MoveOn: never let the facts interfere with a good smear: http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=151 -- Would Bush Eliminate Overtime Pay for 8 Million? A TV ad from an anti-Bush group says so. But it's based on a study that actually says something different. March 5, 2004 Summary The latest TV ad from the Moveon.org Voter Fund_says "George Bush wants to eliminate overtime pay for_8 million workers," referring to new overtime rules that the Department of Labor has proposed. The 8-million figure (hotly denied by the Bush administration, of course)_comes from_a study by the labor-funded Economic Policy Institute. The ad_misquotes the study, however._What the study actually says is that_an estimated 8 million would lose the legal right to premium overtime rates should they work more than 40 hours per week. It does not say they would actually lose_pay as the ad says. In fact, the 8-million figure_is inflated by many_part-time workers who never get overtime work, or overtime pay, even though they now have the right to it. Analysis The Moveon.org ad shows a worker in a hardhat punching a time clock as he leaves an empty factory at night, then_drives home to a stack of bills and a sleeping family. This is offered as evidence for the ad's main message -- that Bush sides with "corporate values" over "family values" and "is not on our side." 8 Million? Who Says? The Bush administration flatly denies that its overtime proposal would affect anywhere near 8 million. In fact, the Department of Labor estimated last year when it first_proposed __the new rules_that there would be 1.3 million_ low-paid workers who would gain the legal right to overtime, outnumbering what it estimated were 644,000_higher-paid, white-collar_workers who would lose coverage. That's still the administration position. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said at a Senate subcommittee hearing on Jan. 20, 2004: Chao: Let me be clear. The department's overtime proposal for white-collar workers will not eliminate overtime protection for_8 million workers as alleged. ._. . We believe that 1.3 million workers will gain overtime, they'll be guaranteed overtime, and less than about 644,000 may potentially face the prospect (of losing the legal right to overtime.) The 8-million figure comes from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank whose_board of directors includes the heads of_several major labor unions. EPI_has devoted an entire_web page _to defending its calculations. Some Gain, Some Lose Even EPI concedes that many low-income workers would be gaining the right to overtime pay. Under the proposed rules any employee making less than $425 per week would be eligible for overtime benefits, up from the present level of $155, a figure that hasn't been changed since 1975._ In_its_study ,_published in June 2003, EPI said that change "is sorely needed." Later, EPI_estimated _that fewer than_737,000 workers would gain coverage,_not the 1.4 million estimated by the Department of Labor._A business-backed group, the Employment Policy Foundation,_estimates _that 3.4 million would gain. Most of EPI's criticism (and that of Democrats in Congress) focused on who would lose overtime coverage. The proposal would_change the rules for determining when white-collar workers can be classified by their employers as exempt from overtime pay for extra hours. The proposed_rule changes are extensive, covering_executive employees who can hire and fire others, administrative employees in a "position of responsibility", so-called "Learned Professional Employees" who have "knowledge of an advanced type," creative professionals, outside sales workers and certain_computer workers such as systems analysts or software engineers. (None of these groups look very much like the blue-collar factory hand in the Moveon.org ad, by the way.) EPI said the administration's 644,000 figure was way off because it_counted only those employees who were actually received overtime pay, and left out a larger group of workers who would have been legally entitled to overtime pay but_didn't work the_extra hours to earn it. "DOL only counts the loss of current overtime pay, not the loss of the right to receive overtime pay,"_wrote_EPI's Ross Eisenbrey. That's the distinction the Moveon.org ad misses. Even EPI isn't predicting 8 million will lose pay -- only a legal right to pay._And as_EPI study author_Jared Bernstein_confirmed to FactCheck.org, the 8 million figure includes_part-time workers_who_don't get overtime pay now because they never work overtime hours. That alone inflates the number by 1.5 million. Who's Right? Which is closer to the truth, EPI's 8-million figure or the Labor Department's 644,000? In fact there are no solid figures on how many workers qualify for overtime now, so all estimates involve more than the usual amount of educated guesswork. But the Moveon.org ad has no basis at all for suggesting that 8 million could actually lose pay -- not even EPI's figures support that. The ad might truthfully have said, "George Bush wants to change overtime rules for millions of workers and some of them might lose pay." That would_soften the ad's impact, but it would have the virtue of being_factually correct.
i posted this elsewhere, but it probably belongs here. here's the nytimes on 527s in general: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/opinion/11THU2.html -- March 11, 2004 Soft Money Slinks Back We are now engaged in the first federal election contest under the new campaign finance law prohibiting open-ended donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals in federal elections. Already, political insiders are carving a giant loophole that the Federal Election Commission must swiftly close. Otherwise, the system will be flooded again with the large and politically destructive contributions the new law was meant to stop. At issue are a handful of new committees set up by Democratic operatives and dedicated to turning President Bush out of office. The groups are running advertising campaigns in 17 states to counteract Republican commercials that began last week. They insist that because they have no formal ties to the Democratic Party or to John Kerry, they are not bound by the 1974 federal election law or the more recent and restrictive McCain-Feingold law, which prohibits soft money in federal elections. The groups insist that their activities are necessary to offset a 10-to-1 fund-raising advantage in Mr. Bush's favor. We sympathize with the Democrats' desire to level the playing field. But they do not have to subvert the law to do it. Indeed, Mr. Kerry has already announced his intention to raise as much as $80 million in smaller contributions that are legal. Mr. Kerry appears confident that the Democrats can raise money without making end runs around the reform law he voted for two years ago. Indeed, anyone who believes in the Democratic agenda ought to have similar faith that the Democrats, like the Republicans — or Howard Dean — are capable of raising a great deal of money from small donors. In addition, anyone who was angered at phony "issue ads" in the last campaign will have little patience with the claims of one group, the Media Fund, that the ads it just unleashed are all about issues, not promoting candidates. One of the group's first broadsides declares that "George Bush's priorities are eroding the American dream," suggesting that the group's one and only ambition is to retire George Bush. That, in turn, represents an illegal use of soft money by an avowedly political group to influence federal elections. The election commission agreed last month to issue a ruling on whether these groups should be asked to play by the same rules that apply to other political committees. The commission should act quickly. Delay would invite more soft money into a system now meant to exclude it.
The critique of the ad is petty and stupid. What if the ad had said 8 million American workers will lose the RIGHT to overtime? Would they have been happy? I don't think so. No one is claiming that these 8 million workers will lose time and a half or overtime rate even if they do not work over 40 hours per week. No big deal for the author's I guess. Frankly 8 million workers aren't going to like the fact that IF they were to work more than 40 hours they would be paid overtime rates.
Given the record of Bush Administration projections and the influence of politics on those same assumptions, I see absolutely no reason why their numbers should even be considered. Furthermore, the entire article comes down to not a question of policy but a question on how many people that policy will affect. In spite of Deck's encouragement, I don't feel like repeating what was said in an earlier thread... suffice to say, many people think this is really bad policy, especially when you consider that those who stand to "gain" are summarily being undercut as this administration shows employers how not to put those gains in place.
I think this is an example of the political ads skewing data into campaign hyperbole. On the flip side the Latest GW Bush ads claim that Kerry will raise taxes by $900 Bil which even the Bush campaign admits is based upon a guess what Kerry's spending proposal and not hard data. IMO both sides are doing a disservice by overstating their arguments when its probably enough to say that GW Bush's policy will lead to some losing overtime and on the other side saying that Kerry will raise taxes. Of course though in a political campaign exageration is the norm and I'm sure we'll be seeing much more of this.
That's curious because on February 19, 2004, the Times ran a story that included the following info... "Federal Election Commission said on Wednesday that advocacy groups that were established to get around fund-raising restrictions in the new campaign finance law could continue to spend unlimited contributions for television commercials and other communications, though they must do so under far more restrictive rules. ... "In its ruling, the election commission placed some restrictions on the way these committees operate, including a prohibition on certain advertisements paid for solely with soft money."
what's your point? one's a news story, the other an editorial, although granted, with the times it's not always easy to tell the difference.
