Outside the bubble
Semi-retired blogger Semipundit tells a story in the comments section of a "No Silence Here" post ("Are bloggers burning us out?"):

Recently I was at a store of a big-box mega-retailer for whom I do some work (no, not that one, the other one). I dropped by the breakroom where some of the employees were having lunch; the network news was on the TV.

I sat down to have my coffee and do some paperwork when I noticed that they were watching intently a story about the possible indictments of White House operatives. File footage of Carl Rove was showing at the time.

One of the young women, a manager and a college graduate, turned to the others and asked, 'Who is that man, and what is that all about?' No one of the group of four others responded; a couple of them gave a 'beats me' shrug.

I told them I could explain it clearly, in simple terms, in one minute, which I thought I did. The young lady listened attentively, then responded, 'Oh, OK. For a minute I thought something really bad was happening.'

So the answer to Silence's question may be: if bloggers are burning anyone out, it's only other bloggers. And we're a cheap, renewable resource. posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:26:00 AM -- |    

 
Wal-Mart memo: 46% of associate children uninsured or on Medicaid
From Reviewing and Revising Wal-Mart's Benefits Strategy, a memo to the Wal-Mart board of directors by Susan Chambers, the company's executive vice president for benefits:

Wal-Mart’s critics can also easily exploit some aspects of our benefits offering to make their case; in other words, our critics are correct in some of their observations. Specifically, our coverage is expensive for low-income families, and Wal-Mart has a significant percentage of Associates and their children on public assistance. Consider the following:

¶ On average, Associates spend 8 percent of their income on healthcare (premiums plus deductibles plus out-of-pocket expenses) for themselves and their families, nearly twice the national average. The number varies significantly by plan type, rising to 13 percent for those on the Associate and Spouse plan. In 2004, 38 percent of enrolled Associates spent more than 16 percent of the average Wal-Mart income on healthcare.

¶ Critics contend that the costliness of Wal-Mart’s healthcare coverage causes it to enroll fewer Associates in its health insurance plan than do most national employers (48 percent versus 68 percent) (Exhibit 4).

¶ We also have a significant number of Associates and their children who receive health insurance through public-assistance programs. Five percent of our Associates are on Medicaid compared to an average for national employers of 4 percent. Twenty-seven percent of Associates’ children are on such programs, compared to a national average of 22 percent (Exhibit 5). In total, 46 percent of Associates’ children are either on Medicaid or are uninsured.

It would have been interesting to observe reactions to that statement. Stony silence? Drowned out by late arrivals spilling cups of coffee? Quiet jokes in the back rows?

The memo was obtained and circulated by the UFCW's Wake Up Wal-Mart campaign. Director Paul Blank comments:

No wonder Wal-Mart so vehemently opposes legislators’ efforts to expose the truth about the true cost of the Wal-Mart economy. It is inexcusable and unconscionable for a company, with $10 billion in profits, to know 1 out of every 2 of their employees’ children has no health care or is forced to rely on our public safety net and do nothing about it.

As Steve Greenhouse and Michael Barbaro point out in their New York Times article ("Wal-Mart Memo Suggests Ways to Cut Employee Benefit Costs"), the memo also recommends hiring fewer unhealthy people -- and even more part-time workers. Paraphrasing, especially the unhealthy employees turn out to be distressingly resigned to their paltry company health care coverage (maybe there's a connection there), and could wind up costing the company a mint just because they're so likely to need health care. The Wal-Mart memo:

¶ Our workers are getting sicker than the national population, particularly with obesity-related diseases. For example, the prevalence of coronary artery disease in Wal-Mart’s population grew by 6 percent compared to a national average of 1 percent, and the prevalence of diabetes in our population grew by 10 percent compared to a national average of 3 percent. (That said, our workforce is no sicker at present in absolute terms than the national population.)

¶ A segment of our workforce consumes healthcare inefficiently, in a pattern similar to a Medicaid population. Our population tends to overutilize emergency room and hospital services and underutilize prescriptions and doctor visits. This pattern is most evident among our low-income Associates, and one hypothesis is that this behavior may result from prior experience with Medicaid programs.

"The silly things have been on the dole so long they don't know how to go to a doctor." This adds a little perspective to Wal-Mart's recent efforts to tout a new, lower cost "Value Plan" -- one with the tiny little wrinkle of a $1,000 deductible for storeroom floor employees averaging around $19,000 a year (link: Facing South). Greenhouse and Barbaro:

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families U.S.A., a health care consumer-advocacy group, criticized the memo for recommending that more workers move into health plans with high deductibles.

"Their people are paying a very substantial portion of their earnings out of pocket for health care," he said. "These plans will cause these workers and their families to defer or refrain from getting needed care."

The health care fate of the 46% (or many of the other 54%) of Wal-Mart employee children can't be left up to decisionmakers reasoning as this memo indicates they do. One approach is exemplified by Maryland's Fair Share Health Care bill. It calls for Maryland companies in Wal-Mart's size range to either spend at least 8% of their payroll on health care, or make up the shortfall by paying into a state Medicaid fund. Although vetoed by Governor Ehrlich, that veto might be overridden by the Maryland legislature. The Wal-Mart memo:

Wal-Mart is under serious attack from state governments with regard to the number of Associates on publicly funded health insurance. These attacks show no signs of abating – in fact, they seem to be accelerating – and elected officials are proposing increasingly costly solutions.

Naturally, this must be countered by "reframing" the debate. Ultimately, a balance needs to be restored between retail and manufacturing, between full-time and part-time work, and between management and labor (or, if you will, 'associates') for this country's way of life to improve. If that's too much of a command economy for you, consider the irony that now even Wal-Mart is lobbying for an increased minimum wage (Harold Meyerson, Washington Post) -- otherwise there won't be enough cash in poor people's pockets to buy as much as Wal-Mart needs them to.


=====
EDIT, 10/27: "Value Plan" name and link added. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:26:00 AM -- |    

 
Silver bells, silver bells
...it's Fitzmas time in the city. Kind of: the presents may stay wrapped for a while.

Steve Clemons breaks the story, Josh Marshall may be in on it (agrees with Clemons on "uber-insider" designation) and CBS' John Roberts confirms that indictments are coming tomorrow. Clemons:

1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.
2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.
3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and 'filed' tomorrow.
4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.

Unresolved:

1. 1-5 people or 1-5 indictments? (pulling for: People! Would bet: people)
2. How soon before the indictments are unsealed? (pulling for: Real soon! Would bet: weeks, not months)
3. Would a sealed indictment against Rove or Libby result in their resignations? (pulling for: Yes! would bet: No.)
4. Who's the uber-insider? (pulling for: Novak! Would bet: Bennett)
   

John Roberts makes the answer to question number 1 sound like "people":

Supporters say Rove and the vice president’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, are in legal jeopardy. But they insisted today the two are secondary players, that it was an unidentified Mr. X who actually gave the name of CIA agent V alerie Plame to reporters. Fitzgerald knows who Mr. X is, they say, and if he isn’t indicted, there’s no way Rove or Libby should be.

My guesses for Mr. X: I'm pulling for John Bolton, so recently extruded into the U.N. ambassador's position. But I would bet on either David Wurmser or John Hannah. I also note that Clemons' scoop leaves room for "unindicted co-conspirators"; I'll be keeping tabs on the Post and the Times a bit tonight.

Place your own bets if you like. Via Josh Marshall, here's Hotline's list of the various people known to have been questioned by Fitzgerald's investigation; there's more about most of them at Think Progress' "23 Administration Officials Involved in Plame Leak." posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:36:00 PM -- |    

 
Georgia voter ID law on hold
Via Brett Marston, I learn that a federal district judge has issued a preliminary injunction against the Georgia voter photo ID law. That law -- see "The new Jim Crow: brought to you by Georgia, approved by Bush" in this blog -- ended the use of alternative identification such as Social Security cards, utility bills, or birth certificates. While the order's effect is simply to keep photo ID requirementss out of next month's Georgia elections, it seems likely the judge will eventually go farther. The Atlanta Journal Constitution's Bill Rankin reported:

In a 123-page ruling issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy of Rome temporarily barred the state from requiring voters to show a government-issued photo ID at the polls. Even though Murphy ruled only on the injunction, his strongly worded denunciation of the ID requirement law suggests that he may ultimately find it unconstitutional.

Dan Tokaji, an election law expert whose commentary Brett points to, explains that Judge Harold Murphy's order

...relies heavily on the lack of evidence that voter fraud at the polling place is common. In fact, the evidence includes a statement from the state's chief election official, Secretary of State Cathy Cox, that she "cannot recall one documented case of voter fraud ... that specifically related to the impersonation of a registered voter at the polls." In other words, the only problem that the Georgia law purports to deal with is a non-problem. This supports the conclusion that the voter fraud arguments we've heard so much about are a pretext for disenfranchisement. [...]

Georgia ID law amounts to an impermissible poll tax, in violation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While Georgia of course hasn't labeled its ID requirement a tax, the Court concludes that labels aren't dispositive. The fee for getting a photo ID card functions as a poll tax, by imposing a greater burden on those of lesser means.

Regarding the lack of strong evidence of in-person fraud, the order also echoes objections made by former Justice Department official David Becker in a late summer Washington Post op-ed. Becker pointed out that absentee ballots were exempted from the requirement, despite being obviously and measurably easier to commit fraud with. I thought Becker raised another good point here:

[I]t is surprisingly difficult to obtain a photo ID in Georgia. Though the state has 159 counties, there are only 56 places in which residents can obtain a driver's license, and not one is within the city limits of Atlanta or within the six counties that have the highest percentage of blacks.

But Murphy's order appears to have avoided the 'unequal racial voting burden' issue.* Tokaji:

Judge Murphy finds the evidence that African Americans have lower incomes and are less likely to have a car insufficient. He leaves open the possibility, however, that this claim could be supported by additional evidence later.

Brett Marston observes:

It's not hard to see why courts should be more suspicious of legislative restrictions on voting rights than of legislative regulation of local industries. Legislative majorities are always going to be tempted to use regulation of the franchise to solidify their majorities. In order to prevent that kind of self-dealing, some kind of strong judicial oversight is appropriate...

I agree, and think that legislative self-dealing is yet another reason to oppose stripping courts of their jurisdiction over cases involving the rights of marginalized groups, such as those working for a more general, inclusive notion of marriage. "Orthodoxist dead-enders" of whatever stripe should not get to reserve legal and social advantages to themselves by legislative fiat or nonbenign neglect.

That is to say, to win "Jim Crow" fights, one can't just rely on gradual changes in public opinion -- that opinion can be all but immobilized in amber if the political and legal climate prevents people from ever seeing a successful black official or university student, or from ever seeing a stable gay couple. Principled judicial findings like Murphy's are crucial, too -- all the more so when a popularly elected legislature has the gall not just to pass vote-suppressing laws, but to fabricate the alleged problem being "solved."


=====
* In single quotes here only because that's undoubtedly not the right term of art.
EDIT, 10/24: "all the more so..." added to final sentence.
UPDATE, 10/24: ACLU press release.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:15:00 AM -- |