In just three days -- Monday, May 1 -- something very big is going to happen across the country. Building on the massive immigrant rights protests of the past two months, hundreds of thousands of workers (maybe more) are going to join the Great American Boycott. Or as one of the group websites says:

We are calling for No Work, No School, No Sales, and No Buying, and also to have rallies around symbols of economic trade in your areas (stock exchanges, anti-immigrant corporations, etc.) on May 1st to protest the anti-immigrant bill.

As the media has reported, the boycott announcement caused some rifts in the immigrant rights community -- as one leader told me, unauthorized workers "have more risks than rights" and many fear for the inevitable backlash.

But it's clear that, in one of the most significant movements to sweep this country in decades, Monday will be a flashpoint. Corporate America knows it -- businesses that normally would have just fired workers threatening to boycott work are now expressing sympathy. Political leaders know it -- the California legislature endorsed the boycott. Most of the country -- especially power brokers who know how critical the immigration debate is to the country -- are standing up and taking notice.

But where is the progressive blogosphere? A quick Technorati search shows that lots of blogs are commenting on May 1 -- but by my quick estimate, over 90% of them are conservatives in a frenzy of anger over the looming activities (some even declaring May 1 is Conservative Shopping Day).

In sharp contrast to the right-wing websites, a glance at today's front pages of DKos, Huffington Post, Eschaton, Talking Points Memo and Think Progress -- to pick some progressive heavyweights -- reveals they have nothing to say about May 1 (Huff Post has a couple dry posts on the "immigration debate," but nothing substantive about this major event.)

A search for the word prostitution brings up a multitude of posts from progressive bloggers big and small.

What's going on? Why is the progressive blogosphere so completely out of touch? Is it because most of them closely identify with partisan politics, and the Democratic Party doesn't have a very clear position on the immigration issue? Is it due to a racial blindspot in the blogosphere, connected to its demographic make-up (and yes, I know Markos at DKos hails from El Salvador; I'm talking about the larger reality)? Do they not understand the historic nature of this movement?

With or without progressive bloggers, May 1 and the immigrant rights movement are shaking up our country in a big way. Just read this clearly nervous dispatch in today's Atlanta Journal- Constitution:

Anybody with business in the state Capitol area on Monday might want to stay away — unless your business is protesting immigration laws.

State authorities are preparing for as many as 100,000 protesters at the state Capitol for a rally scheduled from noon to 4 p.m.

The rally coincides with other May 1 activities, including a boycott, aimed at protesting proposed crackdowns by Congress on illegal immigration.

Who knows how big the May 1 events will be, but it's clear everyone has them on their radar -- except progressive bloggers.

For those interested in what's happening in your area, check out this listing here.

House guest.

The scandal season is still in full bloom, claiming ethically challenged lawmakers across the political aisle. Two recent items of a Southern flavor (hat tip to TPM Muckraker):

(1) Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) is in deep trouble, says today's New York Times, for funneling half a billion dollars to his favorite non-profits in the state. Small beans compared to, say, the amount the Pentagon has misplaced for the Iraq war in the last couple years, but still unseamly.

(2) The Associated Press is reporting today that Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) is linked to an ongoing investigation into GOP dirty tricks, including jamming Democratic phone lines in New Hampshire on election day 2002 and harassment phone calls in New Jersey. Barbour "arranged the startup financing" for the GOP telemarketing company involved. The relationship doesn't stop there: The company's founder, Allen Raymond, once worked for Barbour at the Republican National Committee.

Over at TAPPED, Matthew Yglesias notes a recent report by the Congressional Research Service (covered in the Washington Post) analyzing spending for the Iraq war. Apparently it's a slow read until the end:

The report apparently contains such phrases as "These factors, however, are not enough to explain a 50-percent increase of over $20 billion in operating costs" and "These reasons are not sufficient, however, to explain the level of increases." Relatedly, the Post reports that "Of the total war spending, the CRS analysis found $4 billion that could not be tracked. It did identify $2.5 billion diverted from other spending authorizations in 2001 and 2002 to prepare for the invasion."

I'm fairly sure you're not allowed to "divert" money from other spending authorizations, and you're certainly not supposed to lose $4 billion in untrackable spending. Nor does it sound entirely appropriate for the Pentagon to be running its operation in such a way that the CRS can't discern the causes of 50 percent spending increases.

Of course, this is par for the course. As embattled DoD chief Donald Rumseld himself admitted, the DoD literally cannot account for trillions in money it has been given. Not millions or billions -- trillions.

But it's the budgets for schools, health care and other social services that get scrutinized, and nickel and dimed.

Who is challenging such obscene DoD bloat? Not much of anybody, at least in Washington. As muckraker I.F. Stone said in the late 1960s, when it comes to military spending, the two parties aren't Democrats vs. Republicans -- there's a Pentagon Party vs. everybody else.

It remains true today. Most members of Congress and the Washington establishment are in the Pentagon Party, and we all suffer the consequences.

Congress has refused to increase the minimum wage in over a decade, even though the value of the minimum wage, thanks to inflation, is 24% less than it was in 1979, and 7.3 million workers would benefit from an increase.

That's why states have taken it into their own hands to boost the minimum wage -- and their efforts are enjoying broad support, as a recent report by the Pew Center shows:

On April 10th Governor Mike Huckabee added Arkansas to the growing list of states with minimum wage levels above $5.15 an hour. With this act, a majority of Americans now live in states that have enacted wage minimums above the federal floor. The political impetus behind this and other state actions is easily discerned – raising the minimum wage has broad public backing that crosses all social, regional and political categories.

By an overwhelming margin (83% to 14%), the American public favors raising the federal minimum wage to $7.15 per hour -- a hefty $2.00 an hour increase. And nearly half (49%) say they strongly support such an increase. While there are differences in the extent of support across political and socioeconomic lines, raising the minimum wage receives widespread support from both Republicans and Democrats, wealthy and poor.

Among Pew's findings: 72% of Republicans favor a minimum wage boost.

This is in line with our previous post about populism in the South -- the large numbers of Southern voters who agree with progressive economic positions. According to another Pew poll, 91% of "populists" support hiking the minimum wage.

North Carolina and Tennessee are likely to add themselves to the list of states acting on the views of the growing majority. Here's how North Carolina's Asheville Citizen-Times puts it in an editorial today:

Earlier this month new figures from the Federal Reserve showed that the richest 1 percent of families held 33.4 percent of the nation’s net worth in 2004, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The next wealthiest 9 percent held 36.1 percent of net worth, while families in the top 50 percent to 90 percent held 27.9 percent. Families in the bottom 50 percent saw their share of the nation’s net worth fall to 2.5 percent from 2.8 percent in 2001.

That’s an unsustainable trend that must be reversed. Either we figure out a way to provide those families in the bottom tier with a living wage and an opportunity to become part of the American dream or we will create an increasingly unstable social environment where drugs, crime and dependence on social programs drives up the cost of government and undermines our security. That’s not even taking into account the enormous toll in human potential lost to our nation in an ever more competitive global environment for lack of opportunity.

North Carolina can’t reverse the trend alone by increasing the minimum wage. But it can certainly take one small step in that direction.

By most accounts Tony Snow is an upbeat, can-do sort of guy. He'll need to be as he steps into the position of White House press secretary, at a time when, as a local columnist writes, the administration is desperate to "turn around approval ratings that now are just above chicken pox."

Snow got his start in the media in North Carolina, and a piece in a Raleigh News & Observer today is peppered with quotes about him being "classy," "generous," and "good-natured." There was this interesting reference to his politics:

Giles Lambertson, associate editor of the Wilson Daily Times, was editorial page editor of the Greensboro Record when Snow was writing editorials in 1979.

"I'm a pretty conservative guy, but he was kind of like the William F. Buckley doctrinaire approach," Lambertson said. "He was pretty faithful to that, and he stayed pretty faithful through the years."

Believe me, when a writer for the Wilson Daily Times is saying your conservatism is "doctrinaire," that's saying something.

The most interesting revelation I've seen about Snow -- besides his bizarre attack on Kwanzaa which appeared on a racist website -- is about his key role in launching the attacks on President Clinton in the 1990s, bringing allegations by Linda Tripp to a national audience:

Snow, who worked as a speechwriter for President Bush's father in the early 1990s, introduced White House whistle-blower Linda Tripp to literary agent Lucianne Goldberg, who later helped Tripp tease out Monica Lewinsky's detailed description of her affair with Bill Clinton.

In summer 1996, Snow reached out to Goldberg, a longtime friend, after Tripp called him for help writing a tell-all book about Clinton."Tony called and said, 'Do me a favor, talk to a friend of mine who wants to write a book about the White House,'" Goldberg said Friday from her Manhattan apartment. [...]

In 1998, after the Lewinsky scandal broke, Snow used his syndicated newspaper columns to praise Tripp's patriotism, denounce Clinton as a "cur" and "liar" and publicize Tripp's claims that Clinton spies were combing her garbage to justify a tax audit.

The scandal isn't that Snow was picked to be White House press secretary, but that he was ever considered a legitimate journalist.

UPDATE: Pam Spaulding looks at Snow's record as an expert on race issues ...

Back in January, we exposed how Mississippi-based defense contractor Northrop Grumman was making out in the wake of Katrina. As reporter Sean Reilly revealed for our Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch project, of the $29 billion Katrina relief package passed by Congress in December 2005, $2 billion was earmarked for "shipbuilding and conversion":

That's good news mainly for Northrop Grumman, the giant defense contractor whose three shipyards in Mississippi and Louisiana suffered heavy damage.

The Navy defends the bailout as a way of keeping vital defense programs on track, while incidentally helping out a major regional employer. But in a report last month, the Congressional Research Service questioned whether the military was rushing to pick up expenses that might otherwise by covered by private insurance. The report also asked whether the Navy would set a precedent by reimbursing contractors for "most if not all" of the higher costs stemming from a natural disaster.

Now they're at it again, as Think Progress reveals:

This week, the Senate is set to consider a $106.5 billion “emergency” spending bill that is supposed to provide critical funds for Iraq, Afghanistan and Gulf Coast reconstruction. For Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS) it’s just another opportunity to bring home the bacon.

A two-hour Senate mark-up saw the spending bill grow by “$80 million per minute.” That included an egregious $500 million giveaway to Northrop Grumman Corp.

Here’s how it works. Northrop Grumman operates a naval facility in Mississippi that was impacted by the hurricane season. Northup Grumman is insured for the “business disruption” costs of the hurricane. (They are currently litigating the final payout with their insurance company.) But Cochran inserted a provision that would require the Navy to pay Northrop Grumman up to $500 million immediately. The money would come out of “$2.7 billion in appropriated funds for Katrina-related damage.”

The Pentagon strongly opposes the provision. Northrop is supposed to reimburse the Navy when the insurance claim is settled, but if Northrup is paid by the Navy in advance, that might not happen:

Northrop argues it could take years to resolve the insurance claims. The Pentagon’s contract office argued the provision would be “inappropriate” and could set a precedent for insurers to deny claims in the future if the government agrees to pay in advance.

Advance payment by the government “may otherwise relieve the carrier from their policy obligation,” said a Sept. 28, 2005, memo from Donald Springer, a Defense Contract Management Agency executive.

Cash flow is not a problem for the company. In 2005, Northrop Grumman had over $30 billion in revenues."

The essence of the American dream is that every child born should have an equal shot at success, and that every person should pay their fair share of taxes, right?

The rich don't think so -- which is why their political minions on the right are pushing to abolish the estate tax, to ensure the Paris Hiltons of the world never have to do honest work or contribute to society.

And to prove just how narrow the base is for estate tax repeal, Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy -- which has been leading the fight to keep the estate tax -- released a report yesterday showing the "movement" is largely financed by just 18 families:

18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.

The report profiles the families and their businesses, which include the families behind Wal-Mart, Gallo wine, Campbell’s soup, and Mars Inc., maker of M&Ms. Collectively, the list includes the first- and third-largest privately held companies in the United States, the richest family in Alabama and the world’s largest retailer.

Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) has promised to lead the fight for repeal in May, and House Republicans are firmly on board -- even though 57% of the public opposes estate tax repeal.

This is a perfect issue for Southern progressives. Half of the super-rich families are based in or have close ties to the South. And Southern populists -- a large part of the Southern electorate, who are progressive on economic issues -- hate the idea of the super-rich not paying their fair share to make government work. (The fight for the estate tax was actually started by Populists as a response to the excesses of the Robber Barrons.)

The only possible "hook" the right wing has for appealing to Southerners is the argument that the estate tax hurts the family farm -- a claim the Office of Management and Budget easily proves wrong (pdf):

Myth: Many family farmers and small business owners are forced to pay the estate tax.

Reality: Most family farms and small business owners do not meet estate tax eligibility thresholds.

The USDA’s Economic Research Service reported that the average farm household net worth ranged from $576,400 for small farms to $1.5 million for very large family farms. The estate tax already exempts $1.5 million of all estates, and the exemption level rises to $3.5 million by 2009 (double for couples). The New York Times has reported that the American Farm Bureau could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax.

This is an issue Southern progressives can hit out of the park and use to expand their appeal to the Southern middle- and working-class. Are they stepping up to the plate?

Here's the federal government's take on who should get to come back to New Orleans:

U.S. Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson shed little light Monday on the future of public housing in hurricane-battered New Orleans, but said that "only the best residents" of the former St. Thomas housing complex should be allowed into the new mixed-income development that replaced it.

There's a school of thought that says mixed-income development is a better way and that it improves the social fabric of neighborhoods. But a) this doesn't seem to be the right way to go about promoting that message, b) there doesn't seem to be a fair and comprehensive plan, c) there doesn't seem to be anyone in charge, and d) there are wide-spread suspicions that this is all just happy-talk code-speak for a developer land grab bonanza.

For example:

"I think they are getting ready to demolish public housing," said Laura Tuggle, a lawyer with New Orleans Legal Assistance. "One of the hardest parts of redevelopment is having to relocate residents of public housing. That job was done for them."

Read the whole article for a good summary of the issues surrounding the public housing debate, including some other fairly outrageous remarks by Sec. Jackson and the rebuttals.

As you may be aware, Wal*Mart wants to get into the banking business. They also want FDIC deposit insurance.

Rep. Barney Frank, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Financial Services, isn’t a fan of the idea. In a recent letter to the FDIC Chairman (PDF format) Rep. Frank asked the FDIC to not approve any more "industrial loan company" applications for companies that derive less than 85% of their revenues from financial activities, saying:

I believe that this is necessary because of the importance of keeping the separation of banking and commerce, including industrial, commercial and retail activities.

Rep. Frank also notes that such applications are not consistent with FDIC regulations regarding adequacy of capital structure, risk to the FDIC insurance fund, and the proposed institution’s corporate powers.

The Independent Community Banker’s Association strongly opposes Wal*Mart’s entry into the banking industry. In this summary of their testimony (PDF format) before the FDIC, the ICBA says:

Allowing Wal*Mart to own a bank would:

Jeopardize the stability of the payments system by providing Wal-Mart with the capability to exert undue influence over the payments system.

Raise safety and soundness concerns and pose a threat to the bank insurance fund and the banking system.

Irreversibly change the fundamental structure of the American financial system by allowing the world’s largest corporation to violate our nation’s long-standing policy against the mixing of banking and commerce.

Threaten to destabilize local communities through disinvestment, disintermediation and market domination.

Their testimony concludes:

In addition, the FDIC Board should weigh carefully whether the character and fitness of Wal-Mart’s management is adequate to ensure the safe and sound operation of a financial institution under its control. Wal-Mart is one of the most frequently sued companies in history – reportedly, 4,851 times in 2000 alone. A group of investors stated that they were "deeply concerned about contingent liabilities and negative effects on the company’s stock price and reputation." The investors added the frequency of "non-compliance with internal standards, as well as with laws and regulation, may be far too commonplace at Wal-Mart."

Conclusion. The application by Wal-Mart Bank for federal deposit insurance coverage fails to satisfy all the factors the FDIC Board must consider in evaluating the application. Therefore, the application should be denied. Moreover, there is a viable alternative to a Wal-Mart Bank, and that is partnering with local banks that lease space and operate branches within their stores. There is no clear public policy justification or increased social benefit to local businesses and consumers in allowing Wal-Mart to control banking establishments.

It's not every day that you hear bankers arguing for "social beneift." But community bankers are understandably concerned about Wal*Mart moving in on their turf, especially in smaller towns. Similar to how some locally owned and operated companies are run out of business when Wal*Mart comes to town, community bankers are worried the same thing could happen to them.

Unlike mom-and-pop hardware and sporting goods stores, though, this time Wal*Mart has picked a fight with a powerful and well-organized American institution in a highly regulated industry. It will be interesting to see how they fare.

Most banks now offer "overdraft protection," a service typically packaged as a courtesy for consumers, a little extra benefit to help you out.

But a new survey by the excellent Center for Responsible Lending shows that, looked at another way, overdraft loans are just another form of predatory lending by financial institutions which hurt the most economically vulnerable:

A nationwide survey shows that low-income people, single people, and many people of color are increasingly turning to borrowing money from financial institutions by over-drawing their checking accounts, racking up interest rates that can exceed 1,000 percent.

A telephone survey of 3,310 households done for the Center for Responsible Lending shows that a mere 16 percent of bank customers account for nearly three-quarters of all overdraft loans.

"A service created as a favor for customers has morphed into a harmful practice that traps vulnerable customers in debt," said Eric Halperin, a senior policy counsel at the Center. "Some banks now realize that trapping borrowers and charging them a $25 fee for a $20 overdraft loan is a pretty good scam."

Financial institutions are increasingly turning to fees to increase their income. Of the estimated $10.3 billion in overdraft fees Americans pay each year, the survey indicates that $7.3 billion comes from repeat borrowers.

This is no small deal -- it's one of many lending abuses that cause some $25 billion a year to be lifted from the pockets of the poor and working class by elite financial institutions (who are some of the biggest political contributors, helping stave off effective regulation).

Click here to read the full report on overdraft loans (pdf).

I know that scandals are a dime a dozen now, but why is the Enron trial getting so little play? Ken Lay and Peter Skilling, who matchlessly meshed political power and greed, are charged with causing untold hardship to millions of people -- consumers, investors, and the political process.

They also revealed the follies of deregulation, something that utilities are eager to bring back to state legislatures across the country. Molly Ivins describes a recent scene from the trial now underway in Houston, which reveals how much Enron did to warp our country's energy policy:

Jeff Skilling was testifying along about the great rip-off that almost pushed California into bankruptcy when he observed that the state formerly called "Golden" had a regulatory environment like that of Brazil.

Prosecutor Sean Berkowitz stared at him. "Do you think it was funny what happened in California? You're smiling."

Skilling backtracked and said he regretted joking about it. But isn't it almost funny, what happened in California?

Remember the Enron energy traders who thought it was so funny they joked about ripping off "Grandma Millie," the residents of California and how unfair it was that they wanted their money back? All that madness when California was caught in this hopeless bind, having to buy energy at grossly inflated prices?

If the California legislators had been stupid enough to deregulate electricity in such a disastrous way on their own, they would deserve being laughed at. But they had help -- from Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling. Enron spent more than $345,000 lobbying in California.

Skilling himself testified to utility commissioners that deregulation could save the state $8.9 billion: ``You can triple the number of police officers in Los Angles, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego. The stakes are huge, and every minute that we delay bringing competitive markets to California allows the meter to keep ticking.''

Enron was very busy creating the regulatory climate of Brazil nationwide in those years. From 1997 to 2000, 24 states adopted energy deregulation, and Enron repeatedly sent Lay and Skilling to testify. The company spent more than $1.9 million in campaign contributions to more than 700 candidates in 28 states since 1997, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Lay and Skilling were first and foremost Bush's cronies, but they had Democrats in their pocket, too (including, famously, Paul Krugman, although it was just $50,000 in 1999). As Ivins ends her piece:

In the Enron case, our political system should be a codefendant -- campaign contributions, lobbyists, sell-outs and all.

Pam Spaulding at Pam's House Blend has an exclusive interview with freshman Virginia state delegate David Englin, who -- in his first major act in the state legislature -- stood to oppose an ammendment against gay marriage and civil unions.

He lost, but won the hearts of advocates for civic equality for the no-nonsense speech he gave, which Pam features in addition to her interview. Check out the moxie on this guy:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I'm not going to talk about same-sex marriage. I'm no fool -- although others might make a different judgement about a freshman delegate rising in this chamber on the third day of session. But I understand that on the issue of marriage, I'm in the minority, perhaps even in my own caucus. I also sleep very well at night knowing that at some point in the future of this great Commonwealth, those of us of my opinion will be judged to have been on the right side of history. But let's for a moment forget about the question of same-sex marriage, because this amendment addresses much more than that. We need to be clear and honest: This amendment also outlaws civil unions and domestic partnerships and other similar private legal arrangements.

We have heard from the other side that this constitutional amendment is necessary to protect conventional marriage. I am blessed with a beautiful and brilliant wife who is the love of my life. In June, Shayna and I will celebrate our tenth wedding anniversary, and I would fight with every ounce of my strength anything that would threaten my marriage. So I would like to know, how exactly civil unions and domestic partnerships and other similar arrangements threaten my marriage?

We have heard from the other side that this amendment will protect families. Shayna and I are blessed with a strong and bright six-year-old son, Caleb, and we have a strong family. My friend the gentleman from Rockingham County, Delegate Lohr, and I have discussed how we come from different backgrounds and different parts of this great Commonwealth, yet we share a deep and abiding commitment to our families. I want nothing more than to protect my family. I spent 12 years wearing the uniform of the United States Air Force to protect my family. I've been in harm's way to protect my family. So I would like to know, how exactly do civil unions and domestic partnerships and other similar arrangements threaten my family? Because if they do, I will be the first one to stand up and fight, because nobody better threaten my family.

For all the hype surrounding yesterday's "ground-breaking" New Orleans elections for a mayor that will "lead" the city's re-building process (wasn't that supposed to have started months ago?), what the city got yesterday was largely just more of the status quo.

Establishment mayoral candidates Ray Nagin and Mitch Landrieu received over two-thirds of the total vote, easily moving into a run-off between the incumbent mayor, and the son of a former mayor, in May. Their predictable dominance -- and the absence of any true reform or "people's" candidate -- made this an election for different flavors of more of the same, rather than change. (Visit here for the unofficial results.)

Some other quick takes on the April 22 contest:

* The voices of the white backlash, corporate leader Robert Couhig and Peggy Wilson (best known for her comment that New Orleans didn't want "gutter punks, pimps, and welfare queens" back in the city), did miserably yesterday. The only two Republicans in the race received a combined 11% of the vote; Wilson could only muster the support of 772 voters at the polls.

* The media insisted on using the meaninglessly vague word "steady" to describe turnout, which in reality was very low. Out of over 297,000 registered voters in New Orleans before Katrina, only some 108,153 voted overall -- 36% turnout, which is especially horrible for an election with this much importance, and with all the publicity this one garnered. (134,000 voted in the 2002 primaries.)

* The displaced were disenfranchised, as most serious analysts of the elections predicted. No one knows exactly how many registered voters are displaced (some put the figure at around 100,000), but only 20,000 voted through the absurdly difficult absentee ballot process. In other words, up to 80% of the city's evacuees -- many of whom want to come back, but can't due to the city's languishing rebuilding process -- will not be represented.

* Race was a major factor in the vote, although not in the way many think. The two establishment candidates who will go to the run-off are viewed as essentially interchangeable by the electorate: the preliminary results are that Nagin (black) received approximately 10% of the white vote and Landrieu (white) received approximately 30% of the African American vote.

Most election analysis will focus on the surface details, but the real issues -- including the real racial details -- go much deeper: who got to vote vs. who didn't, and the growing divide between the interests of the political and business establishment vs. the hundreds of thousands of New Orleans residents, in and out of the city, struggling to stay afloat.

Air America Radio and American Rights at Work, an excellent group advocating for the worker's rights on the job, are launching a new radio show that sounds terrific:

Workin’ It is a new weekly, one-hour radio show on Air America Radio focusing on working life in America. Hosted by comedienne, author, and former union organizer Jackie Guerra, the lively magazine program provides a break from the daily grind to make you think, laugh, and do something about the declining state of workers’ rights. Premiering Saturday, April 22, Workin’ It is produced in partnership with American Rights at Work.

And you won’t want to miss the first show—featuring interviews with award-winning actor and activist Danny Glover and Senator John Edwards, a look at the Hotel Workers’ Rising campaign, a commentary from former Congressman David Bonior, and more!

Click here to learn more about the show.

Let's hope this show makes it onto the Southern airwaves, where violations of worker's rights are rampant and contribute to the low union presence in the region.

Tomorrow, April 22, is a big day in the Big Easy: the first municipal elections in New Orleans since the arrival of Hurricane Katrina almost 8 months ago.

With only 45% of the city returned -- African-American voters being disproportionally absent, and evacuees facing numerous obstacles to voting -- what's certain is that whomever is elected, they won't represent a large swath of the city's population. The city's newly-elected leadership will also have their hands tied by the fact that New Orleans is broke, and that major business interests are still setting the tone of the city's rebuilding process.

Our Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch project now features two important and unique takes on the elections, both by New Orleans residents: Jordan Flaherty sizes up the elections and how they relate to the groundspring of activism at the neighborhood level, and Lance Hill shares his first-hand experience trying to vote by absentee ballot.

Look for more coverage of these historic elections in the coming days.

From Nashville is Talking, here's "Busy Mom's" humorous take on how she recently cheated on "Sam" in an illicit affair with Costco.

And on a more serious note, check out the Costco facts and figures at the end of the post (there's no source mentioned, so take it with a grain of salt). I've always heard that Costco is a fairly progressive company.

In fact, Costco is proving that treating your employees well is good for business:

The market's view of Costco speaks volumes about the so-called Wal-Martization of the U.S. economy. True, the Bentonville (Ark.) retailer has taken a public-relations pounding recently for paying poverty-level wages and shouldering health insurance for fewer than half of its 1.2 million U.S. workers. Still, it remains the darling of the Street, which, like Wal-Mart and many other companies, believes that shareholders are best served if employers do all they can to hold down costs, including the cost of labor.

Surprisingly, however, Costco's high-wage approach actually beats Wal-Mart at its own game on many measures. BusinessWeek ran through the numbers from each company to compare Costco and Sam's Club, the Wal-Mart warehouse unit that competes directly with Costco. We found that by compensating employees generously to motivate and retain good workers, one-fifth of whom are unionized, Costco gets lower turnover and higher productivity. Combined with a smart business strategy that sells a mix of higher-margin products to more affluent customers, Costco actually keeps its labor costs lower than Wal-Mart's as a percentage of sales, and its 68,000 hourly workers in the U.S. sell more per square foot. Put another way, the 102,000 Sam's employees in the U.S. generated some $35 billion in sales last year, while Costco did $34 billion with one-third fewer employees.

Bottom line: Costco pulled in $13,647 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee last year, vs. $11,039 at Sam's. Over the past five years, Costco's operating income grew at an average of 10.1% annually, slightly besting Sam's 9.8%. Most of Wall Street doesn't see the broader picture, though, and only focuses on the up-front savings Costco would gain if it paid workers less. But a few analysts concede that Costco suffers from the Street's bias toward the low-wage model. "Costco deserves a little more credit than it has been getting lately, [since] it's one of the most productive companies in the industry," says Citigroup/Smith Barney retail analyst Deborah Weinswig. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams says that Sam's pays competitively with Costco when all factors are considered, such as promotion opportunities.

Hopefully Costco is planning more expansion around the South. Currently there are Costco stores in Alabama (3), Florida (18), Georgia (5), North Carolina (5), South Carolina (2), Tennessee (3), and Virginia (14). Curiously, there are none in Arkansas.

Number of women legislators low in Alabama, Southeast:

...Alabama's percentage of women in the legislature -- 11.4 percent, just above South Carolina's lowest-in-the-nation 8.8 percent -- is still far below first-place Maryland's 34.6 percent and less than half the national average of 22.6 percent.

...The numbers generally are lower in the Southeast, where women make up only 16.5 percent of legislatures in nine states, according to figures from the Women's Legislative Network of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

...Tennessee's state legislature mirrors many other southern states, with just 17.4 percent of females serving.

The national average of 22.6% isn't much better. Which is a shame. Women should have equal representation in government. Besides, as female legislators note in the article, women are seen as better negotiators, tend to be more health-conscious, and have a better perspective on education because they are usually more involved in their children's schools. Those all sound like good progressive values to me.

The janitors' strike against the University of Miami, targeting President Donna Shalala, continues:

A handful of University of Miami students were on the eighth day of a hunger strike Wednesday in support of campus janitors striking over alleged unfair labor practices, and threatened to continue protesting until the university met their demands for the workers.

The four students joined about 30 others protesting outside an administration building to press for a meeting with university President Donna Shalala regarding the janitors and other campus workers employed by Unicco Service Co., who have been on strike since early March.

Actually, the janitors started the hunger strike first, and then students and other allies joined in solidarity, blasting Shalala's role:

The janitors have been on a hunger strike for 13 days, the students for 6 - all part of a labor dispute that has turned unusually personal, with faculty members, students, union leaders and members of the clergy sharply criticizing Dr. Shalala.

Day after day, the janitors and their supporters heap invective on Dr. Shalala, who was President Bill Clinton's secretary for health and human services, saying she has not done enough to pressure the university's cleaning contractor to grant union recognition.

And day after day the hunger strikers grow weaker as they lie in tents set up in a protest zone they call Freedom Village.

"If you think of Donna Shalala's history, she has this persona of being an advocate for poor, marginalized people in this country," said Frank Corbishley, the university's Episcopal chaplain. "In this dispute she's clearly been an enemy of the working poor."

Vice President Dick Cheney appears to have benefitted from the Hurricane Katrina tax relief law for charitable donations unrelated to storm victims. So reports TaxProf Blog, citing information from Notre Dame law professor Michael Kirsh.

According to the VP's 2005 tax return, Cheney claimed $6.8 million in charitable deductions -- a whopping 77 percent of his annual gross income. That's well over the 50 percent limit that would have applied had it not been for the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005, which Congress passed unanimously and President Bush signed into law on Sept. 23, 2005.

The White House press release announcing Cheney's filing says the charitable contribution reflects the net proceeds from an independent administrator's exercise of the VP's Halliburton options. Apparently Cheney had decided in 2001 to donate the net proceeds from the exercised options to charity.

TaxProf Blog writes:

The press release seems to confirm, at least implicitly, the VP's efforts to take advantage of the Katrina legislation -- it mentions that the Cheneys wrote a personal check of $2.3 million to the administrator in December in order to 'maximize the charitable gifts in 2005.' Admittedly, I don't know anything about the transactions beyond the info in the press release, but my gut reaction is that the personal check was given in order to make sure the independent administrator had sufficient liquid assets to pay all of the promised charitable contributions before the 50% limit returned on 1/1/06.

Despite the importance of the Katrina legislation to the Cheneys' filing, it appears that none of the charitable contributions actually went to Katrina-related charities. The press release lists the three recipients, all designated in the original 2001 agreement: George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates Inc. for the benefit of the Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming for the benefit of the University of Wyoming Foundation, and Capital Partners for Education for the benefit of low-income high school students in the D.C. area.

TaxProf Blog concludes:

While there's nothing inappropriate about that from a legal perspective, it does demonstrate how the legislation, which was sold to the public as providing relief to Katrina victims, provided significant tax benefits to the VP (and potentially other wealthy individuals) in situations that have nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina.

Do the terms liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, Red/Blue really capture the political viewpoints held by most Americans? The Pew Research Center doesn't think so, and has released another interesting poll on political typology in the U.S. that shows why. Here's a snapshot of their latest findings:

[W]hile there is little question that U.S. politics have become more polarized in recent years, the red-blue political shorthand is far from adequate to describe the full spectrum of Americans' political views. Judging by their opinions on a number of issues, many Americans simply do not fit well within either the conservative or the liberal ideological camps, instead falling into one of the two other important U.S. political traditions -- libertarian and populist -- or defying attempts to pigeon-hole them.

One interesting finding: based on questions about health care, Social Security, gay marriage, and other issues, 42% of Americans are "ambivalent" -- they don't fit neatly into any political category.

Even more interesting, of those who can be classified, the poll shows that "POPULISM" is one of the most popular ideologies in the country.

What's a "populist"? Pew defines "populists" as those who "favor an active role for government in both the economic and the social spheres" -- i.e., they don't think corporations and the "free market" should be given free rein, but they also favor government intervention on "morality" issues.

What do "populists" look like? Socio-economically, Pew says,

[Populists] are less affluent: only 13% live in households with incomes of $75,000 or higher - 8 percentage points lower than the national average.

They're also not just white guys. "Populist" was the top-ranking category for both women and African-Americans in the Pew poll.

How many Americans are populists? A lot, according to Pew's poll. 16% of Americans hold views that are "populist" -- the second biggest group in the country behind "liberals" (18%), and ahead of "conservatives" (15%) and "libertarians" (9%).

Even more striking, almost half -- 47% -- of all "populists" live in the South, the highest concentration of any ideological group, in any region of the country. The only other ideological group that is so disproportionately clustered in a region are "libertarians" (32% of the laissez faire folks have gravitated to the West.)

What does this all mean? It suggests that Southerners aren't the monolithic "conservatives" they are often portrayed to be, and that on economic bread-and-butter issues they often support the progressive position. Although they have conservative positions on gay marriage and abortion, here's how these "populists" stack up on economic issues:

Only 25% percent of "populists" that want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent (second lowest only to "liberals")
31% percent that think businesses make a fair profit (the lowest of all political types)
42% percent that think "free trade" agreements are good for the country (lowest)
91% percent that favor increasing the minimum wage (second highest to liberals)

And here's the kicker: they're also a huge partisan "swing group": 40% of "populists" either identify as, or lean Democrat.

This isn't a big surprise (although some still discount the idea of economic populism being a winning issue in the South). But I think it does help describe what I have long felt is the core challenge for Southern progressives: how to build on the disposition of many Southerners to support progressive economic views, while not accomodating their conservative social positions?

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue signed Georgia’s tough new immigration legislation into law yesterday:

Georgia's governor signed a sweeping immigration bill Monday that supporters and critics say gives the state some of the toughest measures against illegal immigrants in the nation.

"I want to make this clear: we are not, Georgia's government is not, and this bill is not, anti-immigrant," Gov. Sunny Perdue said at the signing.

"We simply believe that everyone who lives in our state needs to abide by our laws."

The law requires verification that adults seeking many state-administered benefits are in the country legally. It sanctions employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and mandates that companies with state contracts check the immigration status of employees.

The law also requires police to check the immigration status of people they arrest.

The measure is believed to be the first comprehensive immigration package to make it through a statehouse this session, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

On the plus side, education and medical care is still available for children regardless of their status, and there are some other health care exemptions according to the article.

It’s puzzling, though, why a state would want to take on federal law enforcement duties related to investigating the immigration status of suspects arrested in their state. This appears to be a trend, though, and I believe there is federal DHS money available for training state police on immigration enforcement. There was a proposal in the Tennessee General Assembly for this, but it was defeated.

There is also another provision that curiously eliminates tax deductions for wages of $600 or more paid to undocumented workers. So, it’s OK to hire undocumented workers as long as you pay them less than $600? At least the law otherwise cracks down on employers who exploit cheap immigrant labor.

On the one hand, it’s hard to argue with supporters of legislation like this who say that if someone is here illegally the state and its taxpayers have no legal obligation to "take care of them." On the other hand, our "look the other way so employers can bring in cheap labor" immigration policy has resulted in millions of undocumented (illegal) workers being here. Most of them work for poverty wages or less. Now that they’re here being exploited, we’re going to also deny them basic human services such as health care?

The tough-on-immigration folks also say these people just need to "get legal" and follow the rules like natural-born citizens and others who came here legally and went through the naturalization process.

It’s not that simple.

I have vague knowledge of the H-1B skilled technical worker visa program from a previous corporate life. So, I thought I’d look that up and see what other kinds of visas are provided for, and what it takes to get one, and what it takes to become a "legal permanent resident" or a naturalized citizen.

Basically, it looks to me like there is currently no way for temporary worker from Mexico to legally enter this country. First of all, a citizen of Mexico cannot apply for a temporary worker visa. Such visas must be applied for by an employer using DHS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Form I-129. From wading through the 32 pages of that form and its instructions, it appears that the only legal visa classification for, say, a temporary agricultural worker is H-2A (for temporary non-agricultural workers such as retail or restaurant workers it’s H-2B).

The employer fills out the application describing what work is to be done and where, how long the temporary workers are needed, and why (seasonal work, meeting temporary/transient work-loads, etc.). The employer is not required to name who they want to bring in. Instead, they can specify the number of "unnamed aliens" they need.

Then the employer checks with the latest State Department Visa Bulletin to see how many visa numbers are available for that visa class from the various countries covered.

And guess what? The May 2006 Visa Bulletin says that classification H-2A from Mexico is "Closed", meaning there are no visas currently available for temporary workers from Mexico.

(And assuming I am reading all this correctly, if you are a legal permanent resident or a naturalized citizen from Mexico seeking to bring your son or daughter here on a family visa, the DHS USCIS is currently working on applications they received prior to Jan. 1991. So it appears you will have to wait for a while. For spouses, they are all the way up to Jan. 1999, so the wait would only be about eight years to legally bring your wife here.)

So, it doesn’t appear that it’s that simple, or even currently possible, for the 12 million or so undocumented workers already here to "get legal."

I am not an immigration lawyer or any other kind of lawyer, so I could be completely wrong. If there is an immigration lawyer out there reading this, please let us know, and feel free to help interpret the laws as they stand today.

The one thing that is certain, however, is that our immigration laws are too complicated and that dealing fairly with the undocumented immigrants already here is a huge, even more complicated problem.

(Ed. note: This is cross-posted from my blog at KnoxViews.com, with apologies to Chris and the ISS and to KnoxViews readers who may have already seen it. With so many of us down here in the South who enjoy boating and other outdoor activities at our numerous lakes and rivers and seashores, I thought it was relevant. The links to regulations and so forth apply to Tennesse, but your state's website probably has similar information. The links regarding safety tips are applicable anywhere.)

It usually starts around Memorial Day weekend, but with the onset of warm weather, people are looking to cure "cabin fever" on East Tennessee's numerous lakes and waterways.

Which brings two heartbreaking stories from this weekend.

Read more after the jump.

The NOLA Times Picayune and the Biloxi Sun Herald share the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service:

For a distinguished example of meritorious public service by a newspaper through the use of its journalistic resources which, as well as reporting, may include editorials, cartoons, photographs, graphics and online material, a gold medal.

Two Prizes of a gold medal each:

Awarded to the Sun Herald, Biloxi, Miss., for its valorous and comprehensive coverage of Hurricane Katrina, providing a lifeline for devastated readers, in print and online, during their time of greatest need.

and:

Awarded to The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, for its heroic, multi-faceted coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, making exceptional use of the newspaper's resources to serve an inundated city even after evacuation of the newspaper plant. (Selected by the Board from the Public Service category, where it was entered.)

Congratulations to both newspapers for their outstanding work.

The Times Picayune also won the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Reporting. The hard-earned honor is well deserved, as mentioned here previously:

The New Orleans Times-Picayune... is no longer part of mainstream media. It's in a class of its own. Katrina tore the newspaper down to its most basic element - reporting. For anyone paying attention, that reporting may very well have transformed journalism, with heroic reporters and staff leading the way.

In fact, I recall saying they deserved a Pulitzer back in Sept. 2005. The Times Picayune awards coverage notes that:

This year for the first time, the Pulitzer Prize board allowed a newspaper to submit material that appeared originally in online form, in addition to printed stories, as a part of their entries.

In the immediate aftermath of the storm, The Times-Picayune's continuously updated online blog, as well as its online editions of the paper posted each night on its affiliated Web site, NOLA.com, became the source of information for more than 1 million residents who had evacuated, and for much of the world.

In his remarks, Amoss acknowledged the contribution of the staff at NOLA.com, "who were integral to everything we published, and made us an around-the-clock vital link to readers scattered across the nation."

Visits, or "hits," to Times-Picayune pages on NOLA.com increased from an average of about 800,000 page views a day before Katrina to more than 30 million page hits a day in the days after the storm. Excerpts from those blogs, as well as stories from the online editions of the paper, made up a portion of both of the newspaper's winning Pulitzer entries.

Read the whole thing. It's quite an incredible story about the people who bring us the stories. Congratulations again to both newspapers.

Latest stats from our Facing South newsletter (you can sign up using the box to the right):

Percent of citizens making less than $25,000 a year audited by the IRS in 2005: 8.8%

Percent making more than $200,000 a year that were audited: 4.6%

Percent of millionaires audited: .02%

Value of tax refund claimed this year by Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife: $1.9 million

Percent of a $165 million contribution made by Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens that he wrote off his taxes under a special tax provision to help Hurricane Katrina victims: 100%

Percent of his contribution that went to the golfing program at Oklahoma State University: 100%

Estimated amount that President Bush's tax cuts will increase the national debt over next 10 years: $900 billion

Percent of U.S. residents who believe we should keep the estate tax, which Congress will consider eliminating in May: 57%

We're just five days away from New Orleans' April 22 municipal elections, and the city's people have to endure another insult, the AP reports:

Secretary of State Al Ater wants to know why the federal government agreed to pay for New York City's municipal elections after Sept. 11, 2001, but refuses to pay for New Orleans' elections after Hurricane Katrina.

FEMA recently turned down Louisiana's request for the extra $3-4 million it will take to hold the April 22 New Orleans municipal elections, rescheduled in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

But the agency shelled out $7.9 million after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks delayed New York City's elections.

This comes on top of the Department of Justice's announcement last month that there was no need for remote polling stations in states outside of Louisiana, even though 50-60% of New Orleans residents remain dispursed. (This is in contrast to the five remote balloting stations enjoyed by Iraqi expats in that country's 2005 vote.) As The Nation points out,

Justice officials went so far as to claim that "minority members of the Louisiana House and Senate were unanimous" in supporting the plan, a claim roundly disputed by elected black leaders, including State Senator Cleo Fields.

This is why thousands of New Orleans residents think that Republicans are out to disenfranchise them. But where have the Democrats done? As The Nation argues, not much:

Despite such overtly discriminatory actions, Democratic Party leaders have offered only listless support of voting rights efforts — Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean called the Justice Department decision "a disappointing development." There have even been rumors that some Democrats in Washington welcome the dispersal of the African-American voters of New Orleans as a way of building up party strength elsewhere. Reverend Jackson, in recent remarks at the Nation office, said "Democrats are soft-shoeing" on the voting rights issue.

Let’s be clear: we are facing one of the most egregious violations of the right to vote in over a generation. The right of the people of New Orleans – especially the displaced, largely African-American population – to vote is something EVERYBODY should be fighting for.

Time magazine has released its take on who's good -- and not-so-good -- in the U.S. Senate. The list is non-ideological, focused only on what the lawmakers have supposedly accomplished once in office. Here's their list:

The Best

* Thad Cochran (R-MS)
* Kent Conrad (D-ND)
* Dick Durbin (D-IL)
* Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
* Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
* Carl Levin (D-MI)
* Richard Lugar (R-IN)
* John McCain (R-AZ)
* Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME)
* Arlen Specter (R-PA)

Here's how that compares to Survey USA's most recent poll (March 2006), which ranked Senators by their "net job approval" ratings:

1 Conrad, Kent (D-ND)
2 Inouye, Daniel (D-HI)
2 Collins, Susan (R-ME)
4 Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
5 Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
6 Reed, Jack (D-RI)
6 Obama, Barack (D-IL)
6 Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
9 Leahy, Patrick (D-VT)
10 Lott, Trent (R-MS)

Either way you slice it, only a senator from Mississippi gets high marks.

How safe is New Orleans? Environmentalists say it's a toxic nightmare; officials say there's no problem.

Over at Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch, the Institute's spin-off project investigating the post-hurricane South, Watch reporter Sue Sturgis has a new piece sorting through the evidence, and comes to an interesting conclusion.

Go read the whole piece here.

Wal-Mart has announced it's pulling back from the firearms business:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has decided to stop selling guns in about a third of its U.S. stores in what it calls a marketing decision based on lack of demand in some places, a company spokeswoman said Friday.

The world's largest retailer decided last month to remove firearms from about 1,000 stores in favor of stocking other sporting goods, in line with a "Store of the Community" strategy for boosting sales by paying closer attention to local differences in demand.

Most people seem happy with the decision, starting with small businesses:

The change could be a boon for mom-and-pop hunting stores that lost business when Wal-Mart moved in, said Steve Wagner, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the shooting, hunting and firearms industry.

Gun-control advocates hailed the decision as well:

The Violence Policy Center, a gun control group, said Wal-Mart's decision reflected what it called a decline in gun ownership. "The marketplace has spoken and the losers are America's gun industry and the gun lobby," VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann said in a statement.

It's all part of the Wal-Mart's efforts to go upscale, trading in the plastic crap and blue collar goods image for wine bars, boutique styling, and cardigan sweaters. My theory: taking a page from Target, they've decided that instead of fighting their middle-class critics, they're going to entice them to start shopping there.