The Obamacare 'Oops!' - Capital Research Center
The Obamacare ‘Oops!’Unions got the healthcare program passed, now want to exempt themselvesBy John VinciSummary: Unions are largely responsiblefor the passage of Obamacare, but oncethe program was passed, they fought toget themselves excluded from it becauseof the costs it would impose on them.They have already succeeded in receiving hundreds of waivers, and now they’reproposing even more extreme waivers thatwould cost taxpayers billions.Leaders of labor unions provided thepolitical muscle that got Obamacarethrough Congress. They furnishedthe troops at the grassroots level and in thenation’s capital to block efforts to repealor reform the program. They declared thatObamacare is the law of the land and mustnot be altered or abridged.Today some of those same union officialssay that Obamacare is a disaster that willharm working people in general and unionmembers in particular. Now—surprise!—they want Obamacare changed in ways tobenefit their unions.The Service Employees International Union played a key role in thepassage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).calling for Obamacare’s outright repeal. health plans. A month later, Joseph HanThe convention called for reforms instead. sen, the president of the United Food andCommercial Workers (UFCW), declaredOne union, the International Longshore in an op-ed in the Washington newspaperand Warehouse Union (ILWU), made The Hill that the President’s key promiseits position especially clear. The ILWU about Obamacare—“if you like your [curwithdrew its membership from the AFL- rent healthcare] plan, you can keep it”—isCIO just weeks before the convention and “simply not true for millions of workers.”accused the labor federation of cavingin to administration pressure regarding The President made that promise, by theObamacare’s tax on high-cost union health way, at the previous AFL-CIO quadrennialplans. (ILWU also cited the federation’s convention, in 2009.position on immigration reform and a localNovember 2013labor dispute.)President’s promise ‘simply not true’Through the 2010 and 2012 elections,unions kept their concerns under wrapswith regard to the Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act (often called the ACAor Obamacare). But in September, at thequadrennial convention of the AFL-CIO, thenation’s largest union federation, delegateswere speaking openly of the need to reform Last April, the United Union of Roofers,Waterproofers and Allied Workers Interor repeal the program.national (the Roofers’ Union) called forNot even AFL-CIO President, Richard the “repeal or complete reform” of ObamTrumka, one of the President’s closest allies, acare, stating that the healthcare programcould quiet his members. The best he could puts union workers at a competitivedo was to prevent passage of a resolution disadvantage and threatens their currentObamacare ‘Oops!’Page 1How unions got Obamacare passedPage 4ACORN pushes people into ObamacarePage 6Labor NotesPage 8
Unions in jeopardyUnion officials aren’t just concerned thattheir members will have to pay higherpremiums under Obamacare or that theirhealth plans won’t be able to compete.They believe Obamacare threatens the veryexistence of their unions.At the AFL-CIO’s quadrennial conventionin September, Joseph Nigro, president ofthe Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Union had some frank words on whatObamacare may mean for the AFL-CIO inparticular: “You allow an ACA bill to gothrough like this, I guarantee you by yournext convention four years from now, youwon’t meet a quarter of this room. Wewon’t be here.”“If unions’ role in negotiating health coverage is taken over by the government,unions lose a big chunk of their utility,”wrote Forbes health policy expert AvikRoy. Union health plans are fundamentalto the success or failure of unions. Royquoted Paul Starr, author of The SocialTransformation of American Medicine,who noted that unions “derive someadvantage of good will, power, or profitfrom serving as a financial intermediaryin health care.”Many unions make health insurance available to their membership through so-calledMulti-employer Health Plans (MHPs),which were authorized in the 1947 TaftHartley Act and are sometimes referred toas Taft-Hartley plans. Rather than coveringall workers within a given company, suchplans typically cover workers in differentEditor: Steven J. AllenPublisher: Terrence ScanlonAddress: 1513 16th Street, NWWashington, DC 20036-1480Phone: (202) 483-6900E-mail: sallen@CapitalResearch.orgWebsite: CapitalResearch.orgLabor Watch is published by CapitalResearch Center, a non-partisan educationand research organization classified by theIRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity. Reprintsare available for 2.50 prepaid to CapitalResearch Center.Page 2companies, often workers in the same orrelated industries. By some reports, suchplans cover 20 million Americans. Of the1.3 million members in the UFCW, TheHill reports that 500,000 are covered byMHPs.These plans must be negotiated as part of acollective bargaining agreement, and eachis run by a board of trustees made up ofboth employer and union representatives.Such a plan has significant advantages.It allows employers, in lieu of salary, topay for employees’ health insurance withpre-tax dollars. If the plan is self-insured,it cannot be regulated by state insurancebureaucracies. In addition, MHPs makehealthcare insurance portable for theirunion members. Union workers can workfor multiple employers within a planwithout having to change their insuranceeach time they change jobs. According tothe International Foundation of EmployeeBenefit Plans, MHPs are common in the“construction, arts and entertainment,retail stores, transportation, service (including lodging and health care workers),mining and communication” industries.Union officials list several reasons whyObamacare now threatens the existenceof these plans. First, they point out that they have tocompete against small companies (50 orfewer employees) that aren’t subject toObamacare’s employer mandate and thusaren’t required to purchase insurance fortheir employees. At the same time, unionsare worried that employers with 50 or moreemployees may prefer to pay Obamacare’sfines rather than bargain for union healthplans. “The concern,” says liberal healthlaw scholar Timothy Jost, “is that employers will be less willing to collectivelybargain with unions through Taft-Hartleyif the employers believe their employeeswould be as well off or perhaps better offin the exchanges with the premium taxcredits.”Unions are now admitting that Obamacare’s employer mandate will cause people to lose their jobs. As The Hill reported:. . . ACA includes a fine for failing tocover full-time workers but includesno such penalty for part-timers (de-Labor Watchfined as working less than 30 hours aweek). As a result, many employersare either reducing hours below 30 ordiscontinuing part-time health coverage altogether. This is a cut in pay andbenefits workers simply cannot afford.For example, a worker making 10an hour that has his or her schedulecut by six hours a week would lose 3,100 a year in income. With millionsof workers impacted, this would havea devastating effect on our economy.You would expect, then, that unions wouldhave greeted President Obama’s Julydecision to delay the implementation ofthe employer mandate with enthusiasm.They did not. On July 3, the AFL-CIO’sTrumka called Obama’s decision to delaythe employer mandate “troubling.”Perhaps unions are more concerned thatthe Obama Administration is making concessions to businesses and not to unions.The Wall Street Journal reported thatJames Hoffa Jr. of the Teamsters called thePresident’s decision “a huge accommodation for the employer community,” whileunion requests for special favors have been“disregarded and met with a stone wallby the White House.” In a statement theUFCW called it “a significant hand-out toemployers,” but added that the decisionencouraged the union to continue seekingchanges from the Obama Administration,since it “appears open to changing therules.” Second, Obamacare taxes high-costhealthcare plans, so-called “Cadillac”plans, by setting a limit on cost. Plans thatcost more than the limit are taxed at 40%of the amount beyond the limit. Cadillachealth plans often have small or no co-paysor deductibles.Unions often enjoy Cadillac plans forreasons that go back, like so many problems connected with healthcare, to WorldWar II. Wartime federal wage-and-pricecontrols forced employers to give “raises”to their employees in the form of benefitslike healthcare instead of in cash. Unionswere happy because they could claim theyobtained those benefits for their members.The government could have taxed thevalue of healthcare coverage as income,November 2013
but instead it let employers purchase healthinsurance for their employees tax-free.This began a system that greatly distortedthe health insurance market by linkinginsurance coverage to a person’s job—something that became a major problemas society changed and people stoppedspending their entire careers with the sameemployer.Today, because of this tax benefit foremployer-provided health insurance,many unions have negotiated generoushealth benefits instead of higher wages.Naturally, unions dislike the idea of taxingany of those benefits. As first drafted, theCadillac tax would have gone into effectthis year, but unions successfully lobbiedfor a five-year delay. Instead of starting thispast January, the tax won’t start until 2018.Originally, the tax would have charged 40percent of a health plan’s cost that wentover 23,000 a year ( 8,500 for individuals). Health Affairs calculated that thosethresholds would hit one in five largeemployer health plans. Now, in anotherchange, the thresholds have been raised to 10,200 a year for individuals or 27,500a year for families. Third, unions complain that their employees don’t have access to the healthinsurance subsidies offered in the healthinsurance exchanges created under Obamacare. Exchanges are online insurancemarketplaces where private health insurers can sell and individuals can purchasehealth insurance. Obamacare requires mostindividuals to have health insurance in theform of a plan meeting strict requirementsset by the federal bureaucracy (includingmany things that consumers don’t want,such as maternity coverage for a 60-yearold woman or drug-addiction counselingfor non-addicts).For people who have incomes between100% and 400% of the federal povertyline (an arbitrary line set by bureaucrats)and whose employers are not providingaffordable health insurance (“affordable”as defined by bureaucrats), access to thesubsidies is limited. These individuals canonly take advantage of the federal healthinsurance subsidies if they purchase insurance through a government health insur-November 2013ance exchange, rather than, say, througha union. Finally, unions are particularly annoyedthat Obamacare requires their healthcareplans to pay a tax of 63 per employeeto pay for their share of the new federalreinsurance program. That reinsuranceprogram is one of three programs inObamacare that attempt to keep insurersfrom seeking out healthy individuals tothe exclusion of others. These three programs (risk adjustment, risk corridors, andreinsurance) are sometimes referred to asthe Three Rs.The Three Rs are complicated, but here’sa brief explanation: Because Obamacarerequires insurers to take all comers, regardless of people’s current health conditions,some insurers could end up with a highpercentage of customers with serioushealth risks, which has the potential to putinsurance companies out of business. Toavoid this, Obamacare uses the Three Rsto transfer money from health plans thathave fewer high-risk individuals to plansthat are spending more because they havemore high-risk individuals.Of course, someone has to pay for running these transfer programs, hence thereinsurance program to shift the risk. In2014, HHS will raise 12 billion dollars forthe reinsurance program alone by taxingall health plans 63 dollars per enrolledperson per year.WaiverlandIn the year after it passed, Obamacarebegan to ban health plans from placinglifetime and annual limits on benefits.The problem was that many of the mostaffordable plans, called “mini-med” plans,had benefit limits well below the newmandates. Employers and insurers werefaced with either raising the plans’ benefitlimits—thus making them unaffordable—or dropping the plans altogether becausethey violate the new law. As a result,Obamacare was poised to take affordableinsurance away from millions of employees, including union members.In an effort to save these plans, the ObamaAdministration created a waiver programjust two months prior to the November2010 congressional elections. Plans thatLabor Watchreceived a waiver were absolved for oneyear from having to meet Obamacare’snew lifetime and annual limit mandates.Soon after these waivers became available, the Wall Street Journal reported thatMcDonald’s was planning to apply forwaivers for its employees. Later it wasdiscovered that many unions were doingthe same. The Obama Administrationbegan granting waivers to non-union andunion plans alike. Many of the unionsnow calling for the repeal or reform ofObamacare received these waivers. Forinstance, both the Roofers’ Union and theUFCW received multiple waivers.A total of nearly 1,000 health plans havereceived waivers to date, and those planscover 3.2 million mini-med enrollees,including 1.5 million union enrollees,according to federal statistics. The Administration issued so many waiversthat Obamacare opponents joked aboutWaiverland, a vast swath of the Americanlandscape metaphorically occupied bywaivered plans.In late 2010 and early 2011, the tally ofwaivers announced each month by themedia generated recurring, unwantedmedia attention. Administration officialsrealized that granting yearly waivers ona monthly basis was bad from a publicrelations standpoint. So in 2011 the Administration required officials who wishedto renew their plans’ waivers to request asingle waiver that would last past the 2012presidential election and through the endof 2013.Come January 1, 2014, these waivers willexpire. When they do, affordable minimed plans will no longer be an option forAmerican workers. Employers and unionswill be forced to provide more expensiveinsurance or high-deductible alternatives to their lower-wage employees andmembers.Yet another waiverIn January, the Wall Street Journal reportedthat unions had been quietly lobbying theObama Administration to request a different sort of waiver, one that would let theirmembers receive Obamacare’s federalhealth insurance subsidies. It’s hard tocalculate what the unions’ request wouldPage 3
cost American taxpayers, but here’s oneestimation from Avik Roy of Forbes:If, suddenly, the 20 million people onTaft-Hartley plans were eligible forsubsidies, Obamacare’s costs wouldskyrocket. If half of those Taft-Hartleyenrollees gained 5,000 per year in taxcredits along with their tax-free healthbenefits, we’re talking 50 billion ayear in additional insurance subsidiesfor those individuals. That’s more thanhalf a trillion dollars over ten years,accounting for health inflation.After news broke that unions were seeking these waivers, House Republicanspressured the Administration to admit thatsuch waivers would be simply illegal. TheCongressional Research Service found nolegal way to give Obamacare healthcaresubsidies to union members under a TaftHartley plan.Undeterred, UFCW officials made itknown publicly in May that they wereseeking waivers. In July, the administration announced its decision to delay theemployer mandate (but not the individualmandate), infuriating the unions. TeamstersPresident James Hoffa Jr. wrote HouseMinority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (DNev.) on behalf of the Teamsters, UNITEHERE, and the UFCW. “Time is runningout: Congress wrote this law; we voted foryou. We have a problem; you need to fix it.The unintended consequences of the ACAare severe.” Hoffa and the others declaredthat “perverse incentives” are “alreadycreating nightmare scenarios.”Republicans took notice of the controversyover whether to grant unions a waiver. In ajoint statement, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utahand House Ways and Means ChairmanDave Camp of Michigan responded:There has been far too much specialtreatment for politically favored friendsof Obamacare. When it comes to employers and taxpayers picking up thehealth care tab for labor unions—itappears that is a price that is simplytoo high. Perhaps even this administration recognizes that there are limitsto them stretching the law to rewardtheir friends.But opponents of Obamacare shouldn’tfool themselves. While some unions areattacking the program, hoping for specialfixes that benefit their unions, others suchas the SEIU remain wholly in support. Andeven strong critics among union leadersare likely to stay within the fold. WhenSen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) cited union complaints, Hoffa responded that “we disagreewholeheartedly with the efforts of extremeright-wing Republicans to gut the ACA.”“Any suggestion otherwise,” Hoffa declared, “is simply political posturing.”John Vinci is a Virginia attorney, healthcare policy expert, and former staff attorney for Americans for Limited Government.Rivera and the War Room: How unions got Obamacare passedBy Steven J. AllenUnions were at the forefront in the desperate campaign for Obamacare.The organization “Health Care for AmericaNow!” included some 1,030 organizationsand was the principal coalition workingto pass the program. HCAN’s 20-membersteering committee included the AFL-CIO,the Communication Workers of America,the teachers’ unions (both the NationalEducation Association and the AmericanFederation of Teachers), the AmericanFederation of State, County and MunicipalEmployees (AFSCME), the United Foodand Commercial Workers (UFCW), theUnited Auto Workers (UAW), and theService Employees International Union(SEIU), along with Working America, anAFL-CIO front group.Taking the lead in organizing unions andtheir allies for Obamacare was Dennis Rivera. Rivera was the longtime head of thenation’s largest union local—Local 1199(SEIU Healthcare Workers East)—until heleft that job in 2007 to run SEIU’s nationaleffort to organize healthcare workers. Inhis new position, he was working for AndyStern, the SEIU president who would laterPage 4be the most frequent visitor to the WhiteHouse in the early days of the Obamaadministration. Back then, in 2007, Sternsaid Rivera was perfect as chair of SEIUHealthcare because “He’s tough, smart,and compassionate, just what’s needed totransform healthcare in this country. Atthis moment in history, as the winds ofchange are blowing toward fundamentalhealthcare reform, and as SEIU redoublesits efforts to fix our broken healthcaresystem, Dennis’ decision to shift his focusto the national effort couldn’t come at abetter time.”Stern was eerily prophetic. Rivera was theperfect person to lead the change. Rivera’sspecialty at Local 1199 was forming alliances with businesses and hospitals, aswell as spending heavily on campaignsthat supported his political friends andpunished his political enemies. He wasclose to the leading Democrats in NewYork (and served on the transition team forGov. Elliot Spitzer in 2006-2007), but healso took advantage of splits within GOPranks, partnering with Gov. George Patakiand other Republicans who had big business ties. His skill at building anti-taxpayerLabor Watchcoalitions would prove invaluable to theObamacare effort.In June 2009, shortly after PresidentObama took office, the pro-Obamacare“Kaiser Health News” reported that“Unions have created a formidable political machine for the battle on health care,one that they’re already begun to deployto support their positions and undercutthose they oppose. They say they’re readyto spend 80 million.”The unions’ greatest worry was that theywould spark a backlash among voters, suchas the backlash against Hillary Clinton’shealthcare plan that, in 1994, gave Republicans control of Congress for the firsttime in 40 years. Said Len Nichols of theleft-wing New America Foundation: Theunions understand “that if Democrats fail,last time we got [House Speaker Newt]Gingrich, this time we could get [conservative radio host Rush] Limbaugh.”(The worriers were right: The backlashagainst Obamacare gave Republicans, in2010, their best election in 60-80 years,but by then the program had already become law.)November 2013
Forewarned and forearmed, prepared forperhaps the key political battle of theirlifetimes, the pro-Obamacare unions andtheir allies set up their “Health Care forAmerica Now!” campaign on Washington’s K Street, the infamous home forspecial-interest lobbyists. The operationwas funded by MoveOn.org and otherorganizations funded by billionaire GeorgeSoros, and by Soros-connected donorssuch as the Atlantic Philanthropies, PeterLewis of Progressive Insurance, and Herband Marion Sandler. The tax disclaimer forHCAN stated: “HCAN is related to HealthCare for America Education Fund, a project of the Tides Center, a section 501(c)(3)public charity.” On the board of the TidesCenter was ACORN founder Wade Rathke[see the article on page 6].During the campaign for Obamacare,SEIU’s Dennis Rivera took the lead informing alliances with industries thathoped to profit from the new systemdirectly (health insurance, non-doctorowned hospitals, the pharmaceuticalindustry) and indirectly (companies likeWalmart that hoped to dump their employees’ healthcare costs onto the taxpayer).Rivera also took advantage of the can’twe-all-just-get-along weariness of opponents of nationalized healthcare. Manyof them had been persuaded by the majornews media that President Obama and theDemocrats and their healthcare-rationingideas represented the wave of the future;others wanted a place at the negotiatingtable as the nation’s healthcare resourceswere divvied up. In 2009, Crain’s NewYork Business reported:Dennis Rivera, the indomitable laborleader, was on Capitol Hill in late Juneto persuade members of a powerfulHouse committee to include a publicinsurance option in its massive overhaul of the nation’s health care system.Karen Ignagni [representative of thehealth insurance industry], perhaps themost feared lobbyist on the Hill, wasthere to sway the lawmakers in theopposite direction. Yet during a breakin the hearing, Ms. Ignagni—whosegroup of insurers served up the “Harryand Louise” ads that helped kill theClinton health care reform effort—November 2013walked over to Mr. Rivera, greetedhim with a warm embrace and askedto meet the following week. . . .duly noted, and sympathetic leaders fromreligious or women’s groups have beenprimed to work them over.”[After his success in New York forming coalitions with Republicans andbusinesses, Rivera] has exported hismastery of transactional politics to theBeltway, appealing equally to wouldbe adversaries’ self-interest and theirfears to lure them to the table. . . . Aschairman of the Service EmployeesInternational Union’s health care division, he’s brought together groups including insurers, drugmakers and doctors—all of whom defeated previousattempts at reform. In a nation grownweary of confrontational politics, Mr.Rivera’s brand of bridge-buildinghas injected civility into a complexprocess, forging a path to health carereform that has eluded Washingtonfor decades.Particularly valuable in Rivera’s effortwere left-wing groups that are not perceived by the general public as left-wing,such as the AARP and the American Cancer Society, which are thought by mostpeople to be a senior citizens’ group and atraditional charity.Rivera, as the healthcare chief of theunion most closely connected to PresidentObama, blurred the lines between his unionand the Obama Administration. “To somedegree, Dennis is an independent actor, andto some degree, he’s working for the WhiteHouse,” said a senior vice president of amedical technology group. “That playedinto making the process a success andpeople wanting to get involved. It’s not toogreat to be on the wrong side.”During the Obamacare campaign, Riveraconvened strategy sessions at 9 a.m. in a“war room” at SEIU headquarters. According to Crain’s, the campaign deployed “anarmy of 400 SEIU staff and members whoare fanned out across 16 priority states.Union leaders have identified 20 senators and nine representatives they believeneed some swaying to the cause of reform,and researchers have produced 100-pagedossiers on each of them. The reports contained detailed information ranging fromlists of associates who might influencethese legislators to notes about how theytypically respond to TV ads that protesttheir positions. The union has drawn upspecific plans to target each elected official, ranging from writing letters andmaking phone calls to bird-dogging andholding sit-ins. If an official typicallydoesn’t respond to union pressure, it’sLabor WatchOne of the key politicians with whomRivera formed an alliance was Sen. MaxBaucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the SenateFinance Committee. A relative moderatefrom a conservative state, Baucus hadlittle history with SEIU before 2008. Rivera targeted Baucus, gradually buildinga relationship, then using the endorsementof so-called “reform” by Walmart as leverage to get Baucus on board. Without thehelp of Baucus, it’s unlikely Democratswould have held together in support ofObamacare—and without the unanimoussupport of the Senate’s 60 Democrats, thelegislation could not have passed.The irony: It was Baucus who, this year,labeled the rollout of Obamacare a “trainwreck.”Rivera’s efforts bore fruit when Obamacare passed Congress. In the course of thecampaign, the legislation’s supporters hadlabeled opponents as racists who only foughtagainst the President’s program because itwas proposed by a black man. In a 2010speech, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumkarecalled personally witnessing the racismof Obamacare opponents on the day of thekey vote: “I watched them spit at people. Iwatched them call [civil rights hero and U.S.Rep.] John Lewis the N-word.” Recordingsof the incident proved that no such displayof racism ever occurred, but it hardly mattered. Claims by opponents that Obamacarewould be a disaster, claims that were backedup by the most thoughtful analysis available,hardly mattered. To the unions, what countedwas victory. Any problems could be fixedlater—right?For more on the role of unions and alliedgroups in the passage of Obamacare, seethe May 2010 issue of Labor Watch and theother Capital Research Center publicationsOrganization Trends (July 2010) and Foundation Watch (August 2010).Page 5
ACORN spinoff, other left-wing groups push people into ObamacareBy Matthew Vadum and Steven J. AllenA corrupt union official who orchestratedmassive campaigns involving identityfraud in furtherance of voter fraud andwho covered up a million-dollar embezzlement will soon have unfettered access toconfidential information on thousands ofpeople seeking health insurance.That man is disgraced ACORN founderWade Rathke, and his shady union willsoon be helping people enroll in Obamacare exchanges. Rathke’s labor vehicle,United Labor Unions (ULU) Local 100 inNew Orleans, announced on its Facebookpage September 15 that it was gearing up“to do mass enrollment and help navigatepeople into the marketplaces in Arkansas,Louisiana, and Texas under the AffordableCare Act.”“Local 100’s role as a Navigator, suggest[s]the program is less about health care andmore about building a new progressiveinfrastructure,” said longtime ACORNwatcher Mike Flynn of Breitbart.com.The now-defunct 400,000-memberACORN (the Association of CommunityOrganizations for Reform Now) was thenation’s pre-eminent protest group tobe inspired by thework of Saul Alinsky. ACORN hasa long relationship with the laborunion movement.In 1979, ACORNcreated the United Labor Unions,which it used toorganize low-wage,fast-food, andhome healthcareworkers in Louisiana, Arkansas, andTexas.convicted of identity theft to work on voterregistration drives, giving them custody ofsensitive voter information.As one of us, Matthew Vadum, showsin the ACORN exposé Subversion Inc.(WND Books, 2011), ACORN is infamousfor such practices as hiring felons withoutbothering to do background checks, storming hospital emergency rooms and citycouncil chambers, using voter fraud to turngraveyards across the nation into Democratic electoral strongholds, and using mobviolence against bank executives and othershakedown targets. The organization hasa record of ruthlessly exploiting its ownemployees, even going to court to seekan exemption from minimum wage laws.ACORN’s record was so atrocious thatone of the two union locals it controlled,Local 100, was kicked out of the SEIU,America’s most prominent radical union.(The other, Local 880 in Illinois, was absorbed by a larger SEIU bargaining unit.)The group collapsed three years ago aftera series of long, painful scandals. In mid2008 Wade Rathke was caught coveringup his brother’s theft of approximately 948,000, some of it from ACORN pen-sion funds. After ACORN’s nationalboard expelled the group’s own founder,foundations ran away from the group. Infall 2009, undercover videos by JamesO’Keefe III and Hannah Giles showedACORN employees giving advice onhow to lie to the government, commit taxfraud, and trick banks into providing loansfor brothels.ACORN had received some 79 million infederal taxpayers’ money over the years,but after the O’Keefe/Giles exposé thegovernment spigot was cut off and thosedonors who were not already put off bythe embezzlement scandal stopped giving.The group went bankrupt. Today, however,although ACORN the nonprofit entitymay be dead, its many successor groupsare operating under different names (see“ACORN International” in the OctoberOrganization Trends).ACORN’s resurrected groups aren’t theonly ones invo
Obamacare is the law of the land and must not be altered or abridged. Today some of those same union officials say that Obamacare is a disaster that will harm working people in general and union members in particular. Now—surprise!— they want Obamacare changed in ways to benefit their unions. President's promise 'simply not true'
(Obamacare) to see if the process that led to the ACA (Obamacare) becoming law sheds light on the current health care reform negotiations. This report sets out to research, through government documents and media reports, how the ACA (Obamacare) evolved to offer an answer to the question: Was the ACA (Obamacare) negotiated by the Democrats
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
Whether people love Obamacare or hate it, ProCon.org believes that a nonpartisan view of Obamacare is important to many of the 300 million residents of the United States. We hope that this work helps provide readers with facts about Obamacare and the best pro and con arguments in the debate over what Obamacare is and is not.
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Archaeological illustration. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, 1989. A clearly presented manual describing the various purposes, approaches, conventions, and techniques for archaeological drawings. The number of different types of drawings explained is impressive and necessary for anyone attempting to understand such drawings, especially if attempting to use such .
