To Senators Feingold, Sanders, Franken and Brown: "We need a hero -- someone who will fight for the will of the American people by declaring they will only vote for a final bill if it has a public option. That would be change we can believe in."
Sign the petition (Progressive Change Campaign Committee)
Fear of Flying
Homeland Security overreacts again, this time to the underwear bomber. Let's hope the next guy doesn't use a suppository.
Accountability: On Christmas Eve, Massive bailouts to Big Ins/Big Pharma by Senate AND to Freddie/Fannie by WH
by Seafan (Democratic Underground)
How long did they think this would go unnoticed? The caliber of this corporate robbery of the public purse is astronomical, unprecedented and facilitated by this administration. There is no looking away from this.
Many of us were unwilling witnesses to the giveaway to Big Health Insurance/Big Pharma, courtesy of the US Senate on Christmas Eve.
But on the same day, the White House announced an unlimited credit line at the disposal of troubled Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Some days are just spectacular for the chosen few, aren't they? Read more at Democratic Underground.
How long did they think this would go unnoticed? The caliber of this corporate robbery of the public purse is astronomical, unprecedented and facilitated by this administration. There is no looking away from this.
Many of us were unwilling witnesses to the giveaway to Big Health Insurance/Big Pharma, courtesy of the US Senate on Christmas Eve.
But on the same day, the White House announced an unlimited credit line at the disposal of troubled Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Some days are just spectacular for the chosen few, aren't they? Read more at Democratic Underground.
Accountability: The Obameter Tracks The President's Campaign Promises
PolitiFact has compiled more than 500 promises that Barack Obama made 
during the campaign and is tracking their progress on the Obameter. Statuses are rated as No Action, In the Works or Stalled. Once an action is found to be completed, it is rated a Promise Kept, a Compromise or a Promise Broken. The report card provides an up-to-the-minute tally of all the promises.
during the campaign and is tracking their progress on the Obameter. Statuses are rated as No Action, In the Works or Stalled. Once an action is found to be completed, it is rated a Promise Kept, a Compromise or a Promise Broken. The report card provides an up-to-the-minute tally of all the promises.
Lester "Red" Rodney (1911-2009)
"It didn't make SportsCenter, but one of history's most influential sportswriters died this week at the age of 98. His name was Lester Rodney. 
Lester was one of the first people to write about a young Negro League prospect named Jackie Robinson. He was the last living journalist to cover the famous 1938 fight at Yankee Stadium between 'The Brown Bomber' Joe Louis and Hitler favorite, Max Schmeling. He crusaded against baseball's color line when almost every other journalist pretended it didn't exist. He edited a political sports page that engaged his audience in how to fight for a more just sports world. His writing, which could describe the beauty of a well-turned double play in one sentence and blast injustice in the next, is still bracing and ahead of its time. He should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Instead he was largely erased from the books."
The rest of the story: More Than a Sportswriter: Lester "Red" Rodney: 1911-2009 by Dave Zirin (Huffington Post 2009-12-23)
Reading list: Interview with Lester Rodney (Political Affairs magazine)
Press Box Red: The Story of Lester Rodney, the Communist Who Helped Break the Color Line in American Sports by Irwin Silber (Temple University Press 2003)
Lester was one of the first people to write about a young Negro League prospect named Jackie Robinson. He was the last living journalist to cover the famous 1938 fight at Yankee Stadium between 'The Brown Bomber' Joe Louis and Hitler favorite, Max Schmeling. He crusaded against baseball's color line when almost every other journalist pretended it didn't exist. He edited a political sports page that engaged his audience in how to fight for a more just sports world. His writing, which could describe the beauty of a well-turned double play in one sentence and blast injustice in the next, is still bracing and ahead of its time. He should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Instead he was largely erased from the books."The rest of the story: More Than a Sportswriter: Lester "Red" Rodney: 1911-2009 by Dave Zirin (Huffington Post 2009-12-23)
Reading list: Interview with Lester Rodney (Political Affairs magazine)
Press Box Red: The Story of Lester Rodney, the Communist Who Helped Break the Color Line in American Sports by Irwin Silber (Temple University Press 2003)
More like a wake than a christening
"Democrats have finally -- and after jettisoning any trace of government-run health care while swallowing new abortion restrictions -- found their way to success; the overnight vote proves they have the numbers to prevail in the remaining votes this week. But it certainly wasn't pretty."
The rest of the story:
An ugly finale for health-care reform by Dana Milbank (WaPo)
It's not just about the president. His successes and failures are tests of the progressive infrastructure.
"No doubt the president is one of the most compelling figures in American political history, perhaps more interesting as a person than any occupant of the White House since his moral opposite, Richard Nixon. His combination of political skill, intellect, discipline, confidence, and command of language is unprecedented, and his theory of politics, which brought with it the first actual Democratic electoral majority since 1976, may have changed the parameters of political possibility. It's hard to take your eyes off that phenomenon.
"But even world-historical figures color within lines that they do not draw themselves. What presidents, governors, or even legislators are willing and able to do is defined by forces and efforts outside of themselves. And for progressive politicians, those factors include the condition and power of the progressive coalition and its organizations -- its ability to generate and refine ideas, as well as its organizational capacity to bring pressure to bear on the political system. Every success or failure can be seen as a measure of the strength or weakness of that infrastructure."
The rest of the story: Machinery of Progress by Mark Schmitt (The American Prospect January/February 2010
"But even world-historical figures color within lines that they do not draw themselves. What presidents, governors, or even legislators are willing and able to do is defined by forces and efforts outside of themselves. And for progressive politicians, those factors include the condition and power of the progressive coalition and its organizations -- its ability to generate and refine ideas, as well as its organizational capacity to bring pressure to bear on the political system. Every success or failure can be seen as a measure of the strength or weakness of that infrastructure."
The rest of the story: Machinery of Progress by Mark Schmitt (The American Prospect January/February 2010
"Reform": Nation’s Largest RN Organization Says Health Care Bill Cedes Too Much to Insurance Industry
Damning ress release from National Nurses United:
The 150,000 member National Nurses United, the nation’s largest union and professional organization of registered nurses in the U.S., today criticized the healthcare bill now advancing in the U.S. Senate saying it is deeply flawed and grants too much power to the giant insurers.
“It is tragic to see the promise from Washington this year for genuine, comprehensive reform ground down to a seriously flawed bill that could actually exacerbate the healthcare crisis and financial insecurity for American families, and that cedes far too much additional power to the tyranny of a callous insurance industry,” said NNU co-president Karen Higgins, RN.
NNU Co-president Deborah Burger, RN challenged arguments of legislation proponents that the bill should still be passed because of expanded coverage, new regulations on insurers, and the hope that it will be improved in the House-Senate conference committee or future years.
“Those wishful statements ignore the reality that much of the expanded coverage is based on forced purchase of private insurance without effective controls on industry pricing practices or real competition and gaping loopholes in the insurance reforms,” said Burger.
Further, said NNU Co-president Jean Ross, RN, “the bill seems more likely to be eroded, not improved, in future years due to the unchecked influence of the healthcare industry lobbyists and the lessons of this year in which all the compromises have been made to the right.”
“Sadly, we have ended up with legislation that fails to meet the test of true healthcare reform, guaranteeing high quality, cost effective care for all Americans, and instead are further locking into place a system that entrenches the chokehold of the profit-making insurance giants on our health. If this bill passes, the industry will become more powerful and could be beyond the reach of reform for generations,” Higgins said.
NNU cited ten significant problems in the legislation, noting many of the same flaws also exist in the House version and are likely to remain in the bill that emerges from the House-Senate reconciliation process:1. The individual mandate forcing all those without coverage to buy private insurance, with insufficient cost controls on skyrocketing premiums and other insurance costs.“Desperation to pass a bill, regardless of its flaws, has made the White House and Congress subject to the worst political extortion and new, crippling concessions every day,” Burger said.
2. No challenge to insurance company monopolies, especially in the top 94 metropolitan areas where one or two companies dominate, severely limiting choice and competition.
3. An affordability mirage. Congressional Budget Office estimates say a family of four with a household income of $54,000 would be expected to pay 17 percent of their income, $9,000, on healthcare exposing too many families to grave financial risk.
4. The excise tax on comprehensive insurance plans which will encourage employers to reduce benefits, shift more costs to employees, promote proliferation of high-deductible plans, and lead to more self-rationing of care and medical bankruptcies, especially as more plans are subject to the tax every year due to the lack of adequate price controls. A Towers-Perrin survey in September found 30 percent of employers said they would reduce employment if their health costs go up, 86 percent said they’d pass the higher costs to their employees.
5. Major loopholes in the insurance reforms that promise bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations for sickness. The loopholes include:* Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail “wellness” programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.6. Minimal oversight on insurance denials of care; a report by the California Nurses Association/NNOC in September found that six of California’s largest insurers have rejected more than one-fifth of all claims since 2002.
* Insurers are permitted to sell policies “across state lines”, exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.
* Insurers can charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.
* Insurers may continue to rescind policies for “fraud or intentional misrepresentation” – the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.
7. Inadequate limits on drug prices, especially after Senate rejection of an amendment, to protect a White House deal with pharmaceutical giants, allowing pharmacies and wholesalers to import lower-cost drugs.
8. New burdens for our public safety net. With a shortage of primary care physicians and a continuing fiscal crisis at the state and local level, public hospitals and clinics will be a dumping ground for those the private system doesn’t want.
9. Reduced reproductive rights for women.
10. No single standard of care. Our multi-tiered system remains with access to care still determined by ability to pay. Nothing changes in basic structure of the system; healthcare remains a privilege, not a right.
“NNU and nurses will continue to work with the thousands of grassroots activists across the nation to campaign for the best reform, which would be to expand Medicare to cover everyone, the same type of system working more effectively in every other industrial country. The day of that reform will come,” said Ross. (December 21, 2009)
Canards: "This is a conservative country."
The majority of people in the United States are progressive. 69% of Americans believe that we should begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq right now. A CBS poll March 1, 2008 says that 64% of Americans favor universal health care. An ABC/Washington Post Poll conducted from January 9-12 says that 57% favor a woman's right to have an abortion in either most or all cases. Another CBS poll says 52% of Americans believe that the U.S. government should give high priority to global warming. A survey by Lake Research shows that an overwhelming majority of voters support public campaign financing. -- from the mission statement of United Progressives, a "union" of people dedicated to such "liberal" goals as peace and economic justice.
Old school
On a Concord Trailways bus in a New Hampshire snowstorm.
Digital technology is great.
But right now I love snow tires.
quote unquote: What does the President stand for?
This has been a fairly transactional presidency, and the president did nothing to insulate himself from the compromises - which were inevitable - by making it clear at the outset what his values were on some of these important issues. While being transactional may help you get through the days in Washington and get things on the scoreboard, it creates a weird disconnect that most people in the country don't know what you want and don't feel they should rally to your side. -- Rep. Anthony Weiner D-N.Y.
The rest of the story: Under Obama, the Left feels left out (Politico 2009-12-19)
The rest of the story: Under Obama, the Left feels left out (Politico 2009-12-19)
"The insurance lobby is taking over.”
Like Bill Clinton in his first two years, Barack Obama is attempting to pass legislation pleasing to the conservatives and the corporations instead of seizing the advantage offered by big Democratic majorities to advance change in the direction of economic justice. The result, in 1996, was victory for Newt Gingrich and his Contract On America. 2010 is shaping up as another disastrous year for Democratic congressional candidates; they have been running well behind the Republicans in generic polls for months. Incumbency will be some help, but not to liberals in closely contested districts.
If the White House learned nothing from the Clinton debacle, the same can't be said veteran members of the House. Listen to some of their comments last week as the Senate ground down health care reform.
"The insurance lobby is taking over.”
If the White House learned nothing from the Clinton debacle, the same can't be said veteran members of the House. Listen to some of their comments last week as the Senate ground down health care reform.
Snowe? Stupak? Lieberman? Who left these people in charge? It’s time for the President to get his hands dirty. Some of us have compromised our compromised compromise. We need the President to stand up for the values our party shares. We must stop letting the tail wag the dog of this debate. -- Rep. Anthony Weiner, a strong backer of single-payer“The president," griped Rep. John Conyers, "keeps listening to Rahm Emanuel,” no progressive's version of a good idea. As for what's happened so far in the Senate, Conyers, who introduced single-payer legislation that had wide support from colleagues before Obama took it "off the table," says, “No public option, no extending Medicare to 55, no nothing. An excise tax, god!
It’s ridiculous, and the Obama administration is sitting on the sidelines. That’s nonsense. The White House has been useless. -- House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey
There is unbelievable frustration with the Senate. The Senate is a graveyard. They could run the place with 50 or 51 votes, but they don’t want to hurt the club. They are relying on people like Joe Lieberman, who was thrown out of the Democratic Party by the voters of his state, to tell the Democratic Party what its agenda is. That’s a very sad state of affairs. -- Rep. Peter DeFazio.
Since the Senate won’t use reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes, it doesn’t look promising for any real change. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He pledged to vote against the final bill if there is not significant movement toward the stronger House version in the conference negotiations.
Thirty percent of Democrats will not come out and vote if there is no public option in the health care bill. What does that tell you? -- Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Grijalva's co-chair.
"The insurance lobby is taking over.”
Health Care: Senate Bill Must Change to Be Real Reform - AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka
by Seth Michaels writing in the AFL-CIO Now Blog:
The health care bill being considered by the U.S. Senate is inadequate and too tilted toward the insurance industry, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said today.
In recent days, as the Senate has debated health care reform, small numbers of senators have held health care hostage by threatening to block a vote. The new proposal by the Senate puts the interests of insurance companies-and senators who would rather look out for the insurance companies-ahead of real reform.
Trumka said the top priority now is to fight over the rest of the legislative process to fix the bill and make sure we can pass real health care reform:
Subscribe to the AFL-CIO News Blog.
The health care bill being considered by the U.S. Senate is inadequate and too tilted toward the insurance industry, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said today.
In recent days, as the Senate has debated health care reform, small numbers of senators have held health care hostage by threatening to block a vote. The new proposal by the Senate puts the interests of insurance companies-and senators who would rather look out for the insurance companies-ahead of real reform.
Trumka said the top priority now is to fight over the rest of the legislative process to fix the bill and make sure we can pass real health care reform:
The labor movement has been fighting for health care for nearly 100 years and we are not about to stop fighting now, when it really matters. But for this health care bill to be worthy of the support of working men and women, substantial changes must be made. The AFL-CIO intends to fight on behalf of all working families to make those changes and win health care reform that is deserving of the name.While the Senate's bill makes a lot of important and necessary changes to our health care system, it falls short in three key areas, Trumka says.
The absolute refusal of Republicans in the Senate to support health care reform and the hijacking of the bill by defenders of the insurance industry have brought us a Senate bill that is inadequate: It is too kind to the insurance industry.
Genuine health care reform must bring down health costs, hold insurance companies accountable, assure that Americans can get the health care they need and be financed fairly.
It lacks a public health insurance option, to offer real competition to insurance companies to bring down costs.Trumka says:
It fails to make sure employers take responsibility and pay their fair share.
It's funded through a new tax on working families' health care benefits.
It doesn't have to be this way. The bill passed by the U.S. House is far better than the Senate's bill on these and other measures. The House bill finances health care through a small tax on the very wealthiest of earners-those who reaped vast benefits from the Bush tax cuts-and it includes a public health insurance plan and real responsibility for employers.
The House bill is the model for genuine health care reform. Working people cannot accept anything less than real reform.
Subscribe to the AFL-CIO News Blog.
It's on you, BHK
"President Obama will have to argue his own case to House Democrats as he seeks support for a planned surge of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday, adding that she is finished asking her colleagues to back wars that they do not support. "The president's going to have to make his case," Pelosi told reporters.
Pelosi says rallying votes for troop surge in Afghanistan will be Obama's job by Paul Kane (Washington Post)
Pelosi says rallying votes for troop surge in Afghanistan will be Obama's job by Paul Kane (Washington Post)
Ike warned us; we just didn't listen.
The $150,000,000,000 expended by the U.S. government since 1985 on the chimerical missile shield is five times the cost of the Manhattan Project & Apollo 11 combined, says Harper's.
A Flawed and Dangerous U.S. Missile Defense Plan by George N. Lewis and Theodore A. Postol (Arms Control Association)
True story
Last night in Concord, New Hampshire, I went to a bar called "Cheers."
No one knew my name.
AfPak: Congress will debate war policy in January
It is the job of the legislature, not the chief executive, to decide questions of war and peace. In January, the Congress will debate whether the war in Afghanistan and military operations in Pakistan will continue and, if so, with what degree of intensity. In this video, Rep. Dennis Kucinich makes the case for the legislature's constitutional responsibilities.
Actions:
Call Afghanistan - A Petition to Take Action Against the War
Contact your representatives in Congress
Actions:
Call Afghanistan - A Petition to Take Action Against the War
Contact your representatives in Congress
Female Vets Face Homelessness, Dearth of Services
"...the new faces among America's homeless veterans.
"They're younger than homeless male veterans and more likely to bring children. Their number has doubled in the past decade, and there are an estimated 6,500 homeless female veterans on any given night - about 5 percent of the total homeless veterans population.
"But women-only programs...are few.
"'It is always hard to find a place or resources or help when you are homeless,' said Sen. Patty Murray, a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. 'It is almost impossible if you are a woman. Most of the VA facilities cater to men, and you can't take a mom with two little kids and put her in the middle of a homeless center with 30 or 40 male veterans,' said Murray, D-Wash.
"The distressed economy only made things worse....
"Like male veterans, many homeless female veterans face substance abuse and mental health problems. Many also struggle with sexual trauma that occurred in their childhood, in the military, or elsewhere."
The rest of the story: Female Vets Face Homelessness, Dearth of Services by Kimberly Hefling (Associated Press 2009-12-15)
Resources: U.S. Vets
Department of Veterans Affairs
National Alliance to End Homelessness
Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran of America's report on female veterans (pdf)
"They're younger than homeless male veterans and more likely to bring children. Their number has doubled in the past decade, and there are an estimated 6,500 homeless female veterans on any given night - about 5 percent of the total homeless veterans population.
"But women-only programs...are few.
"'It is always hard to find a place or resources or help when you are homeless,' said Sen. Patty Murray, a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. 'It is almost impossible if you are a woman. Most of the VA facilities cater to men, and you can't take a mom with two little kids and put her in the middle of a homeless center with 30 or 40 male veterans,' said Murray, D-Wash.
"The distressed economy only made things worse....
"Like male veterans, many homeless female veterans face substance abuse and mental health problems. Many also struggle with sexual trauma that occurred in their childhood, in the military, or elsewhere."
The rest of the story: Female Vets Face Homelessness, Dearth of Services by Kimberly Hefling (Associated Press 2009-12-15)
Resources: U.S. Vets
Department of Veterans Affairs
National Alliance to End Homelessness
Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran of America's report on female veterans (pdf)
Dems: Pass the fake health care insurance company bailout bill
Speaker Boehner and President Gingrich will thank you.
Dr. Howard Dean, M.D. is right
Howard Dean says the Senate health care bill isn't worth passing--that it signifies "the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate" and that it's "a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG." Dean: Kill the Bill by Chris Good (The Atlantic)
Howard Dean's is right on health-care reform
"Give credit to Howard Dean. This still practicing physician, former governor of Vermont, former chair of the Democratic Party and former Democratic presidential candidate has called for progressive members of Congress in both houses to join their Republican colleagues in killing what he rightly says has become 'an insurance company's dream.'
But it's not just a bad bill.
It's morally outrageous, politically repugnant and economically dangerous.
And an electoral Christmas gift for the GOP.
...
"Doctors will get richer under this 'reform.' Insurance companies will get vastly richer under this 'reform.' Pharmaceutical companies will get richer under this 'reform.' But there will still be millions of people left with no access to health care. There will still be tens of millions of people who will get substandard or even pathetically trashy health care. And the cost of medical care, both for individuals and for society as a whole, already the highest in the world, will continue to soar.
...
"Dr. Dean is right. This is indeed a bad bill. But it's not just a bad bill. It is a morally outrageous, politically disgusting and economically dangerous bill. It moves the country in exactly the wrong direction -- not towards the socialism that the right has been decrying, but towards an increasingly costly corporatist system that will be even harder to reform down the road."
The rest of the story:
The Democrats' Health 'Reform' Bill: Kill It Before It Comes to Life! by Dave Lindorff (OpEd News)
Health Care Reform: Howard Dean calls for a universally available public option -- like Medicare For All
By now, you've heard that Howard Dean has gone off the reservation.
Action: Sign the petition at Stand with Dr. Dean
If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.It looks like Dr. Dean is right and his critics wrong. As they could have done in the first place, the White House and the leadership should stand behind the House bill and, using reconciliation, push it through the Senate with a simple majority. The Republicans used to get a lot more done with 55 votes than the Democrats have been able to accomplish with 60. Time to get this done, but it needs to be done right.
Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries -- in the range of $20 million a year -- and on return on equity for the company's shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.
Action: Sign the petition at Stand with Dr. Dean
The Livable City: Parks & Rec
My second book, a collection of essays intended to deliver the insights generated by the social sciences to students and practitioners of the 
design professions, had on its cover a photograph of a popular Manhattan minipark, part of a program originally proposed in the mid-60s by Thomas Hoving when he was briefly New York City's parks commissioner. In the years since, with no small effort by neighborhood residents and community activists from coast to coast, miniparks, pocket parks and public gardens have helped to ameliorate the urban landscape.
See, also: Turn Yards Into Parks by John Gabree (Impractical Proposals 2004-06)
Urban Oases: New York's Great Pocket Parks & Secret Gardens by Jacquelin Carnegie (Frommer's 2009-06-18)
Shocking Video Shows Los Angeles City Bulldozing Community Gardens Into the Dirt by Mike Adams (Natural News 2009-02-15)
Showdown at South Central Farm by Robert Gottlieb (Next American City)
Resources: Pocket Parks - StreetWiki (LivableStreets Initiative)
Pocket Parks gallery (Project for Public Spaces)
Los Angeles Community Garden Council
Los Angeles County Common Ground Garden Program
design professions, had on its cover a photograph of a popular Manhattan minipark, part of a program originally proposed in the mid-60s by Thomas Hoving when he was briefly New York City's parks commissioner. In the years since, with no small effort by neighborhood residents and community activists from coast to coast, miniparks, pocket parks and public gardens have helped to ameliorate the urban landscape.Pocket parks — also known as miniparks and vest-pocket parks — are small patches of landscaped nature generally built on vacant building lots or scraps of city land that fall between the cracks of real estate interests.The rest of the story: City of Earthy Delights by George Prochnik (New York Times 2009-12-12)
Jacob Riis, the urban reformer, is credited with inventing the pocket-park concept in 1897, when he served as the secretary of a city committee on small parks. The committee issued a statement declaring that “any unused corner, triangle or vacant lot kept off the market by litigation or otherwise may serve this purpose well.” Though turn-of-the-last-century New York was filled with spaces that fit the bill, Riis’s idea went largely unrealized until after World War II, when bombed-out building sites in European cities provided opportunities to create small parks at less cost than reconstruction would have entailed.
Hoving may have seen parallels between New York’s crumbling urban landscape and Europe’s war-ravaged capitals when he started his micro-park effort in 1966. That year, he identified 378 vacant lots and 346 abandoned buildings in Bedford-Stuyvesant alone.
“Utopia would mean a park — some large, some small — every four or five blocks,” he declared. These micro-oases could spring up in the middle of dense, socially fractious neighborhoods where, he believed, they had the potential to “create wider ripples of reform.” One thousand new pocket parks would mean adding only 140 acres to the city’s park acreage. Two hundred could be acquired and developed for less than 10 percent of his department’s annual budget.
See, also: Turn Yards Into Parks by John Gabree (Impractical Proposals 2004-06)
Urban Oases: New York's Great Pocket Parks & Secret Gardens by Jacquelin Carnegie (Frommer's 2009-06-18)
Shocking Video Shows Los Angeles City Bulldozing Community Gardens Into the Dirt by Mike Adams (Natural News 2009-02-15)
Showdown at South Central Farm by Robert Gottlieb (Next American City)
Resources: Pocket Parks - StreetWiki (LivableStreets Initiative)
Pocket Parks gallery (Project for Public Spaces)
Los Angeles Community Garden Council
Los Angeles County Common Ground Garden Program
Zabriskie Pointless
Here's something you probably haven't thought about in a while. And wait'll you see the pacing on the Dick Cavette interview.
The rest of the story:
The Zabriskie Point Fallout (With Mel Brooks) by Bradley Novicoff (Dangerous Minds)
The Zabriskie Point Fallout (With Mel Brooks) by Bradley Novicoff (Dangerous Minds)
Congressman Kucinich’s Response to President Obama’s “Just War” Doctrine
A rhetorician as accomplished as Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing when he attempts to alter the clear and simple meaning of words. It is a dangerous game, and one that will not help him in the long run.
Yesterday, our president mused about the inevitability of war, war’s instrumentality in the pursuit of peace and just wars. It is important for us to reflect on his words, because once we believe in the inevitability of war, war becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once we are committed to war’s instrumentality in pursuit of peace, we begin the Orwellian journey to the semantic netherworld where War IS Peace, where the momentum of war overwhelms hopes for peace. And once we wrap doctrines perpetuating war in the arms of justice, we can easily legitimate the wholesale slaughter of innocents. The war against Iraq was based on lies. Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan are based on flawed doctrines of counter-insurgency. War is often not just; sometimes it is just war. And our ability to rethink the terms of our existence, to explore the possibility of peace without war, may well determine whether we end war, or war ends us. -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich
The President's Decision on Afghanistan Is Wrong. Bring Them Home -- Ed Koch
"...I believe we cannot and should not continue the spilling of American blood with the consequent deaths and casualties, and massive expenditure of funds we don't have. On the issue of expense, The Times reported that '[t]he economic cost was troubling [President Obama] as well after he received a private budget memo estimating that an expanded presence would cost $1 trillion over 10 years, roughly the same as his health care plan.'
"We should defend our homeland from all enemies, no matter the cost. However, we will be more effective in our battles against terrorists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan if we attack the terrorists from offshore bases and do not continue to be involved in a land war or, worse still, expand that land war. Next year, there will be the bi-annual Congressional elections - the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate. Two issues will dominate the election - loss of jobs and the ongoing war. The Democrats will be held responsible for both and will lose their majority in both Houses if either or especially both continue." - Ed Koch (Real Clear Politics 2009-12-09)
"We should defend our homeland from all enemies, no matter the cost. However, we will be more effective in our battles against terrorists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan if we attack the terrorists from offshore bases and do not continue to be involved in a land war or, worse still, expand that land war. Next year, there will be the bi-annual Congressional elections - the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate. Two issues will dominate the election - loss of jobs and the ongoing war. The Democrats will be held responsible for both and will lose their majority in both Houses if either or especially both continue." - Ed Koch (Real Clear Politics 2009-12-09)
Accountability: Congress should take back its constitutionally mandated role in making military policy
Despite Newsweek's silly cover story this week on The Post-Imperial Presidency (for starters, Newsweek might look at plans for military expansion in Africa, the takeover of air facilities in Columbia, the exponential growth of our military presence on Guam, Obama's increase by many multiples in the use of pilotless aircraft in the undeclared invasion of Pakistan, the grotesque $680 billion 2010 DOD budget, the tens of billions of dollars in war funding Congress is poised to pass quickly this session, and the additional supplemental spending bill that will arrive early next year to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...), there really was some hope last year that, if he became president, Barack Obama would rein in the abuses of power that get tarted up in the rhetoric of unitary executive theory.
On the more limited matter of war making, in this video The Nation's political correspondent John Nichols "sheds light on the American founding principle that presidents cannot define the debate about wars -- and reminds us that it is up to Congress, not the Commander-in-Chief, to set the debate and the terms of war." As the White House pursues its escalation of the war in Afghanistan, Nichols points out, Congress can still do its duty, starting with support for a sensible "war surtax" that will make the wealthiest Americans pay more so that the cost of the war is covered by concurrent revenues.
See, also: Grijalva Pushes to Block War Funding (AfterDowningStreet.Org 2009-12-08, reprinted from Roll Call)
On the more limited matter of war making, in this video The Nation's political correspondent John Nichols "sheds light on the American founding principle that presidents cannot define the debate about wars -- and reminds us that it is up to Congress, not the Commander-in-Chief, to set the debate and the terms of war." As the White House pursues its escalation of the war in Afghanistan, Nichols points out, Congress can still do its duty, starting with support for a sensible "war surtax" that will make the wealthiest Americans pay more so that the cost of the war is covered by concurrent revenues.
See, also: Grijalva Pushes to Block War Funding (AfterDowningStreet.Org 2009-12-08, reprinted from Roll Call)
Tech Porn: The Osprey finally goes to war
"CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan -- When a couple of MV-22 Osprey tilt rotors joined a fleet of CH-53 helicopters, dropping out of the predawn darkness Friday in the northern end of the Now Zad valley in Helmand Province to deliver the first of more than 1,000 NATO and Afghan troops, it marked not only the first large assault since President Obama's announcement that the U.S. would be sending more troops here, it also was the first major combat operation for the Osprey.
"The Marines are hoping that the operation - a sweep to begin to secure the area around the city of Now Zad dubbed Cobra's Anger - will become a key step toward resuscitating the image of the Osprey, which can take off and land like a helicopter, but in the air can tilt its motors forward to fly like a fixed-wing plane." -- from The Osprey Goes to War (Military.com 2009-12-07)
"The Marines are hoping that the operation - a sweep to begin to secure the area around the city of Now Zad dubbed Cobra's Anger - will become a key step toward resuscitating the image of the Osprey, which can take off and land like a helicopter, but in the air can tilt its motors forward to fly like a fixed-wing plane." -- from The Osprey Goes to War (Military.com 2009-12-07)
Why welfare reform fails its recession test
"When President Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law, he didn't just end welfare as we knew it. For all practical purposes, it turned out, he brought an end to cash help of any kind for families with children in much of the country. While welfare reform was long ago declared a success in some quarters, it was deeply flawed from the beginning. The recession has shown how seriously unprepared it left us for hard times." - Peter Edelman and Barbara Ehrenreich (Washington Post 2009-12-06).
Wrecked town points the way to economic recovery
With all eyes on US efforts to combat climate change at next week's UN summit in Copenhagen, one Kansas town is going green in a big way -- and setting an example for American communities.
The U.S. dominated the world economy in the 1950s and 1960s partly because its infrastructure was unparalleled. Without going in to other reasons for our long, slow decline since the early 1970s, any discussion of the process by which this nation can be restored to greatness must begin with how we will rebuild our physical plant. One small Kansas town is providing lessons in the ways disaster can be greeted as opportunity. Lets hope it won't require that conditions become as dire in the rest of the country as they have in Greensburg before we are motivated to act.
The rest of the story: Destroyed US town a model of eco-living as it rebuilds (Agence France Presse/AlterNet)
See, also:
After tornado, town rebuilds by going green (CNN.com 2009-04-29)
Greensburg, Kansas: Rebuilding After the May 4, 2007, Tornado (Earth Gauge 2009-03)
Rebuilding Greensburg, Kansas (EPA)
Better, Stronger, Greener! — City of Greensburg, Kansas (local government site)
Greensburg GreenTown (nonprofit)
The U.S. dominated the world economy in the 1950s and 1960s partly because its infrastructure was unparalleled. Without going in to other reasons for our long, slow decline since the early 1970s, any discussion of the process by which this nation can be restored to greatness must begin with how we will rebuild our physical plant. One small Kansas town is providing lessons in the ways disaster can be greeted as opportunity. Lets hope it won't require that conditions become as dire in the rest of the country as they have in Greensburg before we are motivated to act.
On the evening of May 4, 2007, a category-five tornado swept through the rural midwestern town of Greensburg, killing nine people and obliterating 95 percent ofthe urban landscape, including the school, the hospital and more than 900 houses.
But this community of 1,400 is rebuilding stronger than ever, in a remarkable comeback billed by Greensburg GreenTown -- a grassroots organization involving town residents, local officials and business owners -- as a "model for sustainable building and green living."
In the wake of disaster, local leaders vowed to rebuild their town as the first in the United States to have all municipal projects constructed to the highest environmental and efficiency design standards.
The rest of the story: Destroyed US town a model of eco-living as it rebuilds (Agence France Presse/AlterNet)
See, also:
After tornado, town rebuilds by going green (CNN.com 2009-04-29)
Greensburg, Kansas: Rebuilding After the May 4, 2007, Tornado (Earth Gauge 2009-03)
Rebuilding Greensburg, Kansas (EPA)
Better, Stronger, Greener! — City of Greensburg, Kansas (local government site)
Greensburg GreenTown (nonprofit)
Middle class?
One fifth of the U.S. population is unemployed, underemployed or has given up looking for work. One in every nine families can't make minimum credit card payments. Of eight mortgages, one is in default or foreclosure. Over 12% of the people is on food stamps. More than 120,000 families file for bankruptcy every month. The economic crisis has wiped more than $5 trillion from pensions and savings, left family balance sheets upside down, and threatens to put ten million homeowners on the street.
What middle class?
What middle class?
Primum non nocere
Shouldn't there be some form of Hippocratic Oath for planners, designers and architects?
It is as tragic as it is absurd that we are eating the dust of Europe and Asia in the development of green technology. Take this light 'triple-zero' house in the EU that produces more energy than it uses.
The rest of the story: Lightweight 'triple-zero' house produces more energy than it uses by Carina Storrs (Scientific American 2009-12-05)
It is as tragic as it is absurd that we are eating the dust of Europe and Asia in the development of green technology. Take this light 'triple-zero' house in the EU that produces more energy than it uses.
Overlooking the city of Stuttgart in southern Germany, a four-story modern glass house stands like a beacon of environmental sustainability. Built in 2000, it was the first in a series of buildings that are "triple-zero," a concept developed by German architect and engineer Werner Sobek, which signifies that the building is energyThe most recent addition to triple-zero house raises the bar for energy efficiency: It produces more energy than it uses.self-sufficient (zero energy consumed), produces zero emissions, and is made entirely of recyclable materials (zero waste).
Since the construction of the first triple-zero home, Werner Sobek's firm of engineers and architects, based in Stuttgart, has designed and built five more in Germany, with a seventh planned in France. The energy used by these buildings, including the four-story tower where Sobek resides, comes from solar cells and geothermal heating.
The rest of the story: Lightweight 'triple-zero' house produces more energy than it uses by Carina Storrs (Scientific American 2009-12-05)
(sic)
“With all of the comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, young people are beginning to think that the allied powers defeated Nazi Germany because Germany had too much health care.” — Jim Hansen
A rose by any other name...
Withdrawal?
There are 17% fewer troops in Iraq since Obama's inauguration.
On the other hand, the number of armed U.S. private contractors has increased 52%.
Action: “No You Can’t!”
Rally at White House December 12 - Unity Among Peace Movement Groups against Obama War Escalation - Warning of Reprisals to Troop Surge (adapted from press release)
Over 100 leading peace activists have called an 'Emergency Anti-Escalation Rally' at the White House on December 12, from 11a.m. to 4 p.m., to reject Pres. Barack Obama’s planned military escalation in Afghanistan. The rally is organized by End US Wars, a newly formed coalition of national and grass-roots antiwar organizations, with endorsements from leading peace leaders.
Rally organizers are calling for the left wing to end its support for Obama if he declares a surge in troops, and for condemnation of Obama’s war policy by his own party faithful. In addition, efforts will begin to cut short his term in office, along with Congress; and protests will intensify against U.S. war involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and any other countries.
Speakers include: Cynthia McKinney, Sen. Mike Gravel, Kathy Kelly, Chris Hedges, David Swanson, Phyllis Bennis, Rev. Graylan Hagler, Coy McKinney, Debra Sweet, Brian Becker, Mathis Chiroux, Lynne Williams, Hon. Betty Hall, Elaine Brower, Marian Douglas, Michael Knox, Ralph Lopez, Ron Fisher, and statements from Col. Ann Wright, Stephen Zunes and Granny D (turning 100).
The coalition End US Wars follows a letter, written by Laurie Dobson of Maine, demanding that Obama end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars; importantly, adding a specific call for a ceasefire on Predator drone attacks over Pakistan; and requesting that immediate reconstruction and recovery in war torn regions begin. Along with the rally on Saturday, December 12 at 11 a.m. in Lafayette Park, the film Rethink Afghanistan will be shown Friday December 11, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., at Busboys & Poets, 14th and V Streets, NW, Washington, DC. For information, email: contact@enduswars.org or visit www.enduswars.org. For press inquiries, phone: 207-604-8988.
Over 100 leading peace activists have called an 'Emergency Anti-Escalation Rally' at the White House on December 12, from 11a.m. to 4 p.m., to reject Pres. Barack Obama’s planned military escalation in Afghanistan. The rally is organized by End US Wars, a newly formed coalition of national and grass-roots antiwar organizations, with endorsements from leading peace leaders.
Rally organizers are calling for the left wing to end its support for Obama if he declares a surge in troops, and for condemnation of Obama’s war policy by his own party faithful. In addition, efforts will begin to cut short his term in office, along with Congress; and protests will intensify against U.S. war involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and any other countries.
Speakers include: Cynthia McKinney, Sen. Mike Gravel, Kathy Kelly, Chris Hedges, David Swanson, Phyllis Bennis, Rev. Graylan Hagler, Coy McKinney, Debra Sweet, Brian Becker, Mathis Chiroux, Lynne Williams, Hon. Betty Hall, Elaine Brower, Marian Douglas, Michael Knox, Ralph Lopez, Ron Fisher, and statements from Col. Ann Wright, Stephen Zunes and Granny D (turning 100).
The coalition End US Wars follows a letter, written by Laurie Dobson of Maine, demanding that Obama end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars; importantly, adding a specific call for a ceasefire on Predator drone attacks over Pakistan; and requesting that immediate reconstruction and recovery in war torn regions begin. Along with the rally on Saturday, December 12 at 11 a.m. in Lafayette Park, the film Rethink Afghanistan will be shown Friday December 11, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., at Busboys & Poets, 14th and V Streets, NW, Washington, DC. For information, email: contact@enduswars.org or visit www.enduswars.org. For press inquiries, phone: 207-604-8988.
Small "d" Democracy: Instant Runoffs
We've discussed instant runoffs at length in past posts (see, for instance, Impractical Proposals 2004-12-29) because the strategy makes voting more efficient and the outcomes more democratic. Instant Runoff Voting: The road to better elections is a website dedicated to advancing the cause.
According to the site, "voters have approved IRV by significant margins in nearly all municipalities and cities where it has been introduced to voters. IRV legislation is also rapidly gaining support in a number of state legislatures.
Linkage: InstantRunoff.com
Clip File: Enjoyed the Health-Care Debate? We'll Keep Chasing Our Tails Until We Start Taking American Democracy Seriously by Joshua Holland (AlterNet 2009-12-01)
According to the site, "voters have approved IRV by significant margins in nearly all municipalities and cities where it has been introduced to voters. IRV legislation is also rapidly gaining support in a number of state legislatures.
IRV is a voting system for single-winner elections that guarantees majority winners in a single round of voting. IRV allows voters to vote their hopes instead of their fears by ranking candidates in order of preference without worrying about spoiler dynamics or wasted votes. IRV also eliminates the need for low-turnout, high-cost runoffs.The site includes info on how IRV works, where it is used, who endorses it, and how you can get involved in improving elections on the local, state and federal levels.
Linkage: InstantRunoff.com
Clip File: Enjoyed the Health-Care Debate? We'll Keep Chasing Our Tails Until We Start Taking American Democracy Seriously by Joshua Holland (AlterNet 2009-12-01)
The Long War: Kucinich explains what's wrong with Obama's AfPak plan
During the late presidential campaign, several candidates offered concrete proposals far more likely to produce real change than the platitudinous sonorities proffered by the eventual winner, none more than Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich. No johnny-come-lately to political combat on behalf of progressive policies, Kucinich is a leader in the fight for Medicare-for-All and in the struggle against military adventurism. Here he is interviewed by Anderson Cooper in the aftermath of Pres. Obama's expansion of the AfPak mess. (AC360 CNN 2009-12-01).
As Unemployment Ranks Swell, Veterans Fare Worse
"The unemployment rate for veterans who left the military during the past three years is 18 percent, nearly twice the national average. The average for all veterans is about 11.6 percent. Even those numbers, however, may not reflect the situation as the economy worsened....
Every year, 220,000 service members exit the military. About 10 percent of them are retirees and about 10 percent of them are officers. An additional 80,000 to 90,000 National Guard members or Reservists leave the military.
The rest of the story: As Unemployment Ranks Swell, Veterans Fare Worse by Les Blumenthal (McClatchy Newspapers 2009-11-30)
Every year, 220,000 service members exit the military. About 10 percent of them are retirees and about 10 percent of them are officers. An additional 80,000 to 90,000 National Guard members or Reservists leave the military.
The rest of the story: As Unemployment Ranks Swell, Veterans Fare Worse by Les Blumenthal (McClatchy Newspapers 2009-11-30)
Some Journalism Deserves Respect
Writing in the New Yorker, George Packer reminds us that, every year, the Committee to Protect Journalists holds a fund-raising gala at the Waldorf-Astoria in midtown Manhattan to raise the budget it needs to "continue for another year doing its job of defending journalists around the world — calling attention to murders, threats, attacks, and imprisonments, lobbying for journalists’ safety and release, supporting endangered journalists and their families and survivors."
Murders, threats, attacks and imprisonments. This litany of intimidation goes on, in part, because in most places where journalists suffer such mistreatment either no government exists or the government itself is violent, corrupt and autocratic. The CPJ dinner is a reminder that behind many stories it honors are "brave, humorous, quietly defiant men and women, rarities and eccentrics who nonetheless seem to exist in every country, upholding high journalistic standards in the world’s most dangerous places, with no powerful backers, and almost no one paying attention except government thugs or anonymous gunmen."
The rest of the story: Annual Reminder: Some Journalism Deserves Respect! by George Packer (The New Yorker 2009-11-30).
In thinking about the situation of these brave writers, editors, researchers, photographers and videographers, it occurred to me that digital technology might enable a mechanism that would provide more support and protection. Many of these abuses are possible, inevitable even, because they take place in the metaphorical dark. What if there existed an organization pledged to carry on the work of a journalist who is intimidated, imprisoned or killed even after the original reporter has been eliminated? That an act of violence or intimidation intended to silence a reporter would only assure that an even brighter light would shine on his or her investigation?
It might work like this: a secure website is established where journalists can store copies of notes, phone books, appointment calendars, documentary evidence, audio, video and image files, drafts, manuscripts, and so on. These reporters let it be known to their contacts, subjects, bosses, etc., that this cache of information exists, and that it will be followed up on if anything untoward happens. Professional journalists in safer parts of the world, volunteering to pair up with the at-risk reporters, commit either to continuing the work themselves or making sure that the research is handed over to reporters in the field who can finish the job. With communication around the planet now virtually instantaneous, this website will also provide a trail of cookie crumbs behind reporters when their work carries them into dangerous situations. To take an example from within our own shores, isn't it likely that the goons from the Black Muslim Bakery might have had second thoughts about gunning down Chauncey Bailey if they'd known that the Oakland Post editor's notes and other materials would be instantly in the hands of other investigators at the Chronicle, the Bee or the Times dedicated to carrying on with the story? In addition, wouldn't it provide a small measure of security if a reporter going into a dangerous situation -- a meeting with an informant in a remote location, say -- could leave a real-time record of who, when & where so that immediate action could be taken if he or she didn't check in at a designated time?
Such a website would not be terribly difficult or expensive to create and could be operated with a very small staff. An operating budget would have to be found, but in that respect it would be no different than any other non-profit. The greatest difficulty would be in finding journalists with the wherewithal to genuinely provide the back up, although it wouldn't be a surprise if aggressive media operations like the BBC, Reuters, CNN, McClatchy, the Washington Post and the New York Times would find it in their interest to provide institutional support to employees inclined to participate.
Murders, threats, attacks and imprisonments. This litany of intimidation goes on, in part, because in most places where journalists suffer such mistreatment either no government exists or the government itself is violent, corrupt and autocratic. The CPJ dinner is a reminder that behind many stories it honors are "brave, humorous, quietly defiant men and women, rarities and eccentrics who nonetheless seem to exist in every country, upholding high journalistic standards in the world’s most dangerous places, with no powerful backers, and almost no one paying attention except government thugs or anonymous gunmen."
Since 1992, almost eight hundred journalists have been killed for doing their job, and the graph of the annual total rises steadily upward over time. Many thousands more have been imprisoned, including — just to put one name on the statistic — Thet Zin, an editor of the Myanmar Nation weekly in Rangoon, who was arrested shortly before I was to meet him on a trip to Burma last year, and who is serving a seven-year sentence for possessing a report issued by the United Nations special envoy to Burma for human rights. The one organization that can be counted on to keep alive the names and fates of these easily forgotten men and women is the Committee to Protect Journalists.As Packer writes, the CPJ carries on its crucial work on the shoestring budget it manages to scrape together at its annual dinner: here's a link to information on how to help the CPJ to help at-risk journalists.
The rest of the story: Annual Reminder: Some Journalism Deserves Respect! by George Packer (The New Yorker 2009-11-30).
In thinking about the situation of these brave writers, editors, researchers, photographers and videographers, it occurred to me that digital technology might enable a mechanism that would provide more support and protection. Many of these abuses are possible, inevitable even, because they take place in the metaphorical dark. What if there existed an organization pledged to carry on the work of a journalist who is intimidated, imprisoned or killed even after the original reporter has been eliminated? That an act of violence or intimidation intended to silence a reporter would only assure that an even brighter light would shine on his or her investigation?
It might work like this: a secure website is established where journalists can store copies of notes, phone books, appointment calendars, documentary evidence, audio, video and image files, drafts, manuscripts, and so on. These reporters let it be known to their contacts, subjects, bosses, etc., that this cache of information exists, and that it will be followed up on if anything untoward happens. Professional journalists in safer parts of the world, volunteering to pair up with the at-risk reporters, commit either to continuing the work themselves or making sure that the research is handed over to reporters in the field who can finish the job. With communication around the planet now virtually instantaneous, this website will also provide a trail of cookie crumbs behind reporters when their work carries them into dangerous situations. To take an example from within our own shores, isn't it likely that the goons from the Black Muslim Bakery might have had second thoughts about gunning down Chauncey Bailey if they'd known that the Oakland Post editor's notes and other materials would be instantly in the hands of other investigators at the Chronicle, the Bee or the Times dedicated to carrying on with the story? In addition, wouldn't it provide a small measure of security if a reporter going into a dangerous situation -- a meeting with an informant in a remote location, say -- could leave a real-time record of who, when & where so that immediate action could be taken if he or she didn't check in at a designated time?
Such a website would not be terribly difficult or expensive to create and could be operated with a very small staff. An operating budget would have to be found, but in that respect it would be no different than any other non-profit. The greatest difficulty would be in finding journalists with the wherewithal to genuinely provide the back up, although it wouldn't be a surprise if aggressive media operations like the BBC, Reuters, CNN, McClatchy, the Washington Post and the New York Times would find it in their interest to provide institutional support to employees inclined to participate.
quote unquote: Eisenhower on corporate power
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." -- Pres. Dwight David Eisenhower
Change Watch: New Executive Order to Avoid Year-End Declassification Deadline
As we have noted before, though the government is now nominally controlled by Democrats, abuse of power by the executive continues unimpeded. One such abuse is government by fiat. Another is excessive secrecy. The two abuses amplify each other in a current effort to issue a new executive order designed to keep government documents of historical interest from being released.
"Development of a new executive order on classification of national security information is now proceeding at an accelerated pace," according to Secrecy News, Steven Aftergood's blog about secrecy, intelligence and national security policy for the Federation of American Scientists, "in order to preempt a deadline that would require the declassification of millions of pages of historical records next month....
See Draft Order Would Set New Limits on Classification (Secrecy News 2009-09-29)
Some general background on the national security classification system from the Congressional Research Service can be found in Security Classification Policy and Procedure: E.O. 12958, as Amendedsecred (pdf) (2009-11-03)
"Development of a new executive order on classification of national security information is now proceeding at an accelerated pace," according to Secrecy News, Steven Aftergood's blog about secrecy, intelligence and national security policy for the Federation of American Scientists, "in order to preempt a deadline that would require the declassification of millions of pages of historical records next month....
There is an incentive to complete the development of the executive order before December 31, 2009 because of a deadline for declassification of historical records that falls on that date. Under the current Bush executive order, classified records that are at least 25 years old and that have been referred from one agency to another because they involve multiple agency interests are supposed to be automatically declassified at the end of this year. (See E.O. 13292, section 3.3(e)(3)).So we face the ironic prospect that the "pro-openness" Obama administration will relax or annul a declassification requirement that was imposed by the ultra-secretive Bush administration.
In fact, the whole process has become an awkward mix of exaggerated and deflated expectations. The failure of the Bush Administration’s declassification deadline to take hold this year does not augur well for new, more ambitious efforts to advance classification reform. If the “automatic declassification” procedures that were prescribed in prior executive orders are not “automatic” after all, and if binding deadlines can be extended more or less at will, then any new declassification requirements in the Obama order will be similarly subject to doubt or defiance.The rest of the story: New Executive Order Aims to Avoid Declass Deadline (Secrecy News 2009-11-23)
See Draft Order Would Set New Limits on Classification (Secrecy News 2009-09-29)
Some general background on the national security classification system from the Congressional Research Service can be found in Security Classification Policy and Procedure: E.O. 12958, as Amendedsecred (pdf) (2009-11-03)
Projects: Fighting desertification with sand dunes (TED)
At TED, Magnus Larsson details his bold plan to transform the harsh Sahara desert using bacteria and a surprising construction material: the sand itself.
Does Belief in God Hurt America?
According to a new study, prosperity is highest in countries that practice religion the least.
In a paper posted recently on the online journal Evolutionary Psychology, independent
researcher Gregory S. Paul reports a strong correlation within First World democracies between socioeconomic well-being and secularity. In short, prosperity is highest in societies where religion is practiced least.
The rest of the story: Is Belief in God Hurting America? by David Villano, Miller-McCune.com (Alternet 2009-11-25)
In a paper posted recently on the online journal Evolutionary Psychology, independent
researcher Gregory S. Paul reports a strong correlation within First World democracies between socioeconomic well-being and secularity. In short, prosperity is highest in societies where religion is practiced least.The rest of the story: Is Belief in God Hurting America? by David Villano, Miller-McCune.com (Alternet 2009-11-25)
Grass roots candidate runs for Ted Kennedy's seat
People-centric movement fuels Alan Khazei’s campaign: Candidate relies on grass-roots politics
A U.S. Senate candidacy in Massachusetts offers voters who want real change an opportunity to cast a vote that will actually make a difference.
The rest of the story: People-centric movement fuels Khazei’s campaign by Eric Moskowitz (Boston.com 2009-11-24)
See, also: Khazei Sneaking Up? by David S. Bernstein (Boston Phoenix 2009-11-24)
A New Patriotism by Alan Khazei (Huffington Post 2009-04-21)
Visit Alan Khazei for Senate.
Action:
Contribute to Alan Khazei for Senate
Volunteer for Alan Khazei for Senate
A U.S. Senate candidacy in Massachusetts offers voters who want real change an opportunity to cast a vote that will actually make a difference.
Alan Khazei makes no secret of his underdog status among the Democrats now running for Senate, pointing out that he lacks the name recognition of Attorney General Martha Coakley, the congressional base of US Representative Michael E. Capuano, and the advertising budget of Celtics co-owner Stephen G. Pagliuca.Khazei is unequivocally against expanding the war in Afghanistan, by the way.
What the City Year cofounder has instead is experience building a movement,a few people at a time, and it is the basis for his campaign strategy. For reasons of necessity and personal style, Khazei is pinning everything on a word-of-mouth, door-to-door, people-powered approach, a tactic proven in long campaigns but virtually unheard of in a special-election sprint....
"What I’m relying on is good, old-fashioned, grass-roots politics," he said. "If we get 1,000 people, we will fundamentally change the dynamic of this election."
The rest of the story: People-centric movement fuels Khazei’s campaign by Eric Moskowitz (Boston.com 2009-11-24)
See, also: Khazei Sneaking Up? by David S. Bernstein (Boston Phoenix 2009-11-24)
A New Patriotism by Alan Khazei (Huffington Post 2009-04-21)
Visit Alan Khazei for Senate.
Action:
Contribute to Alan Khazei for Senate
Volunteer for Alan Khazei for Senate
Accountability: Dem Rep. Obey Proposes Tax to Fund War
"If we have to pay for the healthcare bill, we should pay for the war as well," Wisconsin Rep. David Obey told ABC News in an interview, "by having a war surtax." Obey is just one of a number of restive Congressional Democrats, including Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to urge that the government stop hiding and deferring the true cost of AfPak.
See, also: The Brewing Democratic Civil War by David Chalian (ABC News 2009-11-23)
Plan C for Afghanistan by E.J. Dionne, Jr (Washington Post 2009-11-23)
The Democrats’ War Tax by Justin Raimondo (AntiWar.com 2009-11-23)
War Surtax: Pay As You Fight by David Rogers (Politico 2009-11-23)
Updates:
Will Biden And Kerry Support A War Surtax Again? by Sam Stein (Huffington Post 2009-11-25)
Talk of war surtax for Afghanistan expenses heats up by Janet Hook and Christi Parsons (Los Angeles Times 2009-11-25)
See, also: The Brewing Democratic Civil War by David Chalian (ABC News 2009-11-23)
Plan C for Afghanistan by E.J. Dionne, Jr (Washington Post 2009-11-23)
The Democrats’ War Tax by Justin Raimondo (AntiWar.com 2009-11-23)
War Surtax: Pay As You Fight by David Rogers (Politico 2009-11-23)
Updates:
Will Biden And Kerry Support A War Surtax Again? by Sam Stein (Huffington Post 2009-11-25)
Talk of war surtax for Afghanistan expenses heats up by Janet Hook and Christi Parsons (Los Angeles Times 2009-11-25)
Don't know what a Starbucks Republican is...
...but good on NC Dems anyway.
"North Carolina has maintained the strongest Democratic Party in the South during the past decade by siphoning off moderate Starbucks Republicans." -- Raleigh News & Observer.
"North Carolina has maintained the strongest Democratic Party in the South during the past decade by siphoning off moderate Starbucks Republicans." -- Raleigh News & Observer.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly for Consumer Protection in the Senate Bill
Pre-emption of State Health Benefit Laws Is a Major Retreat; Insurance Rate Justification Shows Promise (press release)
Consumer Watchdog released a list today of the 10 key positive and negative consumer protection provisions of the U.S. Senate health reform bill, HR 3590, which passed an important procedural vote this weekend.
The group lauded the bill’s dramatic expansion of coverage for those currently without health insurance and subsidies to help consumers afford care, but called for amendments as the bill is debated next week.
Consumer Watchdog said that two provisions allowing for pre-emption of state laws by less protective federal standards amounted to a major step backwards in coverage and affordability. Provisions requiring insurance companies to justify their rates and providing grants to states to develop “prior approval” systems are promising, but need further development to protect Americans from price gouging by health insurers.
“The ‘bad’ and the ‘ugly’ of the Senate bill threaten to undermine the ‘good.’ In particular, provisions of the Senate bill that would pre-empt more protective state standards will result in insurance policies that do not provide needed services and treatments when patients get sick and need health care the most,” said Jerry Flanagan, Health Care Policy Director for Consumer Watchdog. “If the government is going to require all Americans to have health insurance, then the government has the duty to ensure coverage is affordable. Insurance rate justification and prior approval of rates are essential to achieve affordability. However, even some of the ‘good’ provisions of the bill need additional clarifications and fixes to ensure that consumers get the coverage they pay for when the health care reform bills become law.”
The List of 10 of Consumer Protections (details are below):
The Good:
Rate Increase Justification, State Grants for Prior Approval (page 37, § 2794). Insurance rate increase justification, and prior approval of those rates, are essential components of controlling the kind of double-digit health insurance rate increases that led U.S. Representative Crowley (D-NY), and U.S. Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Landrieu (D-LA), to spearhead a letter from 119 Members of Congress asking the health insurance industry to explain the unusually high increases predicted for 2010. Specifically, section 2794 of the Senate bill provides that:
Public Option (page 182, § 1323). The public insurance option is now called the "Community Health Insurance Option." Under the Senate bill:
Consumer Rebates if Insurer Overhead Exceeds 20-25% (Page 30, § 2718). Insurers will be required to provide annual rebates to consumers if the insurer's overhead costs (administration and profit) exceed 20% for coverage sold to employers and 25% for coverage sold to individuals. States may require lower overhead percentages. Rebates would equal the amount by which an insurer exceeds the overhead limit.
Recommendation: See 85% Administrative Cost Cap.
85% Administrative Cost Cap (Page 204, § 1331). Some analyses of the bill say that it requires private health insurance plans to spend at least 85% of premium revenue on medical costs. However, the placement of this language in the bill appears to apply the 85% requirement only to state “alternative programs” for low-income individuals.
Recommendation: The 85% so-called “medical loss ratio” should be applied to all insurers and all coverage. The required consumer rebates should be triggered if the insurer exceeds a 15% cap on administrative costs and profits, instead of the current limit in the bill of 20-25%.
Prohibition on Rescission. (page 16, § 2712). Under the U.S. Senate bill, health insurers are barred from retroactively canceling coverage after a patient gets sick, a practice known as “rescission,” unless the patient committed fraud or made an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact as “prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage.”
Recommendation: The bill must clarify the grounds on which a rescission of coverage is justified, not leave it up to insurers to define in the fine print of their coverage contracts. For example, if an applicant’s health condition is not a factor in determining whether an individual or group is eligible for coverage under the bill’s Guaranteed Issue provisions, then failure to disclose such information cannot be grounds for rescission of the policy.
Guarantee Issue, Guaranteed Renewability, & Community Rating (page 82, § 2702; page 83, § 2703; page 83, § 2705). The bill bars a health insurer from refusing to sell coverage, refusing to renew coverage, or charging more for coverage due to a patient’s past health condition.
Recommendation: No change.
BAD
Individual mandate (page 320 § 1501). The bill requires every American, with some exceptions, to show proof of owning a health insurance policy or receiving health coverage from a public program. (For example, Medicaid or Medicare). Failure to do so will result in a fine of up to $750.
Recommendation: A mandatory purchase regime, particularly one without a true public option such as universal access to Medicare and without vigorous cost controls and guaranteed benefits, amounts only to a government-funded customer delivery system for the fragmented, wasteful private insurance market. The Senate should:
No matter what the premium price, strapped middle-class Americans who buy these plans will get horrible sticker shock on their deductibles and copays when they need to use the policy for anything beyond basic preventive care. Such costs deter families from seeking needed treatment for themselves and their children.
Recommendation: Bronze plan should provide benefits at 75% of actuarial value.
Employer “Fine” Shifts Burden of Health Care Costs to Individuals and Families (Page 348, § 1513). The bill requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide health coverage or pay a fine of $750 per employee each year. Those employers would only be required to pay a fine if any of its employees qualify for a subsidy to buy coverage on their own through the Exchange.
Recommendation: Health insurance for a family of four costs $13,375 each year. Allowing business owners to choose between paying for health coverage or paying a small fine will result in individuals and families bearing more of the cost burden. The Senate should amend the bill to require employers to pay a significant share of the cost of coverage in line with the requirements of the House of Representatives bill.
UGLY
Pre-emption of State Benefit Mandate Laws (Page 219, § 1333). Insurers may form “health care compacts” (page 219) and “Nationwide plans” (page 222) which would only be subject to the health benefit mandate laws and regulations of the State in which the plan was “written or issued.” Assuming that the proposed new national minimum benefit guidelines (page 102, § 1302) would apply to the compacts and Nationwide plans, the national minimums would become default rules because insurers would certainly choose to be regulated by the weakest state. As a result, millions of Americans could lose insurance coverage of important medical treatments and services such as AIDS/HIV testing, reconstructive surgery, home health care services, and child delivery and mastectomy minimum hospital stays.
Provisions in the bill allowing states to “opt-out” of permitting Nationwide plans and “opt-in” to interstate compacts offer little protection. The 1,000 health insurance lobbyists estimated to be working the federal health reform bill, and the industry’s unlimited capacity to buy votes with campaign contributions, would be marshaled to advance the insurers’ interest at the state level.
Click here to read Consumer Watchdog's analyses of the pre-emption provisions and the group’s letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Recommendation: States have traditionally been the laboratories of innovation in health care and insurance reform. States also have a greater ability to respond quickly to local needs. The Senate health reform bill should be modeled on existing federal health care laws which provide for a federal-state partnership rather than federal pre-emption of more protective state standards. Minimum federal standards should set a floor, not a ceiling, on state health care protections. In all cases, including Nationwide plans, heath care compacts, and Co-Ops, states must be free to impose their own required benefits and consumer protection laws if those benefits and laws are more protective than the laws of state where the policy was written or issued or the new federal guidelines.
-------------
Consumer Watchdog is a nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, CA.
Consumer Watchdog released a list today of the 10 key positive and negative consumer protection provisions of the U.S. Senate health reform bill, HR 3590, which passed an important procedural vote this weekend.
The group lauded the bill’s dramatic expansion of coverage for those currently without health insurance and subsidies to help consumers afford care, but called for amendments as the bill is debated next week.
Consumer Watchdog said that two provisions allowing for pre-emption of state laws by less protective federal standards amounted to a major step backwards in coverage and affordability. Provisions requiring insurance companies to justify their rates and providing grants to states to develop “prior approval” systems are promising, but need further development to protect Americans from price gouging by health insurers.
“The ‘bad’ and the ‘ugly’ of the Senate bill threaten to undermine the ‘good.’ In particular, provisions of the Senate bill that would pre-empt more protective state standards will result in insurance policies that do not provide needed services and treatments when patients get sick and need health care the most,” said Jerry Flanagan, Health Care Policy Director for Consumer Watchdog. “If the government is going to require all Americans to have health insurance, then the government has the duty to ensure coverage is affordable. Insurance rate justification and prior approval of rates are essential to achieve affordability. However, even some of the ‘good’ provisions of the bill need additional clarifications and fixes to ensure that consumers get the coverage they pay for when the health care reform bills become law.”
The List of 10 of Consumer Protections (details are below):
The Good:
1. Rate review. Insurers must publicly justify “excessive” rate increases, and federal grants would encourage states to require full “prior approval” of such increases. (Needs strengthening of prior approval, definition of “excessive.”)The Bad:
2. Public Option. Bill retains an op-out public option and allows states to expand access to large employers.
3. Consumer rebates. Requires insurer rebates to consumers of administrative and overhead costs higher than 20% to 25%.
4. Minimum “loss ratio.” Insurers in some cases must assure that 85% of premiums are spent on medical care. (Should be expanded to all policies.)
5. Rescission ban. Insurers may not rescind policies except for “intentional misrepresentation” of material facts as determined by the coverage contract. (Needs much tighter definition.)
6. Guaranteed issue. Health insurance must be available to all, renewable for all, and rate differences, such as for age, are limited.
7. Mandate. Proof of insurance coverage is required of all Americans, while insurers are still largely free to charge what they want. (To keep insurers in check the bill needs a broader public option and mandatory rate approval to curb prices.)The Ugly:
8. Poor minimum coverage. Allowable minimum health plan, the “bronze” level, would cover only 60% of overall patient costs, including copays and deductibles. (Should be at least 75%.)
9. No employer requirement. Employers face only very weak fees for failing to even offer coverage. (Need more realistic requirements in House bill.)
10. Race to the bottom on state protections. State benefit requirements would be preempted by “nationwide plans” and multistate “compacts,” which would be ruled by laws of the weakest states; weaker federal requirements would become the norm. Coverage of AIDS/HIV testing, reconstructive surgery, home health care services, and child delivery and mastectomy minimum hospital stays and more would likely be lost. (States must retain freedom to require stronger coverage for all types of policies.)GOOD
Rate Increase Justification, State Grants for Prior Approval (page 37, § 2794). Insurance rate increase justification, and prior approval of those rates, are essential components of controlling the kind of double-digit health insurance rate increases that led U.S. Representative Crowley (D-NY), and U.S. Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Landrieu (D-LA), to spearhead a letter from 119 Members of Congress asking the health insurance industry to explain the unusually high increases predicted for 2010. Specifically, section 2794 of the Senate bill provides that:
(1) The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with states, shall require health insurance companies to justify unreasonable premium increases prior to implementing them. Insurers are required to post the justifications on their websites.Recommendation: Consumer Watchdog, which pioneered the most successful insurance premium regulation law in the nation, Proposition 103, called on the Senate to adopt amendments reflecting key provisions of California’s landmark insurance reform law, including:
(2) The Secretary of Health and Human Services will provide $250 million in grants to assist states “in reviewing and, if appropriate under State law, approving premium increases for health insurance coverage...”
(3) Any state receiving a federal grant is required to make recommendations about whether particular health insurers should be excluded from participation in the Exchange “based on a pattern or practice of excessive or unjustified premium increases.”
• Mandatory justification of any rate increase (including premiums, deductibles, co-pays), not merely justifications of "unreasonable" premium increases.Click here to read about California’s landmark law to rein in gouging by property and casualty insurers.
• Increased amount of funding available for grants to assist states developing 'prior approval' systems. The U.S. House of Representatives bill provides $1 billion in such state grants.
• Mandatory prior approval, which means requiring insurers to seek permission from government regulators, in addition to justifying rate increases, before imposing the new rates. The language conditioning such prior approval on whether it is “appropriate under state law” should be deleted. In its place, states should be required to adopt Prop 103-styled prior approval in order to maximize saving and decrease insurance company waste and overhead. Since 1988, California’s Proposition 103 has saved drivers $62 billion while fostering a competitive and profitable insurance market.
• An intervenor system that provides consumers a forum to challenge unnecessary or excessive rate increases. Since 2003, Consumer Watchdog has saved the state’s consumers $1.7 billion by challenging unnecessary premium increases using the public intervention process.
Public Option (page 182, § 1323). The public insurance option is now called the "Community Health Insurance Option." Under the Senate bill:
(1) States may opt out entirely, but also may opt back in later.Recommendation: The Senate bill should make clear that any individual or employer can choose to buy coverage under the Community Health Option.
(2) The plans under this option, though offered through the state exchanges to individuals and small businesses, are federally administered by the Secretary of HHS.
(3) The public option benefit is limited to the "essential health benefits" described in the law, though states may offer additional benefits. In such cases, the state must fund said benefits.
(4) All enrollees in the public plan are treated as a nationwide single pool (not state by state).
(5) Plans are subject to state "consumer protection and solvency laws, with a federal minimum standard.
(6) States accepting the option shall form a "State Advisory Council" including patients and providers to provide recommendations to HHS on policies, public awareness and payment structures.
Consumer Rebates if Insurer Overhead Exceeds 20-25% (Page 30, § 2718). Insurers will be required to provide annual rebates to consumers if the insurer's overhead costs (administration and profit) exceed 20% for coverage sold to employers and 25% for coverage sold to individuals. States may require lower overhead percentages. Rebates would equal the amount by which an insurer exceeds the overhead limit.
Recommendation: See 85% Administrative Cost Cap.
85% Administrative Cost Cap (Page 204, § 1331). Some analyses of the bill say that it requires private health insurance plans to spend at least 85% of premium revenue on medical costs. However, the placement of this language in the bill appears to apply the 85% requirement only to state “alternative programs” for low-income individuals.
Recommendation: The 85% so-called “medical loss ratio” should be applied to all insurers and all coverage. The required consumer rebates should be triggered if the insurer exceeds a 15% cap on administrative costs and profits, instead of the current limit in the bill of 20-25%.
Prohibition on Rescission. (page 16, § 2712). Under the U.S. Senate bill, health insurers are barred from retroactively canceling coverage after a patient gets sick, a practice known as “rescission,” unless the patient committed fraud or made an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact as “prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage.”
Recommendation: The bill must clarify the grounds on which a rescission of coverage is justified, not leave it up to insurers to define in the fine print of their coverage contracts. For example, if an applicant’s health condition is not a factor in determining whether an individual or group is eligible for coverage under the bill’s Guaranteed Issue provisions, then failure to disclose such information cannot be grounds for rescission of the policy.
Guarantee Issue, Guaranteed Renewability, & Community Rating (page 82, § 2702; page 83, § 2703; page 83, § 2705). The bill bars a health insurer from refusing to sell coverage, refusing to renew coverage, or charging more for coverage due to a patient’s past health condition.
Recommendation: No change.
BAD
Individual mandate (page 320 § 1501). The bill requires every American, with some exceptions, to show proof of owning a health insurance policy or receiving health coverage from a public program. (For example, Medicaid or Medicare). Failure to do so will result in a fine of up to $750.
Recommendation: A mandatory purchase regime, particularly one without a true public option such as universal access to Medicare and without vigorous cost controls and guaranteed benefits, amounts only to a government-funded customer delivery system for the fragmented, wasteful private insurance market. The Senate should:
- Adopt a “public option” to the private market that is open to all Americans.Low in Price, High in Cost -- 60% Actuarial Cap on Basic Coverage (page 112, § 1302(d)). The bill, responding to insurance industry lobbying, has lowered the overall value of the cheapest "bronze" plan to below that of almost any current employer-sponsored plan. The bronze plan has an actuarial value of 60%, 5% below the previous Senate plan, and 10% below the House plan. That means patients will have to pay, between premiums and out of pocket costs, 40% on average of their supposedly covered costs.
- Adopt a robust health insurance rate prior approval and rate justification system.
- Bar any new federal health care reforms from preempting state laws and regulations; they should follow the model of existing federal law, which promotes a state-federal partnership. (See “Ugly” below).
No matter what the premium price, strapped middle-class Americans who buy these plans will get horrible sticker shock on their deductibles and copays when they need to use the policy for anything beyond basic preventive care. Such costs deter families from seeking needed treatment for themselves and their children.
Recommendation: Bronze plan should provide benefits at 75% of actuarial value.
Employer “Fine” Shifts Burden of Health Care Costs to Individuals and Families (Page 348, § 1513). The bill requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide health coverage or pay a fine of $750 per employee each year. Those employers would only be required to pay a fine if any of its employees qualify for a subsidy to buy coverage on their own through the Exchange.
Recommendation: Health insurance for a family of four costs $13,375 each year. Allowing business owners to choose between paying for health coverage or paying a small fine will result in individuals and families bearing more of the cost burden. The Senate should amend the bill to require employers to pay a significant share of the cost of coverage in line with the requirements of the House of Representatives bill.
UGLY
Pre-emption of State Benefit Mandate Laws (Page 219, § 1333). Insurers may form “health care compacts” (page 219) and “Nationwide plans” (page 222) which would only be subject to the health benefit mandate laws and regulations of the State in which the plan was “written or issued.” Assuming that the proposed new national minimum benefit guidelines (page 102, § 1302) would apply to the compacts and Nationwide plans, the national minimums would become default rules because insurers would certainly choose to be regulated by the weakest state. As a result, millions of Americans could lose insurance coverage of important medical treatments and services such as AIDS/HIV testing, reconstructive surgery, home health care services, and child delivery and mastectomy minimum hospital stays.
Provisions in the bill allowing states to “opt-out” of permitting Nationwide plans and “opt-in” to interstate compacts offer little protection. The 1,000 health insurance lobbyists estimated to be working the federal health reform bill, and the industry’s unlimited capacity to buy votes with campaign contributions, would be marshaled to advance the insurers’ interest at the state level.
Click here to read Consumer Watchdog's analyses of the pre-emption provisions and the group’s letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Recommendation: States have traditionally been the laboratories of innovation in health care and insurance reform. States also have a greater ability to respond quickly to local needs. The Senate health reform bill should be modeled on existing federal health care laws which provide for a federal-state partnership rather than federal pre-emption of more protective state standards. Minimum federal standards should set a floor, not a ceiling, on state health care protections. In all cases, including Nationwide plans, heath care compacts, and Co-Ops, states must be free to impose their own required benefits and consumer protection laws if those benefits and laws are more protective than the laws of state where the policy was written or issued or the new federal guidelines.
-------------
Consumer Watchdog is a nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, CA.
Change Watch: Why Greg Craig had to go
Pres. Obama turned to Craig to roll back Bush-era policies in the war on terrorism. But by September, Craig had been sidelined by "pragmatists."
The rest of the story: The Fall of Greg Craig by Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf (Time 2009-11-19)
Obama Is Playing Politics With Gitmo by Nick Baumann (Mother Jones Online/AlterNet 2009-11-23)
The rest of the story: The Fall of Greg Craig by Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf (Time 2009-11-19)
Obama Is Playing Politics With Gitmo by Nick Baumann (Mother Jones Online/AlterNet 2009-11-23)
Resource: Filibusted takes aim at GOP obstructionism in the Senate
Part of the reason that Republicans can get away with their destructive and antidemocratic reliance on the filibuster to interrupt the functioning of the legislative branch, aside from the reluctance of the Democrats to fight back unless 
they are certain they have 60 safe votes, is that so much Senate business happens in the dark. Filibusted aims to change that by using data from from GovTrack and Sunlight Labs to shine a light on legislative piracy as it happens. Most news stories about Congress don’t mention filibusters or cloture votes, but if you follow @filibusted on Twitter, you'll find out about them as they happen. No more will the Jim DeMints, Jim Bunnings, Tom Coburns, Jim Inhofes and their reactionary allies be able to cripple the legislature behind the people's back. Go to Filibusted.
they are certain they have 60 safe votes, is that so much Senate business happens in the dark. Filibusted aims to change that by using data from from GovTrack and Sunlight Labs to shine a light on legislative piracy as it happens. Most news stories about Congress don’t mention filibusters or cloture votes, but if you follow @filibusted on Twitter, you'll find out about them as they happen. No more will the Jim DeMints, Jim Bunnings, Tom Coburns, Jim Inhofes and their reactionary allies be able to cripple the legislature behind the people's back. Go to Filibusted.
Resource: Who Gets PAC Money ... and How Much?
Where the Money Goes, using politicians' biographical information from Sunlight Labs and data about PACs and their campaign contributions from OpenSecrets.org, makes it easier to visualize the contributions that political action committees make to your members of Congress and to each other. You can also view contributions received by a congressmember directly and by that member's PAC, making it clear exactly how much each legislator costs. The application allows you to see how the process works, such as how the Freedom Fund PAC receives donations from hundreds of lesser PACs and passes the swag along only to Republican candidates. You can choose either a PAC from an economic sector, to see where the money goes -- which politicians receive money from that PAC in each election cycle 1998-2008, or a legislator from any state, to see how much money he/she gets in each election cycle 1998-2008 and from whom, at Where the Money Goes.
AfPak: Democrats to Obama - Get Out of Afghanistan
"We need progressives in every state Democratic Party to pass a similar resolution calling for an end to the U.S. occupation and air war in Afghanistan. Bring the veterans to the table, bring our young into the room, and demand an end to this occupation that only destabilizes the region. There is no military solution, only a diplomatic one that requires we cease our role as occupiers if we want our voices to be heard. Yes, this is about Afghanistan -- but it's also about our role in the world at large. Do we want to be global occupiers seizing scarce resources or global partners in shared prosperity? I would argue a partnership is not only the humane choice, but also the choice that grants us the greatest security." -- Activist Marcy Winograd, on the adoption by the executive board of the California Democratic Party of a resolution to "End the U.S. Occupation and Air War in Afghanistan" (Winograd is mounting a primary challenge against Rep. Jane Harman, a supporter of the war).
The rest of the story: Democrats to Obama: Get Out of Afghanistan by John Nichols (The Nation 2009-11-16)
The rest of the story: Democrats to Obama: Get Out of Afghanistan by John Nichols (The Nation 2009-11-16)
Healthcare bills could jeopardize states' consumer protection laws
"Healthcare overhaul bills working their way through Congress could jeopardize laws in California and other states that require insurers to pay for treatments such as AIDS testing, second surgical opinions and reconstructive surgery for breast cancer patients.
"What's more, the federal legislation could make it virtually impossible for states to enforce other consumer protection laws, such as the right to appeal if an insurer denies coverage for a particular treatment."
The rest of the story: Healthcare bills could jeopardize states' consumer protection laws by Lisa Girion (Los Angeles Times 2009-11-16)
"What's more, the federal legislation could make it virtually impossible for states to enforce other consumer protection laws, such as the right to appeal if an insurer denies coverage for a particular treatment."
The rest of the story: Healthcare bills could jeopardize states' consumer protection laws by Lisa Girion (Los Angeles Times 2009-11-16)
Change Watch: Gates Invokes New Authority to Block Release of Detainee Abuse Photos
"Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has blocked the release of photographs depicting US soldiers abusing detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, invoking new powers just granted to him by Congress that allows him to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and keep the images under wraps on national security grounds."
The rest of the story: Gates Invokes New Authority to Block Release of Detainee Abuse Photos by Jason Leopold (truthout 2009-11-14)
Follow up: Why Isn't Gates Blocks Torture Photos Bigger News? by RFK Lives (Daily Kos 2009-11-15)
The rest of the story: Gates Invokes New Authority to Block Release of Detainee Abuse Photos by Jason Leopold (truthout 2009-11-14)
Follow up: Why Isn't Gates Blocks Torture Photos Bigger News? by RFK Lives (Daily Kos 2009-11-15)
For all you -- you know, metaphorical -- ukulele players
“A prosperous country should not just be prosperous for the people like me who are wired a particular way at birth (no credit to me) but I happen to know something about capital allocation and that wasn’t, you know, instead I could have been wired, you know, so I was, I don’t know, a great ukulele player. But there’s no money in that." -- Warren Buffett
Activism: The left doth protest too much
The left too often -- always? -- lets the right dominate the debate and dictate the political agenda:
"Here are some action items for Democrats and Progressives that don’t hinge on what conservatives, Republicans or tea party activists do, or do not do:
The rest of the story: The left doth protest too much by Karoli (odd time signatures 2009-11-13)
"Here are some action items for Democrats and Progressives that don’t hinge on what conservatives, Republicans or tea party activists do, or do not do:
1. Declare a party-wide unified moratorium on whatever spew comes out of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and anyone else who seeks to shift the dialogue away from what’s truly important."Bill Clinton is right, whether anyone wants to listen or not. Killing health care reform will spell another 10 years of conservative governance in this country and consign Barack Obama to be a one-term president. By then it won’t matter, because the conservatives will have completed their kingmaking of corporations and media propaganda empires."
2. Discipline is required. Now. It’s time to set aside sniping and criticism of the President and the Democratic leadership and adhere to a consistent and strong progressive message.
3. Define, push, and own the news cycles. If the national conversation isn’t focused to what WE want to talk about and what WE are accomplishing, WE will fail. It will not be focused until we get some folks out there actually speaking for us consistently on a daily basis in the mainstream, the internet and cable channels.
4. Enforce. The Democratic Party platform is not some nicey-nice concept put together for the purpose of one speech at a nominating convention. It’s a statement of VALUES. It means something. It has WEIGHT. It’s time for the so-called leaders of this party to stand up and use that weight. After all, voters expect you to. It’s why they put these Congressional clowns (even the Conservaclowns) in office. Look what North Dakota Democrats did with Kent Conrad. They gave him a reminder…if he doesn’t listen, I’m sure they’ll be looking for a different candidate to put up in a primary against him.
5. GET HEALTH CARE REFORM DONE. NOW. Stand on the Senate and make them get the debate moving, open, closed and voted on before the end of this year. Whatever anyone does, they cannot stall. Stalling is death. Get Grayson and Weiner out there alongside whoever else can speak strongly for what the House has done. Push these Senators to do the deal. Now.
6. Abandon bipartisan effort. There is none. The only bipartisanship is between the confines of the Democratic party itself — the in-name only bluedogs, and the rest of us.
7. Stop kowtowing to the budget (and yes, Mr. President, that means you, too) and start framing debates in terms of the people suffering in this country. We are not a bottom line. We are the citizens of this country who elected you and we have been exploited by corporate interests and professional gamblers on Wall Street while the last administration looked the other way. Quit worrying about deficits and start thinking about solutions. Then start implementing them. Let the budget hawks dither. This is a time for action.
The rest of the story: The left doth protest too much by Karoli (odd time signatures 2009-11-13)
Al Qaeda prefers US to stick around
"A withdrawal of coalition forces from Afghanistan would undoubtedly hand al-Qa'ida and the Taliban a propaganda victory. However, a victory would deny al-Qa'ida its most potent source of power, influence, funding and recruits -- the armed jihad."
The rest of the story: Al-Qa'ida prefers U.S. to stick around by Leah Farrell (The Australian 2009-11-12)
The rest of the story: Al-Qa'ida prefers U.S. to stick around by Leah Farrell (The Australian 2009-11-12)
Health Care Reform: Will the current bills help?
Donna Smith appeared in Michael Moore's Sicko, along with other Americans with health care issues. Now that health care legislation is moving through Congress, she wonders if the bills under consideration will help the other "American Sickos" who were suffering from the abuses of the rapacious and dysfunctional insurance industry. The answer is a resounding "No," as this heart-wrenching video shows.
See, also: Health Care Reform 2009: No Bill Is Better Than a Bad Bill by John Geyman MD: "The new House bill for health care reform (HR 3962) ... will not fundamentally reform U.S. health care." (Guaranteed Health Care 2009-11-04)
See, also: Health Care Reform 2009: No Bill Is Better Than a Bad Bill by John Geyman MD: "The new House bill for health care reform (HR 3962) ... will not fundamentally reform U.S. health care." (Guaranteed Health Care 2009-11-04)
Health Care Reform: Not!
Here's a statement by Healthcare-NOW! summing up the prospects for affordable, universal health care:
See, also: Why I Voted "No" by Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
On Saturday, November 7, 2009, the House passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, to much celebration by the Democratic party. Healthcare-NOW!'s view, however, is that the House bill is a gift to the insurance industry at the further expense of the people of this nation.Action: Donate to Healthcare-NOW!
The bill's advocates claim it will cover an additional 36 million people, subsidize the cost of insurance for families up to 400% above the poverty level, increase Medicaid coverage to 150% above the poverty level, close the Medicare donut hole by 2019, place a surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples making more than $1,000,000, will end rescissions and pre-existing conditions.
What the Democrats fail to mention is the bill leaves millions of people uninsured, allows medical bankruptcies to persist, criminalizes and fines the uninsured, increases the number of underinsured, does nothing to contain the sky rocketing costs, blocks women from their reproductive rights, transfers massive public funds to private insurance companies strengthening their control over care, protects pharmaceutical companies' superprofits at patient expense, fails to reclaim the 31% of waste in our system, expands Medicaid without regard to the state budget crises, discriminates based on immigration status and age, and sets up several levels of care covering less for those without the ability to pay. Those who have coverage will increasingly find care unaffordable and will go without. The whole system will inevitably fail from being fiscally unsustainable.
So is the House bill better than nothing?
"I don't think so," writes Marcia Angell, M.D. , former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. "It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right."
Given that the bill does nothing to contain or reduce rising costs or end the private health insurance industry's dominance, we hoped that the Progressive Caucus would stand strong. But they did not. All but two of H.R. 676's cosponsors voted for H.R. 3962 -- Rep. Eric Massa [D-NY] and Rep. Kucinich [D-OH].
Rep. Massa stated, "At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it."
Despite telling single-payer advocates that Congressman Weiner's single-payer amendment could not go to vote because it would open the floodgates for regressive amendments on abortion and immigrant access, the Democratic leadership allowed votes on both. Prior to the vote on H.R. 3962, the Stupak Amendment passed that will prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion and in many cases will prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely.
"The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry," writes Terry O'Neill, President of National Organization for Women. "We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion."
Healthcare-NOW! fought to win a fair and open debate on healthcare reform including the merits of a single-payer system. This has not yet happened, but the advocacy for this system has greatly impacted the debate in meaningful ways.
We need to continue to build the grassroots movement for single-payer, not-for-profit, national healthcare. We look forward to much brain-storming at our upcoming national strategy conference in St. Louis this weekend, and the opportunity to move forward with renewed energy, creative ideas, and resolve.
Meanwhile, we have the opportunity NOW to continue to support the Sanders' Single-Payer Amendment to be introduced in the U.S. Senate, Congressman Kucinich's efforts to get the state single-payer amendment back in when the House and Senate bills are reconciled, and the efforts of the Mobilization for Health Care for All.
See, also: Why I Voted "No" by Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
