SPECIAL REPORT: How Republicans Are Selling You Out to the Special Interests

Selling Out American Investors and Retirees

Anti-Corruption Rule (Cardin-Lugar Amendment)

Ø  Before Republicans killed it, the rule would have exposed and helped stop corrupt practices that lead to greater risks, more instability, and higher costs for American investors. 

o   The Cardin-Lugar anti-corruption amendment to the 2010 Dodd-Frank reform bill increased transparency in mineral-rich, developing countries, and the United States. It required oil and mining companies to disclose payments they make to all governments to extract their natural resources, a practice in place in 30 other countries, including the entire European Union, the U.K., and Canada. [SEC, 6/27/16]

Ø  Who pays the costs now that the rule has been rolled back?

o   American investors, like pension plans, and others who might have saved billions.

§  Research by two leading petroleum economists “concludes that increased transparency resulting from the disclosures required by the Cardin-Lugar Rule could lower the cost of capital for covered companies by $6.3 billion to $12.6 billion.” [Cannizzaro and Weiner, 2016]

o   American taxpayers might have saved billions due to reduced corruption and increased stability abroad.

§  The Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development devote approximately $1 billion per year to anti-corruption and related good governance programs. This doesn’t even take into account the costs of American military support or intervention when a corrupt state fails. [White House Fact Sheet, 2014]

o   Americans and our allies abroad.

§  The ONE Campaign estimates that 3.6 million deaths could be prevented by strengthening transparency and fighting corruption in poor and developing countries. The Global Financial Integrity NGO found that developing countries lose $1 trillion per year to crime, corruption, and tax evasion, and that this rule could help “significantly curtail” that loss. [ONE,11/3/14; GFI,8/22/12] 

Selling Out American Consumers

Broadband Privacy Rules

Ø  After Republicans killed these rules, broadband providers will now be able to collect, use, and sell your personal internet information without your consent.

o   The rules protected sensitive information such as internet browsing histories, Social Security numbers, financial data, health data, and even information about your children. The rules would have required your consent before your broadband provider could use this information for its own purposes or sell or share this information to advertisers and other third parties. [FCC, 10/27/16]

Ø  Who pays the costs now that the rules have been rolled back?

o    American consumers, who now have no rights in the face of broadband companies that want to exploit their sensitive personal information.

§  Half (50%) of American homes have only two options for Internet service providers for basic broadband, according to the Federal Communications Commission. And for faster speeds, a majority of households have only one choice. [FCC, 2016 and 2014]

§  Other studies have shown that on average Americans pay more than other countries for broadband access that’s slower than what’s available in many European nations, as well as China and Japan.  For example, a 2014 Cost of Connectivity report found that New Yorkers pay nearly double that of what residents in London, Seoul, and Bucharest, Romania, pay. And people in cities such as Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo and Paris get connections nearly eight times faster. That means students trying to learn, entrepreneurs trying to grow businesses, and job seekers are being held back by paying high prices for worse access than their international competitors. [New American Cost of Connectivity, 2014; PBS, 2014]

§  Despite these costs, now consumers are having their rights to privacy for their own sensitive personal data taken away so that these giant corporations can sell that information for financial gain.

Selling Out Rural Communities, Sportsmen, and Conservationists

Land Planning Rule

Ø  Republicans killed the rule that modernized a decades-old process that decides who has a say in how federal lands are managed and developed.

o   The BLM Planning 2.0 rule updated a 1983 rule to include local communities and governments earlier in the planning process, while making sure that the modern, science-based approaches were also being used in federal land planning. [BLM]

Ø  Who pays the costs now that it has been rolled back?

o   Local communities, local governments, sportsmen, and families that use our public lands.

§  Sportsmen groups, conservation groups, and public lands groups all support the update to the planning process. Taxpayers will bear the cost of a less efficient and longer bureaucratic process. Under the 1983 rule, it took an average of 8 years to complete a land use plan. [BLM; TRCP, 2/7/17]

o   Communities – many in rural America - that benefit from the $646 billion outdoor recreation industry.

§  The rule took steps to identify and preserve areas for fish, wildlife, and recreation, ensuring that public lands are used by the public—not as a playground for Big Oil. [OIA, 2012; TRCP, 2/7/17]

§  A 2012 report found that rural western counties with more than 30% of their land federally managed added jobs at a rate “four times faster than rural counties with no federal protected land.” [OIA, 2012]

Selling Out Workers and their Families

Unemployment Compensation Rule

Ø  With Republicans’ decision to reverse this rule, more unemployed Americans will have their constitutional rights trampled unnecessarily, and it will be harder for states to drug test unemployment compensation recipients when they need to. 

o   Under a bipartisan compromise passed into law in 2012, states are permitted to drug test for unemployment compensation if the individual was fired from their previous job for drug use or if the individual is seeking to work in a field that regularly requires drug testing because of safety or security concerns - i.e., air traffic controllers, railroad crews, or jobs that require employees to carry firearms. This is based on Supreme Court decisions that held it was unconstitutional to test unemployment compensation claimants without cause.  [ThinkProgress, 2/17/17; CRS, 3/5/15]

o   Passage of this resolution leaves states in limbo. The Department of Labor (DOL) is still required by law to issue rules that meet constitutional requirements for what occupations can have regular testing. States and unemployed Americans in states that currently have drug testing requirements would be left without the guidance they need, possibly for years. [21 U.S.C. 802]

Ø  Who pays the costs now that it has been rolled back?

o   American taxpayers.

§  The numbers don’t lie—requiring drug testing for federal benefits is not just unconstitutional, it is a giant waste of taxpayer dollars. A similar program was attempted in Texas and was estimated that it would cost that single state $30 million for just one year. [U.S. News and World Report, 12/5/11]

§  Similar drug testing requirements for other federal programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have yielded few results at large costs. Missouri’s program will cost $1.35 million for its first three years and found only 0.1% or 1 in 1,000 of applicants tested positive in 2014. [ThinkProgress, 2/26/15]

Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Rule

Ø  Rolling back this rule means taxpayers continue to pay businesses that break the law by under-paying and jeopardizing the health and safety of their employees.

o   After extensive input from the public, the Department of Labor and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council issued new rules requiring prospective federal contractors to disclose labor law violations. These new rules were intended to help ensure that federal contracts and the taxpayer dollars that fund them are awarded to responsible employers that comply with workplace safety laws, antidiscrimination laws, sexual harassment laws, and minimum wage and overtime laws. Companies with contracts of more than $1 million were also no longer allowed to deny their employees who were the victims of sexual assault, sexual harassment or discrimination their day in court by forcing them to arbitrate these claims. [DOL, accessed 1/17]

Ø  Who pays the costs now that it has been rolled back?

o   American taxpayers.

§  Nearly one in three of the worst wage and safety violations were perpetrated by federal contractors. A Senate HELP Committee report reviewed the 200 largest penalties and assessments for violations of wage and hour and safety laws over a 5-year period and found that roughly 30% of the top violations were by companies that continued to receive federal contracts. A 2010 study from the Government Accountability Office found similar results. [Senate HELP Committee, 12/11/13; GAO, 9/10]

o   Millions of American workers and their families.

§  An estimated one in five Americans are employed by companies that do business with the government, so this rule would have meant real improvements in the lives of millions of workers. The Labor Department estimates that there are about 24,000 businesses with federal contracts and subcontracts, which employ about 28 million workers. The rule would have helped ensure that these workers are working under current workplace laws, including health and safety standards, wage laws, and civil rights laws. [CAP, 8/24/16, White House Fact Sheet 7/31/14] 

o   The vast majority of businesses that have government contracts are law-abiding and don’t cut corners on the backs of workers.

§  The vast majority of contractors would have benefitted from a more level playing field to compete on against businesses who don’t follow labor and workplace safety laws. That’s why a coalition of construction employers wrote to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce noting that contractors “have more rights, remedies and redress…under the EO” than under current law. In fact, at a September 2015 subcommittee hearing of the House Committee on Small Business, a representative of the Campaign for Quality Construction testified that they “support the goals” of the EO and believe, if implemented carefully, it will help create a level playing field. [GPO, 2/26/15; GPO, 9/29/15] 

Safe Recordkeeping Rule

Ø  By stopping this rule, Republicans have made it easier to hide workplace dangers from workers, jeopardizing workers lives.

o   The rule clarified that an employer has a continuing duty to record an injury or illness for as long as the employer must keep records of the recordable injury or illness (five years); the duty does not expire just because the employer fails to create the necessary records when first required to do so.  The rule was a direct response to a 2012 ruling by the D.C. Circuit, in AKM LLC dba Volks Constructors v. Secretary of Labor (Volks II), where a majority of the court overturned 40 years of OSHA practice and held that the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) does not permit OSHA to impose a “continuing recordkeeping obligation” on employers. [OSHA, 12/19/16; OSHA release, 12/19/16]

Ø  Who pays the costs now that it has been rolled back?

o   Millions of workers and their families.

§  There were 2.9 million workplace injuries and illnesses and over 4,800 workplace fatalities in 2015. Numerous studies provide documentation that many, and perhaps the majority, of work-related injuries are not recorded by employers, and that the actual number of workers injured each year is likely to be far higher than the BLS estimate [BLS, 2015/1994, 12/16/16; OSHA report, 2015]

§  The economic costs of these occupational injuries and illnesses are enormous for workers and their families. On average, workers earn 15% less, approximately a $31,000, over the 10 years following an injury than if they had not been injured. The National Safety Council, for example, estimates the cost of fatal and non-fatal work injuries at $198 billion in 2012. [OSHA report, 2015] 

o   Taxpayers pick up the tab too.

§  According to a report by OSHA, federal and state programs pick up 16 percent of the overall costs of occupational injuries and illnesses. Their report estimated that overall Social Security, Disability Insurance, and Medicare expenditures subsidized workplace injuries with $33 billion in benefits in 2001 alone. [OSHA report, 2015]

Local Retirement Savings Rules

Ø  Rolling back these rules will cost millions of workers who don’t have access to retirement savings through their employers.

o   The Department of Labor’s rule gives states, cities, counties, and other local governments the flexibility to help small business workers save for retirement through government-administered payroll deduction savings programs for private-sector workers who do not have access to these savings accounts in their workplaces. Federal law has a pre-emption clause that prevents states from creating certain types of retirement savings programs, which has stymied these efforts in some cases. Cities and counties that are considering similar programs have also been concerned that the pre-emption will apply to their efforts.  This rule makes it easier for political subdivisions to establish these types of programs. [DOL Fact Sheet on City or County Savings Programs, 2016]

Ø  Who pays the costs now that it has been rolled back?

o   55 million American workers who don’t have access to retirement savings plans at work.

§   Today, 55 million working Americans do not have a way to save for retirement out of their regular paycheck. An AARP study has shown that working Americans are 15 times more likely to save if they have access to a payroll deduction savings plan at work.Today, 55 million working Americans do not have a way to save for retirement out of their regular paycheck. An AARP study has shown that working Americans are 15 times more likely to save if they have access to a payroll deduction savings plan at work. [AARP, 2017] 

o   Billions of dollars for American taxpayers.

§  The lack of employer-sponsored savings opportunities has a direct impact on the retirement security of American workers. As AARP has noted, “Social Security is only a foundation for retirement income — not the whole house”.  These retirement saving plans will mean less reliance on the government safety nets. According to a Segal study, if states were to take action to create these opportunities for workers today, they could save taxpayers as much as $4.8 billion in the next 10 years.   [AARP, 2017] 

Selling Out Low-Income Students, Minority Students, English learners, and Students with Disabilities

Education Accountability Rule

Ø  Before Republicans stopped this rule, states around the country were set to implement this rule to help ensure that every child—regardless of their background—received a high-quality education.

o   The rule gave states more flexibility in key areas and provided clarity to allow for a more comprehensive picture of school success to help ensure an equitable outcome for all students, no matter their background. [Department of Ed, 11/28/16]

Ø  Who pays the costs now that it has been rolled back?

o   The 50 million students in public schools and their families – especially students with disabilities, minority students, English learners, and low-income students. [NCES 2016]

§  This rule provided clarity for states, school districts, and education stakeholders to ensure that all children – including students with disabilities, low income students, minority students, and English learners, and students in underperforming schools had access to a high-quality education. Without this rule, implementation of the law has been thrown into chaos and bipartisan spirit of the legislation has been lost. [Department of Education Release,11/28/16; S.1177, 12/10/15; Department of Education,11/28/16; Chicago Tribune, 3/27/17]

§  Recently, Secretary DeVos seemed to suggest that she would use the ESSA state plan approval process to promote her privatization agenda, which if she carries out as her remarks have been interpreted, would be a clear violation of Congressional intent in passing ESSA. [U.S. News & World Report, March 29, 2017]

§    Allowing ESSA funds to flow to private schools would not only violate ESSA, but would be disastrous for our nations’ most at-risk because private schools lack accountability and transparency, can deny students and parents basic rights, and are often not viable options for students who live in rural areas or for students whose families cannot cover the total cost of private school tuition. [Senator Patty Murray Caucus Memo, March 22, 2017]

Selling Out American Women

Protecting Women’s Access to Reproductive Health Care Rule

Ø  Before Republicans stopped this rule, states around the country were barred from discriminating against family planning providers, preventing them from receiving Title X grant funds.

o   The rule guaranteed Title X funding for family planning and preventive health care would be awarded solely based on a provider’s ability to serve a patient. [HHS, 11/22/20]

  pays the costs now that it has been rolled back?

o   Over 4 million low-income American women and men who access Title X-funded care at the nearly 4,000 health centers supported by these grants.

§  Allowing states to strip away federal investments in family planning clinics by permitting discrimination will leave women and families without access to reliable, affordable care in their communities.

§ Forty percent of women who received care at Title X clinics
consider it their only source of health care. [Guttmacher, 9/2016]

§  States that have allowed discrimination against family planning providers have seen a devastating reduction in access to health care:

“In 2011, Texas reduced its contribution to family planning services, and also re-competed subawards of Title X funds using a tiered approach. The combination of these actions decreased the Title X provider network from 48 to 36 providers, and the number of Title X clients served was reduced dramatically.” [Federal Register, 12/19/16]

“In Kansas, for example, following the exclusion of specific family planning providers in 2011, the number of clients, 87 percent of whom were low income (at or’ below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level), declined from 38,461 in 2011 to 24,047 in 2015, a decrease of more than 37 percent.” [Federal Register, 12/19/16]

o   Women in rural America.

§  There is at least one Title X-funded family planning provider in about 75% of all counties in the U.S., which means that, in many rural or medically underserved areas, the Title X clinic is the sole source of health care within the community. [Guttmacher Institute, 9/2016]

§  By allowing discrimination against some health care providers, Congressional Republicans have empowered states to discriminate against family planning providers in these rural and underserved areas, even if it means fewer Americans can access the reproductive care they need.