FISCAL CLIFF ANALYSIS; SEIU NEWS ROUNDUP; You know you are getting old when... El que coje consejo, llega viejo
SEIU721REFORMERS
There's been a lot of discourse recently leading up to and after the New Years Eve "Fiscal Cliff" voting deadline by Congress.
I am pasting some of the best analysis that I have found of late that I can come to agree with to a great degree.
You know you are getting old... when you have to sign up for Medicare.
In the course of discussing City of Los Angeles retirement benefits with a co-worker of mine, he gave me some strong advice which I would like to share with you.
My particular concern was that, although I will have over twenty five years of city service when I plan to retire, some of that service time includes my military service time which I have paid the city to go towards retirement service credit.
The spouse 100% health benefit does not kick in unless one has twenty five years of service with the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles does not recognize military service time for this benefit.
The question that I had posed to my co-worker was, " if I have less than the twenty five years required to qualify my wife for 100% paid health benefits when I retire, does the City of Los Angeles pro rate the premium for my spouses health benefit so that the payment is reduced in proportion to the amount of service that I do have with the City of Los Angeles?"
Well, my co-worker gave me some sound advice.
What he said was this.
By the way, my co-worker's name is Keith. Keith said that he could give me his thoughts on this question but that rather than hear what he "thought" was the correct answer, that I should go to one of the LACER's Retirement Seminars that are routinely scheduled so that I could get the straight skinny from them.
What really resonated in me about what Keith told me was the thing that strikes Keith most is how often he hears individuals who do attend the seminar repeatedly express how they should have attended the seminar ten years BEFORE they retired! Not the year prior to retirement.
Apparently there are measures one can take to increase your retirement income by increasing your monthly payments while you are working instead of to DISH NET, XM, Direct TV or Times Warner.
The last item that I have pasted at the bottom of this email is a copy of the most recent LACER announcement on Retirement Seminars. Something that Keith suggested I do here at seiulocal7...@gmail.com
Don't be like me and wait for the last minute to attend one of the most important seminars to directly affect you and if applicable your spouse's, quality of life in your retirement.
Talk to you later,
Rafe
FROM: CREDO ACTION
WRITTEN BY: Becky Bond
Five things you should know about last night's vote.
There's a lot of spin out there about the deficit deal that was cut over the holiday. We wanted to share our thinking on the deal.
Over 20,000 CREDO Action members called their senators, their representatives, the White House and Congressional leadership to stop a bad deal. And we were joined by thousands of other progressives in advocating to save Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
And we most definitely had an impact. Cuts to Social Security benefits, which the White House proposed in final negotiations, were blocked. Raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 was also shot down early on when it was floated as a trial balloon. Action by voters who raised their voices made a difference in the debate.
Unfortunately, the White House, which was in a strong position when it went into negotiations with Republicans, chose to cut a bad deal in order to make the overhyped "Fiscal Cliff" deadline. Instead, we should have waited for a new Congress to be sworn in on January 3 — with a Senate which will include progressive champions like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin, and a House with more Democrats and fewer Tea Party Republicans.
CREDO, along with other progressive groups like PCCC, MoveOn, DFA, ColorOfChange, and others, have said all along that no deal was better than the bad deal on the table.
But last night the House ratified the White House's deal with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. And the White House made the Bush tax cuts permanent for a huge chunk of the wealthiest 2%, giving away much needed leverage for staving off future cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
As Grover Norquist, the anti-tax conservative zealot who famously said his goal was to shrink government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub," tweeted before the vote: "Congress about to make permanent most of the temporary tax cuts that Democrats voted against in 2001 and 2003. Permanent beats temporary."
And Rep. Tom Cole, a Republican House member from Oklahoma crowed, "I would prefer not to raise taxes on anybody. But we protected almost every American. We did it at a higher income level than the President campaigned on. And again, frankly, we've denied him I think his most important piece of leverage in any negotiation going forward."1
The deal didn't address the debt limit or even the triggered cuts (called the "sequester") set in place by the failed 2010 debt ceiling deal. So in just two months, we'll reach a crisis again, and because a key leverage point for raising revenue (rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans) has been surrendered, we'll be in the fight of our life to protect our Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare from benefit cuts.
From our perspective, here are five things you need to know about last night's deal.
1) The Bush tax cuts that were finally set to expire are now permanent.
The Bush tax cuts were set to expire on Jan. 1, 2013. President Obama and many Democrats won election in 2012 based on a promise to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans making $250,000 and above. Had Congress done nothing, the Bush tax cuts for all Americans would simply have expired at midnight on December 31. But the deal that just passed made the Bush tax cuts permanent for households making up to $450,000. This represents a $9,200 tax cut for people making more than $35,000 a month.2 And it will take an affirmative act of Congress to actually raise taxes to undo this hand out to some of the richest Americans (a virtual impossibility with the current Congress).
2) The estate tax exemption just passed is a pure giveaway to the nation's wealthiest families.
As Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik explains:3
There's no purer giveaway to the wealthy than this. The final deal raises the tax to 40% from 35% on estates over $10 million. (That figure is for couples, whose estates are each entitled to a $5-million exemption upon their deaths.) The alternative was to return to 2009 law, which set the tax at 45% on couples' estates more than $7 million.
Who pays the estate tax? In 2011, about 1,800 taxpayers died leaving estates of more than $10 million. Their average estate was somewhere from $30 million to $40 million. Their heirs cashed in on some of the most nimble tax planning on Earth: Although the statutory top rate was 35%, the average rate on estates of even $20 million-plus (the average gross value of which was $65 million) came to only 16.2%.
3) The payroll tax expiration raises taxes on the middle and working classes.
For the last two years, the payroll tax that wage earners pay on their first $113,000 of income to fund Social Security was temporarily reduced by two percentage points.
While the mechanism of this tax cut was problematic from the perspective of those worried about fully funding Social Security, it was a form of economic stimulus that helped put more money in the pockets of working Americans. So most progressives who opposed the funding mechanism still thought that it should be phased out over time or replaced with some other kind of equivalent tax cut (at least until the economy improved).
Instead, the payroll tax holiday was allowed to end abruptly and without anything to replace it, which will result in a jarring two percent reduction in the take-home pay of most workers.
Since the payroll tax only applies to the first $113,000 in income, people who make more than that will see a relatively smaller tax increase. And combined with the now-permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, some of the richest Americans will see a net reduction in the taxes they owe whereas working and middle class workers will see a tax increase.
4) The deficit isn't really the problem.
The deficit hysteria that has become part of the conventional wisdom in DC is really just a way for wealthy elites and corporate interests (and their allies on Capitol Hill) to push for austerity and end programs that benefit most Americans.
America is the richest country in the history of the world and yet we're told by the deficit scolds that we're too poor to fund education or the FDA or pay for food stamps to keep Americans from going hungry. Meanwhile, the very same politicians who plead poverty want to give away billions in unneeded corporate welfare, spend more money than ever to fund the biggest military in the world and cut taxes on the extremely rich. Not to mention the fact that the cost of borrowing is at historic lows. For more on this topic read Dean Baker's piece "Look Beyond the Fiscal Cliff."4
5) The debt ceiling wasn't addressed. In two months Republicans will take hostages again, and we'll be in the fight of our lives to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
The existence of the so-called "Fiscal Cliff" was itself the result of a terrible deal President Obama cut the last time Congress had to raise the debt ceiling. This set up a constellation of automatic tax increases and spending cuts that Congress was feverishly trying to avoid, and which paved the way to yesterday's vote.
But with the Bush tax cuts (one of the Republicans' top priorities) now off the table, we'll spend the next few months dealing with the automatic across-the-board spending cuts (known as the "sequester"), the end of the continuing resolution on the budget that funds the government, and the need once again to raise the debt ceiling.
All of these provide the Republicans with opportunities for hostage-taking, and we know they have their sights set on cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
As Republican Congressman John Fleming told the Huffington Post: "We still have more opportunities. We've got the debt ceiling coming, sequestration. So we're going to get taxes off the table. The president can't say, 'We've got to raise taxes first before we get to spending cuts.' We will have already done that. Now the topic will be spending cuts, from this point out."5
There were some positive things in the bill that was passed. There was no negative change in the way cost of living increases to Social Security benefits are calculated. Unemployment benefits were extended for over two million Americans who are still looking for work. The Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit were extended for the next five years. And the Wind Production Tax Credit was extended for another year, to name a few.
But overall, as Rep. Jim Moran said, "We're going to look back on this night and regret it."6 And even Majority Leader Harry Reid tossed concessions suggested by the White House into his Senate fireplace.7 Reid was soon replaced in negotiations with Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell by Vice President Joe Biden who struck the final deal.
Jim Moran was joined by seven other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in voting no on making the Bush tax cuts permanent for Americans making over $250,000 a year. They were: Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Rep. Pete DeFazio, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Rep. Xavier Becerra, Rep. Jim McDermott, Rep. Brad Miller and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici. In the Senate, Tom Harkin also stood up and alone on the floor of the Senate explained that permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts was an absolute deal breaker. These progressive legislators deserve our thanks.
Becky Bond, Political Director
CREDO Action from Working Assets
| Automatically add your name: |
|
|
| Learn more about this campaign |
1. Leading House Republican says Obama's deal gave
away all his leverage, PCCC's Daily Change, 1/1/13
2. The 'fiscal cliff' con game, Michael Hiltzik,
LA Times, 1/2/13
3. ibid.
4. Look beyond the fiscal cliff, Dean Baker, CNN.com,
1/2/13
5. Fiscal Cliff Vote: House Republicans Caving, Senate
Deal Coming to a Vote, Huffington Post, 1/3/12
6. Rep. Jim Moran on Fiscal Deal: 'We're going to
look back on this night and regret it', PCCC's Daily Change, 1/2/13
7. Harry Reid Threw Obama Fiscal Cliff Proposal
Into Burning Fireplace, Huffington Post, 1/2/13
WRITTEN BY JASON LINKINS
Debt Ceiling Crisis 2013: The Media Needs To Be Trained
One of the things that I hope to successfully convey as Congress proceeds from the pooch punt that averted that "fiscal cliff" (that Congress created so that they could heroically avert it) to the fiscal crisis moment slated for March of this year, it's that debt ceiling hostage takers are dangerous psychopaths. Yes, we can trace instances of Congresscritters shaking the chandeliers on the debt ceiling going back many presidential terms -- heck, there was once a senator from Illinois named Barack Obama who troubled the Bush administration over it. It was a dumb idea then, as it is now.
But what's changed to make things worse is that this is no longer mere idle talk and procedural bravado -- there are people in Congress who truly see default as an ideal alternative to having to concede any points in what should be a rational process of negotiation and deal-making. Rep. Michele Bachmann made her willingness to destroy the global economy for the glory of Tea Party Caucus a central selling point for her presidential candidacy. And now, legislators who were once considered reasonable have become enablers to the lunatics. (And unfortunately for everyone, a key enabler to this madness has been that former Illinois Senator, who opened the door to negotiating over the debt ceiling back when he was still hopeful of a "grand bargain" on the debt.)
But the enabling isn't just happening in Congress, it's happening in the media, as well, which is why another thing I would like to make clear is that those who see debt ceiling lunacy as a legitimate side in a debate or just one more interesting point of view among many are just as culpable in what could be a pending economic calamity as the lunatics themselves. I'm not alone in this concern. Greg Sargent has done a fine job outlining the logical fallacy behind legitimizing debt ceiling hostage taking and notes in particular that by and large, the media has framed the entire fiscal debate incorrectly:
Indeed, you can read through much of the coverage and come away with the sense that this is a typical negotiation: Democrats want a rise in the debt ceiling; Republicans want spending cuts; therefore, the two sides are squaring off for a game of chicken to see who can extract more from the other. That’s not what’s happening at all, and any accounts that portray it as such present a deeply unbalanced picture.
Exactly right: we should not be talking about a "debate" over the debt ceiling, or portraying a rise in the debt ceiling as a thing that Democrats "want" or are bargaining to obtain. I require oxygen to continue respiring. Oxygen is not something I "want" or am bargaining to obtain. Give me oxygen right now or I die and that's that. The rise in the debt ceiling is similarly necessary, because Congress has already agreed to spend a certain amount of money, and according to this dumb ritual, must now affirm their intentions to fulfill their previously agreed-to obligations. This is not a matter for debate -- the country and the economy needs the debt ceiling rise, full stop. (Once it's raised and the world is not going to pitch into economic oblivion, everyone can have a terrific debate over the long term budget trajectory, propose laws, have votes, survive vetos and campaign on the results or lack thereof.)
Henry Blodget, in taking up the cause of the trillion-dollar platinum coin, similarly characterizes the entire notion of having a "debate" over the debt ceiling as hopelessly silly-slash-bordering on bonkers, and he does so in a way that's both stark and accurate -- and admirably so:
To be clear:The "trillion-dollar coin" is a ridiculous idea.
It is an absurd legal gimmick that would ordinarily be the farthest thing from the minds of serious, responsible people who have been elected to lead this great country through a challenging period.
But the problem is that some of the people who have been elected to lead this country have revealed themselves to be unserious, irresponsible people.
How?
By threatening to turn the United States of America into a deadbeat nation that refuses to pay its bills.
That is as simple a distillation of what's at stake as I can imagine, and yet I bet that in the next two months of Sundays, the pundits booked on America's political chat shows will fail at anything other than pointlessly mystifying this situation -- and putting our well-being at risk along the way.
It wasn't always this way. But as Alec MacGillis explains over at The New Republic, as idle talk over debt ceiling hostake-taking evolved, seemingly overnight, into a more serious and dangerous psychosis, the media coverage has shifted in reverse. Where the hostage-taking was once portrayed properly, as "brazen and unprecedented," the media now gives the hostage-takers a pass.
And since the "fiscal cliff" was "averted" and the media has shifted focus to the next big battle, discussion of the debt ceiling dead-enders and their future plans has only gotten more blithe and unconcerned. MacGillis provides a fine example of what's been steeping in the Beltway brain since New Years Day -- this passage from the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza that treats debt-ceiling hostage taking as a perfectly natural and polite thing to do, never registering even a scintilla of shock over the implication of using the threat to tank the global economy as a bargaining tactic:
"Make no mistake: No deal on the fiscal cliff was a political loser for Republicans; this is an issue they needed to get off the table in order to find better political ground -- debt ceiling -- to make their stand."
This is like saying, "Now that the issue of what to wear to brunch has been settled, we can now proceed to strip naked and slice off our own genitals with a rusty paring knife," and never even twitching at the hot, molten insanity of the idea that was just expressed.
MacGillis writes (and I emphasize):
So: a threat to plunge the nation's [sic] into default and with it imperil the nation and world's economy, seen only a year and a half ago as the political equivalent of a nuclear option, is now viewed as "better political ground." What to make of this? The shift in mindset is surely in part a function of basic human nature: our remarkable ability -- for good or ill -- to adapt ourselves to new realities. More than that, though, it is a function of that far more Beltway-unique tendency, to report and comment on politics and governance as pure gamesmanship in such a way that conveys savvy but not judgment. And if it's all a sport, who's to object if one side has radically shifted the goalposts? Good for them, if they can get away with it. And after all, the higher the stakes in the clash, the better the story.
Some people just want to watch the world burn, and some people just want to get that story first. They're all dangerous.
***
FROM: HUNTINGTON POST
WRITTEN BY David Coates
A Progressive Second Term? (II) Possibilities
Two previous recent postings explored the parameters and the prerequisites for a progressive second presidential term for Barack Obama. Each of those postings triggered three broad responses from a largely skeptical audience. One broad response, from conservative or libertarian bloggers, was that since progressive answers to America's contemporary ills could only make those ills worse, the hope must be that Obama sets his face against them. A second broad response, from more radical bloggers, was that the underlying premise of the postings' argument was entirely false: Obama is no progressive, and never will be, so the fears of the American Right can and will quickly be laid to rest. The third -- with which I have much more sympathy -- was that progressive or not, Obama as president has no choice but to govern in co-operation with a House of Representatives whose majority is actively anti-progressive -- indeed is as reactionary a House majority as any we have known in modern times. Compromise will therefore inevitably be the order of the day, with progressive disappointment the unavoidable consequence and to think otherwise is simply to pipe-dream.
So in light of such responses, is it even worth exploring the possibility that the next four years could see the beginnings of a genuinely progressive New Deal for America?
Unrepentantly, I think the answer is still that it is -- because futures are not only to be anticipated, they are also actively to be fought for and created. Ultimately time alone, of course, will tell us whether cautious progressive faith in the Obama Administration was or was not worth giving. But certain things are already becoming clear, things that point to where that activity (and that faith) now needs urgently to be directed.
The first is this: a genuine note of caution. From any Western European center-left perspective at least, what is happening here in the United States (or what might happen during this second term) will be at most both parochial and modest. Any European center-left party worth its salt knows it has two fundamental things to do. It has to move its whole economy away from any kind of Anglo-Saxon capitalism towards a more trust based welfare-capitalist one -- towards one, that is, in which the power of business is to some degree balanced by the power of organized labor. And it has to use its years in office to strengthen that latter power: by bedding in rights to collectively bargain, by building strong welfare nets, by insisting upon socially responsible business practices, and by using public policy to guarantee a minimum degree of social equality. European center-left parties don't always do that to the degree their supporters require, of course, but this president is not even going to try. Barack Obama is not about to turn himself into a European social democrat of a genuine kind, or America into some form of advanced welfare capitalism. I wish he was, but he is not! Newt Gingrich is quite wrong on that. So too is Charles Krauthammer. The United States will not be reset in the next four years in some Scandinavian or even Canadian fashion. Progressive change here in the United States will inevitably be much more modest than conservatives fear. The thing that progressives now have to work so hard to ensure is that those more modest and limited changes do indeed set the whole economy and society off in some center-left direction.
A second and related observation is this. The rights of workers to join trade unions and negotiate their terms and conditions of employment are so limited here in the United States, and the rights of working women in particular (to paid maternity leave, flexible working hours and adequate child care) are so few in number, that catching up in just small ways on these key rights could itself help to set in motion a longer and much-needed process of progressive economic and social change. We need to remember that there are more than political personalities at play in the Washington policy fight. Whole economic growth models hang in the balance too. The bankruptcy of the Reagan growth model based on business deregulation and growing income inequality was demonstrated beyond doubt by the financial crisis of 2008. That growth model is dead, no matter how hard and how often Republicans try to revive and resell it. In consequence, what we desperately need here in the United States is a new growth model, one in which the over-reaching power of Mighty Finance is systematically and substantially curbed: curbed by the strengthening of American-based manufacturing on the one side, and curbed by the empowerment of American labor on the other. That need is so overwhelming that this second Obama administration might yet inch us towards a better growth strategy simply by default: motivated to make the correct moves less by any progressive instincts which the Administration may or may not possess, and more by the growing realization in governing circles that such a re-balancing is America's best hope of sustained growth and prosperity again. The task of progressives now must surely be to do everything possible to guarantee that such a shift in the direction of public policy actually occurs, and is then sustained.
Thirdly, there are just a few signs out there that things might be slightly more progressive this time round. The Administration is clearly determined to introduce comprehensive immigration reform and to tighten gun laws; and the president has recently spoken strongly in favor of trade union rights to organize and to collectively bargain. We don't know yet whether these much-needed initiatives are harbingers of a new direction in policy, or merely ad hoc genuflections to passing popular pressure; and certainly the small detail of the fiscal cliff settlement gives genuine cause for concern. As the Biden-McConnell settlement made very clear, this Administration is still capable of folding a winning hand and may yet do so again. But there is a new toughness in the president's opening negotiating stances these days that is both welcome and long overdue; and he is certainly on record as being unwilling to cave to Republican demands in the upcoming debt ceiling fight. Yet that fight is waiting in the wings -- it is just two months away -- and unless Barack Obama is prepared to break new constitutional ground by simply raising the debt ceiling by executive order, some new compromise will necessarily follow. In March, the Republicans will inevitably go after Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- urging deep cuts in each -- and those cuts will come unless, before then, the president has persuaded a clear majority of the American people that a better way out of this impasse lies through progressive change: through such things as a new stimulus package paid for by deep cuts in military expenditure, the closing of corporate tax loopholes, and the belated creation of a strong public option to pull down excessive medical insurance costs.
That progressive counter-case is not what we are yet hearing in any detail from this White House as it prepares for its second term. Perhaps, privately, key Administration figures realize that the great strategic goal now before them must be the winning back of the House in 2014 -- the defeating of a gerrymandered Republican House majority by re-mobilizing the ground game that so trounced Mitt Romney. But if they realize it privately, that realization has yet to surface publicly. To date the president still remains far too publicly wedded to the view that revenue increases need to be immediately matched by entitlement reductions. He remains too defensive on the importance of public spending for long-term economic growth and he remains too committed to the limited federal regulation of large-scale American business. Occasionally -- as in Osawatomie last year -- the president speaks of the need for a new and more progressive social contract in America, but so far he has yet to fill in the full details of what that new contract should be. Indeed throughout his re-election campaign, Barack Obama remained too focused on the issue of shared sacrifice by Americans as taxpayers and wage earners, too silent on the parallel need for a greater sharing of rights, income and power between Americans in the workplace.
The president regularly talks a populist rhetoric, but he has yet to deliver an effective progressive politics. It is now the job of every American liberal to urge him to bring rhetoric and policy together, and to critique him when he does not. This country desperately needs a progressive tidal wave in November 2014, and you don't get tidal waves without first creating the headwind that drives them. It is time for that driving to begin. There is an Inaugural Address, a State of the Union, and a budget, all coming now in quick succession. Each will need to be watched for signs of fundamental re-framing. The president re-framed the gun law issue superbly by the quality of his address at Newtown. If he can do that vital job on something so horrific and so specific, let us hope he can do it too on something more structural and more general. America needs a new path. This president has the opportunity to set it. The question is: will he? I do hope so.
FROM:
SEIU 721
COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST IAN THOMPSON
Hello everyone:
Happy New Year! 2012 was full of actions and victories for SEIU 721 members. As we start 2013, we want to hear from you. The SEIU 721 Communications Department has initiated a Communications Survey to get feedback on how we communicate with you. The survey is for SEIU 721 members only. Please take the survey. It will only take 5 to 10 minutes of your time.
Take the Communications Survey Online:
http://www.seiu721.org/survey.php
Download the Survey and Distribute it to Co-Workers:
http://www.seiu721.org/SEIU%20721%202013%20Communications%20Survey.pdf
Below are some articles of interest from just
before the New Year up through today. If you find news items relevant to
SEIU 721 members, please email them to me:
ian.th...@seiu721.org.
In solidarity,
Ian Thompson
LA/OC Cities and Districts Communications Specialist, SEIU 721
------------------------------------------
721 WEBSITE
City Workers Say: 'Approve the DWP Contract Now', 1.2
LA's City Administrative Officer, Miguel Santana, is holding up the
tentative agreement ratified with Dept. of Water and Power management.
Come out on Jan. 8 to turn things around.
http://www.seiu721.org/2012/12/approve-the-dwp-contract-now.php
City Workers Awarded for Ideas, Innovation, 12.17
SEIU 721 members gained recognition by the Quality and Productivity
Commission for their good ideas and hard work done to keep Los Angeles
running.
http://www.seiu721.org/2012/12/la-city-workers-awarded-for-ideas-innova.php
If you have something to say, write a member blog for the 721 website. Contact me if you want to blog for your union.
THE ‘FISCAL CLIFF’
SEIU.org: ‘Budget Deal: The Right Move to Protect Middle Class Families’
http://www.seiu.org/2013/01/budget-deal-the-right-move-to-protect-middle-class.php
LA Times (Michael Hiltzik), 1.2: ‘The Fiscal Cliff Con Game’
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130102,0,573514.column
CITY WORKERS’ PENSIONS
LA Weekly, 1.3: ‘How Richard Riordan Blew $800,000 on a Failed Try at Pension Reform’
Details from Riordan’s side about how his campaign imploded. Of course, the decisive factor was SEIU 721 members and others getting out in the streets to block his signature gatherers.
http://www.laweekly.com/2013-01-03/news/richard-riordan-pension-reform-failure/
LA MAYORAL AND COUNCIL RACES
LA Times, 12.14: ‘L.A. mayor candidates Greuel, Garcetti trade barbs at labor meeting’
An article about the elections town hall events held at SEIU 721. Well worth a read.
“The Los Angeles mayor's race has been tame so far, with candidates
sticking mostly to topics that are far from incendiary: business taxes,
economic development, affordable housing.
“But the first hint of a more lively race to come
surfaced at a forum staged recently by the Service Employees
International Union, which represents 10,000 city employees.
“Ian Thompson, a spokesman for SEIU Local 721, said his union is still
trying to determine whether it will endorse a candidate in the March 5
mayoral primary. During the forum, Greuel and Garcetti ducked the
question of whether they would keep Miguel Santana,
the top budget official who has drawn the ire of city unions.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/la-mayor-eric-garcetti-wendy-greuel.html
LA Times, 1.3: ‘Eric Garcetti invokes Latino-Jewish ancestry in mayor's race’
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-garcetti-mayor-20130102,0,3870098.story
LA Weekly, 1.3: ‘Kevin James' Mayoral Dreams Get Legs’
http://www.laweekly.com/2013-01-03/news/kevin-james-los-angeles-mayor-candidate-gay-republican/
KPCC, 1.3: ‘Emanuel Pleitez qualifies for city matching funds in LA mayors race’
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2013/01/03/11814/emanuel-pleitez-qualifies-city-matching-funds-la-m/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KPCCRepresent+%28Blog%3A+Represent!+|+89.3+KPCC%29
LA Daily News, 1.2: ‘Los Angeles City Council District 7 candidates looking to bring change’
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_22292126/los-angeles-city-council-district-7-candidates-looking
LA CITY SALES TAX
LA Daily News, 12.16: ‘Rick Orlov's Tipoff: City sales tax measure draws lines on support’
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_22205933/rick-orlovs-tipoff-city-sales-tax-measure-draws
OUR FEARLESS MISLEADER
Huffington Post, 12.29: ‘Charlie Sheen & Antonio Villaraigosa: Actor Posts 'Party' Picture With Los Angeles Mayor’
LABOR STRUGGLES
AlterNet, 12.31: ‘7 Amazing Fights for the Rights of Workers’
http://www.alternet.org/activism/7-amazing-fights-rights-workers
Huffington Post, 12.28: ‘California Labor Unions Allowed More Freedom By State Supreme Court’
A victory for free speech: “In a hands-down win for organized labor, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state's labor laws assuring union members the right to picket on privately owned walkways fronting store entrances are not unconstitutional.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/california-labor-unions_n_2374278.html
------------------------------------------
Ian Thompson
SEIU 721
Communications Specialist
1545 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Direct: (213) 738-8413
Cell: (213) 446-7946
Facebook.com/seiu721
Twitter.com/seiu721![]()
Seminars
January - February - March
“It’s never too early to plan for your retirement.”
![]()
Planning for
Retirement Seminars
“Late Career Seminar”
Learn about your retirement benefits including your retirement allowance, health benefits, and survivor benefits for employees in the second half of their
City careers.
At LACERS in the LA Times Building
202 W. First Street, Suite 500, Los Angeles - 5th Floor Board Room (Please bring a photo ID to ease process of entry into building.)
· Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. (Seminar Full)
· Friday, January 11, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. (Seminar Full)
· Saturday, February 9, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
· Monday, March 18, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
· Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
At Marvin Braude Constituent Center - Van Nuys
6262 Van Nuys Blvd., Van Nuys - Conference Room 1-B
· Wednesday, February 20, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.
3720 Stephen M. White Drive, San Pedro - John M. Olguin Auditorium
· Monday, March 4, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.
(Includes 1-hour Lunch
Break)
“Early Career Seminar”
Learn about your retirement benefits including how to calculate your retirement allowance for employees in the first half of their City careers.
At LACERS in the LA Times Building
202 W. First Street, Suite 500, Los Angeles - 5th Floor Board Room (Please bring a photo ID to ease process of entry into building.)
· Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.
· Wednesday, March
13, 2013 at
9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.
To Register:
Reserve a seat
by calling LACERS at (800)
779-8328 or by
visiting LACERS online at www.LACERS.org
LACERS will bring a 3.5-hour Planning for Retirement seminar – suitable for all employees – to your worksite if:
· You can assure attendance of at least 30 participants
· You have a facility to accommodate the seminar
· Your Department Personnel Director or Training Coordinator makes the request by calling (800) 779-8328
Los Angeles City Employees’
Retirement System
(800) 779-8328 ● (888) 349-3996 (TDD) ● Fax (213) 687-4174
www.LACERS.org ● E-mail: LACERS.services@lacity.org
--
SEIU Local 721 Reformers is an email address attempting to share information with SEIU Local Members, Stewards, Officers, Staff and Officials.
Rafe Garcia, Steward, is the custodian of this email address.
Those of us sharing, exchanging and participating in this forum are attempting to engage the membership to further the concept of a member driven Union.
We, you and all the rest of us have the best interests of the rank and file members, over 70,000 strong.
FOUNDED AUGUST 31, 2008