the 109th Congress: 0

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Opposes. The middle class endorses a “no” vote on the procedural issue and also opposes the substance of this bill. The Medical Care Access Protection Act tries to lower the runaway cost of health care by limiting the rights of patients and their families to seek legal recourse if they are killed or injured by medical negligence or malpractice. Unfortunately, the bill would do little to bring down costs – according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, total malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of the nation’s health care expenditures – but it would impede the ability of injured middle-class patients to retain a lawyer and receive just compensation for their injuries. Current and aspiring middle-class Americans deserve high quality medical care. Yet too often hospitals, health care providers, and nursing homes make preventable mistakes that harm patients’ health and well-being. According to the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, 44,000 and 98,000 Americans are killed and 300,000 are injured by medical errors in hospitals every year. Another IOM study found 1.5 million medication errors occur every year in American hospitals, adding $3.5 billion in medical costs to the medical system, and between $17 billion and $29 billion per year in total costs to society—including medical expenses, lost income, lost household productivity, and physical disability. By reducing the potential damages payable in lawsuits, this bill not only restricts the amount injured patients can recover when they are harmed by these errors, but also diminishes the incentives for hospitals and nursing homes not to cut corners on patient care and safety, resulting in worse medical care for all patients.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“The Great Medical Malpractice Hoax,” from Public Citizen

“Claims, Errors, and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation,” David M. Studdart, et. al., The New England Journal of Medicine

“Civil Justice Presidential Platform: Medical Malpractice Reform,” from Kia Franklin at the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy

Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006

hmoroz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:46:17 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Percentage of African Americans registered in Mississippi in 1964, before passage of the VRA: 10

Percentage of African Americans registered in Mississippi in 1968, after passage of the VRA: 60

Approximate number of African Americans in public office in 1964: 300

Minimum number of African American elected officials in 2006: 9,100

Number of states that currently contain jurisdictions subject to federal review of changes to voting rules under the VRA: 16

Number of local jurisdictions across 31 states that are covered by the language access provisions of the Voting Rights Act: 466

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. The ability to vote without fear of discrimination and intimidation in all elections, from the local school board to mayor to state assembly, is a fundamental component of a middle-class standard of living necessary for holding public officials accountable. Protecting the votes of every aspiring middle-class and middle-class citizen ensures that their voices are heard on the issues that matter most to them. The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important civil rights acts and has been critical to ensuring that minorities achieve full enfranchisement and are represented by elected officials who will consider their issues, voice their concerns, and protect their interests. With passage of the Act, registration among African Americans jumped from 10 percent in 1964 to 60 percent in 1968 in Mississippi and from 24 percent to 57 percent in Alabama. The number of African Americans in public office has increased almost 3000 percent since the passage of the VRA. The number of Latino elected officials has increased from 1,200 in 1974 to 6,000 today.

But the Voting Rights Act has by no means solved the problem of electoral discrimination and intimidation for good. The provisions of the Act renewed by this legislation are essential to maintaining and improving access to the polls for all Americans. These provisions put the onus of protecting ordinary Americans at the polls on the federal government, rather than on individuals, who would otherwise be forced to pursue expensive lawsuits just to prove they have been discriminated against. Indeed, since the last reauthorization of the VRA in 1982, there have been more than 1,000 objections to changes to election rules considered to be discriminatory. The American Civil Liberties Union has compiled significant evidence that discrimination in elections is a present threat. The VRA’s protections against discriminatory electoral rules and its provision of election observers is a strong deterrent to discrimination and intimidation. Language assistance for citizens with limited English proficiency ensures that all Americans can understand often complex election rules and ballot initiatives, while allowing plaintiffs to recover expert fees in civil rights cases keeps the courts open to any voter who has been discriminated against.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Introduction To Federal Voting Rights Laws,” from the United States Department of Justice

“Promises to Keep: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act in 2006,” from the American Civil Liberties Union

“Voting Rights Act,” from FairVote

Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006

hmoroz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:29:09 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Opposes

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Number of U.S. states that registered their opposition to the Private Property Rights Implementation Act: 30

Number of state attorneys general who oppose the bill: 40

Date on which the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of State Governments and the International City Management Association expressed their opposition to the bill: 6/8/2006

Date on which the National Association of Home Builders celebrated the fact that a similar bill would be “a hammer to the head” of local elected officials: 3/14/2000

Number of American cities and towns which could see their local laws challenged in federal court as the result of this bill: 36,000

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Opposes. Although portrayed as legislation that protects the rights of homeowners, this bill would severely limit the ability of middle-class citizens to have a say in the character of their communities. For example, if a real estate developer wanted to build a slaughterhouse next door to a residential area and local land use regulations prohibited this, the developer could sue the town in federal court, demanding compensation for the restrictions on his ability to use the property as he chooses. Even if the lawsuit did not ultimately prevail, developers could use the threat of costly litigation to bully towns into relaxing land use, public health, and environmental laws regulations that protect local quality of life for middle-class Americans.

It is particularly ironic that this legislation, which greatly expands the power of big real estate developers to sue local governments, is sponsored by Rep. Steve Chabot, who has also sponsored legislation that would limit the ability of ordinary citizens to bring their concerns to court.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Property Fairness

“Detailed Analysis of HR 4772, The Private Property Rights Implementation Act,” from Georgetown Law School

“Fact Sheet: H.R. 4772, a ‘Hammer to the Head’ to Local Communities,” from Defenders of Wildlife

United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 2006

hmoroz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:53:35 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Opposes

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Date on which President Bush boasted that the Oman trade deal would “provide additional market access for U.S. goods”: 9/19/2006

Estimated Gross Domestic Product of Oman in 2006: $44.53 billion

Estimated Gross Metropolitan Product of the Memphis, TN area in 2005: $56.69 billion

Date on which the current Omani head of state, Sultan Qaboos bin Said al-Said first assumed office: 7/23/1970

Estimated percentage of increased inequality of earnings in the U.S. in 2006 attributable to trade policy: 7

Minimum annual loss this represents to the typical married couple household in the U.S.: $2,000

Approximate proportion of U.S. workers whose jobs are potential targets for off-shoring if present trade policies continue over the next two decades: 1 in 4

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Opposes. Increased international trade can contribute to economic growth, but the way trade rules are formulated in agreements like this means that the benefits of trade are distributed unevenly, ultimately undermining the middle class and aspiring middle class in both the U.S. and the nations it trades with. A central problem is that the Oman trade agreement empowers businesses and investment capital to cross international borders more easily, providing a decisive advantage over working people who are not so internationally mobile and whose rights are not well protected in Oman. Despite recent reforms to the Omani labor code, independent unions are still banned. There are also concerns about human trafficking and involuntary servitude among the more than half a million guestworkers from nations including India, Bangladesh, and the Philippines who make up the bulk of the Omani workforce. This imbalance of power creates incentives to move U.S. jobs overseas and puts downward pressure on the wages of American workers as they are placed in more direct competition with poorly-paid, disempowered Omani workers.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Final Text of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement," from the Office of the United States Trade Representative

“U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement,” from the Citizens Trade Campaign

“U.S.-Oman FTA,” from Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch

FDA Food Safety Modernization Act

hmoroz — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:09:54 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Senate Version

hmoroz — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:24:04 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Unemployment rate in early 2010, if current laws and policies governing federal spending and taxes do not change, according to the Congressional Budget Office: 9.2%

Reduction in unemployment rate in 2010 if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is enacted, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, and White House economic advisers, respectively: 1.9%, 2.1%, 1.8%

Increase in GDP from spending $1 on extended unemployment insurance benefits, in dollars: 1.63

Increase in GDP from spending $1 on accelerated depreciation, which provides businesses a tax break for new investment, in dollars: 0.25

Percentage reduction in aid to states made by the Senate version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: 50.1%

Percentage reduction in Head Start and Early Head Start funds made by the Senate version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: 50%

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. Economic conditions are bleak. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the economy continues on its current course, both the length and depth of the current downturn will be the worst since the Great Depression. For middle-class Americans, this means job and wage cuts, loss of health insurance, and, simply, a daily struggle to keep up with everyday costs like mortgage payments and college tuition.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if current economic conditions persist the unemployment rate could reach as high as 9.2% by 2010. With 46 million Americans already uninsured, the Kaiser Family Foundation reckons that if unemployment averages just 7% in 2009 (the current rate is 7.2%), the number of uninsured will increase by 2.6 million with an additional 2.4 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP. Indeed, state governments are struggling to provide the increased services needed to keep the swelling ranks of unemployed, uninsured individuals from falling out of the middle class. But the current economic climate has left states with decreased revenue from income, sales, and property taxes: 45 states face budget shortfalls with combined budget gaps of $350 billion through 2011. To confront these gaping budget holes, more than 20 states have implemented or are considering cuts to health insurance programs; the same is true of K-12 and early education programs and of funds for public colleges and universities.

Beyond the decidedly dire short-term outlook, economic improvement is probably quite far off. Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, has testified that “economic recovery is likely to be slow and protracted.” Thus, programs that address longer-term concerns – investment in infrastructure and green technology are two primary examples – are as important as an immediate, stimulative jolt to the economy.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ties together measures designed to assist middle-class households struggling to make ends meet, provisions that will provide an immediate economic stimulus, and investment that can help set the stage for an economy built on energy efficiency and durable infrastructure. Economists generally agree that the legislation will save around 3 or 4 million jobs by 2010, while increasing economic output. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office , Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, and White House economic advisers all project that the legislation will reduce the unemployment rate by around 2%. Extended unemployment insurance will allow 6.7 million people to collect benefits. Importantly, aid to state governments for Medicaid and education programs would shore up budget gaps and help prevent cuts to vital services.

While assisting those most at need during the economic downturn, extended unemployment insurance and state fiscal assistance also generate the most “bang for their buck” in terms of stimulus because they funnel money into the hands of the people most likely to spend it. Extended unemployment insurance generates an estimated $1.63 in economic activity for each dollar spent; aid to state governments generates $1.38. In contrast, though they act more quickly than spending measures, tax cuts generate less stimulus. The Making Work Pay, Child, and Earned Income tax credits will help keep more than 2.1 million Americans out of poverty and the American Opportunity credit will make 3.8 million more students eligible for a higher education tax break. These are important measures that will assist aspiring middle-class and middle-class Americans struggling to make ends meet. But the expansions are temporary and tax cuts, even when refundable and directed at the low-income individuals most likely to spend them, are less effective stimulus measures. Worst of all, though, are tax cuts for businesses like accelerated depreciation and carryback loss provisions that have little economic benefit.

Despite concern that the spending included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be delayed, perhaps a valid concern due to the legislation’s size and complexity, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 78% of spending would occur between 2009 and 2010. Indeed, funds for investment in infrastructure and energy efficiency, though perhaps more complicated to spend, are a critical step in longer term economic recovery. Beyond its stimulative value – infrastructure spending’s “bang for the buck” is $1.59 – the United States desperately needs new infrastructure to compete in the global economy. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $2.2 trillion in infrastructure spending is now necessary. The funding for infrastructure projects included in the legislation is a first step in addressing this deficiency. Similarly, spending on a modernized electricity grid, retrofitted low-income housing, and weatherized homes creates the framework for a future economy less reliant on fossil fuels and, indeed, based on green technology.

Requirements for application of TARP funds to foreclosure prevention and for limitations on executive compensation and bonuses are first steps in establishing the accountability that has been missing from the financial bailout. Still, the bill does not set forth a comprehensive plan to address the foreclosure crisis that includes a moratorium on foreclosures, a mechanism to require modification of mortgages, and a change to the bankruptcy code to permit modification of mortgages on primary residences.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Recession and Recovery,” from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

“The State of the Economy and Issues in Developing an Effective Policy Response,” Statement of Douglas W. Elmendorf before the House Committee on the Budget

“Impact of Economic Turmoil on Health Coverage and State Medicaid Programs,” from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

hmoroz — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:52:13 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Year in which Ledbetter received a “Top Performance” award from the company: 1996

Amount Lilly Ledbetter was paid per month in 1997, the last full year she worked for Goodyear Tire Co.: $3,727

Amount the lowest paid of the 15 men doing similar work for the company was paid per month in 1997: $4,286

Median annual earnings for U.S. full-time, year-round, male workers in 2006: $42,261

Median annual earnings for U.S. full-time, year-round, female workers in 2006: $32,515

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Supports. Current and aspiring middle-class Americans need the protection of strong anti-discrimination laws to ensure that they are treated fairly by employers. But the mere existence of these laws is not sufficient: the practical ability to enforce them in a meaningful way is crucial. By clarifying a technicality in employment discrimination law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act deters discriminatory practices in the workplace and ensures that when discrimination does occur, wronged employees can receive fair compensation.

This legislation clarifies that employment discrimination law should be interpreted the way courts have traditionally understood it – until the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a more restrictive interpretation in the 2007 Ledbetter V. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. decision. In this case, the Court ruled that plaintiff Lilly Ledbetter was not eligible for compensation despite years of being paid far less than her male peers and even some male subordinates. According the Court, unlawful discrimination had occurred only when her employer first set the discriminatory pay rate, even though Ledbetter had no way of knowing about it until years later. Under this ruling, since Ledbetter’s employer was able to conceal the discrimination for years and she did not find out about the discrimination until it was too late to file a complaint (within 180 days of the first discriminatory paycheck, according to the Court), she had no legal recourse. By reaffirming that a fresh discrimination offense occurs each time an individual is impacted by a discriminatory practice, including each paycheck that includes unfair compensation, this legislation effectively reverses the Supreme Court’s harmful decision and ensures that people subjected to discrimination in the future will continue to have effective recourse to the law.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. with links to the majority opinion and dissent

The National Committee on Pay Equity

“Signing Off on Discrimination” from the Center for American Progress

Paycheck Fairness Act of 2009

atraub — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:38:53 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Median income of a white man working a fulltime job for 50 weeks or more in 2006: $48,420

Median income of a black woman working a fulltime job for 50 weeks or more in 2006: $30,352

Median income of a Hispanic woman working a fulltime job for 50 weeks or more in 2006: $25,198

Percentage of pay gap between men and women college graduates that remains unaccounted for after all other factors are taken into account besides discrimination one year after college graduation: 5

Percentage of pay gap between men and women college graduates that remains unaccounted for after all other factors are taken into account besides discrimination ten years after graduation: 12

Percentage of median weekly wages of male physicians earned by women physicians in 2006: 72%

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Supports. Despite improvement in compensation disparity between men and women since the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the wage gap still persists. Women make approximately 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. In 2006, the median income of men was $42,261 while that of women was only $32,515. The disparity is even greater for minority women. A recent report by the American Association of University Women found that discrimination is a significant factor contributing to the pay gap between men and women. Further, American households increasingly rely on a woman’s paycheck to make ends meet: the median contribution of a woman to her household was 35.1% of the total in 2005. Legislation to end discriminatory pay practices is necessary to ensure that aspiring middle-class and middle-class Americans do not lose wages that are necessary to afford the health insurance, college education, and everyday necessities that compose a middle-class standard of living. The Paycheck Fairness Act will allow employees to seek redress from wage discrimination more easily, while protecting them from employer retaliation. Allowing employees to seek compensatory and punitive damages provides both the best means to compensate employees who have been discriminated against and a powerful incentive for employers not to discriminate based on gender in the first place.

Finally, collecting more information from employers about wage rates will allow citizen groups, non-profit organizations, and public agencies refine statistics on the pay gap and develop more effective policies to eliminate it.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Sex-Based Discrimination, from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

"Women in the Labor Force: A Databook," from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Behind the Pay Gap, from the American Association of University Women

Civil Justice

Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act of 2009

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 2006

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

FDA Food Safety Modernization Act