As I pick up the pace of work again, coming into the midterms, I have to get some stories cleared off the desk in order to make room for some others, and that's what we're about today.
We'll be talking about saving more than 300,000 of this country's most important jobs, and paying for it in a way that is not only good policy, but is a real problem for Republicans who are yelling "no new taxes!" once again while pretending they care about actually paying for actual spending and actually want to cut actual unemployment.
We have a bit of work to do today, but we want to keep it somewhat short...so let's get going.
Last week, House Democrats killed two provisions that could have given us the best health care in the world: single-payer. But we've still got a chance in the U.S. Senate.
Single-payer health care is the only kind that would both control costs and cover all Americans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had pledged to hold a House vote on single-payer, but she broke her promise, and did not allow the vote.
Even worse, Speaker Pelosi stripped a provision from the health care bill that would have allowed states to try single-payer.
As a final insult, the House approved an anti-choice amendment that will remove abortion coverage from millions of health insurance policies.
That's just not good enough.
Americans deserve a healthcare system that will cover everyone and won't bankrupt anyone.
Let's make our voices heard for real health care reform. Sen. Bernie Sanders has introduced S. 703, a bill that would create single-payer systems in every state to cover all Americans.
A plan to reform health care that includes a robust public option would actually cut the deficit, according to preliminary estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). For the purposes of this analysis, a robust public option was defined as one that reimburses doctors at Medicare rates plus five percent. The latest CBO estimate is critical for Democrats because President Barack Obama said he wouldn't sign a health care bill that adds to the deficit. (There's a double standard at work. Health care has to pay for itself or save money. But as Jo Comerford notes for Democracy Now!, the president has no compunction about bloating the budget with defense spending.)
As health care reform moves into the closed-door, intra-party negotiation phase, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi is emerging as a champion of a the public option. Pelosi has always said that she can't pass a bill without some kind of public plan, though she has wavered about how tough that plan should be on payouts to providers. But according to Brian Beutler of TPMDC, yesterday's "favorable CBO report seems to have settled all that, and Pelosi's decided to go all in for a public option."
And why not? A clear majority of Americans now favor a public option, as John Byrne reports in Raw Story. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published on Tuesday, 57 percent of respondents favor a public health insurance option to compete with private insurers. That's an increase of five percentage points in two months.
Two bills made it out of committee in the Senate, one with a public option (the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee's effort) and one without (the Senate Finance bill). So, proponents of the public option are putting pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to include one in the final bill. The Progressive Change Campaign is running ads in Reid's district asking whether he's strong enough to back a public option. Reid might be more susceptible than usual to progressive pressure because he's up for reelection and facing dismal poll numbers, according to Alex Koppelman in Salon.
The public option has come back from the abyss several times, thanks to a combination of popular appeal, political courage, and determined progressive activism. But Mike Lillis of the Washington Independent argues that Democrats shot themselves in the foot by taking single payer off the table early on. Single payer health care would abolish private health insurance and cover everyone through a Medicare-like system. It would be an easier and cheaper way to achieve universal coverage than any of the options Congress is considering now, but it's an anathema to the insurance industry.
As Lillis observes, a basic principle of negotiation is to ask for more than you think you're going to get and negotiate down from there. But the White House made a point of shooting down single payer in May and Congressional Democrats held but one hearing on the prospect. Talk about lousy business skills.
By choosing the public option - not single payer - as the left-most negotiating point, Democrats left themselves with few places to go but toward more conservative proposals for insurance reform, experts say, including the co-op model and a system of triggering public plans only if private insurers fail to meet certain cost and coverage targets. In the blood sport of congressional negotiating - which dictates that you over-ask, and then move toward your goal during the subsequent bartering - Democrats were asking merely for the public plan they wanted in the final bill.
While we're on the subject of preemptive concessions to unreasonable political parties, Amanda Marcotte of RH Reality Check describes how Democrats have bent over backwards to accommodate the anti-choice lobby on funding abortions under a public plan. Democrats have proposed elaborate bureaucratic workarounds to make sure that abortions are only covered by private money. Still, anti-choice militants like Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn) are accusing them of backing abortion fieldtrips for school kids. Speaking of starting high and negotiating downward, Dems should threaten to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal funds for most abortions. Let's see what the anti-choicers are prepared to give up in exchange.
In a sense, it's reassuring that legislators are taking the public option seriously enough to argue about how it might pay for abortions. If they didn't think we were going to get a public option, it would be a moot point.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
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.
I've been very disappointed by the level of discussion regarding the best choice for Barack Obama's vice-president. The series of "veepstakes" diaries on Daily Kos has been dominated by the mindset that the primary purpose of a running mate is simply to grab votes. The degree of support for moderate Democrats such as Richardson and Webb, not to mention actual Republicans like Chuck Hagel, has been bewildering to say the least.
We're talking about the vice-presidency of the United States. The country and the world are facing grave problems that need to be urgently addressed and the vice-president is the individual most likely to become the next president, either in the wake of a tragedy, or in 2016. While it is true that electoral strategy is an important consideration in selecting a running mate, it must be subordinate to the issue of who would be the best president. There is no point in campaigning for candidates with whom we largely disagree. That's not the purpose of democracy.
Given the complete and utterly appalling failure of the Congressional ethics committees to do anything to police members in the recent tidal wave of Congressional corruption, it is great to see the House finally pass a measure creating an independent ethis panel. Through all the blatant corruption of the past few years- Abramoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Jefferson, Ney, Doolittle, Renzi, Foley, Craig, Vitter, Sherwood, Gibbons, Lewis, Weldon, Frist, Burns, Sweeney, and God knows who else I'm forgetting or that we don't know about yet- the ethics committees have done virtually nothing. And members of both parties have liked it that way.
A friend of mine who consults for a Congresswoman, whom I can't name or my friend will get in trouble, told this consultant to back off on helping me push ethics reform in the 2006 election because "she liked going on junkets." Pelosi came under enormous pressure to back off on pushing this bill, and had to keep the voting machines open to round up the votes. And members of Congress were blatant in their attacks on it: Congressman Tiahrt said, "If you have a single ounce of self-preservation, you'll vote no."
Getting this done yesterday was a good thing. Pelosi and the groups that kept pushing on this in the face of really intense opposition deserve a round of applause.
So I think we're all so distracted with this presidential race and the Donna Edwards race and other exciting electoral things to really focus what happened in Congress yesterday. The House stood up to Bush, stood tall twice- once on the Miers/Bolton contempt charges, and the second time on FISA. They stood up to his bullying and the Republicans having a shit-fit, they did the right thing, and they deserve a huge amount of credit for that.
We have been justifiably frustrated at the wimpiness of the Democrats in Congress. They have driven us crazy on a lot of these issues and have not stood up to George W. Bush nearly enough. But yesterday makes me think that they are getting the message and are beginning to flex their muscles. Part of it is they are tired themselves of being bullied, and are finally coming around to the fact that they should do something about that. They are waking up to the fact that George W. Bush doesn't have nearly the electoral punch he used to and that terrorism is a scary issue but doesn't have nearly the electoral punch as they thought it had. And I think the progressive movement flexing his muscles in an arena like the Donna Edwards race mattered: Democrats are thinking, hey, we better respond to what Democrats want, or we're going to have our own political troubles.
I think all of this is coming together in a really exciting and healthy way. And when Democrats blow it, we've been very tough on them, and we should be. But when Democrats do the right thing, we ought to congratulate them and they did the right thing yesterday, twice. We ought to take time from the fun and excitement of the presidential race to stop and note that.
But - I was drawn to look at a DKos piece flagged in this comment to Mike's piece just now on the latest gladsome tidings from Iraq.
Now, the Lioness has been roaring round the TV studios in the last few days (has she got a book out?) talking about this and that. (Most notably, her appearance on The View and Whoopi Goldberg's lunch-losing proposition.)
The DKos piece homes in on an altogether more sedate perfomance on CNN, in which Blitzer pressed her on Congressional inaction on Iraq, and Dem supporters feelings thereon, including this exchange:
A couple of Hill pieces fill us in: yesterday, a meeting of faction representatives organized by John Larson discussed his proposed schedule of Iraq bills this fall.
(Larson, Vice-Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, was delegated by Pelosi to review with an ad hoc committee all the bills put forward by Dem reps.)
And then today Pelosi announced the fall program; first up,
It looks like the ACLU has launched another pointless "successful" Internet based campaign. "Successful" in that it will help them raise money and collect email addresses. Pointless in that it likely won't actually help anything.
I noticed an Ad over at Talking Points Memo. It was a flash ad, but I've captured the important frames so that you can get the idea.
To be honest, I like the actual flash ad. It gets the point of what happened, why it's bad, and offers a way to do something about it. It properly puts pressure on Reid and Pelosi to DO something about it. Finally, frames it as "restoring our constitution". So, when I first saw it, I clicked the link. That's when things went downhill...
First, it takes you to the following page. https://secure.aclu....
On the page it lists the text with some more detail.
Care about Your Privacy? Care about FISA.
For five years, on presidential orders, the National Security Agency has been reading email and tapping phones without a warrant -- actions explicitly forbidden by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Despite this 30-year precedent, Congress and the president colluded in a rushed Patriot Act-style vote just before the 2007 summer recess. The resulting legislation lifts longstanding protections between government spying and Americans' international communications. This law now gives the NSA a blank check to wiretap Americans without judicial oversight.
We need a Congress that can stand up to the fear-mongering of an out-of-control administration. It's bad enough that our leaders have still failed to restore habeas corpus, end torture and rendition, and close the Guantanamo Bay prison. But now they've voted to expand a warrantless spying program they should be investigating and dismantling.
Finally, on the right hand side is a giant red button that says, "What You can do". Again... going good. Clicking on the button, then takes you to the next page. https://secure.aclu....
On this page there are 3 red buttons to click on. From left to right, your options.
"Sign the Petition: Don't fail freedom"
"Send an E-Card: Share the Ad, Share the Sheep"
and, (of course)
"Donate: Support our Work".
So, let's go over the three things i can do to help restore the constitution.
1. Donate to the ACLU. I'm sure that'll be very effective.
2. Send a email form letter that Reid's and Pelosi's offices will promptly ignore, but not before the ACLU can harvest my email. That's right, when you go to send the form letter there are 2 checkboxes, conveniently already marked for you, to sign up for ACLU email lists.
3. Send an email to a friend so that the ACLU can harvest both my email and my friends.
Now, if you actually do the only remotely useful thing(option 2, of course). The ACLU harvests your email address and then takes you to the next page where it asks you to send the e-greeting to your friends. Then, if you do that, it then takes you to another page giving you 2 MORE things you can do. I took a screenshot, if you want to see.
Basically, it gives you 2 links. The top one really intrigued me. It said,
Support the ACLU to get our America back by keeping the pressure on Congress, mobilizing grassroots support in all 50 states and running ads to ensure we get the job done.
I thought it was organizing people and I could sign up to meet up with others. However, clicking the link takes you too...(wait for it) a FORM PAGE TO DONATE MONEY!!!
The Second link takes you to a page on the main ACLU site with facts and myths about FISA. You can see that page here.
So, it really looks like this campaign isn't structured to actually "restore the constitution" it's designed more to harvest email addresses for their e-newsletters and to collect donations.
In closing, let me point out one more thing. In case you don't agree with my conclusion. Go to the ACLU homepage. You'll notice that on the left side a picture and link for the "Sheep in Congress?" campaign. At the Bottom of the picture it says, "get involved". If you click the picture intending to get involved, guess where it takes you? That's right it takes you directly to a form letter to donate to the ACLU. I rest my case.
If you were to somehow become President, Mrs. Pelosi, would you use the unConstitutional powers Bush/Cheney have amassed for the Unitary Executive Branch?
Would you torture? Illegally spy? Lie to get the US to occupy more countries and steal their resources? Kill hundreds of thousands of people for no right reason? Retain the right to martial law for no real reason? Imprison and seize the possessions of those who disagree with your policies? Declare yourself the only Definer of a National Emergency wherein you could take totalitarian power?
Would you keep Bush's recent Executive Orders in place? As in http://www.whitehous...? Would you refuse all subpoenas and accountability to the American people? Fire government employees for political gain and get away with it? Keep corrupt and incompetent "leaders" at the highest level of of the Department of Justice?
Would you support the next Democratic President, whomever he or she may be, to use these powers?
Explain to us why your refusal to even open the topic of impeachment and begin the investigations doesn't leave our country wide open to these kinds of power abuses forever.
I am not writing to bug you. I am writing to get an answer. This is my country too, and I am your constituent in your role as Speaker.
For God's sake, and America's, please explain somewhere in public how you can protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights without even TRYING impeachment.
If there is another way, tell us. And do it. If not, I and many others will unceasingly demand that you RETHINK YOUR REFUSAL TO IMPEACH. Now.
Before the country we know is is dead. Before Iran is attacked. Before the US is attacked from the sheer hatred of those whom it has illegally attacked and exploited over the years.
For God's sake, Mrs. Pelosi. Tell us how you WILL fulfill your oath, not how you won't. Put SOMETHING real ON the table.
One of the complaints that the House Rules minority staff report (PDF) Broken Promises made about the DeLay regime was the use of suspensions to fill floor time that might otherwise be used for constructive debate (p28ff). (Or, at least, debate on something not ineffably trivial.)
Avoiding debate on critical bills - which a minority might undermine with evidence and argument (Yeah, right. Ed.) - is part of the means of agenda control which the House rules offer the majority.
You might have thought that the Dems, as part of swamp-clearing operations, would have given the old DeLay suspensions technique the elbow.
STATE BLOGS
