Don't overlook the Big Labor funding behind the LA protests
The left in general and labor leaders in particular continue to misread the will of the people.
Case in point: Among the dozens of lessons both seem incapable of learning from last November's electoral drubbing is that Americans are solidly in favor of enforcing the nation's sovereign borders and expelling as many as possible of the millions of lawbreakers who breached them thanks to the calculated apathy of the previous administration.
Apparently unfazed by facts, however, David Huerta, president of the California chapter of Service Employees International Union, last Friday, traded on the full faith and credit of his position to join those violently protesting a legal raid at a Los Angeles worksite by officials from the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
He was subsequently arrested for trying to physically block a vehicle trying to enter the property.
Again, Huerta made no attempt to distance himself and his actions from his role as SEIU's California director. To the contrary, he first made sure to don his purple SEIU T-shirt in order to make clear to everyone that he considers obstructing law enforcement one of his legitimate job responsibilities.
Even more brazenly, his own SEIU affiliates in California have used member dues to support at least one group spearheading the protests — the Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights — and to finance the informal 'immigration rapid response' network that has been equally at the center, and in which SEIU itself also participates.
And rather than disavow Huerta's irresponsible, illegal behavior, state and national leftists quickly circled the wagons around Huerta. After all, SEIU California is a major funder of liberal causes and candidates in California.
Syndicated columnist Kurt Schlicter, shrewdly noted this week that the scenario 'provides (the Trump administration) an opportunity to defund the government support to (non-governmental organizations) that launder government money to fund this kind of violence.'
They could start with Huerta's union.
SEIU California and its affiliates siphon millions of dollars a year from Medicaid by confiscating dues from thousands of Californians participating in a federal program that pays a modest subsidy in exchange for providing in-home care for an elderly or low-income client.
Because they work at home, usually looking after a loved one, the union representing the caregivers — many of whom don't even realize they are union members — has relatively little to do. But that doesn't stop Huerta's organization from seizing 3 percent of their annual wages — among the highest dues rates in the country.
In a very real sense, Medicaid is therefore bankrolling the protests in Los Angeles. Here's a thought: Instead of arresting Huerta and the other lawbreaking protestors, why not just cut off their source of funding by prohibiting unions from plundering Medicaid?
Hundreds of thousands of government employees all over the country have exercised their First Amendment right to opt out of union membership and dues since it was affirmed in 2018 by the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of the primary factors behind this movement is widespread anger over unions that use confiscated dues money to promote a radical political agenda instead of representing the legitimate workplace concerns of their members.
SEIU-affiliated care providers in the Golden State need to ask themselves how Huerta's embarrassing spectacle helps enhance their pay, benefits and working conditions.
It doesn't. It simply reinforces what's been obvious for years: The welfare of their rank and file hasn't been a priority for public employee unions in decades, assuming it ever was.
Modern government-employee unions like SEIU exist almost exclusively to fund the failed policies of the left with workers' hard-earned dues dollars; workers who are increasingly fed up with it.
It isn't just worksites overrun by violent agitators that are burning while labor icons like Huerta fiddle. It is also their fading hopes of ever being taken seriously or being handed political power again.
Aaron Withe is CEO of the Freedom Foundation, a national nonprofit government union watchdog organization.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lawmaker queries retailers in probe of link between tariffs and grocery prices
This story was originally published on Grocery Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Grocery Dive newsletter. Sen. Maggie Hassan has asked Albertsons, Kroger, Walmart, Costco and Dollar General for information about how increased tariffs the Trump administration has imposed on imported steel and aluminum could affect stores, suppliers and costs in the grocery supply chain. In June 18 letters to the chief executives of the retailers, the New Hampshire senator requested details including how they expect tariffs on the metals — which doubled to 50% on June 4 — to impact the cost of private label products, particularly canned foods and frozen meals. Hassan, the ranking member of Congress' Joint Economic Committee, indicated that Democrats on the Republican-controlled panel are especially interested in how increases in metal prices could impact canned good costs. She asked the retailers for details about their costs, revenue and profit margins for their best-selling canned food and aluminum foil products over the past five quarters. In addition, Hassan requested information about how customers who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits shop for canned goods, including a breakdown of their purchases in terms of brand name and private label products. Hassan also said she wants an estimate of the number of jobs the retailers support in industries such as construction, food packaging and food processing. 'High grocery prices are a top economic concern for Americans, and experts state that tariffs could significantly increase the cost of canned foods,' Hassan wrote. 'Experts have also noted potential impacts from tariffs on the costs of shelving, equipment, transportation, and other inputs that grocery stores and their suppliers need to operate, which, in turn, could also lead to higher food prices for customers.' In the letters, Hassan cited data from the Consumer Brands Association indicating that the 50% levy on imported steel could push prices for canned foods up by between 9% and 15%. She also pointed to statistics showing that the U.S. imports almost 70% of the steel used for canned fruits and vegetables. Hassan gave the retailers until July 9 to supply the information she requested. Grocery prices rose at an annual rate of 2.2% in May, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported June 11. By comparison, food-at-home inflation came in at 2% in April and 2.4% in March. Recommended Reading Trump tariffs could hike canned food prices up to 15%, trade group says Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Onion
19 minutes ago
- The Onion
Congress Passes Blank Bill For Trump To Write Whatever Law He Wants
WASHINGTON—After weeks of eliminating what many lawmakers called 'frivolous' and 'unnecessary' provisions, Congress reportedly passed a blank bill Thursday in which President Donald Trump can simply write whatever law he wants. 'Today we are sending to the president's desk 200 completely clean sheets of paper that are hereby codified such that anything he chooses to fill those pages with will have the full force of law,' House Speaker Mike Johnson said as he ushered the bill through his chamber, overcoming minor pushback to ultimately win bipartisan support for the measure, which gives Trump the power to enact federal statutes, declare war, or spend the entirety of the U.S. Treasury without a single check or balance. 'With this bill, the president will finally be able to take any thought that crosses his mind, write it down, and have it instantly become an enforceable part of the U.S. Code,' Johnson added. 'Americans have spoken, and they want Donald Trump to have carte blanche to do whatever he wants. It's our job as members of Congress to simply get out of the way.' Just hours after the bill's passage, President Trump took to Truth Social and sharply criticized Congress for making him write down anything at all.
Miami Herald
20 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Michael Hiltzik: Social Security is still in good shape but faces challenges
The annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare trustees provide yearly opportunities for misunderstandings by politicians, the media, and the general public about the health of these programs. This year is no exception. A case in point is the response by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, to the Social Security and Medicare trustees' projections about the depletion of the programs' reserves: "Doing nothing to address the solvency of these programs will result in an immediate, automatic, and catastrophic cut to benefits for the nearly 70 million seniors who rely on them." The reports say nothing about an "immediate" cut to benefits. They talk about cuts that might happen in 2034 and 2033, when there still would be enough money coming in to pay 89% of scheduled Medicare benefits and 81% of scheduled Social Security benefits. House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith, R-Missouri, used the release of the reports to plump for the budget resolution that the House narrowly passed on orders from President Trump and that is currently being masticated by several Senate committees. The reports, Smith said, make clear "how much we need pro-growth tax and economic policies that unleash our nation's growth, increase wages, and create new jobs." The budget bill "would do just that," he said. Neither Arrington nor Smith mentioned the leading threats to the programs coming from the White House. In Social Security's case, that's Trump's immigration, taxation and tariff policies, which work directly against the program's solvency. For Medicare, the major threat is a rise in healthcare costs. But those have flattened out as a percentage of gross domestic product since 2010, when the enactment of the Affordable Care Act brought better access to medical care to millions of Americans. That trend is jeopardized by Republican healthcare proposals, which encompass throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. Policy proposals by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. such as discouraging vaccinations can only drive healthcare costs higher. Let's take a closer look. (The Social Security trustees are Kennedy, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and newly confirmed Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, all of whom serve ex officio; two seats for public trustees are vacant. The Medicare trustees are the same, plus Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.) The trust funds are built up from payroll taxes paid by workers and employers, along with interest paid on the treasury bonds the programs hold. At the end of this year, the Medicare trust fund will hold about $245 billion, and the Social Security fund - actually two funds, consisting of reserves for the old-age and disability programs, but typically considered as one - more than $2.3 trillion. Trump has consistently promised that he won't touch Social Security and Medicare, but actions speak louder than words. "Trump's tariffs and mass deportation program will accelerate the depletion of the trust fund," Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy priorities observed after the release of the trustees' reports this week. "The Trump administration's actions are weakening the country's economic outlook and Social Security's financial footing." Immigration benefits the program in several ways. Because "benefits paid out today are funded from payroll taxes collected from today's workers," notes CBPP's Kiran Rachamallu, "more workers paying into the system benefits the program's finances." In the U.S., he writes, "immigrants are more likely to be of working age and have higher rates of labor force participation, compared to U.S.-born individuals." The Social Security trustees' fiscal projections are based on average net immigration of about 1.2 million people per year. Higher immigration will help build the trust fund balances, and immigration lower than that will "increase the funding shortfall." All told, "the Trump administration's plans to drastically cut immigration and increase deportations would significantly worsen Social Security's financial outlook." A less uplifting aspect of immigration involves undocumented workers. To get jobs, they often submit false Social Security numbers to employers - so payroll taxes are deducted from their paychecks, but they're unlikely ever to be able to collect benefits. In 2022, Rachamallu noted, undocumented workers paid about $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes. Trump's tariffs, meanwhile, could affect Social Security by generating inflation and slowing the economy. Higher inflation means larger annual cost-of-living increases on benefits, raising the program's costs. If they provoke a recession, that would weigh further on Social Security's fiscal condition. Trump also has talked about eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. But since at least half of those tax revenues flow directly into Social Security's reserves, they would need to be replaced somehow. Trump has never stated where the substitute revenues could be found. Major news organizations tend to focus on the depletion date of the trust funds without delving too deeply into their significance or, more important, their cause. It's not unusual for otherwise responsible news organizations to parrot right-wing tropes about Social Security running out of money or "going broke" in the near future, which is untrue but can unnecessarily unnerve workers and retirees. The question raised but largely unaddressed by the trustee reports is how to reduce the shortfall. The Republican answer generally involves cutting benefits, either by outright reductions or such options as raising the full retirement age, which is currently set between 66 and 67 for those born in 1952-1959 and 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. As I've reported, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut by another name. It's also discriminatory, for average life expectancy is lower for some racial and ethnic groups than for others. For all Americans, average life expectancy at age 65 has risen since the 1930s by about 6.6 years, to about 84 and a half. The increase has been about the same for white workers. But for Black people in general, the gain is just over five years, to an average of a bit over 83, and for Black men it's less than four years and two months, to an average of about 81 and four months. Life expectancy is also related to income: Better-paid workers have longer average lifespans than lower-income workers. The other option, obviously, is to leave benefits alone but increase the programs' revenues. This is almost invariably dismissed by the GOP, but its power is compelling. The revenue shortfall experienced by Social Security is almost entirely the product of rising economic inequality in the U.S. At Social Security's inception, the payroll tax was set at a rate that would cover about 92% of taxable wage earnings. Today, rising income among the rich has reduced that ratio to only about 82%. That could mean hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues. The payroll tax is highly regressive. Those earning up to $176,100 this year pay the full tax of 12.4% on wage earnings (half deducted directly from their paychecks and half paid by their employers). Those earning more than that sum in wages pay nothing on the excess. To put it in perspective, the payroll tax bite on someone earning $500,000 in wages this year would pay not 12.4% in payroll tax (counting both halves of the levy), but about 4.4%. Eliminating the cap on wages, according to the Social Security actuaries, would eliminate half to three-quarters of the expected shortfall in revenues over the next 75 years, depending on whether benefits were raised for the highest earners. Taxing investment income - the source of at least half the income collected by the wealthiest Americans - at the 12.4% level rather than leaving it entirely untaxed for Social Security would reduce the shortfall by an additional 38%. Combining these two options would eliminate the entire shortfall. Social Security has already been hobbled by the Trump administration, Trump's promises notwithstanding. Elon Musk's DOGE vandals ran roughshod through the program, cutting staff and closing field offices, and generally instilling fears among workers and retirees that the program might not be around long enough to serve them. In moral terms, that's a crime. Those are the choices facing America: Cutting benefits is a dagger pointed directly at the neediest Americans. Social Security benefits account for 50% or more of the income nearly 42% of all beneficiaries, and 90% or more of the income of nearly 15% of beneficiaries. The wealthiest Americans, on the other hand, have been coasting along without paying their fair share of the program. Could the equities be any clearer than that? Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
