News broke today that the U.S. Chamber has been fishing around for an economist willing to file a "report" on health care reform (translation: they're offering to pay $50,000 to someone willing to say health care reform is bad for the economy - which is exactly what they did against the Employee Free Choice Act earlier this year). Sadly, this latest gaffe is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Chamber's decades-long campaign against the American people, and in the last few months, they've gone into overdrive.

Roll Call reported last month that the Chamber is breaking its own records lobbying Congress, shilling out $52 million this year against legislation on climate change, financial regulation, and of course, health care reform. "While the chamber has historically outspent other companies and associations when it comes to federal lobbying," reports Roll Call, "the spike this time is substantially greater than in the past."

It bears repeating that the U.S. Chamber has a long, storied history of opposing critical programs for the American people:

• The U.S. Chamber opposed the creation of Social Security in 1935, then sought to delay it from going into effect as Americans were in the midst of the Great Depression.
• The U.S. Chamber opposed now-essential health and safety regulations for American workplaces.
• The U.S. Chamber opposed equal pay laws for American women.
• The U.S. Chamber opposed the establishment of a fair, minimum wage for American workers.
• The U.S. Chamber defended outsourcing jobs to foreign lands, on the backs of American workers and our nation's economy
• The U.S. Chamber opposed President Harry Truman's attempt to provide health insurance to all Americans in 1947.

In fact, the Chamber's reckless campaign against American consumers has begun driving some of its largest, most lucrative members out. Recently, Apple and Nike left the Chamber after objecting to their efforts to kill climate change legislation. And now, doctors are hoping the American Medical Association (AMA) does the same.

The Plum Line reports that more than 5,000 medical professionals have signed onto a letter requesting that the AMA - which endorsed H.R. 3962, the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" - resign from the U.S. Chamber for its smear campaign against reform (e.g. equating health care reform as a massive tax increase - which is just plain NOT TRUE for 99.9% of Americans).

Let's hope it doesn't take the AMA much longer to realize what Apple, Nike and others have already acknowledged - that the U.S. Chamber is just plain WRONG when it comes to solving America's problems.

It was a sad day for corporations in the financial, insurance, and real estate sector--like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce & the Financial Services Roundtable--who spent a combined total of $321 million lobbying against federal reforms such as limits on bonuses and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). These groups were concerned that oversight legislation to help rein in greed on Wall Street might actually....rein in greed on Wall Street. "We remain concerned that this legislation will have significant and harmful unintended consequences for consumers, businesses, and the overall economy," the groups wrote in a letter to House members last week.

Thankfully, the House Financial Services Committee didn't feel nearly as sympathetic towards the creators of unfair financial products that scam consumers and taxpayers as they feel for themselves. A recent poll found that nearly 75 percent of Americans believe that the greed and risky decisions of banks and financial companies led to our financial crisis--and our lawmakers agree. Yesterday, the House voted 39 to 29 to move forward with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, to help put a stop to the dangerous and deceptive products and practices that got us into this mess. The House Financial Services Committee also approved legislation that would impose new rules for credit cards by Dec. 1, moving up the date from mid-February. Democratic supporters said moving up the date was necessary because lenders were using the grace period to hike interest rates.

The American Bankers Association joined the Chamber of Commerce in expressing their disapproval for the legislation, saying it would continue to try to make its case against the agency as the legislation moves to the House floor in coming weeks and, eventually, to the Senate. "We still have major concerns with some principal areas" including "the very broad, ill-defined authority that is granted to this new agency that could be used to justify essentially any regulatory action," said Floyd Stoner, ABA vice president for congressional relations.

Creating the CFPA as part of Obama's broader plan to clamp down on Wall Street is an important step towards preventing much of the reckless lending that contributed to last year's near-collapse of the market. "It's been a year since the financial world collapsed and it is now clear that the greed and excess of big banks, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their allies could have and should have been prevented," said SEIU's Anna Burger. "Chairman Frank and the Financial Services Committee stood up on behalf of American families by passing legislation to create a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency--and to prevent business as usual to continue."

According to a recent poll, nearly 75 percent of Americans believe that the greed and risky decisions of banks and financial companies led to our financial crisis.And there's much more to be done. We believe that to be successful, the CFPA must be strengthened to include:

• oversight of auto dealers who receive lucrative compensation in financing auto loans;
• the authority to examine the books of all financial institutions, no matter what size, without cumbersome barriers;
• fixes to the current compensation system which pressures and incentivizes workers to push and sell bad and unneeded products to consumers as a condition of employment; and
• the full authority to stop the sale of credit-related insurance policies that are virtually worthless.

That's why when the American Bankers Association meets in Chicago next week, more than 5,000 taxpayers from 20 states will be there to demand an end to Wall Street's appetite for greed.

As Congress returns from recess and gets back to work to pass legislation to bring access to quality, affordable healthcare to everyone, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is wasting no time working hard to hang onto the same reckless business practices that got us in this hot financial mess in the first place. The Chamber is launching a new $2 million ad campaign attacking the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. From the Wall Street Journal:

The Chamber's goal is twofold: move the spotlight off the unpopular commercial banks and mortgage lenders that are the target of the legislation and muster a roster of more sympathetic opponents.

[...] The business lobby intends to expand its campaign to include nationwide TV and radio ads later this month. Its lobbying push could feature other small-business owners, such as accountants, landlords and event planners.

The Chamber's first ad--running in Washington-area newspapers--could actually almost be a warning ad for what could happen if we don't find a way to increase real consumer protections to Americans and businesses alike. The print ad, which will run first in Washington-area newspapers, has a picture of a butcher with the line: "Virtually every business that extends credit to American consumers would be affected -- even the local butcher and the credit he extends to his customers."

The Chamber's claim that they are opposing this legislation primarily out of concern for the interests of small businesses is not very convincing. Our first clue? They admit that the whole point of the ads is to draw attention away from the banks and mortgage lenders and the dangerous and deceptive products and practices they've been driving, at which the CFPA legislation takes aim. But even a quick examination of their legislative record shows them opposing bill after bill that may help small businesses--and consistently siding with big corporations. Resorting to these kinds of right-wing scare tactics is nothing new for the Chamber; their history of using misinformation to bolster campaigns against pro-worker policies speaks for itself.

Kirstin Brost, a spokeswoman for Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, said the business community is wasting money with this anti-worker campaign attacking the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. "The public doesn't believe that there was too much consumer protection," said Brost.

Experience has taught us that allowing financial firms to abuse consumers is bad for our overall financial system health...and that's putting it lightly. This abuse has lead directly to the current crisis that resulted the loss of millions in jobs and in millions of Americans losing their homes, their jobs, and their retirement savings. Not to mention a pervasive mistrust by consumers in our country's financial systems. The current regulatory framework simply doesn't provide adequate protection to consumers--and we need to put a stop to the new, risky financial products that banks continue to push out, even now.

The truth is now that the Chamber and big banks and corporations they represent are once again flush with cash (mostly thanks to taxpayer bailouts), they're back to doing everything they can to continue the egregious, reckless business practices in the consumer lending market that allowed them to make money then move on.The Chamber of Commerce should represent the interests of American business -- not just the interests of a few of its big donors. Don't let the U.S. Chamber set the agenda on financial reform.

Update: Read SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger's piece looking at the role the Chamber of Commerce has played in the financial breakdown, posted on the SEIU Blog & Huffington Post.

The Chamber of Commerce continues their "Just Say No!" strategy against health care reform with a new ad this week that flaunts a series of misleading numbers to make the case (or rather, their lack thereof) against legislation that will guarantee Americans access to quality, affordable health care. After all, who needs real facts when you can just distort the reality of what fixing health care will mean to millions of Americans and small businesses instead? Not the Chamber!

Now for some truth: We all know America's health care system is broken. But instead of proposing solutions to help ease the crushing burden of rising costs, the right-wing continues to spend millions to champion the status quo and attack common-sense health care reforms. At a time when small businesses are crumbling under the weight of rising healthcare costs, the last thing they need is more attacks on legislation that will guarantee small businesses and their employees' access to quality, affordable healthcare.

Here are the facts on how small businesses and taxpayers would actually be affected by the latest proposals for fixing our broken system.

False U.S. Chamber Claim: Proposed Surtax On America's Wealthiest Will Push Tax Rate Over 50% in 39 States. In a new print ad, the new U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims that the proposed health care surtax will push "the top marginal tax rate over 50% in 39 states." This information is based on a study by the Tax Foundation. [U.S. Chamber of Commerce ad, accessed 7/21/09; Tax Foundation, 7/14/09]

REALITY: Tax Foundation Numbers Apply to Only .2 Percent of Nation's Households. The Tax Foundation numbers apply only to the households in the United States that make over $1 million, which is only .2 percent of the population. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/30/2006]

REALITY: Tax Foundation Assumes Tax Rates Would Rise After Two Years. The Tax Foundation's analysis assumes that the tax rates would rise again in 2013. This is because "If additional savings didn't materialize at some specified date, this would 'trigger' higher rates coming into effect in 2013." However, the Tax Foundation assumes these higher rates in 2011. [Citizens for Tax Justice, 7/15/2009; Tax Foundation, 7/14/2009]

REALITY: Proposed Surcharge Would Help Recover Some of $700 Billion In Tax Breaks Given To America's Top Earners. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, "the graduated surcharge included in H.R. 3200 to finance health care reform would require the richest one percent to give back some, but not all, of the tax cuts they received over the 2001-2010 period." [Citizens for Tax Justice, 7/15/2009]

U.S. Chamber Ad Also Cites Misleading Wall Street Journal Claim. In the new print advertisement, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also cites the Wall Street Journal, which claimed that the surtax "would hit job creators especially hard because more than six of every 10 who earn that much are small business owners, operators, or investors." [U.S. Chamber of Commerce ad, accessed 7/21/09]

REALITY: The Wall Street Journal Numbers Are Very Misleading and Overestimate Number of Small Businesses Affected.
According to Factcheck.org, it is unlikely that the number the Wall Street Journal used is that high, arguing the number "is a guess" and "some evidence suggests the true percentage is lower." Indeed, "only 2.2 percent of filers with small business income would be in the top two income tax brackets..." [Factcheck.org, Factcheck Wire, 3/6/2009; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/26/2009]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims to defend the interests of small businesses, but even a quick examination of their legislative record shows them opposing bill after bill that may help small businesses--and health care reform legislation is no different.

More Than Nine Out of Ten Small Businesses Will Not Be Affected By Surtax. According to the Center on Budget on Budget and Policy Priorities, "More than nine in ten small businesses would feel no impact whatsoever," meaning "some 96 percent of taxpayers with business income would not owe the surcharge." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/17/2009]

Even Those Paying the Surcharge Will Not See Any Impact On Business. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the surcharge will only affect business profits, and "a small business owner deducts any money that she paid to employees as compensation, as well as any other operating costs...it is only business profits that are taxed." In addition, "even purchases of equipment to expand business operations would not be affected..." [Citizens for Tax Justice, 7/15/2009]

A Number of Small Businesses Will Benefit From Tax Credit Provided in the House Bill. According to the House Ways and Means Committee, "a substantial number of small businesses would benefit from a new tax credit included in the bill...the House proposal provides a tax credit of up to 50 percent of the employer's coverage for certain small businesses that choose to provide health coverage for their employees." [House Ways and Means Committee, accessed 7/21/2009]

Health Care Reform Can Save Small Businesses 36% Of Their Health Care Costs and Reduce Profit Losses By More Than 50%. With health care reform, "small businesses can save as much as $855 billion, a reduction of 36 percent." In addition, "over the next ten years...small businesses will lose $52.1 billion in profits to high healthcare costs. Healthcare reform can reduce these losses by more than 56 percent, saving $29.2 billion in small business profits..." [Small Business Majority, 6/11/2009]

Health Care Reform That Includes Shared Responsibility Will Save Workers Billions In Wages. According to a recent study, "Reforming healthcare, and providing support to small businesses under a new system of shared responsibility, can save workers up to $309 billion in wages over the next ten years. [Small Business Majority, 6/11/2009]

On every major initiative to help restore our economy, from healthcare to financial reform to the Employee Free Choice Act, banks and corporations have the same unproductive mantra--"we need to wait"..."now's not the time"...and "action now will hurt the economy." Today, another repeat performance, as reports hit the news that Congress is delaying action on the Consumer Financial Protection Agency after a series of lobbying efforts and a letter from the U.S. Chamber and big banks. SEIU's Anna Burger had this to say:

"Big banks and CEOs didn't mind quick action from Congress when they were begging for billion dollar bailouts. Now that they're flush with cash they want to stifle recovery for the rest of us and hang on to the same reckless business practices that toppled our economy in the first place.

"It's past time for the U.S. Chamber and big banks to stop thinking about their next bonus or the latest and greatest way to scam consumers and taxpayers and really commit to being a partner in our country's economic recovery."

Unfair financial products--like "exploding" mortgages with skyrocketing interest rates, and credit cards with incomprehensible and unfair terms and fees--are a large part of what caused the economic meltdown that resulted in millions of Americans losing their homes, their jobs, and their retirement savings. Which is why President Obama's plan to create a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency is the next step toward stopping the dangerous and deceptive products and practices that got us into this mess.

Yet once more, Wall Street and big banks are doing their best to stand in the way of the financial reform this country needs to get back on its feet by trying to block the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposed by President Obama. And (surprise!), they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do it.

It's starting to feel as though it's never going to be a "good time" for corporate America's army of of corporations and the lobbyists they hire to push their agendas to take a hit and do what's best for working people in this country. So we'd just like to remind them one more time why it is they're still in business: taxpayer bailouts.

We have to make sure our representatives hear from us, and not just the big banks' lobbyists. Please call your member of Congress right now and ask them to support the new consumer financial protection agency.

The Washington Post this week ran a headline, "Quietly, Health Care Debate Enters Crucial New Phase." Well, not that quietly. Not a single workday passed this week without major health care news spilling onto cable news networks, blogs and newspapers.

Below are just a few of the highlights from the past week:

1.   House Education and Labor Committee Approves Reform with an all-nighter. In a sign that President Obama's urgency is being felt throughout Congress, the Education and Labor Committee debated amendments until about 6 a.m. Friday morning and resumed mere hours later for a final vote. Two of the three committees reviewing the legislation have now voted for its passage. Next up: the House Energy and Commerce committee, which is voting on amendments now, and is expected to vote on the draft legislation next week.

2.  In the Senate, we had major progress with the landmark vote in the Senate HELP Committee. "The Senate health committee approved a massive health care overhaul bill in a party-line 13-10 vote Wednesday morning, a major step in the push to create a government-run health insurance plan.  The partisan approval of the $600 billion health bill in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was a landmark moment in the 60-year push by the Democratic Party for national health care," reports Politico.

3.    The New York Times declared in its lead editorial, "[America's Affordable Health Choices Act] is worth fighting for."  The NY Times continued, "While the Senate continues to struggle over its approach to health care reform, House Democratic leaders have unveiled a bill that would go a long way toward solving the nation's health insurance problems without driving up the deficit. It is already drawing fierce opposition from business groups and many Republicans. This is a bill worth fighting for. ...The bill makes a mockery of Republican claims that the Democrats are pushing a hugely costly government takeover of medicine." 

4.  The American Medical Association (AMA) endorsed the House health care bill, undermining Republican arguments implying (and sometimes alleging) that doctors were opposed to the Democratic plan to fix health care.  "This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform. We urge members of the House Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means Committees to favorably report H.R. 3200 for consideration by the full House."

5.  Target joins with Wal-Mart in rebuffing the Chamber of Commerce's staunch opposition to health care reform.  The AP reported, "Wal-Mart is the latest in a line of traditionally Republican-leaning businesses to embrace key portions of President Barack Obama's bid to overhaul health care, a trend that could complicate opponents' efforts to build a united front when Congress ramps up its work on the issue this summer."'

Below is the text of a message we sent out today. Please take a moment to write Sen. Nelson and Sen. Martinez and tell them to listen to what Floridians need:

It could be worse. It's hard to imagine how things
could be worse these days: between unemployment, the financial crisis,
and the state of healthcare, it's no secret that Florida is hurting.



But if you can believe it, there's a group that continues to fight ways
to improve the lives of Floridians.  For years, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce has done all it can to stop working people in Florida from
getting ahead.

Click here to write to Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez and tell them to listen to the needs of working people, not the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Click here to write to Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez and tell them to listen to
working people, not the greedy CEOs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Click here to send a message now. Thanks for writing to Florida's Senators.  Your voice can make the difference.



In solidarity,



Megan Rosati

Change that Works

www.seiu.org/changethatworks/florida/

Upon hearing the news that bailed-out insurer AIG plans to reward top executives $2.4 million in bonuses next week, SEIU's first reaction was...sheer and utter disbelief. As in, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING US. How is it possible that the same company that received the largest of all taxpayer bailouts, at a total cost of $173 billion to the American people, would decide it's a good idea to reward themselves for doing such a fantastic job of losing more money?

In a Fox News Sunday interview last month, Chamber president Thomas Donohue defended the bonuses. In his answer to interviewer Chris Wallace's question, "So are you saying if AIG wants to give million-dollar bonuses, so be it?" Donohue said:

I'm saying if -- AIG is in a lot of trouble, but I'm saying if it took the right people to fix AIG, you're going to have to pay them. Same thing right here in this network. You know, if you lost your -- you couldn't pay your very best people, I'm not sure they'd stay. They'd probably go to another network.

Never one to stand quietly on the sidelines while other financial services and business lobbies are publicly flaunting their corporate greed and lack of accountability, the Financial Services Roundtable (FSR) made a particularly striking 'contribution' earlier in the week to the recent wealth of outrageous "are you kidding me?!" behavior, in an appearance on C-Span, no less. When asked by the host what the Roundtable would support instead of Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Agency to increase consumer protection, FSR's Senior VP for Gov. Affairs Scott Talbott answered "We're not for any regulation."

While Talbott went on to then describe ways he thought the system could be enhanced, his admission confirms what we already knew: That big bank executives, credit card and financial services companies will stop at nothing [even humiliating themselves on television!] to maintain the same haphazard, practically non-existent regulation that helped tank our economy in the first place. "Even as average Americans scrimp and save, there continues to be this poisonous culture in corporate America, that says that greed and corruption and 'what's in it for me' are all acceptable," said SEIU president Andy Stern.

In spite of being crowned the "Bailout King," it seems abundantly clear that insurance giant AIG's executives are still not making business decisions with consideration as for how they would improve the lives of their new investors -- us. So SEIU is offering AIG some advice from the viewpoint of the people whose hard-earned money went to bailing them out: Halt the millions in bonuses you're seeking to give to top executives, AIG. A fundamental duty to shareholders has been violated, and it's time for both AIG and the U.S. Chamber to give up their roles as chief defenders of the broken system.

Below is the text of a message we sent out today. Please take a moment to write both Senator Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad to urge them to continue listening to us here in North Dakota:

It's hard to imagine how things could be worse these days: between unemployment, the financial crisis, and the state of healthcare, it's no secret that North Dakota is hurting.

But if you can believe it, there's a group that continues to fight ways to improve the lives of North Dakotans.  For years, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has done all it can to stop working people in North Dakota from getting ahead.

Click here to write to Senator Conrad and Senator Dorgan and tell them to continue listening to the needs of working people, not the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

What would North Dakota look like if the U.S. Chamber got its way through the years?  The picture isn't pretty.

• The U.S. Chamber opposed the minimum wage hike in 2007.  About $20 million would be generated for 48,000 North Dakotans resulting from the 2007 schedule for minimum wage increases, research shows.  The U.S. Chamber says they have "consistently opposed increasing the federal minimum wage."
• The U.S. Chamber opposed a bill to expand healthcare coverage for children.  5,460 North Dakotan children would gain from the 2009 healthcare initiatives, studies indicate.  The U.S. Chamber opposed a bill to expand
  healthcare coverage for millions of uninsured children.
• The U.S. Chamber consistently defends outsourcing jobs.  4,300 North Dakota jobs were lost to outsourcing in 2007 alone.  The U.S. Chamber says that there are "legitimate values in outsourcing" and that Americans are "short of skills."

The U.S. Chamber's been on the wrong side of so many issues important to North Dakota's families.  But that's just the beginning.

Just like they're going all out to stop healthcare reform, the U.S. Chamber is doing anything it can to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act - yesterday heir lead lobbyist warned of "Armageddon on Capitol Hill."

Click here to write to Senator Conrad and Senator Dorgan and tell them to continue listening to working people, not the greedy CEOs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

We need to make sure our senators know that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't have the best interests of our state in mind: just those of the same greedy CEOs that hurt our economy in the first place.

Click here to send a message now.

Thanks for writing to Senator Conrad and Senator Dorgan.  Your voice can make the difference.

In solidarity,

Ryan Nagle
North Dakota Change that Works
www.changethatworks.net/ND

Below is the text of a message we sent out today. Please take a moment to write Sen. Arlen Specter and tell him to listen to what Pennsylvania needs:

It could be worse. It's hard to imagine how things could be worse these days: between unemployment, the financial crisis, and the state of healthcare, it's no secret that Pennsylvania is hurting.

But if you can believe it, there's a group that continues to fight ways to improve the lives of Pennsylvanians.  For years, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has done all it can to stop working people in Pennsylvania from getting ahead.

Click here to write to Senator Specter and tell him to listen to the needs of working people, not the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

What would Pennsylvania look like if the U.S. Chamber got its way through the years?  The picture isn't pretty.

• The U.S. Chamber opposed the minimum wage hike in 2007.  About $132 million would be generated for  808,000 Pennsylvanians resulting from the 2007 schedule for minimum wage increases, research shows.  The U.S. Chamber says they have "consistently opposed increasing the federal minimum wage."
• The U.S. Chamber opposed a bill to expand healthcare coverage for children. 129,000 Pennsylvanian children would gain from the 2009 healthcare initiatives, studies indicate.  The U.S. Chamber opposed a bill to expand healthcare coverage for millions of uninsured children.
• The U.S. Chamber consistently defends outsourcing jobs.  228,900 Pennsylvania jobs were lost to outsourcing in 2007 alone.  The U.S. Chamber says that there are "legitimate values in outsourcing" and that Americans are "short of skills."

The U.S. Chamber's been on the wrong side of so many issues important to Pennsylvania's families.  But that's just the beginning.

Just like they're going all out to stop healthcare reform, the U.S. Chamber is doing anything it can to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act - yesterday their lead lobbyist warned of "Armageddon on Capitol Hill."

Click here to write to Senator Specter and tell him to listen to working people, not the greedy CEOs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Why should Senator Specter listen to the same people who've tried to consistently hurt Pennsylvania's families?

We need to make sure our senators know that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't have the best interests of our state in mind: just those of the same greedy CEOs that hurt our economy in the first place.

Click here to send a message now.

Thanks for writing to Senator Specter.  Your voice can make the difference

In solidarity,

Michael Whitney
Pennsylvania Change that Works
www.changethatworks.net/PA

Below is the text of a message we sent out today. Please take a moment to write Sen. Mike Johanns and tell him to listen to what Nebraskans need:

It could be worse. It's hard to imagine how things could be worse these days: between unemployment, the financial crisis, and the state of healthcare, it's no secret that Nebraska is hurting.

But if you can believe it, there's a group that continues to fight ways to improve the lives of Nebraskans.  For years, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has done all it can to stop working people in Nebraska from getting ahead.

Click here to write to Senator Johanns and tell him to listen to the needs of working people, not the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Click here to write to Senator Johanns and tell him to listen to working people, not the greedy CEOs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Click here to send a message now. Thanks for writing to Senator Johanns.  Your voice can make the difference.

In solidarity,

Jane Fleming Kleeb
Nebraska Change that Works
www.changethatworks.net/NE

When CEOs in Washington decide the agenda of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they seem to forget all about real workers and business owners throughout America. For decades, they have fought legislation that would have a real impact on working families right here in Arkansas. With more than 95,000 Arkansans out of work, now is the time to do everything we can to stand up to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - and stand up for working families.

The U.S. Chamber opposed wage hikes that not only benefited hundreds of thousands of Arkansans but also pump more than $32 million into the state economy. They opposed a children's health care that will not only cover 45,800 more children in Arkansas, but also will create more than 2,700 jobs in the state. The U.S. Chamber doesn't speak for working families in Arkansas.

IMPACT OF MINIMUM WAGE HIKES ON ARKANSAS:

The U.S. Chamber "Has Consistently Opposed Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage." In July 2007, Marc Freedman, the labor law policy director at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote, "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has consistently opposed increasing the federal minimum wage." He added, "Increasing the minimum wage does not even help those it is intended to benefit." [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 7/17/07]

U.S. Chamber Official on Wage Hike: "We Have Taken The Hell No Attitude." "We have taken the 'hell, no' attitude," said the U.S. Chamber's Randel Johnson discussing a proposed minimum wage increase in 1999. "I don't care what the 20-second sound bites say. This move hurts lower-income, lower-skilled workers."[Akron Beacon Journal, 6/21/99]

U.S. Chamber Official: "We Don't Think Government Ought to Be in the Business of Setting Wages." In 2002, U.S. Chamber spokesman Randy Johnson said, "We don't think the government ought to be in the business of setting wages." [Washington Times, 5/6/02]

U.S. Chamber: "Wage Mandates Ignore the Principles of Free Market Economies." In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote, "Wage mandates ignore the principles of free market economies; they prevent businesses from making profits, growing and hiring more workers; and they base wages on what the worker wants instead of on the value of work performed." [The Pantagraph, 11/21/04]

2007 Minimum Wage Hike Could Pump $32.6 MILLION Into Arkansas' Economy. The average American works 1,916 hours every year. In 2007, 17,000 Arkansans earned at or below the federal minimum wage. With an increase from $6.25 an hour to $7.25 an hour by July 2009, the 2007 wage increase passed by Congress could pump $32.6 million into Arkansas' economy. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Work Schedules in the National Compensation Survey," 7/28/08; Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2007," 5/7/08; EPI, "What a new federal minimum wage means for the states," 5/25/07]

Study Found That 221,000 Arkansans Would Benefit From the 2007 Minimum Wage Hike. The Economic Policy Institute found that approximately 221,000 people in Arkansas alone would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $7.25 an hour. This include those workers that were earning less than $7.25 as well as workers that would benefit indirectly as other wages increase proportionately. EPI explained, "While a raise is not legally mandated for these workers, empirical evidence shows that many employers raise the wages of workers earning above the new minimum wage in order to preserve internal wage structures, an occurrence known as the 'spillover effect.'" [EPI, "Issue Guide on Minimum Wage, 8/1/08]

IMPACT OF FAIR PAY LAWS ON ARKANSAS:

U.S. Chamber Opposed Equal Pay Bill, Saying it Would "Undermine America's Civil Rights Laws." In a January 2009 letter to Congress, R. Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote that the U.S. Chamber opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a bill to protect workers who receive unfair pay for equal work, "on both substantive and procedural grounds." Discussing another fair pay bill this year, the Chamber's Randel Johnson said, "further increasing the opportunity for frivolous litigation would only further serve to undermine America's civil rights laws." [Chamber Letter, 1/14/09; Chamber Press Release, 1/9/09]

U.S. Chamber Opposed 1998 Equal Pay Law for Women. In 1998, the U.S. Chamber opposed President Clinton's call for legislation to strengthen laws reducing disparities in men and women's earning power. Randel Johnson, vice president of labor policy at the chamber, said that wage disparities are due mainly to the interruption of many women's job careers to raise families. "Work experience does tend to translate to greater wages," Johnson said. [AP, 6/10/98]

Women in Arkansas Earn Only 74% Of What Their Male Counterparts Make, Below the National Average. According to a study released by the National Women's Law Center, "In 2007, on average, women in Arkansas working full-time, year-round earned only 74% of what men working full-time, year-round earned -- four percentage points below the nationwide average of 78%. The wage gap is even more substantial when race and gender are considered together. White, non-Hispanic women working full-time, year-round in Arkansas earned only 72% of the wages of White, non-Hispanic men. However, Black women working full-time, year-round in Arkansas earned only 57%, and Hispanic women only 51%, of the wages of White, non-Hispanic men." [National Women's Law Center, April 2009]

IMPACT OF OUTSOURCING ON ARKANSAS:

U.S. Chamber President Defended Outsourcing of U.S. Jobs, Arguing That Americans Are "Short of Skills." Defending outsourcing in 2004, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said, "The big fundamental issue that we need to understand is we are short of skills in this country. Five years from now we'll have 10 million skilled jobs and we haven't got the people to fill." [CNNFN, 5/3/04]

U.S. Chamber President: "There Are Legitimate Values in Outsourcing." In 2004, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said, "there are legitimate values in outsourcing -- not only jobs, but work -- to gain technical experience and benefit we don't have here, to lower the price of products, which means more and more of them are brought into the United States, used, for example, I.T., much broader use than it was 10 years ago, create more and more jobs. But the bottom line is that we outsource very few jobs in relation to the size of our economy. We employ -- American companies employ 140 million Americans. They provide health care for 160 million Americans. They provide training in terms of 40 billion a year. The outsourcing deal over three or four or five years and the two or three sets of numbers are only going to be, you know, maybe two, maybe three million jobs, maybe four." [CNNFN, 2/10/04]

U.S. Chamber President Suggested More Jobs Were Brought In to the U.S. Than Outsourced to Other Countries. In 2004, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said, "nobody knows where Lou got 2.2 [million] outsourced jobs. Maybe we've got 300,000 in the last couple of years. The most interesting thing is that if you take an annual basis, we insource in the very same categories of work $16 billion more than we outsourced, which is 2 million jobs." [CNNFN, 9/2/04]

In 2007 Alone, Arkansas Lost 62,200 jobs to Outsourcing. According to a study from the Economic Policy Institute, Arkansas lost 62,200 jobs as a result of the U.S. non-oil trade deficit in 2007 alone. Nationwide, 5.6 million jobs were lost. 70% of these jobs were in the manufacturing sector. [EPI, 10/2/08]

Arkansas Has Lost More Than 85,000 Manufacturing Jobs Since 2000. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in April 2009, there were 167,300 manufacturing jobs in Arkansas. In January 2000, 252,800 Arkansans worked in the manufacturing sector. [BLS, 5/22/09; 3/28/00]

IMPACT OF CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE ON ARKANSAS:

Chamber Opposed 2009 Bill to Expand Children's Health Care. In a January 2009 letter to Congress, R. Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged members to vote against the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, writing that the bill "raises taxes on a narrow sector of the U.S. economy with the aim of funding a broad-based entitlement program, which is grossly unfair and burdensome to American businesses and consumers." [Chamber Letter, 1/14/09]

Chamber Opposed 2007 Bill to Expand Children's Health Care. In September 2007, the Phoenix Business Journal reported, "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is opposing a federal plan to raise tobacco taxes to fund government-provided health services for uninsured children. That puts the U.S. Chamber on the same side of the issue as the Bush administration." "To prejudice a narrow sector of the U.S. economy with the aim of funding a broad-based entitlement program is grossly unfair and burdensome to American businesses and consumers," said the chamber in a letter to congressional leaders on the issue. [Phoenix Business Journal, 9/26/07; Chamber Letter, 7/17/07]

45,800 Arkansas Children Could Gain Coverage Under the 2009 SCHIP Expansion. A 2009 report from Families USA found that 45,800 Arkansas children could be covered under the 2009 bill to expand and reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program. [Families USA, January 2009]

Children's Health Care Reauthorization Will Bring $547 Million Into Arkansas, Creating 2,702 Jobs. In 2007, a Families USA study found: "With $50 billion in additional federal funding for SCHIP and Medicaid, SCHIP reauthorization could bring Arkansas approximately $547 million in new federal funding for children's health coverage over the next five years. This would result in the state getting three times the amount it would have otherwise gotten for SCHIP... Over the next five years, $547 million in new federal funding will create: $208.4 million in increased business activity, $77 million in increased wages, and 2,702 additional jobs for Arkansas." [Families USA, May 2007]

IMPACT OF MEDICARE ON ARKANSAS:

Chamber Opposed 2008 Bill to Prevent Medicare Cuts. In June 2008, R. Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote that the Chamber opposed the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, S. 3101, because it would cut the Medicare Advantage program. Referring to the bill, and the cuts to the private insurance Medicare Advantage program, the American Medical Association aired an ad saying "A group of U.S. senators voted to protect the powerful insurance companies at the expense of Medicare patients' access to doctors." [Chamber Letter, 6/12/08; AP, 7/2/08]

457,394 Medicare Beneficiaries, Along With 99,997 Military Members and Their Families, Would Have Been Affected If 2008 Medicare Cuts Had Gone Through. In 2008, the Chamber opposed a bill that prevented a 10.6% cut in Medicare payments to doctors. According to the American Medical Association, 457,394 Medicare patients and 99,997 TRICARE patients in Arkansas would have been affected by these cuts. [American Medical Association, February 2009]

IMPACT OF SOCIAL SECURITY ON ARKANSAS:

U.S. Chamber Opposed the 1935 Social Security Act. According to an official history of Social Security, "In 1935, while there were long debate and votes on many amendments, the Congress passed the Social Security Act by an overwhelming majority. In the House, the vote was 372 yeas, 33 nays and 25 not voting. The vote in the Senate was equally positive, with 77 yeas, 6 nays and 12 not voting. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Act into law on August 14, 1935. Despite the strong support, there was vocal opposition to the Act, both in the Congress and externally. The minority members of the House Ways and Means Committee said it would impose a crushing burden upon industry and upon labor. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers opposed the bill." [SSA History: History of SSA 1993-2000]

U.S. Chamber Wanted to Postpone 1935 Social Security Act. In June 1935, the New York Times reported on a "broad program for recovery and re-employment" adopted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. On Social Security, they reported, "The chamber will continue to advocate that enactment of the major features of the pending social security legislation be postponed until there can be further examination by a Congressional committee. If a study of this character is made, the chamber will present to such a committee its views as to the constitutionality of the legislation as proposed and will emphasize the fact that the proposals now pending would double the entire present volume of Federal taxes." [New York Times, 6/16/35]

U.S. Chamber President: Any Social Security Reform "Must" Include Privatization. In June 2005, Thomas J. Donohue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, co-wrote an op-ed that stated, "any Social Security reform must meet four core principles," including "Giving younger workers the option of investing part of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts." In January 2005, Donohue "said a Social Security overhaul is 'doable' this year and said the Chamber believes 'individual investment accounts must be an important component of reform.' [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 6/7/05; National Journal's CongressDaily, 1/5/05]

If Social Security Were Privatized, Arkansas Would Lose At Least $2.1 BILLION Every Year. According to a 2005 report by the National Women's Law Center, "In 2002, $4.7 billion flowed into the Arkansas economy through Social Security benefits." If the cuts expected under President Bush's plan were to take effect currently, "Arkansas would lose $2.1 billion per year, even including the proceeds from private accounts. This amount is equivalent to 18% of state government expenditures in fiscal year 2002 (state government expenditures include money generated from state funds, federal funds, and the sale of state bonds)." [National Women's Law Center, February 2005]

Privatizing Social Security Would Impose an $8.4 BILLION Unfunded Mandate on Arkansas. According to the Institute for America's Future in 2005, the Bush Social Security privatization plan would create a new $8.4 billion unfunded federal mandate on the state of Arkansas and would plunge at least 66,000 Arkansas seniors into poverty. [Institute for America's Future, April 2005]

Women in Arkansas Would Be Hard Hit If Social Security Were Privatized, With Widow's Benefit Dropping $4,068 Per Year. According to a 2005 report by the National Women's Law Center, "The typical recipient of a Social Security widow's benefit in Arkansas receives $754 per month ($9,048 per year). According to the Congressional Budget Office, under Plan 2 of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, today's kindergarteners are projected to receive 45% less than they are promised under current law, even when the proceeds from their private accounts are included in the total. If such a benefit cut were to take effect currently, the typical widow in Arkansas would receive only $415 per month ($4,980 per year), an amount equal to only 58% of the poverty line." [National Women's Law Center, February 2005]

IMPACT OF WORKER SAFETY ON ARKANSAS:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Vigorously Opposed Occupational Safety Regulations. In an article written between the initial bill supported by President Johnson and the second bill, that passed, supported by President Nixon, the New York Times reported: "The first legislation providing for a comprehensive nationwide system of health and safety standards was proposed last year by President Johnson. Strongly supported by labor, the bill ran into immediate and vigorous opposition from industry, led by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States." [New York Times, 12/10/69]

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce "led the fight to defeat the 1968 bill." [New York Times, 3/19/70]

U.S. Chamber Argued That OSHA Was a Failure. In 1979, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce charged "that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had failed to reduce worker injuries and illnesses significantly since its inception in 1970." Mark De Bernardo of the Chamber wrote, "In the wake of piles of more O.S.H.A. rules and paperwork, fatal injuries on the job soared by more than 24 percent from 1976 to 1977." [New York Times, 8/27/79]

U.S. Chamber Spokesman Said OSHA Is a "Blatant Denial of Fundamental Fairness." When describing the structure of the Labor Department within the Executive Branch rather than the Judicial Branch of the government, Richard Berman, then director of labor law for the United States Chamber of Commerce, said "This has a chilling effect on an employer's exercise of his right to appeal and is thus a blatant denial of fundamental fairness." Berman now runs the Center for Union Facts, a corporate front group trying to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act. [U.S. News & World Report, 11/24/75; New York Times, 1/9/09]

In 2007, 3.9 Workplace Injuries Were Reported for Every 100 Workers in Arkansas. In 2007, there were 3.9 cases of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses for every 100 workers in Arkansas. In addition, 89 Arkansans reportedly died as a result of workplace injuries in 2007. [BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 2007; BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2007]

When CEOs in Washington decide the agenda of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they seem to forget all about real workers and business owners throughout America. For decades, they have fought legislation that would have a real impact on working families right here in Virginia. With nearly 300,000 Virginians out of work, now is the time to do everything we can to stand up to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - and stand up for working families.

The U.S. Chamber opposed wage hikes that not only benefited hundreds of thousands of Virginians but also pump more than $185 million into the state economy. They opposed a children's health care that will not only cover 79,500 more children in Virginia, but also will create nearly 4,000 jobs in the commonwealth. The U.S. Chamber doesn't speak for working families in Virginia.

IMPACT OF MINIMUM WAGE HIKES ON VIRGINIA:

The U.S. Chamber "Has Consistently Opposed Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage." In July 2007, Marc Freedman, the labor law policy director at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote, "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has consistently opposed increasing the federal minimum wage." He added, "Increasing the minimum wage does not even help those it is intended to benefit." [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 7/17/07]

U.S. Chamber Official on Wage Hike: "We Have Taken The Hell No Attitude." "We have taken the 'hell, no' attitude," said the U.S. Chamber's Randel Johnson discussing a proposed minimum wage increase in 1999. "I don't care what the 20-second sound bites say. This move hurts lower-income, lower-skilled workers."[Akron Beacon Journal, 6/21/99]

U.S. Chamber Official: "We Don't Think Government Ought to Be in the Business of Setting Wages." In 2002, U.S. Chamber spokesman Randy Johnson said, "We don't think the government ought to be in the business of setting wages." [Washington Times, 5/6/02]

U.S. Chamber: "Wage Mandates Ignore the Principles of Free Market Economies." In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote, "Wage mandates ignore the principles of free market economies; they prevent businesses from making profits, growing and hiring more workers; and they base wages on what the worker wants instead of on the value of work performed." [The Pantagraph, 11/21/04]

2007 Minimum Wage Hike Could Pump $185.1 MILLION Into Virginia's Economy. The average American works 1,916 hours every year. In 2007, 46,000 Virginians earned at or below the federal minimum wage. With an increase from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour by July 2009, the 2007 wage increase passed by Congress could pump $185.1 million into Virginia's economy. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Work Schedules in the National Compensation Survey," 7/28/08; Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2007," 5/7/08; EPI, "What a new federal minimum wage means for the states," 5/25/07]

Study Found That 449,000 Virginians Would Benefit From the 2007 Minimum Wage Hike. The Economic Policy Institute found that approximately 449,000 people in Virginia alone would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $7.25 an hour. This include those workers that were earning less than $7.25 as well as workers that would benefit indirectly as other wages increase proportionately. EPI explained, "While a raise is not legally mandated for these workers, empirical evidence shows that many employers raise the wages of workers earning above the new minimum wage in order to preserve internal wage structures, an occurrence known as the 'spillover effect.'" [EPI, "Issue Guide on Minimum Wage, 8/1/08]

IMPACT OF FAIR PAY LAWS ON VIRGINIA: U.S. Chamber Opposed Equal Pay Bill, Saying it Would "Undermine America's Civil Rights Laws." In a January 2009 letter to Congress, R. Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote that the U.S. Chamber opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a bill to protect workers who receive unfair pay for equal work, "on both substantive and procedural grounds." Discussing another fair pay bill this year, the Chamber's Randel Johnson said, "further increasing the opportunity for frivolous litigation would only further serve to undermine America's civil rights laws." [Chamber Letter, 1/14/09; Chamber Press Release, 1/9/09]

U.S. Chamber Opposed 1998 Equal Pay Law for Women. In 1998, the U.S. Chamber opposed President Clinton's call for legislation to strengthen laws reducing disparities in men and women's earning power. Randel Johnson, vice president of labor policy at the chamber, said that wage disparities are due mainly to the interruption of many women's job careers to raise families. "Work experience does tend to translate to greater wages," Johnson said. [AP, 6/10/98]

Women in Virginia Earn Only 77% Of What Their Male Counterparts Make, Below the National Average. According to a study released by the National Women's Law Center, "In 2007, on average, women in Virginia working full-time, year-round earned only 77% of what men working full-time, year-round earned -- one percentage point below the nationwide average of 78%. The wage gap is even more substantial when race and gender are considered together. White, non-Hispanic women working full-time, year-round in Virginia earned only 76% of the wages of White, non-Hispanic men. However, Black women working full-time, year-round in Virginia earned only 59%, and Hispanic women only 53%, of the wages of White, non-Hispanic men." [National Women's Law Center, April 2009]

IMPACT OF OUTSOURCING ON VIRGINIA:

U.S. Chamber President Defended Outsourcing of U.S. Jobs, Arguing That Americans Are "Short of Skills." Defending outsourcing in 2004, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said, "The big fundamental issue that we need to understand is we are short of skills in this country. Five years from now we'll have 10 million skilled jobs and we haven't got the people to fill." [CNNFN, 5/3/04]

U.S. Chamber President: "There Are Legitimate Values in Outsourcing." In 2004, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said, "there are legitimate values in outsourcing -- not only jobs, but work -- to gain technical experience and benefit we don't have here, to lower the price of products, which means more and more of them are brought into the United States, used, for example, I.T., much broader use than it was 10 years ago, create more and more jobs. But the bottom line is that we outsource very few jobs in relation to the size of our economy. We employ -- American companies employ 140 million Americans. They provide health care for 160 million Americans. They provide training in terms of 40 billion a year. The outsourcing deal over three or four or five years and the two or three sets of numbers are only going to be, you know, maybe two, maybe three million jobs, maybe four." [CNNFN, 2/10/04]

U.S. Chamber President Suggested More Jobs Were Brought In to the U.S. Than Outsourced to Other Countries. In 2004, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said, "nobody knows where Lou got 2.2 [million] outsourced jobs. Maybe we've got 300,000 in the last couple of years. The most interesting thing is that if you take an annual basis, we insource in the very same categories of work $16 billion more than we outsourced, which is 2 million jobs." [CNNFN, 9/2/04]

In 2007 Alone, Virginia Lost 87,800 jobs to Outsourcing. According to a study from the Economic Policy Institute, Virginia lost 87,800 jobs as a result of the U.S. non-oil trade deficit in 2007 alone. Nationwide, 5.6 million jobs were lost. 70% of these jobs were in the manufacturing sector. [EPI, 10/2/08]

Virginia Has Lost More Than 155,000 Manufacturing Jobs Since 2000. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in April 2009, there were 243,500 manufacturing jobs in Virginia. In January 2000, 398,900 Virginians worked in the manufacturing sector. [BLS, 5/22/09; 3/28/00]

IMPACT OF CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE ON VIRGINIA:

Chamber Opposed 2009 Bill to Expand Children's Health Care. In a January 2009 letter to Congress, R. Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged members to vote against the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, writing that the bill "raises taxes on a narrow sector of the U.S. economy with the aim of funding a broad-based entitlement program, which is grossly unfair and burdensome to American businesses and consumers." [Chamber Letter, 1/14/09]

Chamber Opposed 2007 Bill to Expand Children's Health Care. In September 2007, the Phoenix Business Journal reported, "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is opposing a federal plan to raise tobacco taxes to fund government-provided health services for uninsured children. That puts the U.S. Chamber on the same side of the issue as the Bush administration." "To prejudice a narrow sector of the U.S. economy with the aim of funding a broad-based entitlement program is grossly unfair and burdensome to American businesses and consumers," said the chamber in a letter to congressional leaders on the issue. [Phoenix Business Journal, 9/26/07; Chamber Letter, 7/17/07]

79,500 Virginia Children Could Gain Coverage Under the 2009 SCHIP Expansion. A 2009 report from Families USA found that 79,500 Virginia children could be covered under the 2009 bill to expand and reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program. [Families USA, January 2009]

Children's Health Care Reauthorization Will Bring $825 Million Into Virginia, Creating 3,775 Jobs. In 2007, a Families USA study found: "With $50 billion in additional federal funding for SCHIP and Medicaid, SCHIP reauthorization could bring Virginia approximately $824.7 million in new federal funding for children's health coverage over the next five years. This would result in the state getting three times the amount it would have otherwise gotten for SCHIP... Over the next five years, $824.7 million in new federal funding will create: $354.6 million in increased business activity, $125.8 million in increased wages, and 3,775 additional jobs for Virginia." [Families USA, May 2007]

IMPACT OF MEDICARE ON VIRGINIA:

Chamber Opposed 2008 Bill to Prevent Medicare Cuts. In June 2008, R. Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote that the Chamber opposed the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, S. 3101, because it would cut the Medicare Advantage program. Referring to the bill, and the cuts to the private insurance Medicare Advantage program, the American Medical Association aired an ad saying "A group of U.S. senators voted to protect the powerful insurance companies at the expense of Medicare patients' access to doctors." [Chamber Letter, 6/12/08; AP, 7/2/08]

946,194 Medicare Beneficiaries, Along With 758,868 Military Members and Their Families, Would Have Been Affected If 2008 Medicare Cuts Had Gone Through. In 2008, the Chamber opposed a bill that prevented a 10.6% cut in Medicare payments to doctors. According to the American Medical Association, 946,194 Medicare patients and 758,868 TRICARE patients in Virginia would have been affected by these cuts. [American Medical Association, February 2009]

IMPACT OF SOCIAL SECURITY ON VIRGINIA:

U.S. Chamber Opposed the 1935 Social Security Act. According to an official history of Social Security, "In 1935, while there were long debate and votes on many amendments, the Congress passed the Social Security Act by an overwhelming majority. In the House, the vote was 372 yeas, 33 nays and 25 not voting. The vote in the Senate was equally positive, with 77 yeas, 6 nays and 12 not voting. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Act into law on August 14, 1935. Despite the strong support, there was vocal opposition to the Act, both in the Congress and externally. The minority members of the House Ways and Means Committee said it would impose a crushing burden upon industry and upon labor. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers opposed the bill." [SSA History: History of SSA 1993-2000]

U.S. Chamber Wanted to Postpone 1935 Social Security Act. In June 1935, the New York Times reported on a "broad program for recovery and re-employment" adopted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. On Social Security, they reported, "The chamber will continue to advocate that enactment of the major features of the pending social security legislation be postponed until there can be further examination by a Congressional committee. If a study of this character is made, the chamber will present to such a committee its views as to the constitutionality of the legislation as proposed and will emphasize the fact that the proposals now pending would double the entire present volume of Federal taxes." [New York Times, 6/16/35]

U.S. Chamber President: Any Social Security Reform "Must" Include Privatization. In June 2005, Thomas J. Donohue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, co-wrote an op-ed that stated, "any Social Security reform must meet four core principles," including "Giving younger workers the option of investing part of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts." In January 2005, Donohue "said a Social Security overhaul is 'doable' this year and said the Chamber believes 'individual investment accounts must be an important component of reform.' [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 6/7/05; National Journal's CongressDaily, 1/5/05]

If Social Security Were Privatized, Virginia Would Lose At Least $4.6 BILLION Every Year. According to a 2005 report by the National Women's Law Center, "In 2002, $10.3 billion flowed into the Virginia economy through Social Security benefits." If the cuts expected under President Bush's plan were to take effect currently, "Virginia would lose $4.6 billion per year, even including the proceeds from private accounts. This amount is equivalent to 17% of state government expenditures in fiscal year 2002 (state government expenditures include money generated from state funds, federal funds, and the sale of state bonds)." [National Women's Law Center, February 2005]

Privatizing Social Security Would Impose an $18.3 BILLION Unfunded Mandate on Virginia. According to the Institute for America's Future in 2005, the Bush Social Security privatization plan would create a new $18.3 billion unfunded federal mandate on the state of Virginia and would plunge at least 80,000 Virginia seniors into poverty. [Institute for America's Future, April 2005]

Women in Virginia Would Be Hard Hit If Social Security Were Privatized, With Widow's Benefit Dropping $4,392 Per Year. According to a 2005 report by the National Women's Law Center, "The typical recipient of a Social Security widow's benefit in Virginia receives $814 per month ($9,768 per year). According to the Congressional Budget Office, under Plan 2 of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, today's kindergarteners are projected to receive 45% less than they are promised under current law, even when the proceeds from their private accounts are included in the total. If such a benefit cut were to take effect currently, the typical widow in Virginia would receive only $448 per month ($5,376 per year), an amount equal to only 62% of the poverty line." [National Women's Law Center, February 2005]

IMPACT OF WORKER SAFETY ON VIRGINIA:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Vigorously Opposed Occupational Safety Regulations. In an article written between the initial bill supported by President Johnson and the second bill, that passed, supported by President Nixon, the New York Times reported: "The first legislation providing for a comprehensive nationwide system of health and safety standards was proposed last year by President Johnson. Strongly supported by labor, the bill ran into immediate and vigorous opposition from industry, led by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States." [New York Times, 12/10/69]

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce "led the fight to defeat the 1968 bill." [New York Times, 3/19/70]

U.S. Chamber Argued That OSHA Was a Failure. In 1979, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce charged "that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had failed to reduce worker injuries and illnesses significantly since its inception in 1970." Mark De Bernardo of the Chamber wrote, "In the wake of piles of more O.S.H.A. rules and paperwork, fatal injuries on the job soared by more than 24 percent from 1976 to 1977." [New York Times, 8/27/79]

U.S. Chamber Spokesman Said OSHA Is a "Blatant Denial of Fundamental Fairness." When describing the structure of the Labor Department within the Executive Branch rather than the Judicial Branch of the government, Richard Berman, then director of labor law for the United States Chamber of Commerce, said "This has a chilling effect on an employer's exercise of his right to appeal and is thus a blatant denial of fundamental fairness." Berman now runs the Center for Union Facts, a corporate front group trying to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act. [U.S. News & World Report, 11/24/75; New York Times, 1/9/09]

In 2007, 3.5 Workplace Injuries Were Reported for Every 100 Workers in Virginia. In 2007, there were 3.5 cases of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses for every 100 workers in Virginia. In addition, 146 Virginians reportedly died as a result of workplace injuries in 2007. [BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 2007; BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2007]

When CEOs in Washington decide the agenda of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they seem to forget all about real workers and business owners throughout America. For decades, they have fought legislation that would have a real impact on working families right here in Louisiana. With over 136,000 Louisianans out of work, now is the time to do everything we can to stand up to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - and stand up for working families.

The U.S. Chamber opposed wage hikes that not only benefited hundreds of thousands of Louisianans but also pump more than $160 million into the state economy. They opposed a children's health care that will not only cover more than 82,000 more children in Louisiana, but also will create nearly 4,000 jobs in the state. The U.S. Chamber doesn't speak for working families in Louisiana.

IMPACT OF MINIMUM WAGE HIKES ON LOUISIANA:

The U.S. Chamber "Has Consistently Opposed Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage." In July 2007, Marc Freedman, the labor law policy director at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote, "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has consistently opposed increasing the federal minimum wage." He added, "Increasing the minimum wage does not even help those it is intended to benefit." [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 7/17/07]

U.S. Chamber Official on Wage Hike: "We Have Taken The Hell No Attitude." "We have taken the 'hell, no' attitude," said the U.S. Chamber's Randel Johnson discussing a proposed minimum wage increase in 1999. "I don't care what the 20-second sound bites say. This move hurts lower-income, lower-skilled workers."[Akron Beacon Journal, 6/21/99]

U.S. Chamber Official: "We Don't Think Government Ought to Be in the Business of Setting Wages." In 2002, U.S. Chamber spokesman Randy Johnson said, "We don't think the government ought to be in the business of setting wages." [Washington Times, 5/6/02]

U.S. Chamber: "Wage Mandates Ignore the Principles of Free Market Economies." In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote, "Wage mandates ignore the principles of free market economies; they prevent businesses from making profits, growing and hiring more workers; and they base wages on what the worker wants instead of on the value of work performed." [The Pantagraph, 11/21/04]

2007 Minimum Wage Hike Could Pump $160.9 MILLION Into Louisiana's Economy. The average American works 1,916 hours every year. In 2007, 40,000 Louisianans earned at or below the federal minimum wage. With an increase from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour by July 2009, the 2007 wage increase passed by Congress could pump $160.9 million into Louisiana's economy. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Work Schedules in the National Compensation Survey," 7/28/08; Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2007," 5/7/08; EPI, "What a new federal minimum wage means for the states," 5/25/07]

Study Found That 366,000 Louisianans Would Benefit From the 2007 Minimum Wage Hike. The Economic Policy Institute found that approximately 366,000 people in Louisianans alone would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $7.25 an hour. This include those workers that were earning less than $7.25 as well as workers that would benefit indirectly as other wages increase proportionately. EPI explained, "While a raise is not legally mandated for these workers, empirical evidence shows that many employers raise the wages of workers earning above the new minimum wage in order to preserve internal wage structures, an occurrence known as the 'spillover effect.'" [EPI, "Issue Guide on Minimum Wage, 8/1/08]

IMPACT OF FAIR PAY LAWS ON LOUISIANA:

U.S. Chamber Opposed Equal Pay Bill, Saying it Would "Undermine America's Civil Rights Laws." In a January 2009 letter to Congress, R. Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote that the U.S. Chamber opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a bill to protect workers who receive unfair pay for equal work, "on both substantive and procedural grounds." Discussing another fair pay bill this year, the Chamber's Randel Johnson said, "further increasing the opportunity for frivolous litigation would only further serve to undermine America's civil rights laws." [Chamber Letter, 1/14/09; Chamber Press Release, 1/9/09]

U.S. Chamber Opposed 1998 Equal Pay Law for Women. In 1998, the U.S. Chamber opposed President Clinton's call for legislation to strengthen laws reducing disparities in men and women's earning power. Randel Johnson, vice president of labor policy at the chamber, said that wage disparities are due mainly to the interruption of many women's job careers to raise families. "Work experience does tend to translate to greater wages," Johnson said. [AP, 6/10/98]

Women in Louisiana Earn Only 65% Of What Their Male Counterparts Make, Thirteen Percentage Points Below National Average. According to a study released by the National Women's Law Center, "In 2007, on average, women in Louisiana working full-time, year-round earned only 65% of what men working full-time, year-round earned -- thirteen percentage points below the nationwide average of 78%. The wage gap is even more substantial when race and gender are considered together. White, non-Hispanic women working full-time, year-round in Louisiana earned only 74% of the wages of White, non-Hispanic men. However, Black women working full-time, year-round in Louisiana earned only 45%, and Hispanic women only 54%, of the wages of White, non-Hispanic men." [National Women's Law Center, April 2009]

IMPACT OF OUTSOURCING ON LOUISIANA:

U.S. Chamber President Defended Outsourcing of U.S. Jobs, Arguing That Americans Are "Short of Skills." Defending outsourcing in 2004, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said, "The big fundamental issue that we need to understand is we are short of skills in this country. Five years from now we'll have 10 million skilled jobs and we haven't got the people to fill." [CNNFN, 5/3/04]

U.S. Chamber President: "There Are Legitimate Values in Outsourcing." In 2004, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said, "there are legitimate values in outsourcing -- not only jobs, but work -- to gain technical experience and benefit we don't have here, to lower the price of products, which means more and more of them are brought into the United States, used, for example, I.T., much broader use than it was 10 years ago, create more and more jobs. But the bottom line is that we outsource very few jobs in relation to the size of our economy. We employ -- American companies employ 140 million Americans. They provide health care for 160 million Americans. They provide training in terms of 40 billion a year. The outsourcing deal over three or four or five years and the two or three sets of numbers are only going to be, you know, maybe two, maybe three million jobs, maybe four." [CNNFN, 2/10/04]

U.S. Chamber President Suggested More Jobs Were Brought In to the U.S. Than Outsourced to Other Countries. In 2004, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said, "nobody knows where Lou got 2.2 [million] outsourced jobs. Maybe we've got 300,000 in the last couple of years. The most interesting thing is that if you take an annual basis, we insource in the very same categories of work $16 billion more than we outsourced, which is 2 million jobs." [CNNFN, 9/2/04]

In 2007 Alone, Louisiana Lost 42,700 Jobs to Outsourcing. According to a study from the Economic Policy Institute, Louisiana lost 42,700 jobs as a result of the U.S. non-oil trade deficit in 2007 alone. Nationwide, 5.6 million jobs were lost. 70% of these jobs were in the manufacturing sector. [EPI, 10/2/08]

Louisiana Has Lost Nearly 40,000 Manufacturing Jobs Since 2000. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in April 2009, there were 147,100 manufacturing jobs in Louisiana. In January 2000, 186,700 Louisianans worked in the manufacturing sector. [BLS, 5/22/09; 3/28/00]

IMPACT OF CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE ON LOUISIANA:

Chamber Opposed 2009 Bill to Expand Children's Health Care. In a January 2009 letter to Congress, R. Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged members to vote against the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, writing that the bill "raises taxes on a narrow sector of the U.S. economy with the aim of funding a broad-based entitlement program, which is grossly unfair and burdensome to American businesses and consumers." [Chamber Letter, 1/14/09]

Chamber Opposed 2007 Bill to Expand Children's Health Care. In September 2007, the Phoenix Business Journal reported, "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is opposing a federal plan to raise tobacco taxes to fund government-provided health services for uninsured children. That puts the U.S. Chamber on the same side of the issue as the Bush administration." "To prejudice a narrow sector of the U.S. economy with the aim of funding a broad-based entitlement program is grossly unfair and burdensome to American businesses and consumers," said the chamber in a letter to congressional leaders on the issue. [Phoenix Business Journal, 9/26/07; Chamber Letter, 7/17/07]

82,100 Louisiana Children Could Gain Coverage Under the 2009 SCHIP Expansion. A 2009 report from Families USA found that 82,100 Louisiana children could be covered under the 2009 bill to expand and reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program. [Families USA, January 2009]

Children's Health Care Reauthorization Will Bring $812.8 Million Into Louisiana, Creating 3,897 Jobs. In 2007, a Families USA study found: "With $50 billion in additional federal funding for SCHIP and Medicaid, SCHIP reauthorization could bring Louisiana approximately $812.8 million in new federal funding for children's health coverage over the next five years. This would result in the state getting three times the amount it would have otherwise gotten for SCHIP... Over the next five years, $812.8 million in new federal funding will create: $317.2 million in increased business activity, $116.5 million in increased wages, and 3,897 additional jobs for Louisiana." [Families USA, May 2007]

IMPACT OF MEDICARE ON LOUISIANA:

Chamber Opposed 2008 Bill to Prevent Medicare Cuts. In June 2008, R. Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote that the Chamber opposed the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, S. 3101, because it would cut the Medicare Advantage program. Referring to the bill, and the cuts to the private insurance Medicare Advantage program, the American Medical Association aired an ad saying "A group of U.S. senators voted to protect the powerful insurance companies at the expense of Medicare patients' access to doctors." [Chamber Letter, 6/12/08; AP, 7/2/08]

581,345 Medicare Beneficiaries, Along With 125,230 Military Members and Their Families, Would Have Been Affected If 2008 Medicare Cuts Had Gone Through. In 2008, the Chamber opposed a bill that prevented a 10.6% cut in Medicare payments to doctors. According to the American Medical Association, 581,345 Medicare patients and 125,230 TRICARE patients in Louisiana would have been affected by these cuts. [American Medical Association, February 2009]

IMPACT OF SOCIAL SECURITY ON LOUISIANA:

U.S. Chamber Opposed the 1935 Social Security Act. According to an official history of Social Security, "In 1935, while there were long debate and votes on many amendments, the Congress passed the Social Security Act by an overwhelming majority. In the House, the vote was 372 yeas, 33 nays and 25 not voting. The vote in the Senate was equally positive, with 77 yeas, 6 nays and 12 not voting. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Act into law on August 14, 1935. Despite the strong support, there was vocal opposition to the Act, both in the Congress and externally. The minority members of the House Ways and Means Committee said it would impose a crushing burden upon industry and upon labor. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers opposed the bill." [SSA History: History of SSA 1993-2000]

U.S. Chamber Wanted to Postpone 1935 Social Security Act. In June 1935, the New York Times reported on a "broad program for recovery and re-employment" adopted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. On Social Security, they reported, "The chamber will continue to advocate that enactment of the major features of the pending social security legislation be postponed until there can be further examination by a Congressional committee. If a study of this character is made, the chamber will present to such a committee its views as to the constitutionality of the legislation as proposed and will emphasize the fact that the proposals now pending would double the entire present volume of Federal taxes." [New York Times, 6/16/35]

U.S. Chamber President: Any Social Security Reform "Must" Include Privatization. In June 2005, Thomas J. Donohue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, co-wrote an op-ed that stated, "any Social Security reform must meet four core principles," including "Giving younger workers the option of investing part of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts." In January 2005, Donohue "said a Social Security overhaul is 'doable' this year and said the Chamber believes 'individual investment accounts must be an important component of reform.' [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 6/7/05; National Journal's CongressDaily, 1/5/05]

If Social Security Were Privatized, Louisiana Would Lose At Least $3 BILLION Every Year. According to a 2005 report by the National Women's Law Center, "In 2002, $6.6 billion flowed into the Louisiana economy through Social Security benefits." If the cuts expected under President Bush's plan were to take effect currently, "Louisiana would lose $3 billion per year, even including the proceeds from private accounts. This amount is equivalent to 17% of state government expenditures in fiscal year 2002 (state government expenditures include money generated from state funds, federal funds, and the sale of state bonds)." [National Women's Law Center, February 2005]

Privatizing Social Security Would Impose an $11.6 BILLION Unfunded Mandate on Louisiana. According to the Institute for America's Future in 2005, the Bush Social Security privatization plan would create a new $11.6 billion unfunded federal mandate on the state of Louisiana and would plunge at least 103,000 Louisiana seniors into poverty. [Institute for America's Future, April 2005]

Women in Louisiana Would Be Hard Hit If Social Security Were Privatized, With Widow's Benefit Dropping $4,224 Per Year. According to a 2005 report by the National Women's Law Center, "The typical recipient of a Social Security widow's benefit in Louisiana receives $782 per month ($9,384 per year). According to the Congressional Budget Office, under Plan 2 of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, today's kindergarteners are projected to receive 45% less than they are promised under current law, even when the proceeds from their private accounts are included in the total. If such a benefit cut were to take effect currently, the typical widow in Louisiana would receive only $430 per month ($5,160 per year), an amount equal to only 60% of the poverty line." [National Women's Law Center, February 2005]

IMPACT OF WORKER SAFETY ON LOUISIANA:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Vigorously Opposed Occupational Safety Regulations. In an article written between the initial bill supported by President Johnson and the second bill, that passed, supported by President Nixon, the New York Times reported: "The first legislation providing for a comprehensive nationwide system of health and safety standards was proposed last year by President Johnson. Strongly supported by labor, the bill ran into immediate and vigorous opposition from industry, led by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States." [New York Times, 12/10/69]

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce "led the fight to defeat the 1968 bill." [New York Times, 3/19/70]

U.S. Chamber Argued That OSHA Was a Failure. In 1979, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce charged "that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had failed to reduce worker injuries and illnesses significantly since its inception in 1970." Mark De Bernardo of the Chamber wrote, "In the wake of piles of more O.S.H.A. rules and paperwork, fatal injuries on the job soared by more than 24 percent from 1976 to 1977." [New York Times, 8/27/79]

U.S. Chamber Spokesman Said OSHA Is a "Blatant Denial of Fundamental Fairness." When describing the structure of the Labor Department within the Executive Branch rather than the Judicial Branch of the government, Richard Berman, then director of labor law for the United States Chamber of Commerce, said "This has a chilling effect on an employer's exercise of his right to appeal and is thus a blatant denial of fundamental fairness." Berman now runs the Center for Union Facts, a corporate front group trying to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act. [U.S. News & World Report, 11/24/75; New York Times, 1/9/09]

In 2007, 2.9 Workplace Injuries Were Reported for Every 100 Workers in Louisiana. In 2007, there were 2.9 cases of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses for every 100 workers in Louisiana. In addition, 139 Louisianans reportedly died as a result of workplace injuries in 2007. [BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 2007; BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2007]

Bonuses, bailouts, and a broken system: Is this the America in which big banks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce believe in?

The Washington Post reports today that Chamber and the banking industry are intensifying their lobbying efforts against financial reform. Recognizing their parallel efforts to fund campaigns against working families, the unappetizing alliance of big bank executives, credit card and financial services companies is joining forces to intensify their lobbying efforts against financial reform. "It's no surprise that the U.S. Chamber and the big banks that drove our economy into the ground are joining forces to defend a failed financial model that enriches CEOs at the expense of shareholders, workers, and our economy," commented SEIU's Anna Burger, on efforts to block the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposed by President Obama.

Obama's proposed agency would oversee a range of financial products, from mortgages to credit cards and checking and savings accounts to guard against anti-consumer sales practices and fight for needed reforms to protect front-line bank workers and consumers. The coalition fighting the Obama consumer agency plan views their efforts to protect those on the receiving end of multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts as simply "allowing the financial services industry to serve its customers in the best way possible." Um, U.S. taxpayers who've been forced to subsidize banks' bad behavior with billions of their hard-earned money might not agree. The coalition's prescription for financial reform to make their case so far include rebranding the same reckless policies that will drive families deeper into debt and launching a massive PR campaign to scare Americans with 'Harry and Louise' style TV ads.

BofA "encourages" its employees to help consumers rack up debt

This comes a week after current and former Bank of America workers stepped forward to expose harmful anti-consumer practices by the bank that encourage customers to sign up for high-interest-rate credit and cash advance services to max out customer credit, as well as structuring a variety of check and debit card services resulting in overdraft fees and other charges. A former BofA employee from Landover Hills, MD, Gabby Inaleis, said that although initially she thought she was taking financial services job, it didn't take very long to realize BofA had no interest in helping customers reach their financial goals. Under constant pressure from her manager to meet unrealistic sales goals (example: sell at least 40 checking accounts every Friday), Gabby reported she would often sell multiple checking accounts to clients that didn't need them by offering to waive the account fees for a couple of months. "It became standard practice to make a customer who wasn't planning on opening an account wait for up to an hour to speak with a personal banker," she says.

No employee bonuses until grandmothers everywhere are penniless (and cold): Among the former bank workers who spoke out was Chris Feener, an ex-employee with 15 years' experience in the industry who worked in BofA's collections department. The department's #1 priority, said Chris, was to collect payment from customers who hadn't made a payment on their credit card for 180 days--no matter the cost. "There was a time I was encouraged to tell an elderly woman to sell her stove and cook on a Bunsen burner to pay off her credit card debt that [the bank] had inflated over time," said Chris.

The questionable practices BofA employees were made to engage in to ensure their jobs were safe didn't stop there, for Chris and his coworkers. "In 2007 when BofA's numbers were particularly low, we were given scripts to read on our customers' answering machines, threatening to sue them or collect any assets they had if they didn't," he said. "It was called the Maxwell message, and for three months straight we used that method, forcing customers needlessly to file for bankruptcy."

And that's not all! Enter more violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Chris says he and his team members were pushed to do if a customer had a delinquent account: publicly humiliate the customer to shame them into paying. "We were required to call every customers neighbor on every account--the sole purpose was to embarrass the customer and encourage the neighbor to personally bring a phone note to the neighbor to deliver the messages for us."

The BofA bank workers who shared their stories all acknowledged they felt as though the practices like the ones described above were unethical. But one should not underestimate how powerful the pressure to "sell, sell, sell" can be when it comes from a person of authority, like one's manager--or an entire institution (like Bank of America). Without any real whistleblower protections, most workers are too afraid to speak up for fearing of losing their job--something no one supporting themselves in this dismal economy can afford to chance.

SEIU, U.S. PIRG and the National Association of Consumer Advocates have outlined new protections to ensure front-line bank workers can speak out and create a financial industry that puts consumers and the health of our overall economy ahead of quick profits for bank executives. Read them here. "It's clear that big bank executives and the U.S. Chamber will stop at nothing to stand in the way of real solutions for our economy," says Anna Burger. "That's why it's more important than ever that bank workers be a part of any financial reform package."

The Chamber of Commerce's veneer of unity on health care is beginning to fade.

In the latest blow to the Chamber's "Just Say No!" strategy on health care reform, Wal-Mart joined with SEIU and the Center for American Progress today in announcing support for an employer mandate on health coverage.

An excerpt of the letter is below:

As the nation's largest private employer, the nation's largest union of health care workers with over one million members, and a think tank that has been a leader on health care policy...we are coming together to advance what we believe are important proposals that should be included in the current efforts to reform our nation's health care system.

[...] We are for shared responsibility. Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must make some contribution. We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage... Support for a mandate also requires the strongest possible commitment to rein in health care costs. Guaranteeing cost containment is essential.

Read the full letter here.

Read coverage of this letter, here. Praise from the White House Office of Health Reform on this strong support for health care reform--including an employer mandate--here.

On legislation to help small biz, U.S. Chamber is "Chamber of No"

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims to defend the interests of small businesses, but even a quick examination of their legislative record shows them opposing bill after bill that may help small businesses--and consistently siding with big corporations. From legislation that would ease the burden of credit card terms for small businesses, to bills that would stop outsourcing, the U.S. Chamber has proven to be the "Chamber of No." Here's our list of the top five worst Chamber policies for small businesses.

1) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Sided with Big Credit Card Companies over Small Business Owners. Small business owners are increasingly likely to rely on credit cards to finance their business operations, yet- like the rest of us- are increasingly finding the terms of their card agreements less favorable. The U.S. Chamber sided with big credit card companies over small business in the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008--legislation to provide common-sense regulations on credit.

Small Business Owners Rely On Credit Cards, Get Hurt By Credit Card Companies. A recent survey by the National Small Business Association found that 59 percent of all small businesses used credit cards to fund capital purchases and that 34 percent of small businesses held over one quarter of their business debt in credit cards. Moreover, 75 percent reported that the terms of their credit cards had become less favorable in the last six months.

2) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Sided with Big Oil Over Small Businesses on Bill to Stabilize Gas Prices. Despite the fact that gas prices were skyrocketing, the U.S. Chamber opposed the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008, legislation designed to stabilize gas prices during a period of meteoric price increases. The bill-- which would have created a special supplemental 25 percent tax on the windfall profits of major oil and gas companies, suspended the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, punished price gouging, and limited oil market speculation-- would have gone a long way to help America's small businesses, who are disproportionately sensitive to fluctuations in energy prices and price gouging at the pump.

3) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Opposed Legislation to Help Steelworkers Keep and Create Jobs in the U.S. The Chamber showed its true colors when it opposed "American-made" provisions in the aptly named "American Steel First Act," which would require infrastructure projects receiving federal funds to use American-made steel. The requirement would help domestic steel producers enjoy the benefits of federal stimulus funds, keeping much-needed jobs and commerce in the United States. Although mammoth companies like GE and Caterpillar get half or more of their revenue from exports, the same is emphatically not true of many small, local businesses and steel producers who deserve to benefit from federal spending before foreign counterparts.

4) U.S. Chamber Opposed Legislation to Stop Outsourcing of Call Centers
The US Chamber has continually supported the out-sourcing of jobs, despite small business support for legislation like the Call Center Consumer's Right to Know Act, an anti-outsourcing bill that requires call centers to disclose their location during each call. The small companies associated with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Electronics Association (AEA) oppose outsourcing because it allows larger multinational companies to take advantage of cost-cutting mechanisms that are unavailable to smaller businesses, causing small businesses to close.

5) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Opposed Expanding Healthcare for, Low-Income Families and Children- Siding with Big Tobacco Over Small Businesses. By opposing the SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 and the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, the Chamber again found itself on the wrong side of small business interests. The National Federation of Independent Businesses and the Business Roundtable both supported the SCHIP extension because they believe "small business owners and their employees are especially vulnerable to the weakness of the current system." The Chamber of Commerce, in a letter to Senators Baucus and Grassley, called the bill "a broad-based entitlement program is grossly unfair" particularly for states with "tobacco-based agricultural and industrial activities."