Open Left - Democrats

Tell Obama: We need a strong climate bill

daveschwab — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:14:48 GMT

Recently, world leaders announced some deeply disturbing news: they gave up on reaching a binding climate deal at the upcoming Copenhagen conference. [1]

A major impediment was the refusal of President Obama and Congress to enact tough cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

We've got to turn that around. Immediately.

Tell Obama and Congress to commit to a 40% reduction in greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by 2020.

Right now, the most ambitious target that Obama has endorsed is a 3.5% reduction in emissions by 2020. [2]

That's pathetic, compared to the 25-40% reduction that we need to have a 50:50 chance of avoiding disastrous runaway global heating, according to the International Panel on Climate Change. [3]

The United States ought to lead by example. We can do it with strong emission reductions.

Tell Obama and your Members of Congress to commit to tough emissions reductions today.

A graphic showing just how little has changed over the past year

Chris Bowers — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:30:00 GMT

Since August 15th, President Obama's job approval rating has mirrored the results of the 2008 election almost precisely. By superimposing the results of the 2008 election over Pollster.com's graph of Obama job approval rating since August 15th, you can see just how little has changed politically over the past year:

The graph adjusts for the undecideds in Pollster.com's job approval rating by multiplying the 2008 results, Obama 52.87%--45.60% McCain, by 0.9633. (This figure is derived by taking the 5.2% undecided in the Pollster.com graph, subtracting the 1.53% that voted for a third-party candidate in 2008, and then subtracting the resulting 3.67% from 100%.)

For the past 95 days, President Obama's approval rating has hovered in a very tight range, between about 50.5% and 52.0%. Similarly, his disapproval has also hovered in a narrow range, from about 42.5% to 45.0%. Both narrow ranges are neatly bisected by the results of the 2008 election, when those results are adjusted for undecideds.

For President Obama, essentially nothing has changed politically since November 4th, 2008. He has as many supporters as he did back then, and as many opponents. From November 5th through August 14th, his approval rating was unnaturally inflated by soft supporters who had actually backed McCain in 2008. Now, however, his coalition has shed all of those soft supporters, and has entered a period of balance nearly identical to that just before the 2008 elections.

The same can not be said for Congressional Democrats. One year ago, House Democrats won the national popular House vote by 8.88%, but are currently leading Republicans by just 3.19% in the national House ballot. Similarly, the Democratic edge is partisan self-identification stood at 10% (39%-29%) on Election Day, 2008 (according to exit polls), but now stands at 6% (40%-34%).

So, it would appear that President Obama has been able to maintain a bit more buoyancy than the rest of his party. This could perhaps be viewed as a political benefit to taking a relatively hands-off, "congressionalist" approach to major legislation such as the stimulus, climate change and health care. Then again, one could counter that passing that major legislation earlier, and making that legislation stronger, would have been more of a political benefit and could have been accomplished with a more hands-on approach.

On Determining Impact, Or, How Stimulative Is Stimulus?

fake consultant — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:49:47 GMT

We strive to be, if anything, a participatory space around here, and I've had a question come to my inbox that is very much deserving of our attention.

To make a long story short, our questioner wants to know why, on the one hand, despite the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, also known as the "stimulus"), unemployment in the construction industry continues to increase, and, on the other hand, why there is such a giant disparity, on a state-by-state basis, in the cost of saving a job?

They're great questions, and, having done a bit of research, I think I have some cogent answers.
A few facts will help set the stage:

I post on numerous sites, one of those being Blue Oklahoma, and about ten days ago I received an email from a reader who wanted me to know that he had data up regarding how effective stimulus dollars are at creating construction jobs.

He also wondered if I would be willing to blog about his work, which is itself posted in the form of a blog, with handy charts and graphs; I'll quickly summarize what he had to say for your dining and dancing pleasure:

Although the goal of the stimulus was to create construction jobs, today's data suggests that roughly 10 times as many jobs were lost in the construction industry in the recent past 12 months (September 2008 - September 2009) than were created by the stimulus efforts this year to date.

"The major question surrounding the ARRA and the construction industry on this reporting deadline is: How many construction jobs has the stimulus bill actually created or retained?"
--Chris Thorman, "State by State: Is the Stimulus Bill Creating Construction Jobs?" [emphasis is original]

In the blog he reports that if you were to go to the Recovery.gov website, download the state summary data located there, and then do a bit of quick math, you'd find that:

"...the ARRA has created or saved 73,352 construction jobs across the nation at a total cost of $15.8 billion since the bill was signed into law.
That's $222,107 per construction job."

He has also created a chart, that is intended to show, on a state-by-state basis, the cost per job-and there is enormous variation in the results, from a low of $47,536 in Minnesota to a high of $535,171 in California.

As a result, he's come to this conclusion:

"Jobs are being created and saved but nowhere near a rate that will allow the stimulus bill to claim victory over construction unemployment."

So the question for us becomes: how solid is his analysis?

In order to get a better answer, I decided to examine some of the underlying data supporting his conclusions-and to put it as gently as possible, the numbers that we're seeing today are a bit...squishy.

There are a couple of reasons why, which, naturally, require a couple of quick explanations. (This is a "quick and dirty" education; there are exceptions to some of what you'll see described below.)

Right off the bat, it appears that identifying exactly how many jobs are being saved is more difficult than it seems-but before we can really understand that, we need to take a moment and understand exactly how jobs are counted.

If you work 40 hours a week, which is the equivalent of a full-time job, you would equal one (warning: technical term ahead) "Full Time Equivalent", also known as an FTE. Two people, each working 20 hours a week, are also one FTE, as are any other combinations that you can come up with that get you to 40 hours a week. From here on, when we use the word "jobs", we also mean FTEs, and vice versa.

The rules of the stimulus program are unique unto themselves, and one of the unique rules, at least for the moment, is that overtime hours don't count when counting FTEs; since we're talking about the number of construction jobs the stimulus might be creating, and about 25% of construction jobs involve overtime work, this rule is probably distorting the outcome.

States are also having problems translating FTE tracking systems they already have in place into the new Federal FTE definitions being used to figure out how many jobs are being created with stimulus funds.

An example of this problem is laid out in a document from the University of Connecticut (UConn) describing how their FTE reporting is going. The State FTE tracking system uses "cumulative" reporting, the Federal system, "incremental" reporting; the only thing you need to know about the two systems is that, quoting from the report:

"...At no time would the state and federal FTE figures match."

There's another issue in play here: this is a brand-new bureaucracy, and everyone is still "finding their way", on both the State and Federal sides. Here's another quote from the same UConn progress report:

"Note #2: We have experienced challenges in reporting, primarily with formatting issues. Solutions include working directly with OPM (the State's Office of Policy and Management) and the respective OSPs (the University's Office for Sponsored Programs) to enhance timeliness and formatting accuracy. The reports submitted June through September 2009 were definitely part of the learning process. Currently, we are working directly with the respective OSPs to ensure the correct reporting templates are used for state reporting purposes.

Put all that together, and you have a collection of "structural" issues that will probably cause the "real" construction FTE numbers to be somewhat different from today's "reported" numbers by some currently unknown amount that can probably be "estimated out" later on.

The biggest distortion in statistics, however, is a "timeline" issue, and it's because trying to estimate the "cost per FTE" at the beginning of construction projects is inherently problematic.

To illustrate this point, let's drill down to one individual project and see how things work:

Award number OK56S09550109 was granted to the City of Shawnee's Housing Authority to modernize the HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) system at a public housing development. The current reporting is that $856,585 was awarded for the work, for which 2.5 FTEs have been reported.

However, as of the reporting date only $61,674 has been expended (or $70,084--both numbers appear on the same webpage); that money going to Childers-Childers, Architects.

The 2½ FTEs are .5 each of two administrators and 1.5 architects.

Obviously there will be more jobs created as this project moves from design to construction, and the estimate of roughly $340,000 per FTE that could theoretically be cited as accurate today will no longer be valid once a bunch of people show up and actually start installing stuff.

In fact, it could be reasonably argued that the "correct" number is $24,669 per FTE (or $28,034), based on the amount expended and jobs created to date.

This "timeline issue" is a statistical problem that Thorman himself acknowledges in his blog:

"With 73,352 jobs created/saved during this reporting period, the number will undoubtedly go up in future months as more projects begin and as more projects enter more labor-intensive phases. The construction jobs created/saved by the stimulus will likely get better before they get worse."

(Just for the record, a third method you could use to count FTEs would be to divide total grant awards against total estimated construction employment throughout the lifetime of these projects.)

You may recall that the reason we're having this discussion is because we are trying to come to some conclusion about what impact the stimulus is having on creating jobs-or, alternatively, creating even more geeky FTEs.

Well, having looked at the thing all the way down to the individual project level, it may be that the best answer that's available...is that there's no answer yet available.

With that in mind, my conclusion is that we will need some time to create a large enough "statistical universe" of completed or nearly-completed projects before we can begin to make useful extrapolations about the stimulus' future success, and my guess is that it will be six to 12 months before that threshold is reached...which means I have no idea whether the stimulus is creating or will create a sufficient number of construction jobs relative to its budget, and it may well be summer of 2010 before we do know.

And that, my fellow political observers, has the potential to make the '10 Congressional midterms very, very, interesting.

Democrats as a whole becoming more like the Progressive Caucus

Chris Bowers — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:26:10 GMT

What percentage of Democratic voters are one or more of the following?

Self-identified not-"white non-Hispanic" (39%)
Self-identified non-Christian (28%)
Some form of vegetarian? (14%*)
A union member (13%)
Not self-identified heterosexual (7%)

(* With 10% of the country following some form of vegetarian diet, this number is based on the assumption that vegetarians break Democratic 3-1, which is a margin very similar to the LGBT community, non-Christians, and not "white non-Hispanic."

Also note: Women are also disproportionately Democratic. However, unlike all the other groups listed here, women make up a significant percentage of Republican voters, too.)

Even though there is some overlap between these categories, the vast majority of Democrats fall into at least one of these five. And by "vast majority," I mean "over 70%."

Now, of course there is still a not-insignificant straight, meat-eating, non-union, white Christian contingent within the Democratic Party rank and file. However, that group is older than the rest of the party, and as such continues to shrink as an overall percentage of Democratic voters. Non-whites, non-Christians, LGBTs and vegetarians are all disproportionately under the age of 50, which will make future incarnations of the Democratic Party even more skewed toward these groups. This process is accelerated even further by Republicans targeting their messaging, and making the vast majority of their gains, among Americans who do not fit into one of those five categories.

I write--or at least attempt to write this--in a value-neutral sense. It isn't good or bad, it is just who the Democratic Party is at this point. It is significantly not-"white non-Hispanic," and the "white non-Hispanic" segment is significantly vegetarian, non-Christian or non-straight. Among Democratic voters who fit into neither of these groups, it is significantly union. Further, demographic and political trends will only make this more so in the future. The end result will be a Democratic Party that looks much more like that Congressional Progressive Caucus, and a Republican Party that includes the Blue Dogs and Conservadems.

More in the extended entry
This departs from my prognostications in the past in that I now see it more as a description of the future of the Democratic Party than a likely future progressive governing majority. Through a combination of a long-term decline in immigration (already underway), and by capturing an even larger percentage of the white Christian vote (a process that is long underway), Republicans and conservatives can stay competitive with Democrats electorally for a long time to come. However, this will also necessitate that states and congressional districts currently occupied by Blue Dogs and Senate Conservadems shift toward Republicans, remaking the demographic and cultural composition of the Democratic Party.

Over the long-run, Democrats in Congress will look more like the Progressive Caucus. Right now, the CPC is only group of Democrats in Congress who are representative of the Democratic rank and file. At least 74.7%, or 59 of 79, of the full-voting House members of the CPC are one or more of the following: non-white, non-Christian, or non-straight. Among all other full-voting Democrats in the House, that percentage is only 23.5%, or 42 of 179.

That is an astounding gap. It is also temporary. With such a large percentage of the Democratic rank and file fitting into the five categories described at the top of this post, almost inevitably more Democratic candidates for higher office will fit into those categories, too. Gradually--or maybe not so gradually, if a major Republican wave takes out hordes of Blue Dogs and New Dems in 2010--Democrats in Congress will become demographically and culturally more like members of Progressive Caucus.

This shift is also partially responsible for the current disconnect between Democratic leaders and the Democratic rank and file. The vestigial Blue Dog wing of the party bears little cultural and demographic resemblance to rest of the coalition. In fact, as we have written in the past on Open Left, in this regard it is far closer to the Republican Party than to other the Democratic Party. This is both why there is a major problem in passing progressive legislation right now, and why that wing of the Democratic Party is eventually going to be largely swallowed up by Republicans.

It is in this sense that President Obama can actually be understood as a transitional figure. Obama is able to connect the non-white, cultural progressive, and New Democratic branches of the Democratic Party all at the same time. He has also altered the national political landscape, in that the areas with the largest concentration of white Christian Democrats--which happen to coincide with the areas represented by Blue Dogs--are now the most Republican voting areas in the country. It wasn't long ago that Democrats were competitive in places like Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia were competitive in Presidential elections. Now, those are 5 out of the 14 states that John McCain won by 13% or more. Don't expect them to come back to the fold on the national level anytime soon, either (although the situation is very different in most other parts of the South).

Finally, this shift will also result in figures like Sarah Palin will playing a larger role in the future of the Republican Party. Digby points out that, despite her shortcomings as a candidate in other ways, Palin is good at making jokes about liberal cultural adherents, such as vegetarians, and how this endears her to the social conservative base. As the two parties become even more divided along cultural and demographic lines, more of the successful, conservative, Republican figures will demonstrate this ability.

It is also possible that the coalitions will rearrange themselves, and new dividing lines may form. In fact, this is inevitable, as it is a process that has occurred throughout American history. But from the vantage point of the now, the outlook of the two major coalitions over the next twenty or thirty years points almost entirely to an expansion of the cultural and demographic divide we are already witnessing.

2008 Electorate: A Few More Tidbits

dreaminonempty — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:55:15 GMT

This last diary in the 2008 Electorate series has bits and pieces that I didn't develop into full diaries, mainly maps from the exit polls. Below you'll find a bit about Democratic loyalty, education gaps in voting behavior, and where rural voters liked Democrats.
Democrats and Dixiecrats

It turns out there's still Dixiecrats hanging about in the South - not so many now, but they're there, concentrated in the Old South and extending parts of the Upland South as well:

Click to enlarge. See note about color.

Meanwhile, party loyalty generally increased among Democrats in the West, Upper Midwest, Northeast, and New South:

Click to enlarge.

Town and Country

The story of the urban/rural divide this year was actually the suburbs, where Obama basically tied McCain. Rural voters are not as skewed as is typically thought, voting Democratic in the Northeast and parts of the Midwest and West.

Click to enlarge.

Town and Gown

In education, we saw the Republicans lose the most educated vote as they became the party of ignorance, anti-science, and Sarah Palin. Although there is the glaring exception of the rice belt.

Click to enlarge.

________________________________________________
This diary is the last in a series taking a close look at the 2008 electorate and exploring three themes: diversity within demographics, progressive feedback loops, and demographic change. One final diary summarizing the series may be forthcoming next week.

Previous diaries:

Looking Back
Alternate History
Why Republicans Should Be Really Scared - Race
African-Americans - We Are Not All of Us Alike
East and South Asian Americans - Diverse and Growing
West Asian Americans - Rapid Change
Native Americans - Increasing Participation
Islander Americans - In Need of More Representation
Alaskan Natives - An Economic Factor?
Latino Americans - Increasing Influence
European Americans - Tribal Politics Persist
"American" Americans - You Might Be Surprised
White Evangelicals - Influence Beyond Their Numbers
Appalachia - Surprisingly Democratic
Why Republicans Should Be Really, Really, Scared - Religion
Why Republicans Should Be Really, Really, Really Scared - Age

Cross posted at DailyKos.

Time for 'The Chicago Way'

jcullen — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:21:50 GMT

From The Progressive Populist

Much of the debate on health-care reform has concerned the creation of the "public option," which is limited in scope and would not take effect until 2013, and the amendment demanded by Catholic bishops that would expand the prohibition on federal funds paying for abortions to also prohibit subsidized private insurance coverage for abortions. But HR 3962 (the Affordable Health Care for America Act), as it emerged from the House on Nov. 7, would provide important help for middle-income families immediately. Effective Jan. 1, it would stop insurance companies from arbitrarily rescinding coverage when patients file claims. It strips the health insurance industry of its exemption from antitrust laws covering market allocation, price fixing and bid rigging. And the bill would end lifetime caps on how much insurers will cover, which is a leading cause of family bankruptcy
It also would provide the following relief for working families in 2010:

• A $5 bln insurance program to help get coverage for high-risk people who are turned down by private insurers.

• Ending "rescissions" - by which insurers nullify coverage when patients file claims - except in case of fraud.

• Ending the lifetime caps on how much insurers will cover.

• Allowing young people to stay on their parents' policies until age 27.

• Allowing workers who have lost coverage because they lost their job to extend COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place.

• New incentive programs to increase the number of primary-care doctors, nurses and public health professionals.

• Funding for community health centers to double the number of patients the centers can see.

• A new $10 bln fund to help employers pay for coverage for early retirees.

• For seniors, it eliminates co-payments for preventive services under Medicare and reduces the "donut hole" in Medicare prescription drug coverage by $500 and give seniors a 50% discount on brand-name drugs in the donut hole in 2010. Right now Medicare doesn't cover any drug costs between $2,700 and $4,050. The donut hole will be phased out by 2019.

(See also Dispatches)

By 2013, HR 3962 would create an exchange in which millions can buy insurance - including the choice of a public health insurance option to compete with insurance companies. Businesses with payrolls greater than $500,000 would have to pay at least 72.5% of their employees' insurance and 65% of family coverage. Small businesses would get tax credits to offer health coverage. Lower- and middle-income families up to 400% of the poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) would get federal subsidies to help them buy insurance.

The bill also would end denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions and it would end co-payments for preventative care.

The bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices for Medicare and it requires pharmaceutical companies to rebate the government for drug overcharges that arose after 2003 when low-income elderly people who got their drugs through Medicaid were enrolled in Medicare Part D.

Under the House bill, 36 million uninsured Americans would become eligible for coverage. Medicaid would cover 15 million of the poorest children and adults while 21 million would buy coverage on a national national insurance exchange, either from private plans or from the government-run "public option" with the federal subsidies for low- and middle-income families. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 6 million people would choose the public plan, making it a relatively small player.

Among major differences between the two chambers, the House bill would require employers to provide coverage; the Senate does not.

The House pays for much of the 10-year $894 billion cost with a surtax on people earning more than $500,000 a year (or $1 million for couples). The CBO projected that the House bill would cut $104 billion from budget deficits over the next decade. The Senate would impose fees on the health-care industry and a 40% tax on "high-value" insurance plans, which would encourage businesses to cut back on their benefits. That has organized labor as well as business groups howling. On financing, the Senate should defer to the House, which is responsible for originating tax bills anyway.

For those 36 million who will at least have a shot at getting insurance - and for the rest of us who have insurance but cannot be sure that our medical needs will be covered when they come up for review by corporate bureaucrats - we cannot agree with single-payer advocates who say the compromise bill is worse than no bill at all.

This bill will not be the last word on universal health coverage. If we elect more and better progressive populists to Congress, we can try to make it better. But this bill is an important first step.

Now that the House has passed its version of health-care reform, the action moves to the Senate, where grandstanding Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) renewed his pledge to join the GOP in a filibuster of any health reform with a public option.

If that's the case, if Democrats lose their 60th vote needed to shut down the Republican filibuster, Lieberman should be stripped of his committee chairmanship, since cannot be trusted on important procedural matters by the caucus. Then Democrats should proceed to pass a Medicare-for-All public option in the budget reconciliation, which is not subject to filibuster.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will try to attach an amendment to the Senate bill similar to Kucinich's stricken provision allowing states to proceed with their own single-payer plans. Good luck. But the Senate should reject the House's overreaching language restricting abortion coverage in private insurance plans.

So far it's been progressives who have been called upon to compromise on the principle of universal health coverage. It's past time for Democratic leaders to stiffen their backbones. Republicans like to call Obama a "Chicago pol" but we'd like to see a little more hard bargaining as we near the end-game of health-care reform. Democrats need to show the insurance lobby that the cost of obstruction is greater than the cost of agreeing to a compromise - which is what the House produced and the Senate is preparing to debate. The best way to get the insurance lobby to play ball is to make a credible threat that the alternative to a bipartisan vote in the Senate agreeing to the insurance reforms with a strong public option is a party-line vote that will put the insurance companies on the fast track to going out of business next year. That's the Chicago way.

See the entire editorial at The Progressive Populist. Reposted by permission.

Democrats Lose Elections. Wake Up, Little Susie.

NABNYC — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:50:22 GMT

Democrats Lose Elections. Wake Up Little Susie, The Party's Over.

Imagine working in the media right now. Every single time they check their e-mail, they're wondering if they'll find a pink-slip with their name on it. The entire profession is being thrown out of work, replaced by pornographic-spewing paranoid schizophrenic rent-boys working at Rupert Murdoch's whore house. No wonder the media is so desperate to try to increase public interest that they resort to whatever worked last: Elections!

So we've seen much coverage in recent weeks about these "critical" elections taking place "around the country" (not really) and pundits talking endlessly about whether the election results will signal whether Obama and the Democrats are succeeding or failing in keeping the public's loyalty. Much like the daily polls that we are fed telling us how much the public has been deceived and manipulated by the corporations. Example: do you favor affordable healthcare? 67% say no. Then the politicians say: Well, what can we do, the public doesn't want it. What a con they've got going between the corporate PR system, Rupert Murdoch's whorehouse, and the other one in D.C.

What elections were being held? Pardon everyone if you failed to notice. A dog catcher here, commissioner of elections there, school superintendent in some other place. Do any of these people have the power or authority to get a national healthcare system for Americans, to end these illegal wars, to invest in our own country and create good paying jobs? No. Not at all. But we see the governor of Virginia and New Jersey moved from the D column to the R column. Is this significant? Who knows. Who cares?

I suspect the Democrats will claim that because of these "disappointing" election results, they will have to do even less than they have already done, and since they've done nothing, that's a real challenge. You know, bi-partisanship and all. They pretend that they want the Republicans' support, but only 20% of the public is Republican. The Democratic leadership is ignoring the Democratic voters, their own voters, the progressives, the people who elected them.

Here's my advice to the Democrats: Wake up little Susie, the party's over.

We already heard one of the Democratic leaders in Congress say that a vote on a healthcare system is unlikely by the end of the year. Why? Just vote on the pending proposals for medicare for all. Or just implement the same type of system they have for national healthcare in Israel. Get a xerox copy of it and vote "yes." They don't even have to do any real work, because other countries already have the blueprint for how to make it work.

Take Israel, for example. Doesn't everyone in Congress love Israel, or at least love all the money they get from Aipac, love the Israeli program of genocide against the Palestinians? If Congress loves Israel so much, why don't they just adopt for Americans the same national healthcare program that Israel provides to its own people? Which, by the way, includes dental for the kids. I think we should have dental for everyone, since it now is being shown that dental care is related to many serious health issues such as heart disease and diabetes.

But let's just start with free flu shots. Do you understand that there is a deadly pandemic that could kill millions of people, and our own government refuses to get vaccines and provide them free of charge to all American citizens? Why do they hate us so much?

The Democrats should not only lose the next election, they should be disbanded, their leadership thrown into prison or at least have their heads shaved and be sent into exile. Honestly, what else do they deserve? They had a huge percentage of the public out raising money, donating, campaigning to get them in charge. Then we have a strong majority in the Senate and House, control of the white house and many of the States. The Republicans are down to 20% of the population.

What have the Democrats done with this overwhelming public mandate for change? They've used their dominance to solicit bribes from the big corporations, wall street, and all the rich people in the country, to enrich themselves and ensure that they can continue to buy their position in future elections. They have conducted what can only be described as shake-down operations of every major financial organization involved in healthcare. Obama holds secret meetings with the insurance companies, promises not to pass single-payer or medicare for all, and in return the insurance companies pay huge bribes to the Democratic party. Repeat the same scenario with the doctors' groups, the drug dealers, the hospital owners.

What have the Democrats done for the public to "reform" healthcare? If they compel 40 million Americans to buy health insurance, that will be another $50 Billion a year (per Kucinich) or up to $200 Billion a year (my calculations) stolen from the public and given to the Medical Industry, to the insurance companies, to the doctors, to the hospitals. What do I get out of this "reform?" Not a thing.

What have the Democrats done to create jobs for the unemployed? Nothing. What have they done to end these illegal wars in the middle east? Nothing. What have they done to rescind the Bush/Cheney evisceration of the Constitution? Nothing. What have they done to bring to justice those who started these illegal wars, those who have engaged in a program of kidnapping, torture, and murder? Nothing. Any efforts to indict, prosecute, imprison the Wall Street criminals who have stolen our money, to seize their assets and really save the country and the world? Nope. The Democrats are too busy collecting "donations" from Wall Street to enforce any laws.

As far as I'm concerned, a lifelong Democrat, I will not vote Democrat next year, or maybe ever again. I would never vote for a Republican, but I'll either vote for a progressive independent or not vote at all. Something I've never done in my life. But these Democrats have convinced me there is no point in voting, the parties are essentially the same. Corrupt.

http://NABNYC.blogspot.com

Blue Dogs set to lose, urge other Dems to be like Blue Dogs

Chris Bowers — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:00:00 GMT

While there is some drama in tonight's elections--most notably in Maine and New Jersey--there is little to no drama in the two prominent campaigns featuring conservative, Blue Dog style Democrats. In Virginia, Creigh Deeds is going to get crushed by Bob McDonnell. In the New York 23rd congressional district special election, Bill Owens is likely to get trounced by Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

Even though conservative Democrats are about to lose--and lose hard--at least one Blue Dog is none the less declaring that these defeats are a sign that Democrats as a whole should act more like Blue Dogs. Representative Jason Altmire:

Centrist Blue Dog Democrats might see their position strengthened if Democrats suffer broader electoral losses, one Blue Dog member suggested Tuesday.

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) argued that an election night rebuke for Democratic candidates across the nation could lead some in the party to rethink their plans on healthcare reform and other issues.

"It looks as though the anger that has been boiling up the last couple of months is going to lead to a pretty high turnout from Republicans and from people who are concerned about increased spending," Altmire said Monday evening during an appearance on Fox Business Network.

The message here is that Blue Dog losses are a sign that more Democrats should be like Blue Dogs. Presuming that Blue Dog victories would also, in the eyes of Blue Dogs, be a sign that Democrats as a whole should be more like Blue Dogs, then really there is nothing that can happen at the ballot box that would not be a sign Democrats should be more like Blue Dogs.

In a way, this is actually perfect thinking for our current system of government. Wall Street crashes the economy, so give more money to Wall Street. Health insurance costs too much, so give them more customers with little competition. Energy and agriculture conglomerates are the largest polluters in America, so construct a climate change bill that gives those conglomerates tens of billions of dollars.

Blue Dog Democrats lose, so Democrats should be more like Blue Dogs. It all makes perfect sense, as long as your goal isn't actually for Democrats to win elections.

No Rescue From Democratic Misogyny

Natasha Chart — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:30:00 GMT

Thank Digby for reminding us how different the health care debate was when Democrats weren't ashamed of women. See, when Hillary Clinton was First Lady, it was all right to fight for women's access to a full range of reproductive healthcare services. Democrats weren't embarassed by that then, but times have changed.

In the House, Rep. Bart Stupak is trying to both effectively ban insurance coverage for abortion and enact a back door parental/spousal consent law that would apply to the whole country. How's that again?

In sum, the current House bill includes the Capps amendment, explained here by Rep. Lois Capps. I'm not a fan of the Capps amendment, this bill's exemplification of Democratic cowardice in defending women's rights, but one thing anyone with decent reading comprehension can gather is that it forbids federal funding for abortion by continuing the existing ban on same (the same ban that Obama now regards as a hallowed tradition, never to be challenged.) Rep. Stupak has lied, saying that the Capps amendment mandates federal abortion coverage, when it only says that at least one plan covering abortion must be available in the exchange alongside one that doesn't.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, because the majority of private plans now cover abortion, the Capps amendment is a step backward.

Stupak's main lie, popular among misogynists, is that because money is fungible, no effective barrier can be set up between federal premium dollars and coverage for abortion. This was flatly contradicted by the testimony of counsel to the Senate Finance Committee when they were marking up their version of health coverage reform. The Senators were told that not only was it possible to separate the funds, but existing plans already do this in relation to other restrictions on the use of federal money for health care.

Stupak's insistence, based on this lie, is that all women purchasing coverage on the national insurance exchange have to get separate riders for abortion coverage. This will effectively mean that all women on their family insurance plans would have to negotiate with their husband or parents directly and in advance for access to abortion services. Considering that most of the third of American women (around 16%, or a sixth, of the overall population) who have, or will have, abortions didn't expect to be needing them, it's rarely going to sound like a good use of family funds and could pose a serious problem for people who don't have sane, unconditionally loving families.

Stupak's rule will likely have much of the same chilling effect as a spousal and parental consent law. Also, it will further stigmatize those who've had abortions, by singling out women who need the procedure. Even though the lifetime likelihood of having an abortion is nearly twice, among women, the lifetime risk of prostate cancer in men, and not much less than a woman's lifetime chances of getting diabetes.

A Capitol Hill source confirmed to me that if the House bill is opened to amendments on the floor, leadership expects that conservative Democrats and Republicans will combine forces to enact Stupak's ban on abortion coverage in the insurance exchange. If the bill goes to the floor under a closed rule, no amendments allowed, Bart Stupak will have had a lot to do with it.

(More in the extended entry)
Adding insult to injury, birth control isn't on the list of essential services insurers are required to cover in a basic plan. Thanks, House and Senate! Probably another nod to the religous right, who also hate contraception.

For his part, Obama is merely sorry this divisive issue has to get people "distracted" from such an important debate. Obama's former Senate colleagues consider reproductive health a pain in the buttocks, with Reid having joined Obama in calling for a conscience clause in the bill. (Conscience clauses, btw, are also known as career plans for the extremely lazy.)

If the final bill shakes out as it looks like it's going to, it will be hard for me ever again not to think of Democrats as enablers for abusive partners who get their wives or girlfriends pregnant as a means of control, because their idea of a defense of women's rights to control their bodies has come down to an embarassed, apologetic shuffling of feet.

Update: Being a woman is not a cause. Also.

Dennis Kucinich and the Future Leaders of the Democratic Party

21st Century Democrats — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:56:49 GMT

(Cross posted from 21st Century Democrats)

Congressman Dennis Kucinich is joining 21st Century Democrats' Youth Leadership Speaker Series tomorrow (November 4 at 12:30 P.M.), inspiring and education young progressive Democrats across Washington, D.C.

We are excited to have the participation of Congressman Kucinich, one of the fiercest fighters for progress and the welfare of the American people.

Congressman Kucinich recently appeared on MSNBC's The Ed Show, where he said of the healthcare bills in Congress that mandate health insurance without a single-payer or other public option, "What we're looking at here is another way that Wall Street's speculative engine can be fueled, this time with the help of the [health insurance] premiums of tens of millions of Americans."
You may have heard about the Youth Leadership Speaker Series that we've been hosting here at 21st Century Democrats. Last week, on October 28th, we hosted House Financial Services committee Chairman Barney Frank and first-term Congresswoman Betsy Markey. The interns and students who came to the event had a great time; some were even inspired to sign-up for our field organizer training in December (more on that soon!). Just see what they had to say about Frank and Markey at American, George Washington, and Howard Universities.

Tomorrow, November 4th at 12:30 P.M., we're hosting the second session in the Youth Leadership Speaker Series with Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Senator Mark Pryor, and Congressman Tim Bishop. Like the last session, we'll be meeting in the Members' Room of the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.

Congressman Kucinich will talk about the importance of adhering to progressive Democratic values.

Senator Pryor will be speaking on consumer protection.

Congressman Bishop will enlighten the audience on improving access to higher education.

Following each speaker's prepared comments will be a question and answer session with the students and interns in the audience.

If you or any young progressive Democrats you know are in Washington, D.C. tomorrow and are interested in attending, RSVP here or visit our website at http://www.21stcenturydems.org for more information.

Of course there is a national element in tomorrow's elections

Chris Bowers — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:00:44 GMT

Tomorrow is not shaping up to be a great day for Democrats:

Virginia. Republicans will handily win the Governor's race after two terms of Democratic control. My final average on the campaign shows Republican McDonnell ahead 54.5%--40.8%, virtually identical to Pollster.com's 54.7%--41.0%
New York City. Michael Bloomberg will handily win a third term as mayor. The polls there show Bloomberg ahead by even more than McConnell, as he leads Mike Thompson. 52.2% to 37.8% (that is my average of the last five).
NY-23. No matter the endorsement that Democrat Bill Owens received from former Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava, it is likely that Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman will prevail. Of the last six polls to be released, Hoffman leads in four, and only trails by 1% in the other two. Further, Hoffman's voters are more locked-in, according to the cross-tabs of the Siena poll. Really, Hoffman has been surging for some time now, and I would be stunned if he did not win by at least 5% tomorrow.

Now, Democrats and progressives do still have decent chances in both New Jersey and Maine. As Adam and I discussed this morning, those two campaigns are almost pure toss-ups, with the odds perhaps slightly in our favor in Maine and slightly against us in New Jersey. Still, even if we win in both states, it will be more akin to holding a firewall to prevent a disaster then it will to the significant electoral gains Democrats made from 2005-2008.

On Wednesday, Democrats will be tempted to brush off these results as lacking in national meaning. There are undoubtedly local factors at play in all of these elections, and candidate / campaign quality always makes a real difference in the outcome of any election. However, as a group we should not delude ourselves. Compared to one year ago, Republicans have made measurable gains.

Party ID
November 2008 exit polls: Democrats +7-8%
November 2009 trendline: Democrats +5.2%
(The Democratic lead last year was 7% in the exit poll, but 8% in the Pollster.com trendline)

President Obama
November 2008 vote margin: +7.27%
November 2009 net job approval: +5.2%

National House Ballot
November 2008 vote margin: Democrats +8.88%
November 2009 trend: Democrats +6.00%

Across the board, Republicans have made a net improvement of about 2-3% in their national position from one year ago. Further, on top of this net Republican gain, Democrats are not as enthusiastic and well-organized as they were last year. The final Survey USA poll from Virginia shows McCain winning the likely voter pool 52%-43%, even though he lost the state 53%-46% one year ago. The final PPP poll (PDF) is less extreme, but also shows McCain voters outnumbering Obama voters in the electorate, 48%-47%.

So, Democrats are facing a twin problem of a national Republican gain of 2-3%, combined with lower enthusiasm among their own base. While it is not yet a recipe for Republicans to regain control of Congress, it is certainly a recipe for Republicans to make real gains in the 2010 elections. As a party, Democrats should address these problems rather than pretending they don't exist.

Update: Some people have asked about the special election to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10. The district is D+11, and the only poll shows the Democrat up by 10%. That 10% margin is a pretty good over / under to measure any national implications.

Karzai named winner in Afghanistan by Karzai appointed election officials after Abdullah pulls out.

btchakir — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:23:10 GMT

...so where does that leave us?

We've been waiting for Obama to make his decision on what to do with troops going into Afghanistan to attack Al Qaida (who aren't in Afghanistan any more) after the rerun of the election which was proven to be fraudulent and allowed Karzai to win.

Whew.

I'm really sick of our playing games in the world. With Karzai's brother accused of being a top Heroin Chief, with General McChrystal calling for more troops (while being criticized for his dealings with the Pat Tillman controversy), with a Civil War going on amid the Afghans that WE CANNOT CORRECT (just ask the Russians)... we are perceived as Occupiers and we should get out.
We won't.

The world is turning into an increasingly bad place where the interests of the United States are not served, security or otherwise, and where we continue to get in up to our necks. And Republicans and Democrats will fight with each other to see who can get us ending up in a worse position.

And speaking of Civil Wars... thinking this morning of our insertion into Afghanistan which is in the midst of what can be seen as a Civil War, I started to ponder the "Intellectual Civil War" we are currently experiencing right here at home. While it is not the bombing, kidnapping, house-to-house shooting kind of Civil War, ours has elements which spell out an equally destabilized future for those of us who grew up in the Post WWII Middle-Class environment.

Starting about thirty years ago, the Conservative Right set out to weaken and then, most recently, to destroy or at the least enslave the Middle-Class to be the exclusive tax-supplying funding source of an Upper-Class dominated economy. The fact that it was stretched out over three decades (a slow, slow war) made it almost invisible to the majority of Americans who were convinced that there was something called a "trickle-down" advantage to stopping the taxation of the top 2% or so of the economic population. Then, when it was too late to really make a change without unattached politicians who were not paid off by the corporate creations of that top 2%, we discovered ourselves in a world where a ratio of one Dennis Kucinich was put up against 50 or so "identified-as-liberals"... or, as I would like to call it, the "false democracy."

This "Intellectual Civil War" has battles, too, only they have taken on names like "Tea Parties" and have been controlled by outside players acting as puppeteers, and we have done little to cut the strings. Those of us in the American 98% that are being economically destroyed, robbed of affordable health care, impoverished by bankruptcies of government supported financial institutions and forced to see possibilities of our world turning around for the better dashed against the whining wrinkles of Joe Lieberman... we are left not knowing who to turn to, who we can actually believe is acting in our interests.

Look... I want to believe that Nancy Pelosi is going to do something to really get the Insurance Companies disabled when it comes to health care. I want to believe that Obama will see what's going on in the Middle East and issue the order for everyone to come home... now... and forget the crap about how many years it will take to get our weapons and ships and other facilities dismantled... bring the armies home NOW, have them pull out in the middle of the night on Wednesday (and if Karzai's government complains, tell them you'll be back IF they really have a fair election and IF they handle their own military and police actions... frankly, we'll never have to go back.) I want to believe that Republican leaders like John Boehner will actually call up Pelosi this morning and say "we're ready to help and compromise for the good of the country... what do you want us to do?" I want to believe that the sun will shine and the sky will be blue and everything will get better (and employment opportunities will turn up so I can be at work instead of sitting here at the computer bitching about everything)... I want to believe it. I'm just not able to given current conditions.

I want to see an end to our Intellectual Civil War. I want to see the opposing generals like Dick Armey and Sarah Paln and Michael Steele decide that they have enough and can ride off into the sunset.

Fat chance.

Under The LobsterScope

Paul Rosenberg is Wrong on healthcare

BobTegas — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:13:15 GMT

About a week ago, Paul Rosenberg posted a diary here that stated that healthcare reform doesnt have to pass this year. I have to say right now that I disagree 110% with that. Democrats must lock in reform before they lose the House and possibly even the Senate in 2010.
There is almost nothing Democrats can do to prevent Republicans from taking over the House in 2010. Every week, Charlie Cook moves more and more safe Democratic seats into the competitive column and I suspect it will continue.

The reason Democrats cant hold the House in 2010 is the economy. The unemployment rate is expected to peak in mid 2010 around 10%, which is almost certain to wash destroy the Democratic majority in the House.

We are living on borrowed time and the ONLY way we are going to see healthcare reform in the next 30 years is if it is passed before Christmas.

Reform has to pass before the Republican takeover.

Lose the Base, Lose the Election

Chris Bowers — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:00:00 GMT

New polling on the 2009 Virginia Governor's election is horrendous for Democratic nominee Creigh Deeds. Of the five polls where the majority of interviews were conducted over the last ten days (that is, since October 11th), Deeds trails by an average of 12.0%. The margin is the same whether you are looking at the median or the simple mean. With only 13 days until the election, it is highly unlikely that Deeds is going to make up such a large deficit.

Perhaps the most important factor in Deeds' impending defeat will be the lack of turnout among Obama voters. In 2008, President Obama won Virginia by a margin of 52.6%-46.3%. However, two recent polls, Survey USA (by 1%) and PPP (by 6%), show McCain voters outnumbering Obama voters within the 2009 Virginia electorate.

In both the Survey USA and PPP polls, Deeds scores 80% of Virginians who voted for Obama in 2008, and 5% of Virginians who voted for McCain. McConnell has 12% of Obama voters in PPP, and 19% in Survey USA. The Republican nominee also has the support of 88% of McCain voters in PPP, and 95% according to Survey USA.

As such, if the 2009 Virginia electorate had the same 52.6%--46.3% proportion of Obama and McCain voters as it did last year, Creigh Deeds would be 9% closer in both the Survey USA and PPP polls:

Survey USA (2008 turnout model in parenthesis)
McDonnell (R): 59% (54%)
Deeds (D): 40% (44%)

PPP (2008 turnout model in parenthesis)
McDonnell (R): 52% (47%)
Deeds (D): 40% (44%)

If the Obama-voting Democratic base was an excited in 2009 as it was a year ago, Deeds would still be losing, but he would be within striking distance. Instead, he is about to get wiped out, and decided to rev up the base with statements like this from last night (more in the extended entry):

At the final debate of race last night, Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Creigh Deeds said he "shared the broad goals" of health care reform, but would "certainly consider opting out" of a public option "if that were available to Virginia."

"I'm not afraid of going against my fellow Democrats when they're wrong," Deeds said. "A public option isn't required in my view."

Deeds has since backpedaled from this statement, but a campaign clarification at a press gaggle doesn't cancel out a televised debate. The damage is done: Deeds isn't afraid to go against Democrats when they are wrong. Fine. If that is the way he thinks, then I hope enjoys getting wiped out at the polls because Democrats don't turn out for him. At least, as the Democratic nominee, he ran on a campaign he could believe in: attacking Democrats.

Many Democrats still take it as obvious that moving to the right is the best way to win elections, because the Democratic and liberal vote is static and doesn't change. Deeds' predicament is a perfect example of why that thinking is stupid and self-defeating. Currently, he trails by 12%, but he would be 9% closer if Democrats in Virginia were as excited about his candidacy as they were about Obama's.

The liberal and Democratic vote is not static. It can vary both as a percentage of the total electorate, and in its support for Democratic nominees. For example, in the 2008 election, liberals were actually a slightly larger swing vote for President Obama than either moderates or conservatives. Also, in 2006, Democrats improved their share of the national House vote more from self-identified Democrats than from Republicans and Independents combined.

I am not arguing here that exciting the liberal and Democratic base is the most important aspect of a campaign for Democratic nominees. Rather, I simply wish to point something out that should be obvious to Democratic politicians and campaign operatives: both turnout levels and partisan preference for self-identified liberals and self-identified Democrats vary from election to election. Those variations will have an impact on the outcome of any given election, and are largely determined by the behavior of the Democratic nominee. As such, ignore--or even actively distance yourself from--the liberal and Democratic base at your own peril.

On Using Mr. Bullhorn, Or, DC Health Summit Thursday: Come Say Hi...Loudly

fake consultant — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:35:31 GMT

It was a long hot August for those who would like to see health care reform, as rabid "Town Hall" protesters proffered visions of public options that would lead to death panels and socialism and government tax collectors with special alien mind control powers that would use sex education and child indoctrination and black helicopters as the means for gay people to impose their dangerous agenda on the innocent, God-fearing citizens of someplace in Mississippi that I'm not likely to ever visit.

Part of the reason that opposition was so rabid was because health care interests were spending millions upon millions of dollars doing...well, doing whatever the opposite of giving a distemper shot to the angry mob might be, anyway.

So wouldn't it be great if all the CEOs of all those health care interests were to gather at one time and place so you could, shall we say, gently express your own thoughts regarding the issues of reform and public options?

By an amazing coincidence, that's exactly what's going to happen Thursday in Washington, DC, as the Patient Centered Primary Care Cooperative (PCPCC) holds its Annual Summit.

Follow along, and I'll tell you everything you need to know.
There are two important bits of setting up that are required to make this story work; and the first is to explain who the PCPCC is, exactly. To quote their website:

"The Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative is a coalition of major employers, consumer groups, patient quality organizations, health plans, labor unions, hospitals, clinicians and many others who have joined together to develop and advance the patient centered medical home. The Collaborative has well over 500 members.
The Collaborative believes that, if implemented, the patient centered medical home will improve the health of patients and the viability of the health care delivery system. In order to accomplish our goal, employers, consumers, patients, clinicians and payers have agreed that it is essential to support a better model of compensating clinicians."

The "patient centered medical home"?

Is that anything like "precious bodily fluids"?

Actually, the original idea was to create a "home" where a patient's scattered medical records could be gathered. Forty years later, the concept has evolved to a "home doctor" who coordinates all your health and wellness care from all your providers.

This is a huge shift in how care is delivered (and how healthcare dollars would be distributed), which is why the Collaborative has so many members...including seven of the top ten health insurers in the country.

I've been getting emails that tell me CEOs such as Stephen Helmsley of UnitedHealth and Angela Braly of WellPoint (insert booing and hissing here) will be present-and these are the exact people that you should be giving a "Town Hall-like" welcome of their own when they hit Washington.

Groups such as Democracy for America and TrueMajority will be working together to bring people who have been personally affected by the insurance crisis to the meeting-even though we're not invited inside to support something like, oh, I don't know...maybe a public option?

They want you to attend as well, to make lots of noise, and to send the message that we won't be ignored. It's a critical time in the debate, as there are Democrats yet to be convinced, and if you can be at this meeting it will capture media attention that could help move those Democrats to our positions.

The event takes place in Washington DC all day Thursday (from 9-4:30) at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, conveniently located at 801 Mount Vernon Place NW; just six blocks from the Executive Office Building and the White House complex...and, on its south side, just 50 feet from K Street, the "Glitter Gulch" of lobbying.

There's a handy Metro station, and if you walk to the south end of the Convention Center (the Mt. Vernon Square end of the building) you'll find that the American Federation of Labor occupies a building across the street from the Square on the west side-and National Public Radio occupies a building diagonally across the Square on the east side.

So if you're planning to be in Washington Thursday-or you've been looking for an excuse to visit-make a day of it: stroll by the White House, see lobbyists and unions and National Public Radio at work...and most importantly of all, make sure the CEOs of the health insurers in attendance get the same kind of rousing "Town Hall" welcome at the Convention Center that they spent millions of dollars to create in our own home towns.

In other words, bring Mr. Bullhorn-and the extra batteries.

Of course, I don't want to make this too much of a hard sell.

After all, it's not as if your life depends on you attending some-hey, wait a minute...actually, I guess it kind of does.

Democrats' H.C. "Reform": More Corporate Money For Them, Nothing For The People.

NABNYC — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:30:59 GMT

Democrats Use Their Control Of The National Government to Shakedown Businesses And Sell Out The People.

You know how they used to have all those movies about the Mafia, the Mob, the Dons, the Rackets, how they ran criminal enterprises and made money and killed anyone who got in their way.

You know why you don't hear about the mob so much anymore? Because they all put on nice suits and ran for Congress. They do the same things they always did, just in very expensive clothes.

For example, the Shake-Down. This is how it worked. Guido and Carmine would pay a little visit to the enterprising young family man whose entire family had come together and put up the money to open a pizza place in the neighborhood. Sal's Pizza signs were painted on the window, the floors were washed down, and a new business opened its doors. Then Guido and Carmine would stop by and explain how it worked: "We'd hate to see someone burn your place down, Sal, but if you pay us protection money, we'll make sure that doesn't happen. Say 10% of your gross." If Sal pays every week, everything's okay. If Sal doesn't pay, Guido and Carmine will send a friend to burn down Sal's Pizza. It's just that simple.

And that is the business model for the politicians in Washington D.C. The Democrats have perfected the model under the leadership of Bill Clinton who argued that the Democratic Party should take money from corporations and do their bidding, and abandon the working people, the poor, the excluded, the minorities, the unions, the traditional Democratic base. Bill's thinking must have been like this: "The corporations are the ones with all the money. If we want money, we need to go join their side."

I've said all along that the Democrats are just doing shake-downs since they got into office. First they had the big "Credit Card Reform" shakedown. They went out into the public and got the unwashed masses all riled up saying that Congress was going to get tough, they were going to pass some laws to "reform" the credit card industry. Then the Democrats went to the credit card industry, which is really the loan shark industry except the people wear more expensive suits. And instead of busting your kneecaps, they take the food off your kids' plates.

But the Democrats went to the credit card loansharks and said Look, either you pay us off bigtime or we will pass some laws to "reform" your loansharking industry. Thus the fix was in, the deal was made, the people betrayed. And instead of "reforming" the credit card and loansharking industry, in the only significant way needed, which is to limit the amount of interest they can charge, the Democrats made some meaningless administrative changes that will help no one. From now on, the loansharks have to send you a letter before they come over to your house to bust your face in. "Notice" is what you get. Thanks for nothing.

This whole "health care reform" craziness we've been hearing about for months now? Wash, rinse, repeat. It's the same deal as the credit card reform. Even worse, actually. The Democrats met secretly with the major corporations in the medical care industry: doctors' lobbies, health insurance industries, hospital owners, pharmaceutical companies (aka drug dealers) and cut a deal with them within 2 months of taking control of the national government. It was a shake-down.

The Democrats held a series of secret meetings with the health care corporate industry and cut deals with them starting in April of this year, set up phony organizations, got money to fund them, all to promote a health care "reform" written by the corporations which will get them Billions of dollars more every year, and which will get nothing for the citizens. There will be no healthcare reform to help the people of this country. Instead, the Democrats promised they would compel, by order of law, 40 million more people to buy health insurance. Do you know how much money that is? Say $5,000 per person per year. That's Two Hundred Billion Dollars that the Democrats promised to deliver to the healthcare corporations. Say the health insurance industry takes 30% off the top (which they do), that's Seventy Billion Dollars to them, with an additional One Hundred Thirty Billion Dollars to be paid out to the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical drug dealers. What a con. For the citizens, we get nothing.

You know what else the Democrats promised the health insurance industry? First, the Democrats will pass a law forcing all Americans to buy private health insurance, even if they can't afford it, and even if the coverage they get is worthless. But next, the Democrats also promised the health insurance industry that there would be no limits to the amount they could charge citizens for premiums every month. In other words, if the insurance company decides to charge you $10,000 per month as a premium, that's perfectly okay with the Democrats. After all, they get bribes and kick-backs from the insurance companies, so it's in their best interest to help their corporate friends loot the American public.

Who do you think came up with this brilliant idea of the secret meetings? Secret organizations set up between the White House and the health insurance industry and given phony misleading names like "Citizens for Healthcare Reform," to fool and deceive the public? The first ShakeDown meeting was in April, maybe two months after the Democrats took control of the government. They clearly had this in mind. But who? Rahm Emanuel is my guess, because he opposed healthcare reform all along, he wants to stay on the good (receiving end) side of corporate America because he plans to run for Senate, then the White House, and because the guy from the White House who attended all the planning meetings, got this whole thing going, was Jim Messina, who works directly for Rahm Emanuel.

By the way, I don't see the benefit of spending too much time berating Obama. He's Faust. He sold his soul to get the top spot, but he's had no effect whatsoever on changing anything. The people who run the Democratic party are the ones who bring in the most bribes from the corporations. That's it. End of story.

I mostly blame Congress, but hold Obama equally accountable because he's going along for personal self-aggrandizement: he wants to be reelected, he wants to claim that he got "credit card reform" and "health care reform," that he "won" the wars. I assume that when he leaves office, he wants the corporations to give him hundreds of millions of dollars, just like Bill Clinton got. His vanity and ambition seems to guide his every move. Any commitment to the public that ever did exist is no longer apparent.

The effect of the 2008 election is clear: Instead of having the Capone Family terrorize and exploit the public, we've now got the Gambino Family in charge. For your average working person, there is no change: a bunch of criminals stealing, lying, cheating, bribing law enforcement, making our lives miserable.

P.S.: the article below refers to Jim Messina from the White House being involved in these meetings. Messina works under the direction of Rahm Emanuel. Rahm Emanuel, when he was still in Congress, was known as Wall Street's favorite politician because he took more Wall Street money than anybody else. He is rumored to be planning to run for Senate from Illinois in 2012, and likely wants to run for President in 2016, and will want to have control of the big corporate money for his campaign: Wall Street (who he has protected by making sure the Obama administration gives them lots of money and does nothing to hold them accountable). And now he surely is going after the money from the medical corporations by opposing health care reform.

Emanuel already has a lock on the defense money because he supports war, loves wars, wants more war. He volunteered to work with the Israeli military during the first Gulf War but oddly chose to never serve in the U.S. military. Rahm Emanuel, chosen by Obama, is a corporate Clintonista pro-war Democrat in Name Only. As soon as Obama brought him into the White House, we should have known it was already game over. Actually, that and the decision to bring in Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Tim Geithner, Larry Sumners -- actually almost every person selected by Obama to serve with him in the White House is a pro-war pro-Wall Street money-grubbing corporate sell-out. We expect change from this gang of thieves?

Excerpts below, link to article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politi...

_________________________________

"At a meeting last April with corporate lobbyists, aides to President Barack Obama and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) helped set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform."

"The role Baucus's chief of staff, Jon Selib, and deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina played in launching the groups was part of a successful effort by Democrats to enlist traditional enemies of health care reform to their side. No quid pro quo was involved, they insist, as do the lobbyists themselves."

[NOTE: THIS STATEMENT, "NO QUID PRO QUO" IS REALLY PART OF THE COVER-UP. THE LAWS WHICH CONGRESS WRITES TO GOVERN THEMSELVES SAY THAT THE POLITICIANS CAN TAKE MONEY OR SOLICIT MONEY FROM ANYONE AS LONG AS THERE WAS NO "QUID PRO QUO" INVOLVED IN THE DONATION. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE POLITICIANS DON'T SAY OUTRIGHT "GIVE ME MONEY AND I'LL VOTE TO GIVE YOU TAXPAYER MONEY, OR PASS WHATEVER LAWS YOU WANT." INSTEAD, THEY ALWAYS PRETEND THAT THESE TWO THINGS ARE SEPARATE: THE POLITICIAN SAYS I WILL VOTE AS THE CORPORATION INSTRUCTS; AND THE CORPORATIONS SAYS WELL, JUST COINCIDENTALLY, WE WILL GIVE YOU HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN PARTY, BECAUSE BOTH PARTIES OPERATE THE SAME WAY].

"The result has been a somewhat unlikely alliance between an administration that came into power criticizing George W. Bush for his closeness to Big Business and groups such as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the American Medical Association."

"The previously undisclosed meeting April 15 at the offices of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee led to the creation of two groups - Americans for Stable Quality Care and a now-defunct predecessor group called Healthy Economy Now - that have spent tens of millions of dollars on TV advertising supporting health reform efforts."

[NOTE: THE MEETING WAS HELD AT THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OFFICES. YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS? THAT IS THE GROUP THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RAISING MONEY FOR DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE IN CONGRESS. I WONDER IF THE DEMOCRATS TOLD THE CORPORATE LOBBYISTS TO JUST BRING WHEELBARROWS FULL OF CASH. IT'S THAT BLATANT WHAT'S GOING ON.]

"In the most recent ad sponsored by Americans for Stable Quality Care, Obama speaks directly into the camera for 60 seconds, extolling the virtues of health care reform, while text at the bottom of the screen encourages viewers to visit the websites of the White House and the Finance Committee, which this week approved a 10-year, $829 billion health overhaul."

[OBAMA IS AN ON-CAMERA SPOKESPERSON FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY, BUT THE WHOLE THING IS BEING COVERED UP BY CREATING THIS PHONY GROUP THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY "SUPPORTING" HEALTHCARE "REFORM," WHICH IS REALLY JUST A GIVEAWAY OF TAXPAYER MONEY. THE FUNNY THING IS THAT OBAMA WOULD PROBABLY NEVER HAVE GOTTEN THE GIG IF ED MCMAHON HADN'T DIED. I THOUGHT HE HAD A LOCK ON THE COMMERCIALS SELLING CRAP TO THE PUBLIC.]

... "Days after the meeting, Healthy Economy Now's website address was registered, and meeting attendees began receiving unsolicited calls asking for cash for the coalition from Baldick, whose firm - Hilltop Public Solutions - had been hired to run Healthy Economy Now. In addition to PhRMA and the American Medical Association, the strange-bedfellows coalition included AARP, the American Cancer Society, the Business Roundtable, the advocacy group Families USA and the Service Employees International Union, as well as trade groups for biotech and medical device firms." [AARP IS AN INSURANCE SALES GROUP THAT FRONTS AS A PRO-SENIOR GROUP. THE FACT THAT THE SEIU WAS INVOLVED IS UNFORTUNATELY NO LONGER A SURPRISE, SINCE THAT UNION SEEMS TO ALWAYS BE ON THE SIDE OF THE CORPORATE RULERS, NEVER ON THE SIDE OF THE PEOPLE].

[THE ARTICLE ALSO SAYS THAT PHRMA, THE LOBBYING GROUP FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL/DRUG DEALERS, AGREED TO GIVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY IN EXCHANGE FOR THE DEMOCRATS AGREEING THEY WOULD NOT TRY TO FORCE THE DRUG COMPANIES TO LOWER THE PRICE THAT THEY CHARGE AMERICANS FOR THEIR DRUGS. WHAT A DISGUSTING DISCLOSURE].

"Allison [someone speaking on ethical issues] said that ... "What you've had was the Senate and the White House sitting down and cutting deals with special interests," he said. "I don't think that's quite what the American people signed up for when the Obama campaign said that they were going to limit the influence of special interests in this White House."
[THE COMMERCIALS FOR THESE PHONY GROUPS WERE CREATED BY]"AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by White House senior adviser David Axelrod, still owes him $2 million and employs one of his sons - and GMMB."

http://NABNYC.blogspot.com

Letter to Representatives, Senators, and the White House on Health Care Reform

Michael Kwiatkowski — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:26:13 GMT

The following is the basis for a letter to every U.S. representative and senator, and to the executive branch, regarding health care reform (or any other issue important to the left). It's meant to put the politicians on notice of what we demand, and what the consequences will be if they don't do as they're told.

Bear in mind something that should be plain to everyone reading this: the politicians are supposed to be working for Us, the People of the United States. We do not work for them. With that in mind, here is a letter on health care reform that can be applied to practically any issue of importance to the left.
Mr. (or Ms.) [Insert Name Here]:

As a concerned citizen and voter struggling to make ends meet, I have been following the health care reform issue closely. I have watched as senators and representatives have debated endlessly, not on how best to provide access to health care for every American, but on how best to deny Americans that vital access.

As you know, the Declaration of Independence asserts that among the rights endowed to us by our Creator are those to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that it is the function of government to secure these rights. To that end, the founders of this nation drafted a Constitution laying out what government may and may not do in the service of securing essential liberties. And since the Constitution has over time proven incomplete, amendments have been added that we as a nation may better live up to the high standards set down by the founders.

In order to fully enjoy the rights mentioned in the Declaration, we as Americans require that certain other rights also be protected. One such right is that to adequate health care, so that we may fully enjoy the right to life. Without access to adequate health care, millions of Americans must suffer ill health, financial ruin if they become sick or injured - which infringes upon the right to pursue happiness, and all too often, death itself. This is not in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Declaration of Independence. We exist in a system in which health care is rationed out on the basis of who has money enough to afford it and who doesn't, with insurers routinely denying authorization for treatment, payments therefor, and on numerous occasions, canceling insurance policies on the flimsiest of excuses so as to avoid paying for health care.

This is unacceptable in and of itself. It is wholly abhorrent for U.S. representatives to cater to the very corporations that have so crippled the health care system, in the interests of preserving the status quo. Currently there is legislation, H.R. 676 - which would cover every American under Medicare, languishing in committee without hope of an honest hearing or even proper debate in the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, senators from both major political parties representing large business interests continue to gut the already wholly inadequate legislation now being considered for debate.

Again, this is unacceptable. As a U.S. [senator or representative], your job is to represent my interests as well as those of the whole of your constituency. Our interests are not served when politicians routinely side with large business interests over ours. Therefore, this is what I am telling you: make every effort to block the sham bills now up for consideration from passing, and work to pass H.R. 676 - intact - so that every American may finally enjoy the right to adequate health care. If you do not do this, then you may forget about receiving either money, votes, or campaign support from me. I will gladly give those to any candidate for office, regardless of political party, who expresses a willingness and record to represent my interests.

Grayson Wins

Chris Bowers — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:35:59 GMT

Republicans will not introduce a resolution to condemn Alan Grayson on the floor of the House:

Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, a self-proclaimed "Democrat with guts," appears unlikely to be subject to a resolution of disapproval for suggesting that part of the Republican health care plan is for Americans to "die quickly if you get sick."

The Associated Press is reporting that a spokesman for Republican Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, who drafted a resolution of disapproval against Grayson and threatened to introduce it on the House floor, is suggesting that Price does not plan to do so.

It is almost unprecedented for Republicans to back down from their demands for an apology from a Democrat. And yet, that is exactly what happened here.

As I wrote last week, other Democrats need to take notice of this. You don't have to back down when the Republican smear machine comes after you. In fact, you can pick--and win--a fight with that smear machine, if you are smart about it and know who your allies are.

Update: More Grayson:

"Honestly, the people I deal with, the people I actually am across the aisle with every day, I don't think they care about ordinary people. I don't think that the Republicans in Congress actually have a heart. I'll be honest with you."

"But that's not the same as saying that they want you -- I mean, let's get straight what I said," he explained. "I said their health care plan is 'don't get sick,' and if you do get sick, then die quickly. And what did I mean by that? Because if you get sick and those bills are mounting, and you're in the hospital and you're feeling weaker and weaker, and you've got no way to pay for this, then what are they gonna do for you? Nothing. They're gonna do nothing."

That sounds about right.

Public Option Hot Potato

Chris Bowers — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Yesterday, the national political media was reporting that Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid, would make the final call on merging the Senate HELP and Finance bills. Now, Senate Democrats have passed that hot potato to the White House:

Senior White House officials are scheduled to be in the room throughout negotiations to merge competing Senate health care bills from the Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committees, with the expectation that they will make key decisions to mediate disagreements. In advance of the floor action to follow, Obama and top administration officials have been lobbying Senate Democrats to secure support for a final package.

"The White House presence in the merger will be huge, and it has to be," a senior Democratic Senate aide said Monday. "President Obama will have to weigh in on the most difficult issues."...

Democratic sources say Obama is going to have to make the final call on the controversial issues, including whether to push for the public insurance option.

What is really remarkable about this story is how it shows dumping the public option is not something either the White House or the Democratic Senate leadership want responsibility for. This is because the public option is not only overwhelmingly popular among the Democratic base, but because many progressive grassroots organizations and members of Congress have made such a big campaign out of it. They are afraid of the base on this one, and don' want to be blamed if the public option goes down. So, expect this game of public option hot potato to continue.

Now, here at Open Left, we always knew that it would be the White House making the final call. The process and the Democratic Party pecking order meant the White House would hold final say. This is why we joined with CREDO Action to petition President Obama on the merger of the two Senate bills--a petition which now has over 80,000 signatures.

Wall Street Bailout Thwarting Democratic Realignment

Chris Bowers — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:00:00 GMT

The $810 billion Wall Street Bailout is a loadstone hanging around the neck of the Democratic Party. It thwarting what should have been a realigning moment in American electoral politics. Upon regaining control over the federal government following the 2008 elections, Democrats should have been able to cement their image as, in the words of Al Gore, "the people versus the powerful." Instead, we have become complicit in perpetuating a federal government that is more responsive to the wishes of powerful moneyed interests at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. And so, our chances at realignment are slipping away.

More in the extended entry.
Ryan Lizza's inside look at the Obama administration's response to the economic crisis today in the New Yorker is worth a read. While economic analysis at the time--including the analysis of Christina Romer, the chair of the White House council of economic advisors--believed that $1.2 trillion in stimulus was needed, the incoming Obama administration thought that even asking for a stimulus of that size was not politically feasible. And so, as Paul Krugman repeatedly argued at the time, we ended up with about half of the stimulus we needed.

Maybe it wasn't possible to pass a $1.2 trillion stimulus in early 2009. However, this was due as much to Congress passing a $700 billion Wall Street bailout in October 2008 as it was to anything else. From October 2008 through February 2009, Congress did actually pass more than $1.2 trillion in economic stimulus. The problem was that, in the form of the Wall Street bailout, most of that money went to the same people financial institutions who caused the economic meltdown.

Perhaps the distinction between the stimulus and the bailout is clear in the minds of most economists and policy wonks, but it is not clear to many Americans. As such, passing the Wall Street bailout imposed a huge opportunity cost on the amount of money the Obama administration could realistically ask for in the February stimulus / jobs package. If they had not asked for $700 billion to hand over to Wall Street, they might very well have been able to ask for, and pass, the $1.2 trillion needed in the stimulus package.

Imagine if Democrats had passed $1.3 trillion in stimulus rather than $700 billion in bailouts and $600 billion in stimulus:

It would have worked better, thus improving economic conditions faster and more effectively.
(Even if you think that the bailout was necessary, it was not necessary for the Treasury Department, via Congress, to directly participate. The Federal Reserve Bank has conducted a mach larger bailout of Wall Street than the one approved by Congress and conducted by the Treasury Department. If a large scale bailout of financial institutions was actually necessary, then the Fed's seemingly unlimited bailout ability could simply have been increased to cover for the $700 billion Congress passed on. TARP was a small portion of the overall federal lending program to financial institutions, and as such a far cry from the lynchpin that saved us from disaster. The Wall Street bailout did not have to be done with any taxpayer money.)
The improved economic conditions would have made Democrats look better and more effective at governance. Further, the liberal economic philosophies under-girding the stimulus would now appear more sound to the electorate as a whole.
The improved economic conditions would have resulted in a smaller decline in immigration, a decline which is doing real damage to the long-term demographic trends that made a Democratic realignment possible.
Instead of joining with Republicans in handing over hundreds of billions to the same rich assholes who damaging the lives of most Americans, Democrats would instead have been standing up entirely for the millions of Americans who were hurt by those assholes.

Because of their original complicity, and current ownership, of the Wall Street bailout, Democrats now:

Have weaker economic conditions than were necessary;
Have instilled little confidence in the philosophies underlying their policies;
Are facing less favorable demographic trends;
Have muddled their image as the party standing up for average Americans against powerful, moneyed interests.

The political implications of this are that we are heading for a close election rather than a realignment. This is because, as Digby points out in a review of Michael Moore's new film, we handed over the populist, anti-corporate messaging to the teabaggers:

Having said all that, there is great, HUGE value in this movie as an emotional, populist polemic for the left, something I've been screaming about since the beginning of the financial crisis. It's extremely disheartening to see the administration and so many Democrats in congress completely ignore the political and policy ramifications of failing to engage in fundamental financial reform and fiery populist rhetoric at a time like this. This teabagger movement is happening in a vacuum created by a lack of interest in this topic by liberals who are so enamored of being members of the new "creative class" and the like that they aren't paying attention to the cynicism and anger that's reaching critical mass among average working stiffs out there. It's easy to dismiss it, but very, very foolish. The issues Moore raises in this film will be answered on the right with authoritarianism, militarism, immigrant bashing and violence. It's a recipe for disaster unless the left takes this on in direct, political terms.

It is incredibly frustrating that Democrats have both not implemented the policies needed to turn the economy around for most Americans, while simultaneously handing over the mantle of economic populism to right-wing corporate astroturf groups (some of whom are funded by the very bailouts they are protesting). I fear a generational policy and political opportunity has been wasted.

Not that we should have expected anything different given the Democrats we elected. Nothing in their actions or campaign rhetoric leading up to the 2008 elections would have given on the impression that we were electing populist crusaders willing to take on excessive corporate influence in government. Barack Obama central campaign plank was non-ideological bipartisanship, for crying out loud. Now, he is trapped by that image, as well as by the bailout. It is too bad, because if there was ever a good time for populist, progressive, anti-corporate leadership, its right now.