Anytime Is A Good Time To Eat Less Meat-- But Now More So Than Ever

Chris Martenson's daily podcast has gotten me through all this coronavirus stuff since late January, when I realized his advice was golden. I was able to switch much of my retirement money out of equities and buy enough toilet paper, brown rice, chickpeas, pasta and turnips to see me through a few months of pandemic. His warnings about starting a vegetable garden have been more worrisome than anything. Problems in the food chain is something he mentions frequently. Lately I noticed that parsnips and celery root are letting harder to find and that I'm using what I have less and preparing more plentiful rutabaga and daikon root more frequently.

But the real problem with the food chain isn't really parsnips; it's meat. The processing plants are hotbeds of infection and both ocal governments and owners have been shutting them down. CNN reported that with large numbers of workers getting sick and spreading the contagion in their communities, as much as 80% of meat processing capacity was headed towards shutting down. Trump has ordered them to stay open.

Over the past several weeks, a number of major meat suppliers have announced temporary closures as workers fall ill with Covid-19. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union estimated Tuesday that 20 meatpacking and food processing workers have died so far.

The situation has gotten so severe, company executives warned, that the US meat supply could be at risk. John Tyson, chairman of the Tyson board, warned of limited supply if plant shortages continue.

By invoking the Defense Production Act, Trump is requiring plants to remain open with some of the most dangerous conditions during the pandemic.

For years, major meat processors have been ruthlessly tamping down costs and increasing efficiencies. That has contributed to a hazardous working environment even before the coronavirus hit.

Over the years, meat processing companies have been speeding up production lines to process more meat in each facility. Faster lines require more workers who have to stand closer together.

As we've been pointing out, Texas congressional candidate Mike Siegel, has been working with labor unions and members of Congress to reforming OSHA with the intention of getting it to focus on protecting workers during the pandemic.

COVID-Mitch by Chip Proser

McConnell has signaled that he is willing to hold hostage anything and everything that helps ordinary American families unless Congress passes a corporate shield for GOP donors who open up their businesses when it isn't safe and cause deaths among their workers. This week that was the topic Judd Legum tackled at Popular Information where he explained how a corporate shield will leave workers exposed

Legum wrote that "When Congress passed legislation mandating paid sick leave during the pandemic, it exempted 80% of American workers. Notably, the requirement does not apply to any business with more than 500 employees. That means, with the lockdown still in place across much of the country, many 'essential workers' have to choose between coming to work sick and receiving a paycheck. Public scrutiny has prompted several large companies to improve their policies voluntarily, but many workers continue to expose themselves to substantial risk without basic protections. Health care workers, meat packers, grocery store clerks, and warehouse employees are getting sick and dying. Nevertheless, several states, despite warnings from public health officials, have begun loosening restrictions on businesses and bringing more people back to work. Simon Property Group, the largest mall operator in the United States, plans to reopen 49 malls in Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Indiana, and Missouri between May 1 and May 4. Right now, this activity is concentrated in states with Republican governors. But all states are expected to loosen restrictions at some point before a vaccine is available, exposing workers in contact with the public to health risks."

Workers returning to the job for the foreseeable future need protective equipment, operational plans that prioritize employee health over short-term profits, and paid sick leave. These are the minimum requirements to protect workers and customers.

Is the Republican-controlled Senate doing anything to improve conditions for workers as they return to their jobs? No. Instead, the Senate is preparing legislation to shield companies from liability if its workers get sick or die.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that giving businesses immunity from litigation is his top priority as part of the next stimulus package:

In an interview Monday on Fox News Radio, McConnell added that a liability shield for businesses and health care workers will be his "red line" in the next round of negotiations because "trial lawyers are sharpening their pencils to come after health care providers and businesses, arguing that somehow the decision they made with regard to reopening adversely affected the health of someone else." 

McConnell indicated he would oppose critical funding for state and local governments unless the package also includes a liability shield.

Trump said Congress needs to "take liability away from these companies" because he wants "the companies to open and to open strong." But this isn't about carving out narrow protections for companies that play critical roles in responding to the pandemic and need to act quickly. The administration "already has granted more limited liability exemptions for companies involved in producing and distributing key medical supplies."

McConnell and Trump are echoing the call of U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue, who said it was "just not fair" for businesses to be liable for exposing workers to conditions that result in illness or death.

Under normal circumstances, if your health is compromised due to "your employer’s negligence, recklessness, or willful disregard for a safe work environment," a worker could sue to "recover damages for lost wages, medical expenses, and your pain and suffering." (In some states, workers can continue to be paid and get their medical bills reimbursed without proving negligence under a streamlined "workers' compensation" process.) With a liability shield, workers will still lose wages, incur medical expenses, and experience pain and suffering, if they become sick at work. The difference is that all those costs would all be borne by workers and not employers.

Creating a liability shield, however, reduces the incentive for employers to "avoid tort liability by taking appropriate precautions." Justin Wolfers, a professor at the University of Michigan, explains this concept:

We want businesses to be scared. The claim from the Chamber of Commerce that liability will make people scared to do business is correct and that’s the point. We want businesses to take responsibility. All of tort law is about creating a strong incentive for people and companies to not act badly...What’s crystal clear is that if you let employers off the hook, they won’t take safety precautions.

This is an issue that will impact everyone, whether or not they immediately return to their workplace. "To protect public health, you have to protect worker health. And if they don't do that, it will spread into the community, and we'll have a second wave," Debbie Berkowitz, who worked at OSHA during the Obama administration, explained.

The risk of legal liability for corporations is already minimal because, even in a workers' compensation case, an employee needs to prove that they contracted the coronavirus at work. Since it's very difficult to prove where you contracted a virus, especially when there is community transmission, these lawsuits would be very difficult to win. But a liability shield means that corporations wouldn't even have to defend themselves.

...While McConnell and Trump push for a liability shield, Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) are taking a different approach. Baldwin and Duckworth introduced the "Every Worker Protection Act of 2020" last week. Instead of focusing on protecting employers from legal liability after employees get sick, the legislation tries to put in place protections to keep them from getting sick in the first place.

The legislation would "require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) within 7 days to protect health care and other employees from exposure to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19."

Mike Siegel Is Already Doing The Kind Of Work Progressive Members Of Congress Do

Some candidates-- whether incumbents or challengers-- are faring better than others during this pandemic. Candidates who have grown proficient on social media have vibrant campaigns up and running. Others don't. One candidate who has adapted well is Austin-based progressive Mike Siegel. Not only has he been successful in online organizing and reaching out to small donors, he has continued his work as an advocate for his Texas base of working families.

The latest project-- pandemic-era workplace protections-- has attracted attention in DC as well. This is what Mike wrote for us about it today. If you like it, please chip into his campaign fund at the Take Back Texas Act Blue thermometer below.

Fighting for OSHA Expansion in a #Hashtag Age
-by Mike Siegel

Let’s make OSHA cool again.

Don’t take my word for it: even the federal agency’s own website describes how the government agency emerged from the Civil Rights Movement. How it was part of a national demand for a "Safety Bill of Rights." How it took the lead in fighting asbestos exposure and other carcinogens.

Four decades of Goldwater-Reagan-Norquist attacks (the people who want to shrink government down to size and "drown it in a bathtub") have left us with an agency that is a shell of what it was-- a shadow of its original vision.

But now, more than ever, we need a strong OSHA. To protect our workforce at a time unprecedented threats to worker safety. To Stop the Spread, Slow the Curve, and help America "re-open" again.

Last week I was making calls to labor organizations across Texas, to thank them for their support and to see how we can work together in the days and weeks to come. As I spoke to organizers from United Steelworkers, from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, from the American Federation of School, County and Municipal Employes, I heard a common theme: job safety. A patchwork of regulations. A lot of fancy words on paper about social distancing and PPE-- from the CDC, from the State of Texas, from counties and cities-- but no enforcement.

In other words, every day, across Texas and this country, our workers are making a terrible choice: earn a paycheck or protect your health. You can’t do both.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government’s role in protecting worker safety was limited. As one steelworker told me, even when a facility like a chemical plant had a major accident or release of toxic chemicals, OSHA wasn’t likely to show up. If a worker filed an anonymous complaint, OSHA would send a fax to the company and ask for a remediation plan. The company would fax back its remediation plan. Case closed.

In response to COVID-19, OSHA has issued Guidelines on Preparing Workplaces, but takes pains to say how they are recommendations only. Here in Texas, the state has not developed its own occupational safety agency, so we are stuck with what the federal government offers. Cities and counties have code enforcement departments, and places like Austin have made efforts to respond to COVID-19 concerns at work places, but there is no agency that is equipped to make sure workers have the PPE they need, or the space necessary to avoid spreading the virus.

For the last week, I’ve been working with unions to raise awareness of the lack of workplace safety, at the same time that Texas Governor Greg Abbott publicizes his plans to “re-open” the state.

Building on the efforts of Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin and over 50 House Democrats, who filed a “Reopen America Act of 2020” to ensure testing and PPE before the country attempts to return to normal, I joined with Texas unions, labor councils and regional federations to propose expanded OSHA compliance and investigative capacity to ensure safe workplaces in the COVID era.

The current representative in the Texas 10th could care less about work-place safety; this is a guy who can’t even be bothered to wear a mask in the House of Representatives during the recent vote.

But this is an opportunity for me to show what representation looks like for workers in a right-to-work state who face state leadership that wants us to sacrifice our lives for the sake of the economy. The unions I am working with-- a powerful mix including building and construction trades, teachers, city workers and theatrical stage employees-- very much appreciated my willingness to put the work in on their behalf.

And multiple sponsors of the bill, including Rep. Raskin, responded enthusiastically to our proposal, and are considering an amendment to the Reopen America Act.

The press? Not so interested. And I get it. Just saying the phrase, “Occupational Safety and Health Administration” is enough to put voters to sleep.

But this is what government is supposed to do: take care of the most vulnerable, and perform the functions that the private market is not equipped or willing to do.

So let’s make OSHA cool again. And make sure that, when we do restart our country, our government will be ready to make workplaces safe.

Mike is exactly the kind of representative Texas-- and the rest of America-- needs in Congress. This morning Rep. Raskin, author of the Reopen America Act, told us that "In 2020, Mike Siegel is a first responder for American democracy, fighting on the front lines to stop the lethal ignorance and authoritarianism of Donald Trump and his enablers." Last cycle, with no help from the DCCC at all-- in fact, the opposite-- Mike held Trump enabler Michael McCaul to a slim 51.1% tally. This time Mike has the name recognition with voters to finish the job in started in 2018. While the DCCC lavishes millions of dollars on conservative campaigns, they rarely give a dime to anyone running on a progressive platform. The DCCC is about candidates like Jeff Van Drew-- who has now left the Democratic Party, endorsed Trump's reelection and reinvented himself as a conservative Republican. Mike's a progressive who supports Medicare-for-All, a Green New Deal and the kinds of reforms America needs to make our country more equitable for working families. Can you help?

An agency with "occupational" and "safety" and "health" in its name was always a sitting duck at the hands of the merciless Bush regimistas

"Heckuva Job Foulkie" (left) at a 2007 congressional
hearing, alongside injured worker Eric Peoples

by Ken

So, another federal agency bites the dust. Or, to be technical, turns out to have bitten the dust.

Oh, I know, I'm as bored as you are with this tiresome procession of Inspector General reports, congressionally mandated inquiries, GAO reports, CBO studies, independent inquiries, and on and on -- each revealing that yet another arm of the federal government was either reduced to impotence or transformed into an enforcement arm of the Far, Far Right totalitarian, megalomaniacal, constitution-shredding goons of the Bush regime. So what else is new?

Is there really much point sifting through the wreckage? Maybe trying to figure out how it all happened? Aren't we supposed to, you know, just get on with it?

Just like with Iraq. Why would troublemaking lefites insist on asking embarrassing questions about how the country got snookered into playing neocon war games, only for real? I would have thought that the "for real" part is explanation enough all by itself for why yes, we have to know how it all happened.

But I suppose we need to get some of the dreary facts on the record. Yesterday's Washington Post story began, typically enough, with a now-familiar sort of Incriminating Episode:

Under Bush, OSHA Mired in Inaction

By R. Jeffrey Smith

In early 2001, an epidemiologist at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration sought to publish a special bulletin warning dental technicians that they could be exposed to dangerous beryllium alloys while grinding fillings. Health studies showed that even a single day's exposure at the agency's permitted level could lead to incurable lung disease.

After the bulletin was drafted, political appointees at the agency gave a copy to a lobbying firm hired by the country's principal beryllium manufacturer, according to internal OSHA documents. The epidemiologist, Peter Infante, incorporated what he considered reasonable changes requested by the company and won approval from key directorates, but he bristled when the private firm complained again.

"In my 24 years at the Agency, I have never experienced such indecision and delay," Infante wrote in an e-mail to the agency's director of standards in March 2002. Eventually, top OSHA officials decided, over what Infante described in an e-mail to his boss as opposition from "the entire OSHA staff working on beryllium issues," to publish the bulletin with a footnote challenging a key recommendation the firm opposed.

The usual stuff, right? Next, of course, comes the revelation (gasp) that this was (a) by once-normal standards extraordinary, even unprecedented behavior inside an executive-branch agency, and (b) this behavior wasn't the exception, it was the rule at OSHA:

Current and former career officials at OSHA say that such sagas were a recurrent feature during the Bush administration, as political appointees ordered the withdrawal of dozens of workplace health regulations, slow-rolled others, and altered the reach of its warnings and rules in response to industry pressure.

The result is a legacy of unregulation common to several health-protection agencies under Bush: From 2001 to the end of 2007, OSHA officials issued 86 percent fewer rules or regulations termed economically significant by the Office of Management and Budget than their counterparts did during a similar period in President Bill Clinton's tenure, according to White House lists.

Then of course there's the regimistas' standard indignant how-dare-you denial of all:

White House officials have dismissed such tallies, emphasizing in recent regulatory overviews that their "objective is quality, not quantity," and that heavy restrictions on corporations harm economic performance. During Bush's presidency, they said in a September report, average annual regulatory costs were kept 24 percent lower than during the previous two decades. OSHA says it has issued many rules of lesser consequence that nonetheless clarified industry responsibilities.

Talk about pathetic! Do they think that at this late date they don't owe us better lies and cover-ups? (Maybe they've given up even trying?) We don't have to wait long to hear from people who actually care about occupational safety and health, and are actually for it, people who've known what's been going on -- and have probably been trying to get someone to listen -- for years:

"The legacy of the Bush administration has been one of dismal inaction," said Robert Harrison, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco and chairman of the occupational health section of the American Public Health Association. It has been "like turning a ketchup bottle upside down, banging the bottom of the container, and nothing comes out. You shake and shake and nothing comes out," Harrison said.

More than two dozen current and former senior career officials further said in interviews that the agency's strategic choices were frequently made without input from its experienced hands. Political appointees "shut us out," a longtime senior career official said.

I suppose we should go through the whole bloody thing. Listen, for example, to former administration director Edwin Foulke (technically "assistant secretary of labor for OSH," since OSHA is an agency within the Labor Dept.) brag --

* about "levying heavy fines after major workplace disasters" (after major disasters? and what constitutes "major"? and were the fines actually collected?),

* about continuing "a drop in reported workplace injuries that began in 1974" (without mentioning the "14 percent drop in U.S. production and manufacturing jobs since 2001" and the "2002 change in the government's record-keeping rules").

Heckuva job, Foulkie!

In retrospect, without any investigation or inquiry we can say two things about the decimation of OSHA with a high degree of certainty:

(1) We can date the beginning of the agency's demise to the day those five Supreme Court justices decided (as Noah was just recalling), "To hell with counting the votes, for the good of the country let's make the guy who's trying to steal the election president." Maybe the idea was that since his people wanted it so much more, that would mean good things for the country? (In which case, oops, the joke's on them!)

(2) An outfit with a name like Occupational Health and Safety Administration was a sitting duck from the outset. In Bushworld, these are weasel words for "just drains money out of the pockets of deserving, regulation-oppressed businessmen, in order to do stuff no right-thinking [or, particularly, Right-thinking] person gives a crap about." Safety and health in the workplace? Gimme a break! Who says workers have any right to either? The only right workers have is to the absolute minimum financial compensation management can get away with giving.

I almost fell into the trap of saying "the absolute minimum the law allows." But that, as Richard Nixon might have said, would be wrong. (And who would know better about what's "wrong"?) It assumes that your Right-thinking managers:

(a) can't get laws and administrative rules changed (in which case, what was the point of buying up a whole government?), and

(b) feel any obligation to follow either laws or administrative rules (after all, the president they bought didn't).

We don't need no stinkin' reggolation, the Good Friedmanite intones solemnly. All's we need is God's Own Free Market.

But of course they don't really want no stinkin' free market. They want a market that's rigged to relieve them of as much obligation to society and to their workers as possible -- and by golly, they were (and still are) prepared to buy a government to do it. In addition to which, the Good Friedmanite's doctrine is a fantasy -- always was, especially is now, and always will be.

The Friedmanite theory is that if workers are sickened and injured or maimed or even killed on the job, the competitive pressures of a free market will lead those managements to upgrade their health and safety practices in their own economic interest. Which is nonsense, of course. Especially if those managements can get their bought government to lighten the administrative burdens of paying for their lapses. Far cheaper than keeping those old workers on the job is jettisoning them and replacing them with younger, less experienced, and above all cheaper workers. Heck, it's not as if workers get trained to do their jobs anymore. (Too expensive! Unproductive!)

Do we not have that executive memo from WalMart? You know, the one detailing corporate policy to do everything possible to shed older, more experienced, and above all more expensive workers so they can be replaced by less skilled people who are more desperate for work, any kind of work, including (especially?) work for minimal pay, under any conditions, and with few if any benefits?

The only shame about the OSHA "revelations" is that they come within weeks of the final slinking away of the Bush regime. Where the hell have we been all this time?

Oh, there have been malcontents shouting about this as well as the innumerable other Bush regime depredations, going back before 9/11 -- the event that in retrospect provided cover for ideological ransacking of our legitimate government which followed. But nobody wanted to hear. They were dismissed and derided as "Bush-bashers."

Can we at least hope that the Obama transition team is paying attention? Close attention.


POSTSCRIPT: THE NEW YORK TIMES WEIGHS IN EDITORIALLY

While we're on the subject, and while outgoing Labor Secretary Elaine Chao (aka Mrs. "Miss Mitch" McConnell, and as labor secretary OSHA's overboss), who has presidied over what we have abundant indications is a similar reign of political terror and enforced ineptitude within the department as a whole, but lately has been attempting, astonishingly, to portray her stewardship as a boon for working people, yesterday's NYT carried this editorial, which I think speaks for itself:

December 29, 2008

EDITORIAL
The Labor Agenda

There is no doubt that President-elect Barack Obama has chosen a labor secretary who could be a transformative force in a long-neglected arena. The question is whether he will let her.

Hilda Solis, a United States representative from Southern California, is the daughter of immigrant parents with union jobs. She has been an unfailing advocate of workers’ rights during eight years in Congress and before that, in California politics.

Ms. Solis has been a leader on traditional workplace issues, like a higher minimum wage and an enhanced right to form unions. She also has helped to expand the labor agenda by sponsoring legislation to create jobs in green technology, and in her support for community health workers and immigration reform.

Her record in Congress dovetails with the mission of the Labor Department, to protect and further the rights and opportunities of working people. It also dovetails with many of the promises Mr. Obama made during the campaign, both in its specifics and in its focus on the needs of America’s working families.

The main issue is whether the Obama administration will assert a forceful labor agenda in the face of certain protests from business that now — during a recession — is not the time to move forward.

The first and biggest test of Mr. Obama’s commitment to labor, and to Ms. Solis, will be his decision on whether or not to push the Employee Free Choice Act in 2009. Corporate America is determined to derail the bill, which would make it easier than it has been for workers to form unions by requiring that employers recognize a union if a majority of employees at a workplace sign cards indicating they wish to organize.

Ms. Solis voted for the bill when it passed the House in 2007. Senate Republicans prevented the bill from coming to a vote that same year. Mr. Obama voted in favor of bringing the bill to the Senate floor and supported it during the campaign.

The measure is vital legislation and should not be postponed. Even modest increases in the share of the unionized labor force push wages upward, because nonunion workplaces must keep up with unionized ones that collectively bargain for increases. By giving employees a bigger say in compensation issues, unions also help to establish corporate norms, the absence of which has contributed to unjustifiable disparities between executive pay and rank-and-file pay.

The argument against unions — that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands — is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad, so the recession by itself is not an excuse to avoid pushing the bill next year. The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no evidence that it would.

There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important. Without a united front, workers will have even less bargaining power in the recession than they had during the growth years of this decade, when they largely failed to get raises even as productivity and profits soared. If pay continues to lag, it will only prolong the downturn by inhibiting spending.

Another question clouding the labor agenda is whether Mr. Obama will give equal weight to worker concerns — from reforming health care to raising the minimum wage — while the financial crisis is still playing out. Most members of his economic team are veterans of the Clinton administration who tilt toward Wall Street. In the Clinton era, financial issues routinely trumped labor concerns. If Mr. Obama’s campaign promises are to be kept, that mindset cannot prevail again. Mr. Obama’s creation of a task force on middle-class issues, to be led by Vice President-elect Joseph Biden and including Ms. Solis and other high-ranking officials, is an encouraging sign that labor issues will not be given short shrift.

There are many nonlegislative issues on the agenda for Ms. Solis. Safety standards must be updated: in the last eight years, the Labor Department has issued only one new safety rule of its own accord; it issued a few others only after being compelled by Congress or the courts. Overtime rules that were weakened in 2004 need to be restored. To enforce labor standards, the Labor Department will need more staff and more money, both of which have been cut deeply by President Bush.

Only the president can give the new labor secretary the clout she will need to do well at a job that has been done so badly for so long, at such great cost to the quality of Americans’ lives.

#

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY VISION FOR AMERICA-- EAT DUST AND DIE

Yesterday I started the day by painting a picture of the Republican Party dream of unfettered, unregulated capitalism, the kind that brings us polluted streams and air, as well as food, medicine and products that kill, gasoline prices through the roof and a current mortgage crisis that is dragging the whole economy down the toilet. Selfish, greed-obsessed Republicans are willing to push people until the have no choice but to strike back. FDR once saved the country from the evils of Republican excess. Bush is far worse than Coolidge and Hoover ever were. I sure hope Obama can rise to the occasion.

Meanwhile, the House, at least, is trying to ameliorate the worst of the Bush Regime's war on regulatory sanity. Yesterday 22 Republicans got in a mainstream mood and joined every single Democrat-- even the worst reactionary goons like John Barrow, Jim Marshall, and Nick Lampson-- to pass the kind of act that doesn't move Rev. Wright out of the headlines for one second-- but an act that will save countless Americans tremendous grief. Many of the Republicans who joined the Democrats to do the right thing (instead of the right-wing thing) are the ones who have already announced their retirements-- but not all.

H.R. 5522 (which Mitch McConnell is already plotting to filibuster to death in the Senate) is the Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Act. If McConnell's filibuster fails-- it may-- and if Bush is too embarrassed to veto it, the bill will require the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue rules regulating combustible industrial dusts, like sugar dust, that can build up to hazardous levels and explode, the way it did this past February at the Imperial Sugar Refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia. The explosion killed 13 workers and injured dozens. Jesse Lee has far more details on the bill.

You might wonder how anyone could oppose a measure like this. 165 Republican extremists did. But many of the wingnuts who are in the worst jeopardy of losing their jobs in November slinked over to the Democratic side of the aisle yesterday and voted to help regular working Americans for a change, including radical-right nuts like Don Young (AK), Fred Upton (MI), the 3 GOP extremists in south Florida (the petrified Diaz-Balart brothers and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen), John McHugh (NY), Phil English (PA), Jon Porter (NV), Steven LaTourette (OH), and Thaddeus McCotter (MI).

Alan Grayson, the Blue America-endorsed candidate from Orlando, was in Somalia a few months ago. "No schools, no water, no garbage collection, no police," he told me. "Truly, a libertarian paradise.  And a 1000-mile-wide dumpster... Who are these nuts, who would rather see us sick, hurt or dead, than to have the law protect us?  What kind of 'homeland security' is it that 'protects' us from bottled water and nail files at the airport, but not from explosive dust?  Why don't all these black-helicopter, tin-foil-hat paranoids who feel that the law should be disemboweled move to Somalia-- there's a real no-government, libertarian paradise."

Almost all of our Blue America candidates for the House are facing lunatic fringe Republicans who refused to vote for this basic safety measure. Here's a partial list of the reactionaries who opposed this proven danger in the workplace:
Scott Garrett (NJ)
Charles Dent (PA)
Dave Reichert (WA)
Michael McCaul (TX)
Mean Jean Schmidt (OH)
Ric Keller (FL)-- the kook who Alan Grayson is challenging in Orlando
David Dreier (CA)
Robin Hayes (NC)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA)
Randy Kuhl (NY)
Tim Walberg (MI)
Gary Miller (CA)

Any of the anti-government reactionaries above could be captured on camera saying the same thing, but today we have a quote from New Jersey extremist Scott Garrett (courtesy of BlogTheFifth) explaining his law of the jungle "philosophy" of government-- although not its consequences. Please watch Garrett summing up in one minute why the 21st Century should see the demise of the Republican Party. And after you watch, think about these words from Dennis Shulman, the progressive Democrat running against him in the northernmost district of New Jersey. "Scott Garrett has endorsed the sentiment that members of Congress ought to go to Washington `to eliminate government,' and he is voting in line with that sentiment, opposing even the most basic effort by the government to provide common sense protections for America's working people. Obviously, people should not be forced to choose between a paycheck and a basic level of safety-- that's why we need OSHA to look out for people."




UPDATE: ONE OF THE OPPONENTS OF SAFTEY IN THE WORKPLACE REGULATIONS IS INLAND EMPIRE EXTREMIST GARY MILLER

Miller's progressive opponent, Ron Shepston, doesn't seem surprised that his congressman is on the wrong side of this issue. "I can say that I find it amazing that so many Republicans can carry their knee-jerk reaction against government involvement so far as to vote against something that is so fundamentally important. If you ask most Republicans if government should fund the military the response would be near universal but there are many other issues that are just as important to our country and our values which they somehow trust to the private sector. It never seems to occur to them that the founders recognized that bad behavior drives out good. No less than Thomas Jefferson worried about this and felt at the deepest levels that the function of government was to protect citizens from monied interests. Their ignorance knows no bounds. Fortunately, voters are running from them in droves."