John Edwards Works at Westchester Nursing Home (union-sponsored program)

[JohnLocke]

John Edwards Works at Westchester Nursing Home
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Associated Press
----
MAMARONECK, N.Y. (AP)--Democrat John Edwards got a taste of low-wage life Wednesday, rising before dawn to help to dress, shave and deliver breakfast to elderly residents of a Westchester County nursing home.

His visit was part of the "Walk a Day in My Shoes" program sponsored by the influential Service Employees International Union, where presidential candidates spend time with health care workers to understand the challenges of their jobs. Edwards was paired with certified nursing assistant Elaine Ellis, an 18-year employee of the Sarah Neuman Nursing Home who escorted him on her early morning rounds.

Ellis, a divorced mother who raised four children on her nursing assistant's salary, called Edwards "a very personable person'' and praised his willingness to spend time on the job with her.

"I think all politicians should take a page from his book,'' she told reporters.

A union activist and Democrat, Ellis said she hadn't decided which presidential candidate to support. She said she made about $14 per hour at the nursing home.

Dressed in jeans and a blue work shirt, Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee, helped awaken Irving Zywoto and tried to explain to the 83-year old resident who he was.

"Remember the last presidential election in 2004? Kerry and Edwards? I'm Edwards. I'm running for president this time,'' he said.

Later, Edwards donned rubber gloves to rub moisturizer on Zywoto's legs and gave him his morning shave.

The former North Carolina senator wheeled another resident, Toby Allan, to the cafeteria and greeted others as they ate breakfast. Many women residents gripped his hand and complimented his looks; others whispered condolences about his wife, Elizabeth, who was recently diagnosed with incurable breast cancer.

"He's very nice,'' said 92-year-old Lily Pagliari, a Democrat who said she is undecided in the presidential race. "It's great that he came and helped liven things up here.''

(...)

"It's important for the president of the United States to understand how difficult these jobs are, and how important they are,'' he said. He also touted his proposed health care plan, which he said would help cover the cost of long-term care at nursing homes.

Edwards has said his health plan would cost between $90 and $120 billion and would be paid for by rolling back tax cuts for those making over $200,000 per year.
(...)
----
Read the rest here.

More info: http://www.walkadayinmyshoes2008.com/edwards-walks-a-day/ and http://johnedwards.com/events/20070411/

[JohnLocke]

1. Kick (nt).

[1932]

2. About an hour ago I listened to Edwards's podcast about his tax proposal

Form 1: for 40 million americans, the treasury department already has enough info from their banks and employers to know exactly what their taxes are. So, the IRS does the math and sends you a form 1 which does all the math. You sign it and return it.

It cuts out the 7 hours required to fill out the forms you'd have to fill out otherwise. It also cuts out the tax preparers like Intuit who, Edwards said in the podcast, spend 100s of thousands of dollars to lobby the government not to do things like this.

It also does the math for EIC people (so that the 25% who are elligible and don't take it now won't lose that opportunity).

I have to say that I love this idea.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

4. What I would love even more...

Eliminate the EIC Program altogether. I'm a professional tax preparer with a large tax preparation firm whose initials are H&R. But that's the only clue I'll give you.

People on EIC come to us because they can't calculate EIC themselves and because they want a rapid refund product. This cranks up that tax preparation fees, in addition to the fact that they're paying fees to some check-cashing joint to get their own money. Combine that with the fact that they're now living with up to $6,000 in cash in their sock drawer, and you have a pretty bad situation. All this because they're not earning enough money from their employer and don't have a checking account at the local bank.

I'd like to see the amount paid in EIC (and the amount the IRS spends investigating EIC fraud) poured into providing a living wage for workers, so that these folks get their money through hard work and not a phony tax break. Then I'd like to see a federal requirement that banks provide no-cost checking accounts to low income wage earners -- and a mandate that all employers offer the option of direct deposit.

No tax preparation fees.
No check cashing fees.

It's a good thing.

[1932]

6. I'm a fan of a negative income tax. We have tremendous inequality in the US

and it's not going to be solved anytime soon unless the government gets involved in promoting a more equal distribution of wealth.

I think there are lots of ways to lift incomes in the US, and you don't need to throw the EIC in the trash to do them.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. What I'm suggesting would do precisely what you want...

People who say "We can't afford a Living Wage" don't understand that we're already paying one -- it's just that the wage is being paid partly by employers and partly by taxpayers. When you factor in EIC, Food Stamps, Housing Assistance, Childcare Assistance, Transporation Assistance, School Hot Lunch Programs, CHIP, Medicaid, Home Fuel Assistance, and a host of other programs available at the state and local level, a minimum wage employee can "earn" up to $15,000 in government benefits each year. That's the equivalent of $7.50 an hour.

Rather than employ an army of federal, state and local bureaucrats to administer all these programs and then enforce the regulations (these programs are rife with fraud), why not just have employers pay a minimum of $12.50 an hour? That would be about $25,000 per year for a fulltime employee. At $25,000 per year, a single taxpayer with two children would still have no tax liability and would have a refundable credit of $2,000 (Child Tax Credit x 2 kids). That's $27,000 in family income and a better deal than what they're getting now.

How to pay for it? Most of the evidence says that employers pay for most of the cost through increased efficiency -- higher wages lead to lower turnover and lower costs for recruitment and training. What's more, the longer employees stay at the same job, but more proficient they become. But certainly the costs could be offset in party by taking the funding for the old assistance programs and turning them into payroll tax reductions -- both for employers and employees -- to blunt any inflationary effect that the Living Wage might have. Note, however, that most research on existing Living Wage ordinances shows a very minor negative impact on the economy.

I suspect I'm preaching to the choir on the basic issue, but when we're selling a Living Wage to the moderate-to-conservative crowd, the prospect of dismantling a large chunk of the bureaucracy is a powerful selling point. Telling them "the private sector can redistribute wealth much more efficiently than government programs" is something that will resonate with them.

[1932]

8. It isn't an either/or situation. Sure. Raise the minimum wage.

And you'd be, de facto, ending the EIC for a lot of people.

But those programs also help people who aren't working (not the EIC of course, but the others do). Also, couples should benefit from the EIC and if you have one working spouse and one unemployed spouse, they should benefit from the EIC (and raising the minimum wage wouldn't help them).

Like I said, income inequality is so severe in the US that the government really must play a much more involved role in addressing it that is beyond just raising the minimum wage.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. Great

Can you imagine Shrub and others "royals" ever doing such a thing?

[renie408]

5. Edwards is looking like a great candidate. n/t