Don't overlook the Big Labor funding behind the LA protests
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
Newsweek
9 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Doubles Down on Mathematically Impossible Drug Price Cuts
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump has doubled down on his claim of reducing drug prices by amounts that are mathematically impossible. Trump told reporters on Sunday that his administration had cut the price of some prescription drugs by as much as 1,500 percent. "Well, one of the things they're going to be talking about pretty soon are the tremendous drop in drug prices. You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500 percent. I don't mean 50 percent. I mean 14-, 1,500 percent," the president said. When asked to clarify the president's remarks, White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Newsweek, "It's an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it's an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people." Why It Matters Trump's remarks signal a misunderstanding of how pricing and percentages work, which could undermine public confidence in his ability to tackle problems such as drug pricing. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters near Air Force One at the Lehigh Valley International Airport in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on August 3. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters near Air Force One at the Lehigh Valley International Airport in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on August To Know Reducing the price of a drug by 100 percent would make it free, and a reduction greater than 100 percent suggests pharmaceutical companies would pay their customers to take their prescription drugs. Commenting on Trump's claims, Jeffrey Frankel, a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University, told Newsweek that the numbers were "indeed mathematically impossible." On Friday, the president made similar claims of bringing drug prices down by "1,000 percent, 1,200 percent" in an interview with Newsmax's Rob Finnerty. That came a day after the White House said Trump had written to the heads of 17 pharmaceutical companies outlining steps they needed to take to bring down the prices of drugs sold in the U.S. to match the lowest price paid by a group of other economically advanced countries. According to a fact sheet the White House released on Thursday, Trump's letters said the pharmaceutical manufacturers' proposals for implementing his May executive order—which seeks to achieve "most favored nation" pricing in the United States—had "fallen short." However, it did not mention the percentage reductions the president has discussed in recent days. What People Are Saying Jeffrey Frankel, a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University, told Newsweek: "They are indeed mathematically impossible. If he cut prices 90 percent, the drugs would cost 1/10 as much as before. If 100 percent, then they would cost zero. If cutting 1,000 percent means a thing, then it means that the drug company pays you (a lot) to take the drug." He added: "It's almost as if Trump is making fun of his supporters, seeing what increasingly absurd statements he can get away with." Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, told Newsweek: "This is not a question for an economist, but rather a sixth grader. After all, the Common Core curriculum standard states that students should know how to 'find a percent of a quantity as a rate per 100 (e.g., 30 percent of a quantity means 30/100 times the quantity).'" Wolfers added: "I just checked with my sixth grader (Oliver Wolfers), and he confirmed that he has studied percentages and that the president's math does not make sense 'because then the prices would be negative.' He added, 'Is he an idiot?' before returning to watching YouTube. Oliver's father agrees with Oliver's mathematical analysis and encourages him to use more positive language when engaging with fellow kids." Pau Pujolas, a professor of economics at McMaster University, told Newsweek: "If your grocery bill is $100 and you get a 50 percent reduction in price, you pay $50. If you get a 75 percent reduction, you pay $25. If you get a 99 percent reduction, you pay $1. If you get a 100 percent reduction, you pay $0. You can't get a reduction larger than that ... so 1,200 percent doesn't make sense. "Talking about bad math: Firing Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is way worse than a POTUS not knowing how to operate with basic percentages. Let's not miss the forest for the trees." President Donald Trump said at a Republican dinner in July: "This is something that nobody else can do. We're gonna get the drug prices down—not 30 or 40 percent, which would be great, not 50 or 60 percent. No, we're gonna get them down 1,000 percent, 600 percent, 500 percent, 1,500 percent. Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable." The White House fact sheet said: "From this point forward, President Trump will only accept from drug manufacturers a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from vastly inflated drug prices and an end to the freeriding by European and other developed nations on American innovations." Journalist James Surowiecki wrote on X in response to Trump's comments on Sunday: "It's not just that the math here is nonsensical. It's that Trump hasn't actually cut drug prices yet at all. He's literally just sent letters to drugmakers telling them to cut prices. Does he know that and is lying? Or is he deluded? We have no idea." What Happens Next Trump and the White House have not clarified what he means when he says drug prices will come down by as much as 1,500 percent. The president's letters to pharmaceutical companies give them a 60-day window to present a viable plan to reduce U.S. drug prices.
Chicago Tribune
37 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
The vast majority of US adults are stressed about grocery costs, an AP-NORC poll finds
NEW YORK — The vast majority of U.S. adults are at least somewhat stressed about the cost of groceries, a new poll finds, as prices continue to rise and concerns about the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs remain widespread. About half of all Americans say the cost of groceries is a 'major' source of stress in their life right now, while 33% say it's a 'minor' source of stress, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Only 14% say it's not a source of stress, underscoring the pervasive anxiety most Americans continue to feel about the cost of everyday essentials. Other financial stressors — like the cost of housing or the amount of money in their bank accounts — are also broadly felt, but they weigh more heavily on younger Americans, who are less likely than older adults to have significant savings or own property. The survey also found that about 4 in 10 Americans under age 45 say they've used what are known as 'buy now, pay later' services when spending on entertainment or restaurant meals or when paying for essentials like groceries or medical care. Adam Bush, 19, based in Portland, New York, is one of those younger Americans who has used pay-later services for things like groceries or entertainment. Bush works as a welder, fabricating parts for trucks for Toyota, and makes under $50,000 per year. 'I just keep watching the prices go up, so I'm looking for the cheapest possible stuff,' he said. 'Hot pockets and TV dinners.' Groceries are one of the most far-reaching financial stressors, affecting the young and old alike, the poll finds. While Americans over age 60 are less likely than younger people to feel major financial anxiety about housing, their savings, child care, or credit card debt, they are just as worried about the cost of groceries. Esther Bland, 78, who lives in Buckley, Washington, said groceries are a 'minor' source of stress — but only because her local food banks fill the gap. Bland relies on her Social Security and disability payments each month to cover her rent and other expenses — such as veterinary care for her dogs — in retirement, after decades working in an office processing product orders. 'I have no savings,' she said. 'I'm not sure what's going on politically when it comes to the food banks, but if I lost that, groceries would absolutely be a major source of stress.' Bland's monthly income mainly goes toward her electric, water and cable bills, she said, as well as care of her dogs and other household needs. 'Soap, paper towels, toilet paper. I buy gas at Costco, but we haven't seen $3 a gallon here in a long time,' she said. 'I stay home a lot. I only put about 50 miles on my car a week.' According to the poll, 64% of the lowest-income Americans — those who have a household income of less than $30,000 a year — say the cost of groceries is a 'major' stressor. That's compared with about 4 in 10 Americans who have a household income of $100,000 or more. But even within that higher-income group, only about 2 in 10 say grocery costs aren't a worry at all. Housing is another substantial source of worry for U.S. adults — along with their savings, their income and the cost of health care. About half of U.S. adults say housing is a 'major' source of stress, according to the poll, while about 4 in 10 say that about the amount of money they get paid, the amount of money they have saved and the cost of health care. About 3 in 10 say credit card debt is a 'major' source of stress, while about 2 in 10 say that about the cost of child care and student debt. But some groups are feeling much more anxiety about their finances than others. Women, for instance, are more likely than men to report high levels of stress about their income, savings, the cost of groceries and the cost of health care. Hispanic adults are also particularly concerned about housing costs and both credit card and student debt. About two-thirds of Hispanic adults say the cost of housing is a 'major' source of stress, compared with about half of Black adults and about 4 in 10 white adults. Some people are making changes to their lifestyle as a result of high costs. Shandal LeSure, 43, who works as a receptionist for a rehabilitation hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and makes between $85,000 and $100,000 a year, said she's started shopping for groceries at less expensive stores. 'It's an adjustment,' she said. 'Sometimes the quality isn't as good.' As they stretch limited budgets, about 3 in 10 U.S. adults overall say they've used 'buy now, pay later' services such as Afterpay or Klarna to purchase groceries, entertainment, restaurant meals or meal delivery, or medical or dental care, according to the poll. Bland, the Washington state retiree, said she's paid for pet surgery with a pay-later plan. Younger Americans are much likelier than older people to have used pay-later plans for entertainment, groceries or restaurant meals, but there's no age gap on medical care. Black and Hispanic people are also especially likely to adopt the plans. An increasing share of 'buy now, pay later' customers are having trouble repaying their loans, according to recent disclosures from the lenders. The loans are marketed as a safer alternative to traditional credit cards, but there are risks, including a lack of federal oversight. Some consumer watchdogs also say the plans lead consumers to overextend themselves financially. LeSure said she's used pay-later services for things like new clothes, while she balances debt payments for a car loan, student loans and medical bills. She's also turned to them to cover hotel costs after being evicted. 'That's been able to help me stretch my dollar,' she said.
Boston Globe
37 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump attacks Charlamagne Tha God after radio host criticizes his presidency
Trump said on Truth Social that Charlamagne was a 'dope' who voted for Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris. Charlamagne said he personally will benefit from tax breaks approved in Trump's tax-and-spending law, but said, 'There's going to be so many people that's hurt by that bill.'' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Anything that takes away Medicaid from people and will put people in a worse financial situation than they were previously in, I'm not for,' he added. Advertisement Charlamagne also predicted that 'traditional conservatives' are going to take back the Republican Party from Trump's Make America Great Again movement, citing controversy over Trump's refusal to release files related to disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 'I think there's a political coup going on right now in the Republican Party that people aren't paying attention to,' Charlamagne said. 'I think this Epstein thing is going to be a way for traditional conservatives to take their party back. I really do. I think that they know this is the issue that has gotten the base riled up, the MAGA base isn't letting this issue go and for the first time they can probably take their party back and not piss off the MAGA base. I think they're going to do that.' Advertisement The Epstein case has dominated news coverage in recent weeks after the Justice Department said it will not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision has infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. Officials have said Epstein killed himself in his New York jail cell while awaiting trial in 2019, but his case has generated endless attention and conspiracy theories because of his links to famous people, including Trump and other billionaires. Trump on social media called Charlamagne a 'racist sleazebag' and criticized his use of God in his professional nickname. 'Can anyone imagine the uproar there would be if I used that nickname?' Trump asked. Charlamagne, who co-hosts a nationally syndicated radio show, 'The Breakfast Club,' told Lara Trump that his criticism of the Republican president was not new, adding that he 'gave President Biden the same hell' when he didn't think the Democrat was doing a good job.
