The case against Hilda Solis is a war against labor

AN ONGOING BUZZFLASH SERIES ON THE GOP ECONOMIC WAR AGAINST AMERICAN WORKING FAMILIES
by Meg White

In the overarching story of the Obama Administration's nominees for cabinet posts, there have been a lot of characters. You've got your Beltway insiders, your nerdy scientist types, your IRS scofflaws, your post-partisan picks, and everyone in between.

Put Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) in the "victim" category. In fact, while you're at it, put "labor" in that category, too. Obama's pick to lead the Labor Department has fought an uphill battle since being nominated.

First, Republicans put the breaks on Solis' confirmation because she didn't come out and say what everyone knows: She's pro-labor. Her work in the California legislature and U.S. Congress combined with her pro-union upbringing is a clear sign of her prerogatives at the Labor Department. Also, her role as the unpaid treasurer for the pro-labor group American Rights at Work speaks to her work on the issue.

But instead of stating the obvious at a confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Solis dodged questions about so-called "right to work" states, card check, and the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). The questions weren't out of line; these are the main issues facing the labor force in this country.

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) characterized Solis' performance as "at best evasive." Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) asked a valid question: "If she won't answer the questions, how can you support the nomination?"

Given her unabashedly pro-labor background, I wouldn't be surprised if the White House told Solis to avoid appearing to side with unions over management. If so, they did it to Solis' (and the Labor Department's) detriment.

But then, in written questions Solis submitted after the hearing, she called her support for unions and the EFCA "unambiguous." Why not just come out and say that in public? Is "union" such a dirty word? My guess is that Solis (or the White House) saw the easy objection she was giving the GOP by withholding her already well-known opinions and decided it would be better to answer late than never.

I'm not quite sure what it is about Democrats that make them so reticent about their opponents' embarrassing reasoning for supporting certain issues. Why not make Republicans say exactly why they favor big business and management over workers and unions?

Whatever the reason, Solis answered the questions. Case closed. Right?

Well, the anonymous hold was lifted and a committee vote was scheduled for February 5. That vote never occurred. Solis' nomination was postponed again when it was learned that her husband paid $6,400 to settle a tax lien against his business.

Yes, you heard that right. Solis is being punished because her husband paid his taxes. It seems that Solis' husband, Sam Sayyad, didn't even know about the lien until USA Today began asking questions about it. When told by the Los Angeles County tax office that he owed the money on his auto repair shop, Sayyad paid the $6,400 in full.

I wonder if the situation would be the same if it were Sayyad's confirmation and Solis' tax problems. Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton could speak to this situation with more authority, but there may be a hint of sexism playing into this as well.

But more than anything, Solis is a victim of White House fumbling in its cabinet-making process. Had the nominations of Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, and Tim Geithner not been plagued by tax problems, I bet you that measly $6,400 question wouldn't have canceled the committee meeting. Or at least if it had, it would've been in the form of a hold, appearing frivolous and transparent, instead of bipartisan and measured.

The truth is, Republicans want an anti-labor labor secretary. And if the Obama Administration keeps giving them the out, the GOP can avoid saying so. First they object to her taciturn appearance in front of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and hold it up as proof that she opposes transparency. Then they request more time to look at her husband's tax record as part of a tradition of scrutiny applied to all Obama's nominees, and not as a clear block to a pro-labor designate.

But so far Republicans haven't been forced to say out loud what they're really thinking: Solis would be good for labor. She'd be good for workers and unions. And that's bad for the GOP.

When the February 5 meeting was canceled, nothing was rescheduled immediately and the current schedule as posted on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee's Web site had no mention of another hearing on nominees, as of this afternoon. A press secretary for the committee did not respond to questions of whether a future vote on Solis' confirmation had been scheduled by press time.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing about the hold-up is that the country needs a labor secretary now more than ever. January's unemployment rate was a dismal 7.6 percent, the highest since 1974.

Furthermore, Solis could have been a useful voice in support of job creation in the stimulus bill, which has proven to be a difficult sell. And wouldn't it have been nice to see a Latina at the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Act?

Most importantly, Solis was nominated by Obama for a reason; last-minute labor regulations pushed through by the Bush White House need to be reexamined, and you can bet there's more legislation in the works regarding labor than just the EFCA. Solis needs to get to work on labor.

AN ONGOING BUZZFLASH SERIES ON THE GOP ECONOMIC WAR AGAINST AMERICAN WORKING FAMILIES

Check out this petition requesting the Senate act on Solis' confirmation at FreeHilda.com.