Our guest blogger is Sarah Jane Glynn, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Just weeks after voters in Denver failed to pass a local paid sick days initiative, a new study to be published in the American Journal of Public Health demonstrates how a lack of workplace policies such as paid sick leave contributes significantly to illness among Hispanics — and thus the general population.

Potential exposure to H1N1 during the 2009 pandemic was significantly related to race and ethnicity, with Hispanics having the greatest risk of infection. Even after controlling for income and education, Hispanics had the highest probability of contracting an influenza-like illness, due to the absence of paid sick leave and structural factors such as the number of children living in the household.

The lack of paid sick leave among Hispanic workers contributed to an estimated 1.2 million cases of influenza-like illness among Hispanics, and 5 million additional cases in the general population.

Nearly 60 percent of Latino workers — about 12 million people — do not have access to paid sick days through their employers. Latino adults are more likely to be in the workforce than any other racial or ethnic group, and they are also more likely to work in service industry jobs such as personal care or food service — jobs where they are in direct contact with the public and where paid sick leave is less commonly offered.

Thus, the person preparing your food at a restaurant is disproportionately likely to be Latino, and is also disproportionately unlikely to have paid leave that would allow him to stay home if he caught the flu. Other research has shown that a lack of paid sick days resulted in employees of all races and ethnicities who were infected with H1N1 going to work while sick, thus infecting an estimated additional 7 million individuals — as many as 1,500 of whom died as a result.

Opponents of the ballot initiative in Denver (which included the National Restaurant Association and Keep Denver Competitive, funded by chains like KFC and Pizza Hut) spent hundreds of thousands of dollars arguing that paid sick days are too expensive in this economy. But the real question — when millions of people are infected with avoidable illnesses, and over a billion dollars is being spent each year on preventable ER visits — is too expensive for whom?

Leading Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney laid out his prescription for America’s housing crisis while campaigning in Nevada last month, saying policy makers shouldn’t “try and stop the foreclosure process.” “Let it run its course and hit the bottom,” he said. In the state with the highest foreclosure rate in the nation, that earned Romney a strong rebuke from Gov. Brian Sandoval (R).

A few weeks later, at a GOP debate hosted by CNBC, Romney again declared that as president, he would do nothing to ease the housing crisis. “Markets work,” Romney proclaimed.

But while Romney doesn’t think the government has a role in fixing the housing crisis, his campaign’s first advertisement specifically lays the blame for “record home foreclosures” at the feet of President Obama, as seen in this screenshot taken from the ad:

This isn’t the first time Romney has whiffed in trying to ascribe blame for the housing crisis. At the CNBC debate, he blamed government lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for sparking the crisis, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Private sector lenders issued more than 84 percent of the subprime loans that were the root cause of the mortgage industry’s problems, including 83 percent of the loans that went to low- and middle-income borrowers. Those private lenders, not President Obama or government agencies, were also at the center of the discriminatory loan processes that caused the housing crash to disproportionately affect low-income and minority borrowers.

The housing crisis remains a serious drag on the country’s economy. American homes have lost $7 trillion in value since 2006, four million borrowers are either delinquent or in foreclosure, and a quarter of homeowners are underwater. Romney, however, continues to either misunderstand or willfully ignore both the causes and effects of the crisis, opting for misguided political hits instead of addressing the fact that his “hit the bottom” strategy will only deepen the crisis that is holding back our nation’s economic recovery.

A new study concludes that speedy economic growth without an accompanying rise in income transfers fails to help low-income households. The study, conducted by Lane Kenworthy, a professor at the University of Arizona, looked at low and middle income households in 17 countries between 1979 and 2005 and found that in countries with increased growth but no boost in income transfers, low-income households saw little benefit.

However, in countries where programs benefiting the poor accompanied growth, living standards for the poor increased. The Financial Times reports:

“Growth does not automatically trickle down to the bottom,” said James Plunkett, secretary to Resolutions’s Commission on Living Standards.

The study looked not just at what happened to post-tax incomes during periods of faster and slower growth but also the effects of the transfer of a variety of benefits of cash or near-cash benefits.

All of the countries that saw living standards rise for lower income groups – the UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark – had programmes in place when economic activity was strong that benefited low-earning households.

However, in countries that had few or no transfer programmes in place during high-growth periods – the US, Canada and Switzerland – low-earning households saw little benefit. This finding means “that as a general rule, growth has not trickled down to low income households through wages or employment”, the report concludes.

Last week, Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, released a response to the Congressional Budget Office’s recent report on income inequality. In it, Ryan advocates for a growth-centered strategy to helping the poor, exactly the kind of strategy the report rejects. As Ezra Klein notes, not only would Ryan’s plan fail to help the poor, it would actually increase inequality. The top 1 percent of income earners would save $350,000 under the plan while the bottom 20 percent would lose $393.

– Karl Singer

Last night, the Romney campaign launched an intentionally dishonest ad falsely portraying a 2008 McCain campaign quote as Obama’s own. Romney’s campaign then blasted out an email to supporters from Communications Director Gail Gitcho with the subject line “Game On.” The email only expanded on their deliberately dishonest claims:

The White House doesn’t want to talk about the economy and continues to attempt to distract voters from President Obama’s abysmal economic record.

In defending their misleading ad, the Romney campaign bizarrely claims they were forced to resort to intentional dishonesty because the president refuses to talk about the economy.

President Obama, however, has been talking about almost nothing but the economy and his jobs plan, which independent economists agree will put millions of Americans back to work. Even a cursory review of the president’s recent remarks at official events posted on the White House website underscores the president’s eagerness to discuss the economy and ways to get it moving:

Tomorrow, I’m heading to New Hampshire to talk about another proposal in the American Jobs Act, and that’s a tax cut for nearly every worker and small business owner in America. Democrats and Republicans have traditionally supported these kinds of tax cuts.  Independent economists from across the political spectrum have said this proposal is one of the best ways to boost our economy and spur hiring. It’s going to be easier for us to hire our vets if the overall economy is going strong.  So there’s no reason not to vote for these tax cuts. -November 21, 2011

Now, the single greatest challenge for the United States right now, and my highest priority as President, is creating jobs and putting Americans back to work. – November 14, 2011

Our government needs their patriotism and sense of duty.  And that’s why I’ve ordered the hiring of more veterans by the federal government.  (Applause.)  Our economy needs their tremendous talents and specialized skills.  So I challenged our business leaders to hire 100,000 post-9/11 veterans and their spouses over the next few years and yesterday, many of these leaders joined Michelle to announce that they will meet that challenge. (Applause.) -November 11, 2011

So Congress still needs to act.  But if Congress continues to stand only for dysfunction and delay, then I’m going to move ahead without them.  (Applause.)  I told my administration, I want you to keep on looking for actions that we can take without Congress –- steps that can save consumers money, make government more efficient and responsive, help heal the economy, improve our education system, improve our health care system. We want to work with Congress, but we’re not going to wait. -November 8, 2011

And yet, while our economy has added more than 350,000 private sector jobs just over the past three months, more than 850,000 veterans remain unemployed.  Too many can’t find a job worthy of their tremendous talents.  Toomilitary spouses have a hard time finding work after moving from base to base to base.  And even though the overall unemployment rate ticked down last month, unemployment among veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan continued to rise.  That’s not right.  It doesn’t make sense — not for our veterans, not for our families, not for America — and we’re determined to change that. -November 7, 2011

So my hope is, is that the folks back home, including those in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives, when they look at today’s job numbers…think twice before they vote “no” again on the only proposal out there right now that independent economists say would actually make a dent in unemployment right now.  There’s no excuse for inaction. -November 4, 2011

Read more

Even as Republicans and CEOs of major companies complain that taxes are stifling job creation, corporations have been sitting on trillions of dollars in cash reserves, at some of the highest levels on record. The New York Times this morning notes another wrinkle in this story, pointing out that some companies have been laying off workers at the same time that they’re spending billions to buy back their own shares, thus enriching executives:

When Pfizer cut its research budget this year and laid off 1,100 employees, it was not because the company needed to save money.

In fact, the drug maker had so much cash left over, it decided to buy back an additional $5 billion worth of stock on top of the $4 billion already earmarked for repurchases in 2011 and beyond. [...]

There has been a steady drumbeat of other companies laying off workers even as they have disclosed plans to buy back more stock. On June 23, Campbell Soup said it would buy back $1 billion in stock; five days later it announced plans to eliminate 770 jobs. Hewlett-Packard announced a $10 billion stock repurchase in July, and jettisoned 500 jobs in September after it discontinued its TouchPad and smartphone product lines.

“It’s an extraordinarily unimaginative way to use money,” said former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. By buying back shares and lowering the number that are in circulation, executives can make their own “earnings per share” number look better, thus boosting their bonuses.

Part of the problem is that companies don’t see any demand in the economy, thanks to high unemployment, lack of consumer confidence, and austerity at the state budget level. But at the same time that they’re using billions to enrich themselves, corporate executives are whining that the problems in the economy have to do with regulation and taxes, and spend their time pushing for new tax giveaways that would boost their already high levels of cash even higher. But if the way that they’re employing their current stockpiles of money is any indication, corporations’ attempts to secure more through lower taxes should be met with extreme skepticism.