Nathan Newman wrote:
>What is clear is that the legislation passed in Illinois would not be
>passed
>by a GOP-run state. So why isn't that enough to justify strong preference
>by unions and other progressives for electing Dems?
-It is, up to a point. But the unions etc. are often way to sluttish -about handing out the cash. $40 million in a federal election cycle, -and what to show for it?
Geez- if you're going to bash the unions, use the numbers that really make your case.
The numbers in 2004 were over $60 million in direct contributions to candidates and the party, $100 million to the 527s, and no doubt over $100 million in spending by the unions themselves in in-kind staff time and other spending on the election. So they are blowing far more than $40 million on the Dems each election cycle.
And what do they have to show for it? Well, the survival of social security, which would be in doubt if they had lost more Senate seats. The blocking of various other toxic pieces of legislation. Etc.
Look, I'm happy to talk about how unions could better target their money. Everyone in labor is discussing that, so join the club. But the point on highlighting Illinois is to highlight that the Dems deliver some pretty serious legislation when they are in power.
And, frankly, anyone into single payer should be very excited about the Illinois AllKids program, which creates a guaranteed set of benefits for all children in the state for all families. The premiums are income-related, but even a family making $60,000 per year pays only $40 per month for a kid and, no matter how many kids they have, pay no more than $80 per month total. See http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/illinoisallkids.htm
It's not full single payer, but it's a pretty big incremental step in that direction.
Nathan Newman