Clip File: Capitalism, Sarah Palin-style

"We are in a progressive moment, a moment when the ground is shifting beneath our feet, and anything is possible. What we considered unimaginable about what could be said and hoped for a year ago is now possible. At a time like this, it is absolutely critical that we be as clear as we possibly can be about what it is that we want because we might just get it." -- Naomi Klein speaking on May 2, 2009 at The Progressive’s 100th anniversary conference

Blowing in the Wind: The Failed State of California

Here's a Must Read by The Nation's Marc Cooper on California's economic, political, and moral bankruptcy:

You know something is radically wrong when the mere act of the governor and the legislature agreeing on a budget to close a $26 billion deficit after months of haggling is hailed in bold headlines. Or maybe you get the message when you're a state contractor and you get an IOU instead of a paycheck and then find out the banks will no longer honor your scrip. Or you see that state unemployment rates are nudging 12 percent; that in LA County the poverty rate hovers near 20 percent; that some of the thousands of teachers who received pink slips are on hunger strike, while California schools are ranked forty-seventh in the nation; that the state college system has suspended admissions for spring 2010, raised fees 20 percent and forced its faculty to take unpaid leave two days a month; that thousands of state workers are being laid off and those who remain must take three furlough days a month for the rest of the year; that protesters in wheelchairs are blocking the halls of the Capitol; that a number of state parks are being closed; that California's bond rating is just above junk level; that Southern California had its highest peak in personal bankruptcies last year and that so far this year they're up 75 percent over that; and that one in four capsized mortgages in the United States is in California.

To climb out of this abyss may require a constitutional convention, ending the super-majority, restoring accountability by ending term limits, campaign finance reform, reining in the state's out-of-control referendum process, and restoring equity to the tax system by revising Prop 13, or, more likely, all of the above and more.

Go. Read. The Failed State of California: Time to Stop Dreaming by Marc Cooper (The Nation, 2009-07-29)

Health Care Reform: Failure of "public option" might open the door for single-payer

The key battle for single-payer health insurance is in the House Energy & Commerce Committee. There, the chairman, Henry Waxman (D-CA) -- my representative -- showed his true colors by ending a committee meeting early in order to shut down Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) who had the temerity to offer an amendment in support of single-payer (the fear is that it might pass, just as Rep. Dennis Kucinich's amendment to let states adopt single-payer healthcare passed the House Education and Labor Committee last week by 25-19). Waxman justifies keeping single payer "off the table" by citing the need for compromise if anything is to get done in Congress. Trouble is, since he and Barack Obama, NancyPelosi and Chris Dodd "compromised" by closing the door on a single-payer system before negotiations with the conservatives even started -- 86 House Democrats had already signed on to a single payer bill (HR 676) before the current process began, by the way -- all the leaders have left to offer up in a compromise is the so-called public option.

The public option, an insurance provider supported by taxpayers to compete with private insurers, should have been a final offer, if it was presented at all; it should never have been the opening bid. It is beginning to look as if the endgame on health care will come down to a choice between a bad plan and no plan. If there is no plan this year at least the door remains open to real change down the road.

In any case, with the Obama-Pelosi-Waxman public option now likely to fail, there is another, possibly last, chance for single payer. If ever there was an issue worthy of a revolt by the rank and file, this is it. The physical health and financial welfare of tens of millions of Americans are being sacrificed to protect a hive of economic parasites. Obama, Pelosi et al know this, even if they are unwilling to take on the special interests who profit obscenely now. At Democrats.com, a site that services the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, a chart divides the Democratic members of the Energy & Commerce committee into four categories: supporters of single-payer; those leaning in that direction; the public-option-only crowd (combined with a few profiles in courage who "won't say"); and the Blue Dogs, House members who are so conservative they really shouldn't be allowed to pass as Democrats, but are too smart to make believable Republicans.

No matter what their current position, all these elected officials will get a boost from hearing from you, the supporting and leaning no less than the rest; the public-option-only supporters, some of whom have bet on single payer in the past, may not have a horse in the race much longer and may be salvageable. Rep. Jane Harman is among the leaners, so if you live in California's 35th it might be worth your time to give her a call (other leaners are Diana DeGette-CO, Christopher Murphy-CT, Frank Pallone-NJ, Bobby Rush-IL and Peter Welch-VT). Rep. Waxman's office phone is 202-225-3976: the chairman is probably too invested in the leaders' plan to have his mind changed by calls from mere voters, but at least when the Democrats lose the House in 2010 and the Oval Office in 2012 he won't be able to say he couldn't see it coming.

A new webpage makes finding members' office numbers easy and, as a bonus, offers a "lobbying phone log," a simple way to create a public record of your exchanges with congressional aides. If you want also to submit a written advocacy message, click on the "AFTER recording" link on the page. But don't fail to take advantage of the form for documenting what the people's representatives say to you and how you are otherwise treated.

Change Watch: Obama's military policy is different how?

The cute little counter at the top left of this page is limited to toting up the bill for Iraq in U.S. tax dollars. Every once in a while, we are reminded of the cost in young American lives. What we almost never think of is what it's doing to Iraq. Journalist Jeremy Scahill estimates that the American occupation of Iraq, now the adopted policy of the Obama-Biden administration, has resulted in the deaths of 1,000,000 Iraqis from bloodshed, starvation, and disease.

[If you'd dropped by a few days ago, you'd have been able to see, via a link to YouTube, Scahill's comments about Iraq -- on Bill Maher's show -- edited together into a short coherent piece. However, HBO appears to have decided to remove Maher from the national discussion. Too bad because his voice is needed.]

For this, Obama, Biden et al can share the blame with Bush and company. But when the death toll in Afghanistan and Pakistan starts to climb to similarly obscene levels, the Obama team will own the policy exclusively.

Health Insurance Reform: Obama Finally Admits That Only Single Payer Health Care Will Work

[Based on a communication from PeaceTeam.net, part of a coalition supporting single-payer that includes Democrats.com, AfterDowningStreet.Org and WeThePeopleNow.]

Last night at his prime time health care news conference, President Barack Obama finally admitted to what we have known all along.

"I want to cover everybody. Now, the truth is that unless you have a -- what's called a single-payer system, in which everybody's automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual."

There it is, folks. As far as coverage goes, only single payer can fix our shoddy, expensive and unjust health care system.

Next he will be forced to confess that his plan won't save money, either. Even last night, the president talked about the critical importance of "eliminating waste". Only single payer effectively does that, by eliminating the massive overhead (31%) generated by paper-churning insurance industry bureaucrats lining their pockets while conspiring to deny coverage even to those they nominally cover, let alone the uninsured.

This is the single payer moment. Enough Democrats are in favor for it to pass without a single Republican vote. Is saving the insurance companies more important that providing everyone with affordable health care coverage? Is an abstract concept like "bipartisanship" more important than affordable, universal health insurance?

Click on "Pass Single Payer Health Care Now" to reach a form that will send your personal message to all your government representatives. At the same time, if you wish, you can send your personal comments as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper.

Take action.

Reading list: Why markets can’t cure healthcare:

Judging both from comments on this blog and from some of my mail, a significant number of Americans believe that the answer to our health care problems — indeed, the only answer — is to rely on the free market. Quite a few seem to believe that this view reflects the lessons of economic theory.

Not so. One of the most influential economic papers of the postwar era was Kenneth Arrow’s Uncertainty and the welfare economics of health care, which demonstrated — decisively, I and many others believe — that health care can’t be marketed like bread or TVs.

-- Paul Krugman's blog (New York Times, 2009-07-25)

Working: Should Thursday Be the New Friday? The Environmental and Economic Pluses of the 4-Day Workweek

Evidence builds that working 40 hours in four days makes good sense for employee health and well-being, too

Writing in Scientific American, Lynne Peeples reports that "working four 10-hour days a week could offer many benefits, including an extra day of rest for employees and the environment."

As government agencies and corporations scramble to cut expenses, one idea gaining widespread attention involves cutting something most employees wouldn't mind losing: work on Fridays. Regular three-day weekends, without a decrease in the actual hours worked per week, could not only save money, but also ease pressures on the environment and public health, advocates say. In fact, several states, cities and companies across the country are considering, or have already implemented on a trial basis, the condensed schedule for their employees.

Local governments in particular have had their eyes on Utah over the last year; the state redefined the workday for more than 17,000 of its employees last August. For those workplaces, there's no longer a need to turn on the lights, elevators or computers on Fridays—nor do janitors need to clean vacant buildings. Electric bills have dropped even further during the summer, thanks to less air-conditioning: Friday's midday hours have been replaced by cooler mornings and evenings on Monday through Thursday. As of May, the state had saved $1.8 million.

Where it has been tried, the shift to a 4-day week has been extremely popular with workers. "People just love it," Lori Wadsworth, a professor of public management at Brigham Young University in Provo, is quoted as saying. She helped survey workers in Utah who follow the schedule and found 82 percent want to stick with it.

The environment seems to like it, too. "If employees are on the road 20 percent less, and office buildings are only powered four days a week," Langmaid says, "the energy savings and congestion savings would be enormous." Plus, the hour shift for the Monday through Thursday workers means fewer commuters during the traditional rush hours, speeding travel for all. It also means less time spent idling in traffic and therefore less spewing of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. The 9-to-5 crowd also gets the benefit of extended hours at the DMV and other state agencies that adopt the four-day schedule.

An interim report released by the Utah state government in February projected a drop of at least 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually from Friday building shutdowns. If reductions in greenhouse gases from commuting are included, the state would check the generation of at least 12,000 metric tons of CO2—the equivalent of taking about 2,300 cars off the road for one year.

This is an idea that might have some legs. It's good for employers. It's good for employees. It's good for the planet. It may work as well for k-12 schools as it does for businesses and governments. Even taking in to account bureaucratic reluctance to change, this is one reform that may be hard to resist.

The Connecticut Law Review’s fall symposium will be “Redefining Work: Exploring the Legal Implications of the Four-Day Work Week.” It will be held at the University of Connecticut School of Law in October.
GM Lordstown to run 10-hour shifts, 4 days
Struggling Australian companies cutting back to a 4-day week
New York Assemblyman Michael Gianaris Proposes 4-Day Work Week for State Workers
Utah Governor Huntsman Announces Extended Government Service Hours
Four-day workweek creates new volunteers in Utah
El Paso City Council approves 4-day summer work week at City Hall
Melbourne Beach FL goes to 4-day workweek
Idaho: Another local government switching to 4-day week
Oregon: Schools study four-day week

Reform: California's Budget "Plan"

For months, the Governator has been the Bloviator, blathering ad nauseum about his principled reasons for exacerbating the budget crisis. He would hold out for a permanent solution. There'd be no gimmicks this time; no kicking the can down the road; no leaving the mess for future governors and legislators to clean up. Suffering today would mean a happier tomorrow. Promise.

"Blah blah blah" is the same whether you say it in English, Austrian or Austranglish.

Now Schwarzenegger finally has his deal and, guess what?, it's all gimmicks, nothing but accounting frauds, rip-offs, hidden agendas and hidden taxes that make punishing cuts in services inevitable. Shame on the Governor for perpetrating this brutal sham -- although, in fairness, should you have expected more?; he has been out of his depth throughout his tenure. More to point, shame on the Ledge's leaders -- no, wait, wrong word: there are no leaders anywhere in sight -- shame on the Democrats, most of whom know better, for going along with it.

Is the crisis real? Sure. The budget shortfall is humungous -- the budget deal is based on the guess that the deficit is $26 billion. There is an old saying to the effect that if your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep will be your downfall. That California has been spending more than it takes in at least since Schwarzenegger rode into office on the back of an irresponsible promise to cut auto licensing fees is the proximate cause of our downfall. Forget for a moment whether all the state's expenditures are necessary. Forget whether there is bloat and waste. Forget whether there are structural defects in our system of governance. Those are separate questions. The simple matter is that the people's representatives -- especially Republicans of every stripe -- have been unwilling to levy taxes and fees sufficient to pay the bills for government services that Californians want and need.

Although he made the phrase inevitable by his promise not to do so, "kicking the can" -- meaning passing the buck, dodging the bullet, punting, weasling, welshing -- is the journalistic cliche of the hour. This time, though, the can has been kicked so far down the road it may never stop rolling.

If you think I'm exaggerating the tricks and gimmicks underpinning this horror show, consider this: the state's payroll obligations for June 2010, the last month of the current budget year, have been moved -- one day! -- to July 1. The payments will still need to be met, but -- shazam! -- they have disappeared from this year's budget. This sleight-of-hand, providing entirely fictitious savings of $1.5 billion, is a perfect example of budgetary shenanigans of the sort these negotiations were supposed to end (the agreement also calls for speeding up collection of 2010 personal income and corporate taxes to make revenue show up sooner on the books, another accounting trick).

The agreement will gut social programs, including slashing more than $9 billion from spending on education and more than $1 billion each from the health and corrections budgets. It will also reduce by 14% the pay of state workers.

The gory details: K-12 schools and community colleges: $6 billion -- slashed; the University of California and California State University systems: $3 billion -- slashed; Medi-Cal, the state's health care program for the poor: $1.3 billion -- slashed; Department of Corrections: $1.2 billion -- slashed; CalWORKS, the state's welfare-to-work program: $528 million -- slashed (if he had his druthers, Schwarzenegger would terminate the program altogether); Healthy Families, a program that provides health insurance for 930,000 low-income children: $124 million -- slashed; the state's in-home supportive services program for the frail and disabled: $226 million -- slashed; state parks: $8 million -- slashed.

This last pittance probably falls into the hidden-agenda category, as it is expected that it will "require" the closing of some park facilities. Other items on the hidden agenda: selling off part of the State Compensation Insurance Fund, a quasi-governmental agency that is the state's largest provider of workers' comp insurance, fitting in with the Right's privatization efforts -- we'll see whether Sacramento gets anything near the $1 billion it is estimating the fund to be worth; ending the 40-year ban on oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast, supposedly to bring in $100 million this budget year; shuttering the Integrated Waste Management Board and the Board of Geologists and Geophysicists, pet peeves of the gov; adopting Schwarzenegger's plan to fingerprint health care workers and recipients and to require that caregivers undergo background checks, although the budgetary opportunities these actions provide are mystifying; and giving the governor authority to sell some state-owned facilities, including the Orange County Fairgrounds, the Public Utilities Commission Building in San Francisco and the Ronald Reagan State Office Building in Los Angeles (another of this governor's dumber ideas -- thank heavens he's being termed out).

Perhaps the most pernicious aspects of the deal are the devastating attacks on the coffers of county and municipal governments, the units of governance that provide the services most people  rely on most. The plan will "borrow" about $2 billion from local property tax revenues, money that the co-conspirators promise to repay with interest in three years. If it is paid back, it will be fair to call it borrowing. Outright theft, however, is the only reasonable description of the more than $1.5 billion in redevelopment money and the nearly $1 billion in transportation funding -- the rare case when "highway robbery' is not metaphor -- that will be taken from local authorities and transferred to Sacramento if the agreement passes.

There are fanciful elements to the plan, as well, like the idea that the state will be able to bill the Feds for some of the cuts in Medi-Cal or that school districts will gain anything useful from the option of cutting the already short school year by five days or that the state is going to be able to cut prison costs by the (perfectly reasonable, but politically unfeasible) expedient of releasing 23,000 inmates or that foundations, non-profits and other non-governmental groups can make up for the lost social services.

It's probably too much to hope that the progressives in the legislature will turn this deal down. That would be irresponsible, and no self-respecting Democrat would ever be that. But with the state's credit rating already in the crapper and millions of Californians sure to be hurt anyway, it's hard not to wonder if the good wouldn't outweigh the harm should the Gov and the Ledge be forced to stop playing games. When the voters rejected the passel of scammy budget measures in the spring, the basic message was clear: go do your jobs. It'd still be the best way out of this mess.

See, also: 55% of California Voters Oppose State Budget Deal (Rasmussen Reports)

Update: California Legislature finally approves budget deal (Los Angeles Times, 2009-07-25). Unexpectedly, the Ledge held the line against oil drilling off Santa Barbara and the grab at local transportation funds. A case of nothing is better than something.

Reform: A California Constitutional Convention?

We've talked before about the need for political reform.  As Repair California puts it, in California "government suffers from drastic dysfunction – our financing system is bankrupt, our prisons overflow, our water system teeters on collapse, our once proud schools are criminally poor, our democracy produces ideologically‐extreme legislators that can pass neither budget nor reforms, and we have no recourse in the system to right these wrongs." To take a specific example, a 2/3 majority is required to raise taxes or to pass budgets; this means fiscal policy is in the control of a cadre of minority legislators that the majority of voters is incapable of holding to account. It is tempting to blame the Democrats or the Republicans, the legislature or the governor, or even ourselves, but it isn't anyone's fault. Nothing gets done because nothing can get done. The system is broken.

Californians adopted the current constitutional framework in 1878. The last major reforms took place piecemeal in the 1960s and 70s. Even if the system hadn't ground to a halt, it would be past time for California to examine the way it conducts public business. Running a 21st century state with a patched-up 19th century contraption like the California constitution is like trying to make it through the Cajon Pass in a horse and buggy.

Policy wonks who want to revise the state constitution or write a new one are coming up with ideas beyond getting rid of the 2/3 rule. A unicameral legislature. A parliament. A part-time legislature. Proportional representation. Instant run-offs. Public campaign financing. Some of these suggestions are designed to empower the electorate and increase accountability, some clearly intended to limit democracy (if someone tells you they have a big concern about the risk of a "runaway convention," you are permitted to wonder if they harbor mixed feelings about democracy).

Delegates to a constitutional convention might be appointed, elected, or chosen by lot, or by a formula that involves all three (or Publishers Clearing House could do it: "You may already be a delegate to the California State Constitutional Convention"). Appointment by political leaders and various organized constituencies (the governor, the ledge, good government types like the League of Women Voters, "special interests" like labor, business and minorities, and so on) is pretty obviously a non-starter. At the other end, Stephen Hill, director of the political reform program of the New America Foundation and author of the useful handbook "10 Steps to Repair American Democracy," likes random selection. "This method might sound the strangest," he writes,

but actually may hold the most promise. It has been used in Canada and elsewhere. A scientific sampling of Californians would be randomly selected from the statewide voter list, like a jury pool.

The Bay Area Council, a group of business leaders, has proposed randomly selecting 400 Californians to create a body of average citizens who could bring their common sense and pragmatism to the problems at hand. Those delegates would be paid to participate for eight months, starting with an intensive two-month education process in which they would hear from many experts about the problems and potential solutions for California.

Random selection likely would be the best method for ensuring a truly representative body and for shielding delegates against special-interest influence. And a group made up of "people just like us" brings a sense of grass-roots legitimacy to the process.

A jury pool. Hmmm. My own preference would be to hold elections. The practice is comfortable and familiar and it gives every citizen a chance to participate. It might seem natural to use existing legislative districts as boundaries, but only if you're trying to hold down the number of delegates. (At one informational meeting I attended, someone mentioned that a process in New Orleans to decide how to spend post-Katrina recovery dollars had involved 4,000 citizens; if the Big Easy can engage 4,000 of its people in complicated decisions about capital expenditures, surely California can do better than to rely on 40 -- the size of the state senate, or the assembly's 80 or even the 400 proposed by the Bay Area Council -- of its citizens to make choices that will decide the future direction of the state over the next several generations).

Hill believes that competing in elections will "require significant financial resources, giving an advantage to candidates who have access to money, organized special interests and political party support." But if the number of delegates is increased, the size of each district will be reduced and with it the cost of running, thus reducing in proportion the influence of money. If, for example, the population were to be divided into units of 10,000 then people would be more likely to know personally the representative who is chosen locally and the delegate count would still only amount to about 3,676 individuals, but ones far more accountable than if selected by appointment or randomly (base the calculations on the state's roughly 23,000,000 eligible voters, instead of the number of residents, and you get only 2,300 delegates -- you could hold this party in a cozy little venue like the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium and have room to spare).

Admittedly, elections can be unduly influenced by special interests, but I think there is a greater risk of undue influence coming from another quarter: a panel of average citizens, however well vested with pragmatism and common sense, would of necessity be at the mercy of staff. Having witnessed and participated in countless schemes intended to involve citizens in government, I am mightily suspicious of any proceeding that does not give delegates control of their own agenda. Hill says his body of average citizens "would hear from many experts about the problems and potential solutions for California." But who would select these experts? Who would frame the questions? Who would guide deliberations? If experience is any guide, it will be the rope pullers and scene riggers who run the show. If there is a "runaway convention," as likely as not it will be running away from its staff of wranglers.

While it's true that California is in crisis, a rush to create a new constitution -- the organizers of this movement have set a target of 2012 -- could end up being counter-productive. Even should the deadline be met, if the groundwork is insufficiently laid by a full-scale educational campaign and extended debate, and the citizenry invested in the outcome by having participated at every stage, there is no guarantee that the new document will be approved by an electorate that has too often allowed itself to be taken in by anti-government and anti-tax rhetoric. In the meantime, equal energy needs to be expended in pursuit of other remedies, solutions that can be achieved more quickly and more cheaply, and that could make the need for constitutional overhaul less intense (if, for example, by initiative, the property tax rolls are split and the 2/3 rules replaced by the more democratic and more accountable 50%+1).

If you're interested in participating in creating a new California constitution, you better get involved now. Fateful decisions are already being made.
ReformCalifornia.Org (New America Foundation)
RepairCalifornia.Org (Californians for a State Constitutional Convention)
The big constitutional convention question: Who's going to fix California by Steven Hill (Los Angeles Times)
10 Steps to Repair American Democracy by Steven Hill (PoliPointPress).
Californians Want Change After Budget Impasse by Ina Jaffe (All Things Considered - NPR) Listen.

Change Watch: First timber sale in roadless area under Obama

Environmental activists hoped that Dept. of Agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack would impose a temporary moratorium on timber road-building in roadless areas. Instead, as Kate Golden reports in the Juneau Empire, the former Iowa governor is hawking timber in the Orion North roadless area of the Tongass, not surprising for a longtime promoter of industrial agriculture.  Barack Obama supported the roadless rule in his campaign, but Vilsack appears to have decided that "protected" wildernesses don't actually need protection and "roadless" doesn't mean without roads.

The U.S. Forest Service agreed Monday to sell timber to a Ketchikan mill in a roadless area of the Tongass National Forest after the Obama administration's approved the sale.

Orion North timber sale is the first such awarded since Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced in May he would personally review all timber sales in roadless areas of national forests in the next year.

He's doing that while the Obama administration takes some time to review the Clinton-era Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which banned road-building on about 58 million acres of national forest land nationwide but has been challenged since it was issued.

The rest of the story: Juneau Empire.

Take Action.

UPDATE: Obama asks court to block forest road building

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration says it will defend a 2001 rule imposed by President Bill Clinton that blocked road construction and other development on tens of millions of acres of remote national forests.

The rest of the story: Obama asks court to block forest road building (The Spokesman-Review/AP 2009-08-13)

Change Watch: Do we support democracy or not?

As I said during the campaign, on the foreign policy side, it would make no difference who won. Obama, Clinton, McCain...we would remain in Iraq, expand the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, continue to pursue a program of aggressive militarism (vide, Africom, our scheme to bring peace to Africa by militarizing it), and so on. What was the choice of Biden as veep but a wink and a nod to the military, the intelligence community and the foreign policy establishment that Obama was reliable? The Democrats could be counted on to put a more palatable spin on our activities overseas, but in no way to alter the fundamentals. So it was no surprise that we didn't act aggressively last month to restore the democratically elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, after he was driven into exile by a military coup.

...is the Obama administration simply trying to change the appearance of the USA internationally or are they attempting to shift US policy? The response to the Honduran coup seems to indicate the former. They do not want the appearance of the demonic Bush administration, but they are not prepared to support a Honduran administration which is allied with the likes of Venezuelan President Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales. Instead this starts to appear to be a Clintonian solution, i.e., a repetition of President Bill Clinton's approach to the coup people in Haiti in 1994. He-Clinton-was prepared to restore democratically elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide, however he would do so only under certain conditions (one being giving up on his populist economic program and the second being that he was only to serve out the remainder of his term despite the fact that years had been robbed from him). In the Honduran case, a "compromise" might be offered that simply restores President Zelaya but essentially neuters him.

So much for Honduran sovereignty; so much for a different US approach to foreign affairs....

-- The Honduran Coup, the Media and Obama by Bill Fletcher, Jr on Black Commentator

See also, No Justification for Coup by Bertha Oliva (Miami Herald 2009-07-15)

Technology: How CBS Evening News can become #1

And now, the news:
Everything sounds better with Auto-Tune.
Auto-Tune the News on YouTube.

Change Watch: Obama continues Bush policies on faith-based social services

The White House's Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (OFBNP), which oversees a network of faith-based and neighborhood partnership centers at eleven federal agencies, writes Sarah Posner in The Nation,

while still a work in progress, is plagued by a lack of transparency and accountability and has seemingly already been exploited as a tool for rewarding religious constituencies with government jobs--exactly the problems that marked Bush's faith-based initiative.

Indeed, the structure of Obama's OFBNP looks quite similar to Bush's: a White House office (now under the direction of 26-year-old Joshua DuBois, the former religious outreach director of the Obama campaign) guides the project overall. Mara Vanderslice, founder of the Matthew 25 PAC, which supported Obama, works with DuBois. In addition, the centers at federal agencies oversee the disbursements of grants to faith-based and community nonprofits, some of which will, in turn, train faith-based organizations.

The Obama administration has said the project will not just dole out money; it also intends to form nonfinancial partnerships with faith-based and community groups to deliver social services. But the financial relationships remain. For example, although Obama's 2010 budget eliminated the Compassion Capital Fund, the pot of money administered to faith-based groups through HHS in the Bush era, $50 million has been authorized in the stimulus bill for a new Strengthening Communities Fund, which will be disbursed to nonprofits and state, city, county and tribal governments to train faith-based and other nonprofits to help "low-income individuals secure and retain employment, earn higher wages, obtain better-quality jobs and gain greater access to state and Federal benefits and tax credits."

Watchdogs are concerned that, as with Bush's fund, controls are insufficient to ensure constitutional protections, transparency or accountability. "These problems will persist until this administration stops operating under the Bush-era executive orders and regulations that still govern the faith-based programs," says Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way.

The rest of the story: The Nation (2009-07-15).

Reform: Proportional Representation

For a discussion of a version of proportional representation especially tailored to fit California, see Remapping a Nation without States Personalized Full Representation for California's 21st Century by Mark Paul and Micah Weinberg (New America Foundation).

Torture: Democracy cannot survive without accountablity

Attorney General Eric Holder is considering appointing a special prosecutor to investigate whether crimes were committed by Americans who tortured prisoners in the wake of 9/11. It goes without saying that torture is contrary to American values. It is also against the law. In the aftermath of World War Two, at the war crimes trials at Nuremberg, we held the architects and engineers of Nazism responsible for Germany's actions in violation of international law and civilized behavior. Today, justice will not be served equally if only low-level soldiers and security personnel are held accountable for crimes that were planned and executed at the highest levels of government. Holder is getting resistance from within the Obama White House and will need public support if he is to proceed. But it is important that, if he does go ahead, no compromise be struck that allows the appointment of a prosecutor who is prohibited from following the evidence up the chain of command.

Working Assets' CREDO Action has ginned up a petition to help the A.G. stick to his guns:

"Attorney General Holder, it is your duty to uphold the constitution and protect the rule of law. The evidence before you demands that you launch an investigation into possible crimes committed under the Bush administration and to prosecute if warranted. This investigation must not be limited to low-level foot soldiers, but should seek justice at the highest levels. Assign a prosecutor to investigate torture and do not rule out as targets architects of the Bush administration's torture program including former Vice President Dick Cheney and his legal adviser David Addington."

You can sign the petition here.

See, also: Clamor grows over CIA secrets.
Follow up: International Justice Group Takes Aim at Bush Officials (Washington Independent 2009-11-17)

Health Care: What will you not do for your country

Now that the nation's hospitals have offered to give up $155 billion in future Medicare and Medicaid payments and America’s largest private health care insurers say they'll give back as much as $2 trillion by reducing the growth rate of health care spending by 1.5% per year during the next decade, all to help defray the cost of President Barack Obama's health care plan, I've decided the least I can do as an average citizen is not to opt for expensive elective surgery during the same period.

Between now and 2020, therefore, I pledge not to get hair transplants ($10,000), Invisalign braces ($5,000), a neck and profile lift ($5,300), calf implants ($4,500) or buttock augmentations ($18,000 -- I know that sounds expensive, but I'm giving up a trip to Brazil), rhinoplasty ($5,500), otoplasty (as you age, your ears just get bigger and bigger -- $2,800 each or $5,600), and liposuction (hips -- $2,400; outer thighs -- $3,000; buttocks -- $1,800); plus non-surgical fees (figure $128,000 spread out over all these procedures), for a grand total of $189,100.

Doesn't sound like much compared to the billions and trillions being donated by the hospitals and insurance companies, but if even 1% of 300 million Americans make the same contribution I am, we will save $567,300,000,000, and be happy to do it.

Actually, I'm even willing not to have these procedures every year, increasing the savings ten fold!

So, my fellow Americans, the challenge is this: ask not what your country cannot do for you, ask what you can not do for your country.

Health Care Reform: Bill Moyers interviews health insurance industry whistle blower Wendell Potter

As chief propagandist for Cigna, the nation's fourth-largest health insurer, Wendell Potter helped the for-profit insurance industry hijack our health care system and put profits before patients. Now -- the scales having fallen from his eyes -- he reveals to Bill Moyers how the health care insurance companies are undermining health care reform. Here, for example, is what he has to say about the industry's campaign to discredit Michael Moore's Sicko.

Go. Watch the interview. Listen to the podcast. Read the transcript. Download the vodcast.

2012: Heeeeeeere's Sarah

I don't often agree with Tony Blankley, but he's right that Sarah Palin is far from "washed up" despite her resignation as Alaska's governor (she actually got a boost among Republicans by quitting). While it's doubtful she will be the Republican standard bearer in 2012, with the inevitable talk show on Fox or CNN, a huge campaign chest, and hundreds of grateful GOP candidates from U.S. Senators to dog-catchers, she may be in position by then to determine who is.

From here, it's difficult to see how Palin has hurt herself, except with people who already disdain her. No longer "part of the problem" as an incumbent politico, she'll be free to scurry from fund-raiser to fund-raiser piling up truck-loads of dough as she rails against big government. Conservative candidates at every level will be indebted for the cash and attention she'll win them in 2010. In 2012, well-funded and with a hard-core following, she will be key to the success of the eventual nominee -- whether it's Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or, as I fear, despite his high negatives, Newt Gingrich -- who will have to court her if he wants to hold on to the base. None of the other GOP presidential wannabes connects with the paranoid Right with the intensity of Sarah Palin. They adore her. As a result, she may more than influence the final outcome of the GOP competition; she may be the kingmaker.

For the nonce, a Rasmussen poll finds Palin in a virtual tie for Republican affections with Romney and Huckabee  (although her negatives are much higher than theirs). Romney is fully up to the job of sacrificial lamb, the next Walter Mondale or Bob Dole, but even though, currently, he seems to offend the fewest members of his party, it's difficult to picture him as the GOP standard bearer, if, as seems likely, the party appears to have a real shot at winning. Barring some unforeseen scandal, I think it will come down to Huckabee vs Gingrich; the former Arkansas governor wouldn't gain much from adding Palin to his ticket, but the slick ex-speaker sure would. And Palin's most likely path to the Oval Office is still through Number One Observatory Circle.

Gingrich-Palin 2012.* You read it here first.

Haven't had enough?: Part 2 of Sarah Palin's resignation press conference.

Update: another non-obituary of Sarah Palin -- She Broke the G.O.P. and Now She Owns It by Frank Rich (NYTimes).

Update: fortunately for us, we have Conan O'Brian and William Shatner to decipher Palin's speech:

* As a prophylactic, I thought I might register some urls. Guess what. Gingrich-Palin.com, GingrichPalin.com, GingrichPalin2012.com, and a host of other combinations are being husbanded by entrepreneurial types (or, possibly, political cranks)  in places like Tampa and Scottsdale. You've been warned.

Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics: The truth is out there (or the facts, anyway)

Ask FactCheck is a page on the Annenberg Public Policy Center's Political Fact Check site where a team of journalistic watchdogs responds to frequently asked and general interest questions from the public. Here are some recent queries:

Is it true that persons older than 59 can't get heart surgery in England? There's no such prohibition on heart operations in England, as a chain e-mail claims.

Is the ACLU suing to have cross-shaped headstones removed from military cemeteries? The ACLU has filed no such suit, and it hasn't sued to "end prayer from the military" either.

Was Obama rude to wounded veterans during a visit to the National Naval Medical Center? A chain e-mail that makes such a claim gets several facts wrong and is disputed by an official who was present at the meeting.

Is ACORN providing workers for the 2010 census? No. ACORN employees will not be taking the census. The group is one of more than 30,000 "partners" that will help publicize the event.

Go. Ask FactCheck.

Clip File: Long War Needs Long Peace Movement

"The simultaneous conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and beyond are all connected to the Pentagon strategy of 'the Long War' projected to last fifty years in 'the arc of crisis' that just happens to stretch across Muslim lands where there are oil reserves and plans for Western-dominated pipelines. The term 'Long War' was introduced by Gen. John Abizaid in the 1990s and is the perspective of counterinsurgency experts around the Pentagon and think tanks led by the Center for New American Security.

"The Long War will require a long peace movement, and a different one."

-- Long War Needs Long Peace Movement by Tom Hayden (Huffington Post, 2009-07-01)

Insurance Reform: Save The Insurance Companies!

In the fight over health care insurance reform, the underlying conservatism of many so-called liberal Democrats is being exposed. Sen. John Kerry is the latest, demonstrated by his proposal to delay the creation of a public option for 10 years by including in the legislation a "trigger" that would activate competition only if the insurance companies fail to control costs by 2020. The insurance industry had more than half a century to show that it can operate equitably and efficiently. It didn't. It hasn't. It can't. It won't.

Insurance companies like the public option because it will give them a government-supported refuse heap on which to dump people with expensive health problems while the companies haul off premiums paid by healthy folks. It's good business practice to cherry pick government contracts for goods and services that are cheap to provide while burdening the public with tough, costly problems. It's done all the time, in areas as diverse as security, transportation, education, utilities and prisons -- wherever public officials are too corrupt, stupid or craven to protect the public interest.

The plan providing for a publicly funded insurance option being advanced by the administration and supported by most senate leaders (even Arlen Specter wants a public option provision) already represents a retreat from progressive policy. Universal public insurance -- the so-called single-payer system most familiar to us because it is the way that Canada provides for its citizens -- that removes insurance overhead and bureaucracy from the health care system is the method used in most countries, for good reason. It would be understandable that Kerry would support his president's proposal. But his effort to undermine even the public option can only be understood if you accept that the debate in the senate is not over the health of the people but the health -- the continued profits -- of the insurance industry.

Insurance companies have failed to control costs and rein in greed in the more than 60 years since FDR, in his call for an "Economic Bill of Rights," cited "the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." Senator Kerry has to know the insurance companies aren't going to change now and or in ten years or in another half century, as he agreed when he supported the immediate adoption of the public option when it was first proposed by the president. Yet now he is willing to undermine the best chance this country has had to catch up with the rest of the world in providing its citizens with universal access to health care by neutering the White House's already timid proposal.

As the wealthiest solon, John Kerry is probably beyond the reach of corruption. And, although it's possible that a privileged lifestyle has rendered him clueless about the lives of the ordinary citizens he claims to represent, there is no evidence he is stupid. Maybe he's just too craven, too pitifully afraid of being called bad names -- radical! anti-capitalist!! oh, horrors, socialist!!! -- by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to stand up for the people against the powerful, greedy and unscrupulous insurance industry.
Or maybe he's just another of the corporatist shills who sit like obedient school children in the semicircle of desks on the senate floor waiting for industry lobbyists to teach them what to do.