U.S. ballots: Where's the working class?

Americans need more political candidates for – and from – the working class.

In Illinois, more than one-third of votes in November’s election were early – more than in 2020, says the state Board of Elections, which also noted that while voting by mail remained popular (with some 1 million casting ballots that way), that’s only about half the 2020 elections. Overall, the turnout was the lowest in 40 years, meaning 20 federal elections.

There are many possible reasons, but one deserving more attention of citizens, if not civic organizations and political parties, is the lack of candidate from the working class.

In communities, whether in business, education, labor, religion, etc., it’s common and effective to draw on the experience and expertise of people who’ve been in the trenches, whether construction sites, hospitals, classrooms, offices, sanctuaries… We turn to those familiar with the jobs and the problems for insights. If people dislike an assembly bottleneck, it makes sense to go to a factory worker on the line; price of gas or groceries get your attention? A filling station owner or grocer might explain now the consolidation and near-monopoly practices of big corporations limits prices at the pump and on the shelves more than the government.

Most Americans work for a living and are in the working class or are struggling but at least half of members of Congress are millionaires. Because most political candidates aren't working class, few people vote, or settle for promises we may suspect are hogwash.

The working class is usually written off or taken for granted by the professional political class, their paid consultants, and the PACs and campaign contributors.

“Working-class voters have been cut adrift,” wrote Dustin Guastella, a Teamsters official in Philadelphia active in the Center for Working Class Politics (CWCP). “Their views and voices are invisible in Washington, and they see no real champions for their interests.

“The lack of working-class representation in government is also one major factor in explaining the dysfunction in our politics and the persistence of economic policies that seem to only benefit the rich,” he said.

Maybe this fall’s disappointing turnout will alert some people, along with the impressive results by independent Dan Osborn, the first-time candidate running without party support for the U.S. Senate from Nebraska who lost the race by 8 points (while Kamala Harris lost the state by 21 points).

Another independent, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (who caucuses with Democrats), after the election asked, “Will the Democratic leadership learn the lessons of their defeat and create a party that stands with the working class and is prepared to take on the enormously powerful special interests that dominate our economy, our media and our political life?”

Osborn’s campaign was straightforward, relating to people suggesting there are culprits to blame, and explaining what he’d try to do in Washington, where the one-time union president and Navy vet (who earned about $48,000 last year as a steamfitter and mechanic) described the Senate as “a country club of millionaires that work for billionaires.”

A CWCP study showed that among working-class voters, hypothetical candidates with elite or upper-class backgrounds performed significantly worse than everyday Americans. And the working class encompasses different races, faiths, ages, genders, geographies, and so on.

“As a working-class populist, Osborn’s appeal cut across the various divisions to unite working people, because to be working class, and to proudly identify as such, is not just to show voters that you ‘feel their pain,’ as Bill Clinton said,” Guastella said. “But that you actually understand the world from their position. And that’s one reason Osborn thinks that getting more workers represented in office is such a good idea.

“Only 2.3% of Democratic candidates worked exclusively in blue-collar jobs before entering politics,” he continued. “Even if we broaden the category to professionals like teachers and nurses, the number is still under 6%.”

Obstacles include time and money. Time off from their jobs and funds to compete with the rich or the juggernaut of cash raised by the elites.

Organizations of mass constituencies, such as labor unions, can help. Osborn has another concept, and he’s formed the “Working Class Heroes Fund” to advocate for working class candidates, for unions and for union strikers.

“The idea is to help other people like me – teachers, nurses, plumbers, carpenters, bus drivers – to be able to run for office in their particular counties, states, areas, and we can help them accomplish that," he told ABC News.

Sanders commented, “The American people are sick and tired of seeing the rich getting richer. They think billionaires dominate both political parties. They want real change, and Dan’s campaign raised those issues in a very significant way.”

He continued, “We need strong working-class candidates who are prepared to run on working-class issues, [asking], ‘Why in the wealthiest country in the history of the world are 60 percent of our people living paycheck to paycheck? Why do 60,000 people a year die because they don’t get to a doctor on time? Why can’t young people afford higher education?’

“Trump had an appeal to working-class people,” Sanders conceded, “but his ‘solutions’ will make a bad situation even worse.”

Indeed, with an economic plan including more tax cuts to corporations and the affluent, and mor tariffs, the working class is going to bear the burden of even higher prices and lost jobs.

Nevertheless, last month, many working-class voters went for Trump even though they were not liars, insurrectionists or racists because it seemed that even if Trump was – or even an aspiring dictator -- those weren’t dealbreakers if the price of eggs got cheaper.

But that’s unfair and probably inaccurate.

“Eight years ago when Trump won, the analyses proclaimed he secured the working-class vote,” said Natalie Y. Moore in the Chicago Sun-Times. “A closer look by political scientists debunked myths about that support.”

So now, looking ahead, will wealthy candidates, almost all of whom depend on rich contributors, really put in the effort to make life better for the working class, whose interests are different?

Really.

The working class needs candidates from our ranks – the rank and file.

BILLIONAIRES: King Wenceslas wasn’t American, so his riches were missed

In one way, this holiday season does not reflect a joy to the world.

True, one Wise Man, Warren Buffett Thanksgiving week donated $1.1 billion, if not gold, frankincense and myrrh. But hundreds of Scrooges backed Donald Trump’s campaign for the White House, and some of them are likely to get cabinet posts.

The British newspaper The Telegraph reports that this coalition of the super-rich collectively are worth $408 billion, and Forbes magazine reports that Trump’s biggest backers have a combine net worth of $143 billion.

David Kass, the executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, told The Guardian that the goal of Trump’s “government by the billionaires for the billionaires” was huge tax cuts for the super-rich, which would be achieved at the cost of slashing services such as education, Social Security and Medicaid.

“Voters wanted a change,” Kass said. “I think what’s going to happen is that people will say, ‘That’s not actually what I wanted. The rich are rich enough and don’t need more tax cuts. How about helping me?’

“I think there’s going to be a huge mobilization against this.”

A few others have weighed in:

* “The combined net worth of America's 12 wealthiest people just passed $2 trillion. Twelve people: $2 trillion. The bottom half of America collectively holds $3.5 trillion. Wealth inequality is eating this country alive.” – former Labor Secretary and economist Robert Reich

* “Why are the ultra-wealthy pumping hundreds of millions into both the presidential election and critical down ticket races? Because these hedge fund executives, crypto companies and union-busting CEOs aren’t satisfied with just their massive unearned profits and mega yachts. They want total control of our democracy, too.” – AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler

* “We’ve said all along that no matter who is in the White House, our fight remains the same. It’s time for Washington, D.C. to put up or shut up, no matter the party, no matter the candidate. Will our government stand with the working class, or keep doing the bidding of the billionaires?” – UAW President Shawn Fain

* “The next four years are going to be a smash and grab under Trump. [The] special interests who put Trump back in office expect a return on their investment – all the more reason not to let up on oversight.” – U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chair of the Finance Committee

 

TRUMP’S BILLIONAIRES

Beyond Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, other wealthy Americans supported Doanld Trump, and some have been nominated for influential positions in the new administration, such as multi-millionaires Doug Burnum (nominated to be Interior Secretary), Dr.. Oz (named administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services), David Sacks (appointed AI and crypto “czar), and Scott Turner (nominated to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development).

However, there also are billionaires expected to help shape Trump’s second term beyond Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” partner Vivek Ramaswamy.

Here are some of them

Bill Ackman is a hedge fund manager who endorsed Trump despite supposed misgivings, Reuters reported.

Miriam Adelson is a physician and part owner of the Las Vegas Sands casino and the Dallas Mavericks. Widow of long-time GOP campaign contributor Sheldon Adelson, Miriam is one of Trump’s largest donors, having given $100 million to the Political Action Committee Preserve America to back his candidacy, according to the Center for Responsive :Politics.

Marc Andreessen is a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who’s said he supported Trump because the Republican is expected to help the tech industry through deregulation and tax cuts.

Scott Bessent is a hedge fund manager who advised Trump’s campaign, according to Politico reports, and has praised Trump’s economic philosophies. Trump’s nominated him to be Treasury Secretary.

Diane Hendricks co-founded ABC Supply, a distributor of roofing supplies, siding and windows, and was featured at the GOP National Convention. Forbes reported that her net worth of $20 billion makes her the top “self-made woman” in the country.

Robert Wood Johnson IV owns the New York Jets, and was ambassador to the United Kingdom in Trump’s first term.

Howard Lutnick is chairman and CEO of financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald who once appeared on Trump’s “Apprentice” TV show. He co-chairs the Trump 2024 transition team.

Timothy Mellon is the grandson of Andrew Mellon, and an heir to the Mellon banking fortune. He’s helped fund Trump endeavors for years and donated some $115 million to Trump’s campaign, Reuters reported .

Linda McMahon helped husband Vince McMahon develop the World Wrestling Entertainment business and led the U.S. Small Business Administration in Trump’s first term.   Trump nominated her to be Secretary of Education.

John Paulson, another hedge-fund billionaire, endorsed Trump in 2024 but has supported his campaigns since 2016, according to Politico. Paulson also has advocated deregulation and lower taxes for years, Reuters reports, and has backed tariffs.

 to for national security and to counter unfair trade practices, as has Trump. 

Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and investor in Facebook, is a strong supporter of Ohio Senator and Vice President-elect JD Vance. USA TODAY reported that Thiel has spent more than $49 million on campaigns since 2000.

 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO BE GETTING ‘MUSK-Y’

Sometimes described as “a Bond villain,” Elon Musk for years has bought his way into business, and now seems to have bought an entrée into government.

The 53-year-old entrepreneur, whose net worth is $344 billion, according to Forbes magazine, spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars to help elect Trump, NBC reports, based on Federal Election Commission data.

His “investments” in Trump range from his own super PAC (America PAC) – which was responsible for his $1 million daily giveaways that urged swing-state residents to register to vote and sign a petition he made supporting conservative ideals (reportedly sent by checks from Musk’s Texas company “United States of America, Inc.”) – and the separate RGB PAC funded by his additional $20.5 million contribution that sought to convince voters that Trump’s views on abortion rights are like those of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which they’re not, Ginsburg family and other observers say.

Growing up in a prosperous family in the emerald business in apartheid South Africa, Musk moved to the United States in 1995 to attend college, becoming a U.S. citizen in 2002.

In 1999 he co-founded a company that became PayPal, but eventually was ousted as CEO.

In 2003, he was brought in as an $6.5 million investor in Tesla, which was launched earlier that year by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, who made Musk board chair. After becoming CEO in 2008, he cut about 20% of Tesla’s employees and forced Tarpenning and Eberhard out.

In 2009 Musk arranged a partnership with Diamler, which invested $50 million in Tesla, and a year later got another $40 million in debt financing.

By 2018 Musk himself left Tesla after a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit about Musk allegedly falsely claiming that he’d secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla. To settle the case Musk paid a $20 million fine and agreed to step down.

He bought Twitter for $44 billion in 2022, after which the platform was renamed X and became more of a Right-wing site espousing disinformation and hateful rhetoric in the name of free speech.

“We’ve never really seen anyone be that directly connected with a campaign unless they were the candidate,” says Jason Seawright, a Northwestern University political science professor and co-author of the book “Billionaires and Stealth Politics.”

Trump named Musk and fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy to lead an independent “Department of Government Efficiency,” and the two vowed to cut $2 trillion in federal spending despite existing agencies responsible for such activities, including the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office (an auditing organization that cut $70 billion from federal agencies in fiscal year 2023. Also, of course, Congress itself has the sole constitutional power to spend federal funds.

After the November election results were announced, Musk posted on X, “Novus Ordo Seclorum,” Latin for “New World Order.”

In the days following the election, Musk’s personal wealth grew about $70 billion higher CNBC reported. Tesla stock jumped more than 25% since Nov. 5, adding around $225 billion of market value, Axios reported; Musk's artificial intelligence startup xAI, maker of the chatbot Grok, is raising up to $6 billion at a $50 billion valuation, CNBC reported; and his SpaceX company is preparing a tender offer that would value the rocket company at more than $250 billion, up $40 billion from earlier this year, according to the Financial Times.

 

Election aftermath: Labor held the line

Some parts of Democrats’ traditional coalition may have broken ranks in Kamala Harris’ loss to Donald Trump, but organized labor stayed true, nationally and in Illinois.

Labor supported Harris at a level comparable to Biden’s 2020 victory over Trump – 54% to 43%, Four years ago, Biden finished with 56%; in 2016 Clinton has 51%.

“The labor movement put together probably its most expansive [campaign] program overall, and it had results,” said Jimmy Williams Jr., the head of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.

In Illinois, “We had a very aggressive member-to-member program and had success throughout the state,” said Tim Drea, President of the Illinois AFL-CIO.

Indeed, the state legislature should maintain labor-friendly Democrats’ supermajority in Springfield (78-40 in the House and 40-19 in the Senate), according to the Associated Press’ election results.

Nationally, Trump exaggerated the condition of the economy and claimed he’d bring down prices. But he was vague except for pledging to institute tariffs, which would affect imports’ prices, so such increases will be passed on to consumers, who’d bear that burden. Further, Presidents have little power to control prices, compared to the independent Federal Reserve and to corporations that have been price-gouging since the pandemic.

Still, many “voted for their wallets,” Drea said, noting, “All our political offices stressed kitchen-table issues, bread-and-butter issues.”

Labor’s conventional outreach efforts were effective, but turnout – especially in swing states – was disappointing, according to Illinois AFL-CIO Political Director Bill Looby, who told the Labor Paper that union efforts were successful in Illinois.

“We were strong in many county races, in statewide offices, and in keeping the state’s Congressional delegation overwhelmingly Democratic,” Looby said.

Mentioning U.S. Reps. Eric Sorensen and Nikki Budzinski, Looby added, “We knew where the hot spots were and concentrated on turnout there.”

Organized labor now must remain engaged and vigilant.

In Illinois, “There’s a couple of fears,” commented Jason Lee, senior adviser to Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson. “One is implementing a plutocracy, upward redistribution, governing on behalf of billionaires and not for everyday working people, which is what the mayor’s vision is based on.

“The other fear, obviously, is the authoritarian impulses,” Lee continued. “The enemy within. Going after political dissidents. Curtailing freedom of speech, freedom of movement. Curtailing rights as it pertains to women.”

Trump could upend:

* law enforcement by sending National Guard troops into some neighborhoods and replacing key personnel at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, affecting prosecutions for gun crimes;

* women’s health care by following through on some federal legislators’ idea for national restrictions;

* climate and environment by restricting efforts to meet climate goals and to reduce emissions, and

* immigration  by deporting millions of undocumented immigrants, including an estimated 400,000 in the state – some of whom are working in the agriculture, health and hospitality sectors.

 

A Trump administration with loyalists replacing nonpartisan staffers also could take aim as federal support for ongoing building projects, including the expansion of O’Hare airport and the extension of the CTA’s Red Line.

Statewide, Gov. Pritzker’s administration is determined to persevere. On Nov. 7, Pritzker said, “To anyone who intends to come take away the freedom and opportunity and dignity of Illinoisans, I would remind you that a happy warrior is still a warrior.

“You come for my people, you come through me.”

A Christmas lesson when facing darkness

Remembered as a unionist, the founder and first president of The Newspaper Guild labor union, Heywood Broun was a renowned columnist, author, playwright, and socialist whose passions ranged from sports and books to poker and, especially, Christmas.

In his newspaper career, Broun worked as a sportswriter, critic, war correspondent and columnist for the likes of ex-gunfighter and sports editor Bat Masterson at the New York Morning Telegraph, for the conservative New York Tribune and Pulitzer’s liberal New York World, plus Scripps-Howard’s Telegram, which syndicated his column, and the Post, which printed one of his pieces before he unexpectedly died at the age of 51.

Weeks before his 1939 death, with World War II starting after Nazi Germany invaded Poland, Broun wrote about defying fascist regimes and the threats they posed to free peoples – even during Christmastime.

Inducted into both the International Labor Hall of Fame in Detroit and the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., Broun was eulogized by Mine Workers head John L. Lewis, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, actor Edgar G, Robinson, and author Lewis Gannett, who said, “It was precisely because Heywood played the races, visited the bread lines, produced a Broadway play, ran for Congress, walked picket lines, organized the Guild, and joined a church that he and his column stayed young.”

Also ageless are his many Christmas columns, such as the following piece published 85 years ago in the New York World-Telegram. It’s called “The hand of Herod.”

 

A news dispatch from Paris says that the authorities have decided that midnight Masses may not be celebrated in any of the churches of the city during the Christmas season. It is explained that it would be impossible to keep the light from filtering out through the great stained glass windows of a cathedral. A candle by a shrine sheds a beam which is too broad for the warring world in which we live. If the figure of the Christ child were illuminated it might serve as a beacon for the way of wise flying men from out of the East. And their gifts would not be gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Once again the hand of Herod is raised for the slaughter of the innocents. But those things which were, are with us now. I have seen men and women moved by devotion into such a mood that they felt themselves not only followers but contemporaries in the life of Jesus. To them His death was a present tragedy and Easter morning marked a literal triumph. And to those who are like-minded there lies reassurance in the revelation of the past. Herod was a ruler who for a little time had might and power vested in himself. His word was absolute and his will was cruel. As captain over thousands he commanded his messengers to find and kill the newborn king. An army was set in motion against an infant in a manger.

But though the hand of Herod fell heavily upon Bethlehem and all the coasts thereof, Joseph, the young child and his mother escaped into Egypt. "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be consoled, because they are not."

The blood of the young was spilled upon the ground even as it is being shed today. And it may well have seemed, some two thousand years ago, that there was no force which could stay the ravages of the monarch and his minions.

Around the child there stood on guard only Joseph and Mary, three wise men and shepherds from the field who had followed the course set for them by a bright star. Death came to Herod, and the bright star was a portent of the perfect light which was to save the world from darkness. The light of the world was not extinguished then, and it lives today and will again transfix the eyes of men with its brilliance.

In the dark streets of Paris on Christmas Eve, even as in the little town of Bethlehem, a star will animate the' gloom. The call comes once more to kings and shepherds to journey to the manger and worship at the shrine of the Prince of Peace. Quite truly the civil authorities of Paris have said that it is impossible to blackout the light which shines from the altar.

And if I were in France I would go at midnight to the little island on the Seine and stand before Notre Dame de Paris. At first the towers of that great Gothic structure might seem to be lost in the blackness of the night. And it has been ruled that no congregation shall raise its voice to welcome the tidings of great joy. But then I think all the windows will take on magnificence, and that the air will resound with the message which has been given to the sons of men and will be offered again to the fellowship of all mankind. "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men." And that choral cry will rise above the hum of Herod's grim messengers. It will be much louder than the crash of guns and the roar of cannon. No hymn of hate can prevail if we will only heed the eternal cadence of the Christmas carol.

Merry Christmas.

Please, lawmakers: attitudes, not platitudes about stalled Farm Bill

The election’s over, and even the introduction of the gang of flying monkeys nominated for cabinet posts is getting tedious (if terrible for the country).

Also maybe tiresome: The Farm Bill hasn’t progressed; people who eat and grow food must be interested and wonder, “More politicking?!” There are more than 2,600 farms in the Tri-County area, the USDA says – 72,000 in Illinois, the Number-5 state for exporting ag products.

The bill’s temporary extension expired Sept. 30; its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) ends Dec. 20. (Merry Christmas!); if nothing’s done, U.S. agriculture will revert to a pricing model from before the first Farm Bill, in 1933.

Meanwhile, this summer Illinois Congressman Darin LaHood (R-16^th) responded to a reporter’s question about the Farm Bill by saying, “It is vitally important we have a Farm Bill that helps protect our farmers.”

Ah.

After House Ag Committee deliberations of the massive Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024, U.S. Rep. Eric Sorensen (D-17^th) said, “The substantial increase in reference prices for Southern states does nothing to help my farmers back home. We need to level the playing field for Midwestern producers who are more susceptible to drought, flash flood and heat.”

Still, Sorensen’s didn’t vote against the measure, which passed committee 33-21 in May.

U.S. Rep. Nikki Budzinski (13^th Dist.) seems like a lawmaker who doesn’t just posture but gets into the weeds of the Farm Bill, votes against proposals, and explains why. One of three Illinois Democrats on the Ag Committee, along with Sorensen and Jonathan Jackson (1^st), plus Illinois Republicans Mike Bost (12^th) and Mary Miller (15^th), the Peoria native has continued to campaign to restore and improve the Farm Bill.

Enacted about every five years, Farm Bills affect how the nation farms and eats, and how we use and protect the land and rural America. The last Farm Bill had assistance for rural development and farm-loan aid plus four entitlements: income and price-support subsidies for farmers; crop insurance for disasters, conservation, and nutrition (including SNAP, formerly food stamps).

“SNAP is the only social benefits program available to all low-income Americans,” writes Northwestern University economist Dianne Whitmore Schanzenbach.

The House measure contains “important provisions regarding the Rural Energy Savings Program, funding and updates that support Illinois’ flourishing bioeconomy, a definition for sustainable aviation fuel, increased research facilities funding, a new Specialty Crop Advisory Committee and doubled funding for the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program,” Budzinski conceded. “But what sticks with me is that these strides are made alongside concerning changes to our farm safety net, and they come at the expense of hungry families and our climate.”

One beneficial change could be incentivizing crop-insurance policy writing in areas with high loss ratios.

“Unfortunately,’ Budzinski said, “they’ve decided to arbitrarily cut Illinois and four other Midwestern states out of these improvements,” but not Southern cotton, peanut and rice growers.

“I want to make sure that our corn and soybean farmers [are] getting their fair share,” she continued.

“I’m deeply disappointed that the Farm Bill released by Committee Republicans fails by harming our ability to respond to emergencies and deepening regional disparities in our safety net,” she added. “We’ve established safety net programs in the event of things like drought, natural disasters and trade instability. These aren't the only safety net programs weakened in this Farm Bill, [which] privatizes SNAP, pulling back nearly $30 billion from the program over the next 10 years.”

The House version also would seize $14 billion in Inflation Reduction Act conservation funding to transfer elsewhere.

The League of Conservation Voters also blasted the House bill, commenting, “House Agriculture Committee Chair GT Thompson caved to the demands of extreme MAGA Republicans.”

Indeed, the House Republican Study Committee, whose members include LaHood, also has recommended additional cuts: removing SNAP, eliminating “duplicative” crop insurance programs, stop funding National School Lunch Standards, eliminate the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program account, and dismantle the bipartisan Bob Dole/George McGovern Food for Education program.

Budzinski, who last month won her second term on Capitol Hill, seems determined.

“I want to make sure family farmers have a seat at that table when the Farm Bill is being negotiated,” she said.

“Any farm bill that has passed over the last few decades has been done on a bipartisan basis,” she said. “That’s what I think we need to get to: coming back to the table, negotiating these sticking points and getting the bill done.”

Nursing homes and residents cope with staffing shortages, fiscal woes

For months, greater Peoria has seen headlines about Petersen Health Care, 830 W. Trailcreek Dr. in Peoria, which has faced foreclosures and bankruptcy due to hundreds of millions of dollars of unpaid debt. Petersen’s holdings include nursing homes in Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.

Illinois has almost 700 nursing homes and related facilities, with 61 in Peoria, Tazewell and Woodford Counties, according to the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH), which licenses, regulates and examines facilities’ documents for compliance.

Few face bankruptcy, but most cope with fiscal challenges affecting budgets, staffing and residents’ care.

“It’s all about staffing,” said Charlene Harrington, professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco, who specializes in long-term care research. “If you don’t have adequate staffing, you just can’t do the job.”

It’s daunting, according to a February report.

“Monumental and ongoing staffing shortages” and worker burnout have created a crisis, said the inspector general’s office at the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Its Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) supervises 1.2 million nursing homes where care is underwritten by federal funds.

This spring, the Biden administration sought to guarantee adequate staffing with tougher standards, and issued the first federal rules on minimum staffing for long-term care facilities. They could require many homes to boost staffing. Intended to “significantly reduce the risk of residents receiving unsafe and low-quality care,” the total nurse staffing standard will be 3.48 hours per resident day (the total number of hours worked by each type of staff divided by the total number of residents) and 2.45 hours per resident day of direct nurse aide care.

“But putting a law on the books is no guarantee of better staffing,” said Jordan Rau of KFF Health News. “Many nursing homes operated with fewer workers than required, often with the permission of regulators or with no consequences at all.”

Less than 20% of Illinois nursing homes meet the new federal criteria, according to CMS data analyzed by Chicago public media’s WTTW-TV 11. Failure to comply can lead to progressive penalties, from orders correcting violations to fines and even termination of licenses (although Illinois last year delayed fines tied to the state’s minimum staffing requirement until July 2025).

Some states also set minimum staffing levels, and Illinois mandates slightly more than the new federal standards.

Since January 1, 2014, the Illinois’ Nursing Home Care Act says, “The minimum staffing ratios shall be 3.8 hours of nursing and personal care each day for a resident needing skilled care and 2.5 hours of nursing and personal care each day for a resident needing intermediate care. A minimum of 25% of nursing and personal care time shall be provided by licensed nurses, with at least 10% of nursing and personal care time provided by Registered Nurses.

“Compliance shall be determined quarterly by comparing the number of hours provided per resident per day using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' payroll-based journal and the facility's daily census.”

However, the IDPH has had its own staffing shortage, with too few employees assigned to inspect the facilities’ self-documented records.

In part, the staffing shortage stems from the industry’s inability to keep workers, Harrington added. 

In Illinois, the average percentage of total nursing staff turnover was about 52% this summer.

“They’re able to hire, but they’re not retaining people, and then they don’t really want to retain because every time you bring a new staff person in, they bring them in at the minimum wage at the bottom of the wage scale,” Harrington said. “They don’t value their workforce.”

Another factor could be how the nursing home owners use their revenue.

The mostly for-profit nursing home industry blames financial woes on reimbursement rates from Medicaid, the federal/state program that covers most nursing home residents’ costs. But studies and lawsuits show that owners and investors often generate huge profits.

“Some researchers, lawyers and state authorities argue that they could reinvest more of the money they make into their facilities,” said Rau. “Pay remains so low — nursing assistants earn $19 an hour on average — that homes frequently lose workers to retail stores and fast-food restaurants that pay as well or better and offer jobs that are far less grueling.

“Average turnover in nursing homes is extraordinarily high: Federal records show half of employees leave their jobs each year.”

The effects of for-profit ownership aren’t new.

“At the height of the pandemic, lavish payments flowed into real estate, management and staffing companies financially linked to nursing home owners throughout New York,” Rau continued. “Nearly half the state’s 600-plus nursing homes hired companies run or controlled by their owners, frequently paying them well above the cost of services, a KHN analysis found, while the federal government was giving the facilities hundreds of millions in fiscal relief.

“In 2020, these affiliated corporations collectively amassed profits of $269 million, yielding average [profit] margins of 27%, while the nursing homes that hired them were strained by staff shortages, harrowing injuries, and mounting COVID deaths, state records reveal.”

Whether by changing management or strengthening enforcement and penalties, reforming the nursing home industry could be critical in the next decade. By 2034, the U.S. population will have 77 million people 65 years and older compared to 76.5 million under the age of 18, according to the Census Bureau.

It may take regular Americans pressuring companies or lawmakers.

What’s needed is the political will to address the crisis, according to Elizabeth White, RN, a professor at Brown University School of Public Health and a long-term-care expert.

“The pandemic helped highlight the challenges facing nursing homes, but it’s still the elephant in the room,” she said. “The financing system is broken, and the problem is just so enormous that it’s very hard to get the political motivation to do anything about it.”

 

For related information, go to the “Nursing Home Inspect” tool-

http://projects.propublica.org/nursing-homes/

 

Referendum offers hope for the rich to pay their fair share, but change isn’t inevitable

The notion of increasing taxes on the wealthiest Illinoisans to pay for statewide property tax relief was approved in a statewide advisory referendum in this month’s election. The idea  – imposing a 3% levy on individual income over $1 million – carried 60% of the vote, the Associated Press said.

Popular support for the nonbinding vote may help legislative efforts to put a constitutional amendment on the 2026 ballot to authorize the new “millionaires tax.”

Former Gov. Pat Quinn, head of the committee advocating the tax on the wealthy, said the referendum’s provisions would provide “the largest property tax relief measure in state history.

“For too long, millionaires have been getting tax breaks, and Illinois homeowners have been getting higher and higher property tax bills,” Quinn said. The change would offer “a chance to reform an unfair upside-down tax code and give long-overdue property tax relief to everyday homeowners across the state.”

The Illinois Department of Revenue showed about 77,000 Illinoisans reporting adjusted gross income of more than $1 million annually in 2021, the most recent year available. IDOR estimates that adding a 3% income tax surcharge to net income over $1 million statewide could result in additional tax revenue of $4.5 billion.

Even more everyday Illinoisans probably support such a move, according to Marc Poulos, Executive Director and Counsel for the union-backed Indiana, Illinois and Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting.

“Getting 60% of the electorate to vote for a measure without any money behind the message suggests that the message probably has more support than what shows in the numbers,” he told the Labor Paper. “I think it’s a genuinely a widely shared view by the 99% that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share. Not that it’s nefarious. Rather, they have the means to pay someone to make sure they take advantage of the various caveats and loopholes that exist in our system.”

Further, it’s not a partisan issue, Poulos added.

“I think the idea of taxing the rich crosses party lines,” he said. “There are voters on both sides of the aisle that believe the wealthy do not pay their fair share. And the wealthy 1% spans from Oprah Winfrey on the left to [Citadel hedge-fund billionaire] Ken Griffin on the right. So, it’s an issue that would draw support from both sides of aisle, something needed in order to obtain 60% of those voting on the measure or the majority of those voting in the election in order to successfully pass a constitutional amendment.

“Although, make no mistake about it, a measure like this would draw formidable opposition from those in the 1%.”

To become law,  the issue would have to be passed by a supermajority of the legislature and then be put on the ballot as a binding question.

In 2014, lawmakers put a similar advisory referendum on the ballot calling for state millionaires to pay 3% on income exceeding $1 million, with proceeds specifically earmarked for schools. Even more voters – 64% -- backed the idea, but it never went farther. And in 2020, voters rejected Gov. Pritzker’s plan to change Illinois’ Constitution to replace the state’s flat 4.95% income individual income tax rate with a sliding scale that would make higher-income taxpayers pay more.

Quinn voiced some optimism, saying, “It gives us a lot of momentum to work with legislators.” But Poulos –active in the successful effort to pass a Workers Rights Amendment for Illinois –  says it’s hardly a done deal.

“The only way it’s feasible is if someone takes up the cause,” Poulos said. “Maybe starting down the barrel of a $3.1 billion structural budget deficit will get the legislature to take up the cause independently. But typically, that doesn’t happen. More often an interest group pushes for a cause and then funds the operation to get the measure passed. In the case of the fair tax proposal, public sector labor largely pushed for the measure with the financial backing of the Governor, but ultimately failed. With the Workers Rights Amendment, labor again took up the fight, and funded the operation, and with a successful outcome. However, with the recent failed fair-tax campaign, I do not see another tax proposal hitting the ballot for a constitutional amendment any time soon.”

 

Two other statewide ballot questions also passed overwhelmingly:

* 72% of voters approved the in vitro fertilization (IVF) ballot question, which became timely after some conservatives sought to limit the procedure after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, and

* 89% approved protecting election workers following threats.