Ellen'sIllinois Tenth Congressional District Blog: December 2009

Thursday, December 31, 2009

How Am I Supposed to Keep On Feeding You

I finally figured out what the bank bailout, the health insurance bailout (aka health care reform), the coal bailout (aka climate change) and the large corporation bailout (aka unemployment extension that was mostly a tax break for large corporations) all remind me of:

Constantly having the feed the monster is making us very different from what we started out to be.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Mark Kirk Acts on Faulty Intelligence (Again)

Mark Kirk recently backed the latest sanctions against Iran due to claims that Iran was testing a "neutron initiator". Now, we learn that the documents that were supposed to have proved the claim were forgeries.

This wouldn't be the first time Naval Intelligence Officer Kirk acted on faulty intelligence. He had personal knowledge that there were WMD in Iraq too.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

10 Red Flags of Fraud

Years ago, I wrote up a long list of fraud red flags relating to business transactions. I started thinking about how many of the red flags apply to other situations including politics, so here is an abbreviated list of fraud red flags for you to think about before you enter into a business deal or a political alliance. No, this is not meant to be legal advice. If you are entering into an business deal, you should consult a lawyer with the particulars of your transaction. I like the idea of political activists using these red flags to decide whether or not to work with an advocacy organization or candidate. It could save some heartache in the end.

Here are 10 red flags for fraud:

1. Complicated structure. In business this could be a series of corporations, partnerships or LLCs owned by other corporations, partnerships or LLCs. The bottom line is that if you cannot figure out with whom you are dealing, you might want to rethink dealing with them at all. My political examples of this include all the corporate executives that are part of the tea partying Americans for Prosperity, or SEIU being the force behind HCAN or OFA having quietly merged into the DNC.

2. Lack of disclosure of relationships. It's one thing to have a complex ownership structure. While that's a red flag, it's certainly not always a fraud. However, if they don't disclose, that's a stronger sign of a real problem. This is why I was so irritated by those fake debates this past summer. Why would someone lie about who they are and for whom they work if they weren't trying to make a point they couldn't otherwise openly make?

3. The operative parties are never available. If no one's around, you cannot ask questions. Our representatives are often unavailable to us, but very available to industry lobbyists. That's because they don't want to answer your questions, but they do want to be available to discuss the next big piece of legislation they need to support to get that next big contribution.

4. One way communication from them to you. They can email you. They can call you. If you need to get in touch with them, you can forget it. The email address is one of those no-resonse addresses, or they simply don't respond. No one answers the phone. I once had a problem with an internet seller of postage. I couldn't cancel because I couldn't get in touch with anyone at the company. I finally had to cancel by having my credit card refuse to pay. In politics, this is the group that puts you on their email list and bombs you with requests for money or work, but if you try to respond or find a person to talk to, no one responds. I've quit a few a groups for this one sided communication because it tells me that they believe I'm there to serve them, but my questions or concerns don't matter.

5. Extreme unexplained rush, or the explanation is unsatisfactory. Sort of like the health care reform bill. It just has to pass before August, or Christmas, or New Year. Did you notice that the earth is still on its axis now that we are past August and past Christmas? In business, this often relates to the closing of a real estate deal or business acquisition. Some transactions have real cut off dates by contract or due to tax reasons or weather or seasonality such as with farmland or perishable food, but if the reason cannot be explained by something fairly mundane, I'd question it.

6. Unusual attention to form over substance. Someone once said that if a business deal cannot be explained in a few sentences, there is something wrong with it. Some tax motivated transactions might be heavy on form, but there still should be understandable substance behind them. If you can't find the substance behind the form, or it doesn't make sense, you might ask some questions. Cap and trade comes to mind. It's a mess of complexity and any actual carbon savings is on a hope and a prayer. We're told it's better than nothing. Why do we always have to judge everything by the nothing standard? How about cap and cap? That would get us somewhere with carbon emissions, and we'd get even farther if we added more investment in clean technology and less investment in coal. Similar to what is being dished out as health care reform, the cap and trade market is just one more convoluted scheme that is supposed to have a potential side effect of what we're really supposed to be going for, fewer carbon emissions, but there's no guarantee. The larger and more realistic effect of cap and trade is to create a new energy trading market in which the the American people can get taken for the proverbial ride. I'm sort of tired of reform being wound up in convoluted schemes with the desired result only a potential side effect. Direct reform would serve us better. See also Fraud Red Flag No. 1 Complicated Structure.

7. Secrets. If there is something you are not supposed to discuss at all, or not discuss with a particular person, side or faction involved in the matter, there is a problem. Mortgage fraud-y flippers would ask for separate closing rooms in different areas of the escrow administrator's office. The answer had to be "NO!" This is also a problem in government. Super secret airstrikes on Yemen were no big secret around the world, but were not discussed here at all until very recently.

8. Questions or disagreements are answered with disproportionate anger, outrage, fake concern or disappointment. This is the whole "how dare you ask me if ..." or "I'm so disappointed you think so little of me that you would ask..." Fraudsters like to put the spotlight back on the person asking the questions to deflect and put the questioner on the defensive. I got that from our local public option advocates when I asked them why they didn't question members of congress or the administration as reform was going down the tubes. They were incredulous that I would only partially agree with them. How dare I not follow the talking points 100%. Now they demand reformers stand down and accept the Obama/Pharma/Insurance deal as if continuing the fight for reform will damage something valuable, or damage anything at all. Another form of this is concern trolling. Folks write on blogs claiming to be concerned about an issue when they are really trying to create one. There's an entire industry in blog comments. People are paid to hide who they are and claim to be in agreement, just concerned about this or that issue. The intent is to make it seem like even those in agreement really are not in agreement.

9. Lack of documentation, too much documentation with much of it irrelevant. They'll either give you nothing or load you up with too much, much of the too much being irrelevant. While some things really are complicated and require a lot of paperwork, if you're drown in a lot of irrelevant stuff, someone is likely hiding something. Could be why so many bills in Congress are so long. Length would be ok if everything in these bills were relevant to the issue at hand or meant what the words seem to say, but so much is hidden or means something else, and that's a problem for a democracy.

10. Assurances only verbal. They give you their word. They just cannot write it out and sign it. A problem. Sometimes they'll write it out, but not exactly what you're looking for, the language is irrelevant to the issue of concern or it's muddy and not unequivocal, so you're still relying on their word. This reminds me of all the discussion of late about what can be done to improve the health care bills. Progressives are being told to sign on because surely the law will be improved. Suddenly, the rule of 60 becomes a rule of 51. They just have to get the mandates and subsidies through first, then everything falls into place on 51 votes. OK, show me that in writing. They cannot because it's not true. Why should we believe improvements will be made when they've already proven they couldn't or wouldn't make them in the first place. What about our political situation is going to improve in the near future?

Monday, December 28, 2009

In Bed With Mark Kirk

UPDATE: Americablog has a question: Should Mark Kirk face the same sort of military discharge hearing he finds acceptable for others?

**********************

As an IL-10 blogger, I've heard the rumors about Mark Kirk's sexuality for years. I never wrote about them because I don't care with whom Mark Kirk goes to bed. That's one Kirk issue that is not my problem. Now, and for the first time, it has become Kirk's problem as one of his republican primary opponents is publicly accusing him of homosexuality and insinuating that matters for public office.

While I don't care with whom Kirk shares his personal bed, I have warned Kirk throughout the years to be careful with whom he gets into political bed. Over the years, Kirk has made political marriages that are questionable. One of the top political relationships Kirk has courted was with the Chicagoland Friends of the American Renaissance. They're an immigrant hate group that also denies the holocaust. Kirk won their approval with this anti-amnesty and border control ideas. More recently, there was Kirk's plea for a Sarah Palin endorsement. Palin was in Chicago in early November for a taping of Oprah, but still no word on Kirk's endorsement even though in preparation for Palin's arrival, Kirk demeaned himself by flipping on his cap and trade vote. Kirk doesn't seem to care that Palin is part of the religious extremist movement that favors Israeli settlements because all Jews are supposed to move to Israel to play out biblical predictions of armageddon and rapture. Kirk has also courted the slave masters of Chinese manufacturing assuring them that the US would never call them on human rights violations in their labor practices.

On the other side, Kirk has his problems with political loyalty to those outside of far right extremism. He abandoned his long time supporters at NARAL and Planned Parenthood by voting for the Stupak Amendment limiting insurance coverage for abortions to the point where under the bill, a woman would be unable to pay her own money for the coverage. Earlier in the year, Kirk abandoned his longtime supporters in the Jewish community by voting with his party to recommit the foreign aid bill which included about $2.2 billion in aid for Israel. Kirk used to campaign on his support of the LGBT community as well, but recently abandoned them with support for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell military policy that has removed many good soldiers with needed language skills from our military. Kirk thinks it's worked out well. We're only at war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and now Yemen and Kirk's still itching to go to war with Iran, so why would we need the many Arabic, Pashto and Farsi speakers kicked out of the US Military for their sexuality?

So, will there be any intra-party sanctions on the republican making the charges about Kirk's sexuality. See, here's where they have a problem over there in right wing wackodom. To win cheap political points, Kirk and his republican collegues rile folks up against immigrants, workers, Muslims, Jews, liberals, and homosexuals, so he can't really complain much when a similar attack is made against him. Well, I guess he can complain, and he has saying through his spokesman that his opponent's ad is "degrading to the political process" and that "the people of Illinois deserve better," but who over there in his party will listen or care? Anti-gay rhetoric is their specialty and one of their favorite wedge and distraction issues. Without his party's help, does Kirk expect all the people he degraded over the years (after all he has claimed that to curb immigration Mexicans should be required to use condoms and that it's ok to discriminate against young Arab males) to help him out?

Political Organization Malpractice

When [insert special interest group or Progressives in general] stop offering support up front, they will become much more important when the White House or Congressional Leadership is having trouble putting together a winning voting bloc. What experienced political organization gives unequivocal financial and political support to something without knowing ANY of the details? It’s tantamount to malpractice.~~Lane Hudson, The Seminal

Hudson talks about how Lieberman and Emanuel outsmarted progressive groups and unions on health care reform. Emanuel was playing them for cover and Lieberman withheld his support until the end so he could exact a price. Nelson did the same thing. Snowe overplayed her hand. Feigning potential support only to withhold it in the end only works once. At some point, right wing Democrats will outsmart themselves, but not before a lot of folks get hurt. One doctor recently told me that he expects the number of deaths due to lack of insurance to climb from the 45K now reported to about 60K after this bill is implemented.

There can also be political party malpractice. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin wants to change the filibuster rule. That might have been a plan a few months ago, but now it seems like a bad idea. Watch Democrats fight to change the filibuster rule and promptly lose the Senate to republican in the next election cycle so they can enjoy the change. That would be classic.

Saturday, December 26, 2009

An undeclared war with Yemen and now a real villain from Yemen, well not really, he's from Nigeria

Is it just me or do any of you get the feeling that we're reliving the Reagan and Bush I and II Adminstrations. We have yet another undeclared war, complete with airstrikes over Yemen and accusations that we are killing civilians, a Nigerian-born would-be bomber, previously known by US officials as a potential terrorist threat, but he has no problem getting on a US owned and bound plane, and now claims to be acting on behalf of al Qaeda in Yemen. Yemen had been touted as an ally in the War on Terror--watching Iran for us and gets financial aid from the US, still, but it's nationals have participated in attacks on the US and the country is led by a democratically elected leader, democratically elected 30 years in a row.

The Misuse and Nonuse of Populism: Orwell, The Wizard of Oz, Blogs and Tea Parties

UPDATED: Typos fixed. Thanks to a commenter for the tip. I actually re-wrote this to flow a bit better for posting on another source, but am reluctant to put up the full changes here because I've since been quoted by another blog. Thanks to all who've picked up the post.

****************************

I've been watching the heated arguments going back and forth on Kos and FDL since passage of the Senate health care bill. FDL is in trouble with the party loyalists over at Kos for reaching out to Grover Norquist and the tea party movement. Jane Hamsher of FDL joined with Grover Norquist in a letter and petition protesting Rahm Emanuel's participation in some alleged corruption over at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform, a orwellian name for a pro-wealth, pro-corporate group that wants to starve the federal government of tax dollars so it cannot maintain its agencies of progressive reform. As most of these conservative, anti-tax groups go, ATR has no problem with big government or big deficits so long as they are used only for foreign wars. Norquist has recently become a champion of the tea party movement, another orwellian named movement that is against what it claims to be for and visa versa.

It's pretty obvious that FDL's move against Rahm was to exact revenge for his part in the White House's support of corporate sponsored health care reform. That being said, it doesn't mean that the complaints against Rahm are not true, but that's another issue for another time. The Kossacks respond that that Norquist and the tea partiers are fueled by corporate money and racial hatred, and should be dismissed outright for their dishonesty. Over at Kos, the diarists are busy tying themselves up in pretzels to figure out how to support the reform package that contains little reform and a whole lot of corporate welfare, while fighting Hamsher and The Seminal, an FDL group blog in the style of Kos. It's getting hard to tell which side is more dishonest, the tea partiers or the pro-reform anti-reformers.

The problem with all of this is that neither blog team, those blogging over at FDL's The Seminal or those blogging at Kos, are putting their arguments in the correct terms, terms that will help everyone move forward. FDL is trying to make the progressive populist argument for reform, but forgetting to describe the difference between populism and progressivism thereby leading to misunderstanding of its strategy. Kos is trying to make a purely progressive argument, discounting the value of populism seemingly willing to leave it to the corporate appropriated tea party movement, but probably just not understanding it's importance. With neither FDL nor Kos spelling out the difference between progressivism and populism, and their separate importance to any reform movement, they are leaving the populist argument to the tea partiers. The corporate tea party leaders understand the value of populism, and they are using it to win a victory for the exact opposite.

Populism is a political ideology that supports government by the masses rather than government by the few, the few being either a power (government) or money elite (corporations). If you want to understand populism think Wizard of Oz (the ruby slippers were silver in the book) and William Jennings Bryan. The American populist movement began in the 1890s with the midwestern farmers. While we tend to romanticize the lives of late 19th century farmers, they led a pretty bleak existence, and they didn't like that their economic fortunes seemed to be controlled by the eastern money interests, a combination of gilded age industrialists and bankers. The complaints of the rural populists of the 1890s included (and a lot of this is going to sound very familiar):

that credit was difficult to obtain and interest rates were too high (Populists claimed tight credit was caused by the gold standard which was favored by republicans. Too many paper dollar bills issued to pay for the Civil War were floating around. To stop inflation, republicans argued that all paper dollars had to be backed by real gold in the hands of the US Treasury. Populists such as William Jennings Bryan argued that using a silver standard would solve the problem because silver was more plentiful. This was complicated because Bryan was a Christian fundamentalist and merged the silver standard with religious imagery and progressive Americans ultimately fled from him in droves. This may have been the beginning of our current problems where conservatives believe they own the populist movement and progressives discount it.),
that railroad shipping rates were exploitative,
that they were unfairly burdened by taxes,
that farmland was being bought up by large corporate interests,
that farmers and workers were being intimidated at the polls and that union organizers were intimidated by the private security organizations (Pinkerton) hired by corporations,
that low wage immigrants were taking jobs,
that high tarriffs on European goods allowed American producers to charge higher prices, and
that American politicians were corrupt.

Like I said, familiar.

Progressivism is also a political ideology, but it's on a different spectrum than populism with conservatism being its counterpoint. Progressivism advocates for egalitarian reform. If you want to understand progressivism, think Jane Addams, Teddy Roosevelt, Susan B. Anthony, Samuel Gompers, Fiorello Laguardia and Upton Sinclair. These are the folks of the early 20th century who worked for the 5 day work week and the 8 hour work day. They also worked against child labor and for consumer laws such as food and drug inspections, restrictions on advertising, trust busting, railroad/shipping laws and even environmental laws. Progressives are for taxes that charge more to the wealthy and less to the less wealthy, so income taxes are ok, but sales taxes are bad. VAT taxes can be progressive or conservative depending on what is taxes at what rate. Progressivism culminated in FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. You might ask at this point, doesn't all that progressive reform sound populist? It is. It's progressive populism. However, you have to remember that there is such a thing as conservative populism too.

So, what are progressive populism and conservative populism? Progressive populists argue that you have to fight the large corporate interests to achieve reform. Conservative populists argue that you have to fight big government to keep taxes down. These days, both messages have been fully appropriated. The organized progressive populist groups of today are OFA, HCAN and Moveon.org. All have been appropriated by the Democratic Party and the current administration, with Moveon.org appropriated to a lesser extent because that organization appears to be the only one of these groups capable of independent thinking in its work against Afghanistan escalation and the Senate health care bill. Today's conservative populists are the tea partiers. They've been appropriated by corporations such as Koch industries and Fox News and a slew of oil, coal and multinational corporations that offshore and outsource to places like India and China.

Unfortunately, in our time, populist rhetoric is accompanied by little genuine populism. Conservative populism was first appropriated by big defense and big government deficit under Bush and his doctrine of forever war. Lately, it has been further appropriated by corporationists using populist sentiments toward their own ends--that's the almost cartoon-like tea party movement. Tea partiers talk about freedom, the American Revolution and their fears of socialism, but end up fighting for insurance companies, defense manufacturers and security contractors, oil companies, coal companies, and Chinese manufacturers.

Progressives appear to have abandoned all but the slightest populist rhetoric. HCAN's slogan was "if the insurance companies win, you lose," a populist message. Then, they helped the insurance companies win. They ignored the "you lose" part because the only win they cared about was a political win for the Administration. One problem with the Senate health care bill and the perceived political win it represents is that they cede the populist argument to the tea partiers. It's pretty hard to argue that one is working for the masses against corporations while using the federal government to require the masses to buy insurance from the large and wealthy insurance corporations. It's a double populist lose, a win for big government and big corporation.

A second problem with the bill and "win" that abandon populism is that populism delivers a pretty important message. "If the insurance companies win, you lose" is a powerful message. It has the required villain and self-centered struggle Americans love. Corporations were ingenious to appropriate the populist message on both sides because it's the message that that most Americans take to the polls. I think Jane Hamsher of FDL is simply trying to grab back a small portion of the populist argument for progressives. I don't understand why she doesn't just say so.

The larger concern is what happens to the American people with both progressive populism and conservative populism appropriated. Couple that with the predicted victory in the Citizen's United case, removing all limits on corporate campaign contributions, and it looks like the big winner will be network television where the battle between corporate populism and government populism will be fought. Sad for the American people that both sides are really the same side and no one's on our side.

Spam Email for the Senate Bill

Ever since passage of the Senate health care reform bill, I've gotten this spam email several times:

Careers in medical billing, a booming industry.

Happy Boxing Day

Thursday, December 24, 2009

New Deal For Christmas

Not so much... the Senate bill is a disaster, but here's Annie finding a family and rejecting Hooverism now known as Mark Kirkism:

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Stave Four: Every Christmas Ghost Story Needs a Mysterious Futuristic Figure in a Black Robe

Every Christmas ghost story needs a mysterious futuristic figure in a black robe that is feared most of all. This story has 9, the United States Supreme Court. The Court has our political future in its hands with a little case called Citizens United v. FEC. I'll plagarize myself a bit here:

Citizens United is the group that made an anti-Hillary documentary to be made available via on-demand cable during the 2008 primary season. As Citizens United takes for-profit corporate funding, the FEC determined that corporate limits applied and stopped the airing. Lower courts agreed that the FEC corporate limits applied. The case, which was reheard by the Supreme Court this past September, centers on the constitutionality of corporate limits on campaign contributions. Supreme Court watchers expect Citizens United to be victorious in gutting the FECs corporate contribution rules, but are in disagreement over whether the Roberts Court will overrule Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, where the Court previously upheld the corporate limits or issue a narrow reversal on the specific facts of the case, simply not applying the FEC limits to video-on-demand broadcasts, as they are not applied to conventional theater, DVD sales and the Internet.

Current speculation is on the full overruling of Austin. The Government may have made a mistake when it asserted at oral argument that the FEC could ban books delivered during an election season via Kindle (although some Justices couldn't quite wrap their minds around the concept of the Kindle that delivers the text via satelite). However, on the side of the limits, is the film itself, a pretty obvious hatchet job of Secretary Clinton clearly intended to influence the vote. Jusice Kennedy is expected to be the deciding vote on this one as Sotomayor takes the same position as Souter to uphold the limits. Kennedy is expected to side with the majority, but wring his hands over the final opinion which might explain the delay.

If the Citizens United case comes down as expected, the corporate limits on campaign finance will be dropped and corporations will be able to back candidates with no restrictions or limitations. Our future will be full of corporate sponsored campaign advertisements. I imagine with all those ad dollars to be had, there will be little television time for any actual entertainment. Maybe folks will finally turn off their sets for lack of anything worthwhile to watch, but one PR professional writing on Daily Kos as the diarist thereisnospoon doesn't think so. He foretells a pretty bleak future through a description of his profession:

Give us a little money to test some things out, and we can work magic. Our business is persuasion, and we're very good at it. Just watch PBS Frontline's series, The Persuaders to get just a small inkling of what you're up against. We can make a company that earns a 38% gross profit margin manufacturing purely propriety products seem hip, cool and progressive. We can take sugar water and sell it back to you as a health drink, and even Whole Foods shoppers will believe it. We can take
30 different brands of vodka with almost exactly the same ingredients, and make you understand instantly just what kind of person drinks which brand, and how much you should expect to pay for each, without a moment's thought. For any given category of products, I can show you a bunch of different brands, and you'll be able to tell me a wealth of information about each one, despite the near absolute similarity of their actual products to one another. One exercise we QRC's like to conduct involves actually turning a brand into a person in a group discussion; it's called personification. And you wouldn't believe how effectively and universally we can tailor a brand's image, right down to what kind of car that "person" would drive, and what music he/she would listen to. So much attention has been paid to Naomi Klein's outstanding Shock Doctrine, that few pay much attention anymore to her far more provocative and important work No Logo. If all Americans truly internalized the message of No Logo, people like me would be out of work, and we could really reform this country.

For a little coin, we can even make poor people hate inheritance taxes, just by using a few little words that work. The biggest difference between Obama and FDR/LBJ is that people like me weren't really around back then. As the TV show Mad Men can show you, our industry was just getting off the ground in the mid-1960's. And while it's true that the Democratic ad consultants of the 1980's and 1990's and early Aughts were wildly ineffective, that says far more about the prevailing consultant class in the Democratic Party than about the power of ad consulting in general.

So here's what you have to understand. If the health insurance and financial industries really felt scared by any particular politician or political party, or their lobbying efforts were inadequate, they could throw them out of power in a heartbeat. With a wave of their hand and a few billion dollars or so in our direction, the pharma companies and Goldman Sachs could absolutely destroy the Democratic Party in 2010 and beyond. The only reason they don't do so is that it's cheaper and easier to buy a few key Democrats off instead, and intimidate the rest. Plus, they don't have to run the risk of a right-wing populist backlash, either.

That's why Barack Obama can't renege on his deal with PhRMA: PhRMA almost singlehandedly destroyed Hillarycare in 1993, and spent the money to tip the balance of the elections in 1994. They can easily do it again. So could Goldman Sachs and the rest of the financial vampires. Rahm Emmanuel knows this, too: the deals are in place in return for their holding their fire.

Combine the profound influence of television, and lately even in-theater and DVD movie advertising, with voter laziness, the leadership vacuum and shortlived outrage described earlier, and the future of the middle class and working people of this country starts to look like the workhouses of mid-nineteenth century England described by Charles Dickens. The American people will have no representation and little ability to compete for access and votes. Their wages will be stagnant, their benefits reduced and their savings, if any, unprotected.

But surely, this is the future of what may be and not what will be as a certainty. There are things we can do. First, we can turn off, tune out and ask our own questions. Just because ads are run doesn't mean we have to watch them or believe them. We can become better fact-checkers. There is a wealth of information to be had from original sources, so we don't have to rely on the commentary that now passes as news. If you have an Internet connection, you have direct access to the Congressional Record and all the current votes and most amendments. There are non-partisan fact checkers too. PolitiFact with its truth-o-meter helps sort out some details. The editors at PolitiFact recently crowned their lie of the year. They chose the "death panels" because the story had a long lifespan and changed the health care reform debate. The strength of the ridiculous "death panel" story came from some strategic investment by Koch Industries, an oil conglomerate seeking to protect free trade. The story had legs because the legs were purchased. Some of the people fighting those "death panels"at townhalls probably would be better served if they had their own health care directives (the legal documents that were dubbed "death panels", but really put control of end of life decisions in the family's hands rather than those of the executives at the for-profit health care provider) and surely the executives at Koch Industries, with their large estates and armies of lawyers, have their own. I wondered why no reporters asked David Koch if he had his own health care power of attorney or living will.

Second, we can become our own leaders instead of followers. One of the most stunning examples of mindless following I have ever seen was the recent overnight switch followed by an overnight switchback on Daily Kos. On Tuesday of last week, the Kossacks were for the Senate health care bill. On Wednesday, they were against it. On Sunday of this week they were for it again and hating FDL's Jane Hamsher who remained against it. What changed during that time? Howard Dean. From that Tuesday to the following day, he said the bill was no good, not worth saving. Then, he changed his mind again. Why would the fairly up to date and knowledgable diarists and commenters on Kos follow him so closely. Why does a crowd follow anyone that closely? Not to pick on my own party, the folks over at Red State, Townhall or the world police of Lake Forest probably haven't had an original thought in their lives. They worship the bible according to Rush Limbaugh who says what he says for bucks and a laugh, and even the ever pandering Mark Kirk who flips so frequently, it's now impossible to figure out if he stands for anything except his own election.

Further, we can refuse to give up even when politicians do. We don't have to tie ourselves up in knots defending the undefendable as have Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Burris and now even Dean. Enough can be enough and lines drawn can stick. We just have to make them stick.

Our own actions will determine the future. To assure that future is liveable, we must honor the truth and try to tell and defend it all the year. We must remember and understand our past, seek to act effectively in the present, and do it while looking toward the future. The Spirits of all three, past, present and future, must sit in all our hearts, and we must not shut out the lessons that they teach. Then, perhaps we can sponge away any doom that may seem written in stone.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

HCAN Still Writes. I feel the love.

UPDATE: Was HCAN used ill by the Obama Administration? They can't say no one warned them. I personally think they were in on it.

*****************************

I just got an HCAN Illinois email urging me to call Mark Kirk to express my outrage over the Senate Health Care bill.

Huh?

I think Mark Kirk's response to such a call would be to laugh hysterically. He's getting exactly what he wants out of fake reform including some elements of the tort reform he touted as health care reform. He gets the added bonus of laughing at the Democrats while they have fits over what they wrought all by themselves for lack of the courage of their convictions. I can't blame the HCANNERS for not fully understanding. They missed the town hall back in August when their leaders told them to stay outside holding Health Care for America Now signs so the organization could get some media. They didn't understand that the action, and press, were happening inside the meeting.

HCAN can continue to be irritated with me, but everything I said was going to happen happened. Every problem I saw with the legislation way back when at that Northbrook house party when they cut me off as I tried to explain what was in that first version of the Senate HELP Committee bill, in fact, became a real problem. It was always about the mandates and subsidies. The public option was the red herring. If anyone was serious about enacting a public option, they would have never taken single payer off the table because smart guys like Rahm always knew they'd have to give something up.

If HCAN was honestly working to fix this mess they helped create, they'd worry less about their own press and power, disband, and tell their followers to support the FDL, Mad As Hell Doctors, and Moveon efforts to kill the bill in the Senate because it now looks like a speeding freight train with a life of its own. House Democrats will surely capitulate to warnings from the likes of Ben Nelson that no changes will be accepted.

As everyone who has ever read a post on this blog knows, I'm the first one to call out Mark Kirk when he should be called out. He should be called out for his mindlessly pandering Stupak Amendment vote, a vote against everything he's told this district that he stands for on choice, but at this point he could care less. He needs tea bag creds more than independent creds for his Senate campaign. If you want to make some meaningful calls, you should be calling Schakowsky, Weiner, Durbin, Burris, Pelosi and the other Democrats who may gripe over the Senate bill and whatever worse choice amendment will attach to it in the end, but will vote for it in the end. They'll vote for it to save their own skins with party leaders and not look back. While you're gathering phone numbers, you can start with President Obama's. Obama started out advocating for single payer, against individual mandates and at the very least for a public option only to abandon those who supported him for it in the end. If you have a spare moment, you can also call one day hero Howard Dean, who almost lead the movement, but almost immediately joined the mass surrender thereby failing us in the end.

Stave Three: The Ghost of America Devoid of Leadership

When President Obama returned from Copenhagen, DC was in full Christmas swing. The Capitol Christmas Tree, a 70-year-old, 65-foot blue spruce from the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona, had been ceremonially lit by House Speaker Pelosi back on December 8th. The tree’s 6000 ornaments were hand made by Arizona schoolchildren and it’s lit with 10,000 energy efficient LED Christmas lights.

The White House tree was already lit too. There was a bit of a false war on Christmas flutter as an email was sent around claiming that no religious-themed ornaments would be accepted and the tree was to be referred to as a holiday tree, but snopes.com cleared that up with a picture of the tree arriving at the White House clearly marked “Christmas Tree”. The official White House Christmas tree, an 18 1/2-by-13-foot Douglas fir, sits in the Blue Room. It’s lit with “environmentally sound” LED lights and is decorated with about 700 ornaments from previous administrations that had been refurbished by various community groups around the country. The theme of the tree is “reflect, rejoice and renew” and the ornaments depict American landmarks including the Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore, the Kennedy Space Center and our own Lincoln Park Zoo to acknowledge the Obama’s Chicago roots. The Red Room houses the traditional cranberry tree and surrounding decorations. The rest of the White House is decked out in natural materials including magnolia, hydrangea, honeysuckle vine and pepper berries.

The Obama’s hosted the traditional White House Chanukah party inviting a new “war on Hanukkah” from the right for inviting about 34 fewer people than had Bush on one occasion. The American Jewish community mostly laughed at the suggestion that it was any sort of a slight, and noticed that the Obamas served kosher food bettering the Bush’s Hanukkah lamb chops in years past.

An uncharacteristic early winter snowstorm turned the national mall into a white snow on white marble wonderland. Ice stuck to the tree branches outlining them in the night sky while the Obama’s attended a Christmas concert.

No one’s thinking about ghosts of Christmas past in the Obama White House. Discussion has been permanently officially shut down on such topics as how 9/11 happened when we knew “bin Laden was determined to strike US”, how we were talked into the Iraq War based on false information, what we’ve been doing in Afghanistan since 2001, why we stood down at Tora Bora, how we became illegal torturers, how government issue anthrax got into the US mail, why the banking industry was bailed out, but the middle class left to suffer, what actually happened to the missing $9 billion in Iraq, what in blazes has Blackwater or Xe, or whatever it’s called now, been doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and maybe Yemen all these years. That’s why there is no Stave Two, The Ghost of Christmas Past. We're Americans and we simply refuse to deal with our past demons.

That brings us to Christmas present and an America without leadership. I guess we have some leadership, it's just not for our benefit or very effective. The leadership we've been left with can be classified as follows:

Leadership of The Secret Deal with the Devil. The American people thought they elected a leader in 2008, but so far he’s been happy to step back let the deals play out. Taking the advice of generals, President Obama authorized a “surge” in Afghanistan. In his least inspiring speech yet, Obama told us the troops would start coming home mid-2011, but the generals balked at that all over the media. The corrupt and questionably elected Hamid Karzai assured the world that the US would have to stick around for the next 15 to 20 years. Apparently, there’s been a deal on Afghanistan, just not the one we’ve been told about. One can only imagine the second embassy rooftop escape (video here) that's in store for us in the near future.

On health care, Obama’s been willing to leave it up to Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The White House brought big pharma and big insurance in to make the deal early this summer, but instead of telling everyone, they just left us to spin our wheels and burn out so the deal would stick as the only thing left standing. The deal is to grant millions of new customers and billions in subsidies to the industry to make up for small regulatory concessions while middle class working Americans struggle to pay for it.

Leadership of Unobtainable Bipartisanship. Obama has spend most of this year looking for the mythical beast known as bipartisanship. republicans have describe bipartisanship as they get everything they want and progressives get nothing. The bipartisan health care plan proposed by Mark Kirk was nothing more than freeing health care corporations of pesky accountability. Obama responded with tort reform in his last proposal. Adding a medicare expansion to a tort reform bill, now that would have been partisan. Adding a public option to a corporate giveaway, again partisan. "Bi" must mean corporate and republican. To Rahm, "bi" means that progressives are under control and their needs need not be tended. Obama appears to want love and acceptance from people who will never give that to him because they gain power and make money hating and lying about him.

Leadership of Short Lived Outrage. When the deal with the pharma and insurance devil was officially struck, there was plenty of outrage to go around. Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York had an idea to replace the House Bill with a single payer bill. He demanded and won some floor time, but decided to relinquish it so Rep. Stupak could gut a woman’s right to choose. That came after Nancy Pelosi backed down on her firm stand for a public option with a Medicare +5% pay rate. The usually outspoken Dennis Kucinich had been outraged with Pelosi’s surrender, but soon backed down on his own state single payer. Senator Bernie Sanders came up with his own single payer proposal, but backed down when republicans asked it be read word for word on the Senate floor. I’d have pulled up a comfortable chair, gotten a pitcher of water and made them all sit there while I read the thing myself had I been Bernie, but I guess he’s from the Emily Litella school of leadership too, but never mind.

republican Senator Tom Coburn told us that he prayed that some Democratic Senator would not make it to the vote. Many believe, Coburn meant that he hoped the ailing and elderly Robert Byrd would die. Byrd foiled him by living and voting. Dick Durbin responded, "Hey, what do you mean by that? ...oh never mind." Coburn may still get his wish. Subsequent votes are scheduled, Byrd is still sick and it's still cold and snowy in DC. In the final standdown, Howard Dean has decided the Senate bill is better than nothing after all and should be supported despite his "kill the bill" sentiment just days before.

Leadership of Lies and the Secret Corporate Backers. Not to leave criticism to my own party, we have to acknowledge that republicans have allowed multinational corporations to lead them around by their noses for decades, pretty much since the railroads took over Indian territory through murder and genocide. In modern times, republicans have denied physical and environmenal science, and turned national security decisions over to oil companies and war contractors. They lead from lie to lie. First, it was the WMD and homeland security designed to scare us into war and removal of our freedoms at home. Then, the lies grew more specific in pointing to mystery provisions in thousand page bills that were supposed to kill grandma and hand your health care over to government bureaucrats rather than the corporate bureaucrats who handle it now. Currently, the grassroots on the right are watered with dollars from oil companies, war contractors and health insurers. These lobbyists had a recordbreaking year. Their followers have proved that they'll humiliate themselves for these masters by wearing tea bags on their heads. That brings us to the related….

Leadership of the Stupid and Fake. Somewhere along the line the corporate media talked Americans into thinking their leaders should come from the rank and file. They’d have none of achievement, hard work and smarts. Leaders had to reflect the lowest common denominator. They had to be stupid, but come with a compelling if not altogether true back-story. That would bring us to George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. Bush was the fake cowboy who was afraid of horses and never did a lick of ranch work in his life, but would be fun to share beer with. Palin is the fake hockey mom who reads all the newspapers, yet cannot name one. It’s easier to get people into situations they’d never get into if they were thinking when you assure them that thinking is frowned upon, which brings us full circle back to….

Leadership of Evil. Dick Cheney. Enough said.

In the meantime, we’re into the second wave of foreclosures for 2009. According to RealtyTrac, foreclosures already increased 22.5% in third quarter 2009. We found out that half of US children will receive food stamps at one point or another. More than 35.8 million Americans used food stamps in July. Hunger in the US is at a 14 year high with 49 million households being classified as “food insecure”.

While our economy grew by 2.2%, unemployment is at about 10%. Holiday sales are expected to decline from 2008 by about 1%. Harvard tells us that 45,000 people die each year from lack of health insurance. So, naturally the answer is to give health insurers more money and little regulation and to tax the good health care plans negotiated by organized labor.

Despite all that, if you’re out and about this Holiday season, you’ll see Christmas lights and store window decorations, folks driving to work, schoolchildren on the corners waiting for their school buses, men and women snow blowing their walkways, teens shopping, men playing hockey on the pond outside the Northbrook library, and nurses tending the ill in our local hospitals and ERs. We don’t have leadership, no one is standing by us, but we plod along in our individual lives with the future looming as a solemn phantom coming like a mist along the ground towards us.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Quotable Dan Seals

There are lots of things that are wrong with Washington. Not being enough like Springfield is not one of them.~~December 20, 2009, Deerfield Debate

Stave One: The Ghost of Past Unfinished Work and Possible Regrets

With appologies to Charles Dickens....

Ted Kennedy was dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. We watched his funeral on television and remained watching as night approached and the picture fell into darkness. We still kept watching as the sound was cut to give the family privacy. President Barack Obama gave the eulogy wherein he said:

Ted Kennedy has gone home now, guided by his faith and by the light of those he has loved and lost. At last he is with them once more, leaving those of us who grieve his passing with the memories he gave, the good he did, the dream he kept alive, and a single, enduring image - the image of a man on a boat; white mane tousled; smiling broadly as he sails into the wind, ready for what storms may come, carrying on toward some new and wondrous place just beyond the horizon. May God Bless Ted Kennedy, and may he rest in eternal peace.

Ted Jr. told a story about his early attempt to walk up an icy hill after he lost his leg to cancer:

I started to cry and I said, `I'll never be able to climb up that hill,' And he lifted me up in his strong, gentle arms and said something I will never forget. He said, `I know you can do it. There is nothing that you can't do.'"

That night, the AP reported:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy was laid to rest alongside slain brothers John and Robert on hallowed ground at Arlington National Cemetery on Saturday evening, celebrated for "the dream he kept alive" across the decades since their deaths.

Yes, Ted Kennedy was as dead as a door-nail.

Obama knew he was dead? Of course he did. How could it be otherwise? Yet, he evoked his name and memory often, particularly in the battle for health care reform. When he addressed a joint session of Congress on September 9, Obama reminded members that Kennedy called health care reform “that great unfinished business of our society.” Obama remembered that Kennedy had said that health care "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

Inspired by the life and words of Ted Kennedy, Obama said, “We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it,” and the people remembered Kennedy's passion and Obama’s audacity and believed him.

Oh ! But Obama also said he wanted to “replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress.” That sounded good, but what did he intend to give up to get civility and progress and would it be enough?

About a month after Kennedy’s death, Obama released his own plan for health care reform. The main points of the reform package included:

1. Ending discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
2. Limiting premium discrimination based on gender and age.
3. Preventing insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most.
4. Capping out-of pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick.
5. Eliminating extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money.
6. Protecting Medicare for seniors.
7. Eliminating the "donut-hole" gap in coverage for prescription drugs.

The proposal also included exchanges, individual and small business tax credits, and yes, a completely voluntary public option “to promote competition, hold insurance companies accountable and assure affordable choices.” Immediate help would come from a national high-risk pool. The plan would be cost effective, he claimed, because it would include provisions “to rein in health care costs.” Including “pilots for new "bundled" payments in Medicare, and support for new models of delivering care through medical homes and accountable care organizations that focus on a coordinated approach to care and outcomes.” Large employers would be required to cover their employees and individuals who could afford it would be required to purchase their own insurance. It was a far cry from his original proposals.

Earlier, in his presidential campaign, Candidate Barack Obama had criticized primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, for including an individual mandate in her proposed health care plan. Candidate Obama wasn’t keen on the individual mandate. The Washington Post reported on February 24, 2008:

The concept of an "individual mandate" became a lightning rod between the two yesterday. Obama said at an Ohio hospital that Clinton would "have the government force you to buy health insurance, and she said that she'd consider
'going after your wages' if you don't...."

Obama said that the key to health care reform was to make insurance affordable, “not making it "illegal" to be uninsured.” He also campaigned on something called "the public option" having signed onto a statement demanding it. He gained several supporters because of that pledge.

Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama over Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries. In his endorsement speech, Kennedy said of Obama:

He will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past. He is a leader who sees the world clearly without being cynical.

Kennedy was looking for a candidate who "refuses to be trapped in the patters of the past." Kennedy knew those patterns of the past well. He started out as an advocate of single payer health care reform. He proposed a single payer system in 1971 with no cost sharing, but President Nixon proposed his own plan that was a supposed to be a partnership between private insurers and employers. Kennedy described that partnership as one between the administration and insurance companies to provide billions of government dollars to private industry. Neither plan won over enough in Congress to become law, but Nixon effectively won that round (except for the privatization of Medicaid) as we ended up with our current employer based system with co-pays and deductibles. In 1973, Kennedy supported the HMO Act as a way to break the stalemate and an alternative to the traditional fee for service practice. The idea was to cut costs by managing care and organized the fragmented system in order to come closer to a single payer system. However, previous health care management was through not-for-profit companies, so it wasn’t yet fully understood what would happened with for profit managed care. In the ultimate bill, Congress made the mistake of allowing HMOs complete unregulated control over their policies and practices and these new privately operated HMOs turned out to be experts at denying care through required pre-certifications and outright denials. Kennedy regretted not cutting a deal with Nixon over universal health care and he was probably pretty unhappy about how the HMO and managed care takeover panned out legitimizing corporate denial of care, so he kept trying.

Kennedy first whittled away at Nixoncare in 1985 with COBRA under which he won the right of workers to continue their health care plan when they lost their jobs. The problem is that COBRA rights did nothing about cost, so as premiums grew over the years, many were priced out of COBRA.

To get more for Americans, Kennedy proposed and fought for the passage of HIPPA in 1996. HIPPA provided some portability of employer based coverage, an attempt to correct the mistakes made in 1971 and 1973, but because the insurance industry fought portability and pre-existing conditions so hard and because of required bipartisanship with republicans including Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, the whole thing was based on something new called “creditable coverage”. Creditable coverage was coverage from a prior group plan, a government run plan like Medicare or Medicaid or a state risk pool. If a person did not have past and unbroken creditable coverage, the insurer could deny pre-existing medical problems. The portability provisions ended up pretty weak and HIPPA is now mostly known as the medical privacy provisions that sometimes cause problems for families and caretakers.

Kennedy worked for expanded coverage for children with CHIP in 1997. Again, he worked with a republican, Orrin Hatch, which limited what could be accomplished and it left millions of children uninsured.

Starting in 1997, Kennedy began working for expanded coverage in his own state, but he was limited by having to work with Massachusetts’ string of republican governors. Kennedy preferred what is often called a “pay or play” employer contribution, but his goals were limited by what state republicans would accept. After several years of gridlock, a new republican governor, Mitt Romney, seemed serious about passing health care. Grabbing the opportunity to do something, Kennedy supported and worked to imprive Romney’s plan, which included both employer and individual mandates. It finally passed in 2006. Many commend Massachusetts health care for providing some basic (if expensive) coverage possibilities for people otherwise not covered. These people also support the current Senate proposal as it is similar to the Massachusetts program, but that doesn't cure the system's problems including lack of universal coverage, lack of affordability, lack of cost containment and continued reliance on employer based plans.

As noted before, Obama denounced Clinton’s 2008 for containing an individual mandate, but then, Obama picked Tom Daschle to become his Secretary of Health and Human Service. Daschle had written a book that touted an individual mandate. Daschle took his name out of the running to head off a possible unrelated scandal, and then we found out that Daschle had ties to big insurance--for some reason yet unexplained, that itself was not considered to scandalous all by itself. Daschle went, but left the individual mandate behind.

Upon President Obama’s election, it appeared that Kennedy, although ailing, would once again be working on national health care reform, Several Massachusetts doctors wrote to him reminding him that he was once a strong advocate of single payer and had previously introduced model single-payer health reform legislation. They further reminded Senator Kennedy that the Massachusetts plan, which supported private insurance and failed to control costs, plan illustrated a lot of problems:

Costs have skyrocketed -rising far faster than anticipated. Yet hundreds of thousands remain uninsured and the number of patients requiring free care has fallen by only a third. Surveys show that one of every seven Massachusetts residents still can’t afford the care they need, and among patients directly affected by the new law, more say it has hurt than helped them. We fear that worse is just around the corner; money needed to fund the reform is being drained from safety-net providers who still carry a heavy burden of care for the uninsured and underinsured.

The Senate HELP Committee bill passed just months before Kennedy’s death. It was not a single payer bill. Single payer had been taken off the table by the Obama Administration and Obama added that bipartisanship was of utmost importance. Was it even more important than the contents of the outcome? The HELP Committee bill contained health insurance exchanges, mandated coverage and eventually it added a public option. The Senate Finance Committee headed by Max Baucus made it clear that it would object to the public option. By the time the Finance Committee got underway, Kennedy was gravely ill. He died before the Finance Committee negotiations concluded.

Ted Kennedy knew that the country needed to improve its health care system and worked all his professional life to achieve it. No one can be too critical of his efforts as they were the best and most consistent that this country has had. He de jure stopped Nixoncare, but was unable to stop the employer-based system de facto. That happened in the vacuum left after the demise of both Nixon's and Kennedy's 1971 proposals. To correct the unintended consequences of that stalemate and the eventual passage of the HMO Act, Kennedy stopped trying to accomplish a complete overhaul, instead working to whittle away at the system. Continually blocked by the increasingly flush industry, supported by corporationist republicans, he kept at it and obtained coverage for children, some unemployed people and some citizens of his own state. That’s a lifetime achievement in and of itself, but it’s clear from the record that he wanted to accomplish more.

Someone once said that a person who has died is a ghost “only if someone alive is still holding on to them (sic).” Because our health care system is still so troubled, Ted Kennedy’s ghost may still walk the halls of the Capitol. Kennedy probably remains in President Obama’s thoughts as he tries to accomplish greater reform. The problems with where the long health care journey has led this young president can be summed up in several questions. How do you ever achieve true and longlasting reform in American health care when you set your sights on whittling away at the system rather than replacing it? How do you make any improvements when your attempts to whittle end up enriching the very system you seek to weaken? Will this reform create more problems than it fixes? Will unsatisfactory reform curb the public and congressional appetite for the health care reform issue? These are the same problems experienced by Ted Kennedy when he originally supported single payer and the HMO Act with only the best of intentions.

The latest status of reform is that the Senate will go on to pass another unsatisfactory compromise--continuing the "patterns of the past." President Obama has, without further examination, shut the door on single payer, drug reimportation, his campaign pledge to avoid an individual mandate, and even his most recent plan that required limiting costs and protecting coverages. The Senate deal is uncomfortably close to one Obama made with pharma and insurance in semi-secret months ago. The House has been told no changes will be welcome. As of this morning, health care reform has been put to bed. It's as unstoppable as was Barack Obama's presidential campaign when he called out Clinton for problems with her plan, but is it reform or humbug?

Saturday, December 19, 2009

The Deal: Including A Few Parts No One Else Is Talking About. Kudos to Moveon for Waking Up. HCAN's Still Aiming for Victory Through Misrepresentation

The Senate bill seems to have taken on a life of its own. You probably already heard they've changed the bill to get Ben Nelson's vote, unless he changes his mind again as extortion seems to be working very well.

You can see the amendment for yourself here. Ironically, it's stated purpose is "To improve the bill."

Here are some highlights:

1. Annual and lifetime limit prohibitions are back after 2014, but as everything it's not so simple. Prior to 2014, annual limits are restricted, but not banned and lifetime limits aren't touched. A lot of folks interpreting this bill on other blogs are missing the fact that it's up to what the Secretary of HHS determines: 1) are essential benefits, 2) are needed services, and 3) will have only a minimal impact on premiums. Also being missed is that annual and lifetime limits live on per beneficiary on specific coverages.

2. The gun lobby has been made happy with the removal of having a firearm as a behavioral issue that can be used to determine premiums in Section 2716. You may have had to put down certain risky behaviors on an insurance application such as whether you smoke, drive without a seatbelt and the like or had your doctor ask about risky behaviors during a routine checkup. Now, having a gun present in your home is to be considered less risky than anything. As that is ridiculous from a reality-based perspective, we know this was a purely political addition to the bill and it translates into the fact that the rest of us will be paying increased premiums so we can pretend that there is no greater risk of injuries due to guns in the home.

3. The medical loss ratios are enforced by premium rebates. The ratios are 85% group and 80% individual. What no one is discussing is that in the individual market, the Secretary may lower the ration if he or she feels the 80% that it would destabilize the market. One of the criteria to set the ratio is participation in the market. This criteria will put downward pressure on the ratio to allow more insurers into the market.

4. There is more coverage available for participation in clinical trials, but the whole thing is limited to network providers. What are the chances than any particular clinical trial is being done on a particular disease acquired by a particular insured and that specific trial is being offered by a provider within the insured's pre-chosen network of providers? Probably very slim, so while a nice thought, it's probably illusory.

5. Section 1303 is the Ben Nelson extorted anti-choice provision. Who knew the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats would become all about anti-choice provisions. States may prohibit abortion coverage in qualified plans offered in the state's exchange. The amendment allows for enactment and repeal of these provsions over and over again. I can only imagine what that's going to do to each and every state legislature election. republicans get the abortion wedge issue forevermore. So, not only is this terrible policy, it's pretty stupid politics.

6. The OPM negotiated private plans sit at Section 1334. That's your big "public option" win. They're going to be multi-state plans and there is no specific protection for tougher state regulations or mandated coverages. OPM negotiations will be limited to: (A) a medical loss ratio; (B) a profit margin; (C) the premiums to be charged; and (D) such other terms and conditions of coverage as are in the interests of enrollees in such plans--whatever that means. One contract gets to be with a nonprofit entity.

7. Extortion works Part II. Ben Nelson's state of Nebraska gets more federal matching. I did a search of the Amendment for Illnois. Zip. We're being punished for Rahm.

8. Whoops. I found a typo at page 141. On page 143 we get to fund more anti-choice education.

For all of you who think this is fine and it will get fixed in the House, guess again. Nelson intends to hold the House to all his demands.

Kudos to Moveon.org for opposing the Senate's Anti-Choice, Pro-Gun and Private Profits Protection Act of 2009. HCAN's running TV ads still calling this the public option and renewing it's strategy of victory through misrepresentation. It's national blog summarizes the bill leaving out all mention of any of its problems. The argument in favor of the Senate Bill as revised is once again purely political, but now it gets stranger. Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect tells us that if we don't agree to this as health care reform, opponents will be emboldened and Obama will be gun-shy to promote anymore reform. With this as his idea of reform, that might be a good idea. If they're worring about emboldening opponents of the bill, they've already done that by giving Ben Nelson everything he wanted.

Obama says those of us who don't agree that this is peachy reform haven't read the bills. I have read the bills and I disgree.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Cheryle Jackson Impresses Highland Park Tenth Dems U Attendees

Home values fell $2.4 trillion from December 2007 to December 2008 and around 1.7 million homeowners were on the verge of foreclosure in the fall. You'd never know that to hear Mark Kirk tell it. He's busy reveling in health care reform bust while everyone else tries to figure out how to pay their monthly insurance premium. One Senate candidate is well aware of what is happening to most of us on the ground in real life Illinois, Cheryle Jackson.

For guidance in her political career, Jackson looks to her background as the daughter of an accountant who struggled with employment upon his family's move to Memphis in the 1960s. Her dad ran up against 1960s style race discrimination in the job market and learned how to use his business skills to work with small mom and pop, minority businesses, to help them find financing sources and expand. Jackson took that example to Chicago's Urban League where she shifted the mission from social services to economic development. While she acknowledges that social services are important, she feels that economic development is the long term solution to unemployment and the ills that lead to and come with it.

Last year, when Obama's proposed stimulus package was the focus of the nation, she wrote an article that appeared in the Tribune about the stimulus needed for urban areas. Jackson was talking about Main Street when most everyone else was talking about Wall Street and just plain old streets. She focused on the gaps of the proposal including jobs for people who did not have the construction skills to take work building roads and other proposed infrastructure projects. She also focused on the role of small businesses in creating jobs:

While everyone agrees that small businesses will play a major role in a rebounding economy, do they agree on the types of businesses eligible for relief under a stimulus plan? Minority businesses tend to be more service-oriented and lack the collateral that weighs heavily into loan decisions. Growing these businesses will require more prescient financing models such as mezzanine funding, a private equity tool that gives fast-emerging companies greater access to capital based on different requirements for collateral and personal credit history. A payroll tax credit would be another powerful tool to help small businesses create jobs.

She went on to discuss that helping small businesses with greater guarantees of SBA loans don't really help because the SBA requires a certain level of cash flow that many small businesses do not have. She favors green jobs, but recognizes that we don't yet seem to understand what that means beyond building efficiency and don't have the training in place to prepare the unemployed ready to take the jobs. Her stimulus suggestions remind me of my recent post on the economic proposals of New America Foundation. Presently, she's concerned about the small amount of stimulus funding that has been released.

Jackson's other main focus is education and improving our nation's skill sets. She's run many job fares through the Urban League where many standing in line didn't have the skills for any of the available jobs and feels we are not doing enough about the affordability of college. She's met many people unable to send their kids back for second semesters and worked with many people to help them find money for all the fees that can keep a student from attending even when the student has a scholarship.

Jackson is very familiar with the effects of the credit and housing crisis. She's worked with families unable to get help from their banks, noting that help is not available unless the borrower is 4 to 5 payments late, a situation that completely ruins their credit. She also been on the phone with lenders on behalf of many people trying to refinance.

Mark Kirk talks about deficits, according to Jackson, but never mentions that he participated in creating them with the Iraq War. She gives republicans no leeway on their role in putting our country into debt and favors withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan to focus on our economic issues here at home, noting that our economic strength is part of our national security.

I had to ask her a health care question. I asked if she'd vote for the current version of the Senate bill. Jackson's bottom line for an acceptable bill includes an entity large enough to drive down costs and create competition, coverage for pre-existing conditions, no further restrictions on choice beyond Hyde (and she'd favor eliminating Hyde as well), and any bill must not reduce Medicaid payments and services. She wasn't as familiar with the current state of the Senate bill, but acknowledged after hearing the details that she'd probably have to vote no. I expressed my wish that she'd consider single payer.

She hedged a bit on a free trade question which I don't think she was really prepared to answer. However, she did say that she likes to ask the question that no one else is asking and brought it back to what we can do to nurture small business and economic development around the world without harming the workers and the environment. She proved she knew what she was talking about when she mentioned the need to level the playing field, understanding that free trade policies leave developing countries without potential markets and hurt American workers when workers in other countries are underpaid and otherwise abused.

As she was in the Illinois Tenth, Jackson was asked a question about Israel. She recognizes it as our country's most important Mid-East ally and it's right to defend itself. She was unsure about the Jerusalem issue, but is getting advice from AIPAC and was reminded of J Street of which she was already aware.

On a question about banking, Jackson was familiar with an Obama campaign proposal about a mission and not profit driven bank to help get credit moving to the right places.

Jackson seemed very open and honest to me. Smiling, she acknowledged that hay will be made over her work for Blagojevich, but reminds that she left during his first term. She reminds me of candidates from years ago who were less interested in grandiose international plans and more interested in what happening with our jobs and families. She'd be an interesting and perhaps much needed addition to the Senate with this focus as our current Senators are clearly out of touch with our needs as displayed in the recent health care reform negotiations.

Many of us up north here knew very little about Cheryle Jackson until tonight and many have been gravitating over to Hoffman as a Giannoulias alternative, but some have grown nervous over his economic conservatism, hard right Mid-East position and scortched earth campaign style that seems to be sinking rather than helping his poll numbers. Several attendees of tonight's presentation by Jackson commented to me afterward that they were favorably impressed. She still trails Alexi in the polls, but has gone up 5 points without slick mailers or television ads. David Hoffman, who has plastered television with his own ads, trails her by 8 points in the latest independent poll.

Out-Rahm'd

UPDATE: While one must consider the source, the corporate WSJ, they quote Rahm Emanuel on his distain for the liberal wing of the Democratic party and since it pretty much fits with what we already know about Rahm, you might as well take a look. It isn't pretty.

*****************************

UPDATE: AFL-CIO joined SEIU in demanding a change to health care proposals.

*****************************

Did Rahm finally out-Rahm himself?

My dad said it all last night when I went over there to help drain my mom's chest tube. He wasn't mad that Obama didn't win health care. He was mad that Obama didn't even try to win health care.

I've been pointing out that they weren't trying to win for months. When Obama had that lobbyist meeting at the White House, I emailed my local hcanner in chief. No response. I went to a rally in Chicago and had some words with the hcanners. No matter that I've actually written laws in CBA committee, they told me I didn't understand how laws were made. I was naive. I was invited to speak at a house party in Northbrook. They cut me off in mid-sentence as I tried to explain the reform structure of exchanges/mandates/subsidies. No one was supposed to hear that part of it. We were all supposed to focus on that public option, and as it turned out, it didn't really matter what the public option really was. That was shiny object to be dangled in front of that convenient, but sometimes pesky, progressive grassroots that came out of the Obama campaign (arguably out of the anti-Bush/McCain/Palin campaign) while the real deals were being made by the real players.

They told me I don't understand how laws are made, but there is one thing that I do know. If you're ever going to go to the mats for something, and it's something that you could easily lose, you want to do it for something you can feel good about when all is said and done. There's a whole lot of shame for losing an unjust, evil, stupid or fake cause. There should be shame in winning one too, but there never is. However, there's no shame in losing a just cause.

Not to Rahm and those few who still follow him.

Rham's all about the political maneuver. He wheels and deals with the big bad guys and he thinks those of us fighting for progressive policy are idiots, but he uses much more colorful language. They say Rahm is all about playing hardball. That can be good. I'd like to see our Democratic leaders play some hardball. I asked them to a day or so ago. The problem with Rahm is that he's playing hardball with the wrong people, us.

Now, it's pretty clear that the Rahm plan was to meet with the lobbyists, strike a deal and then ram it down our throats. Apparently, not much hardball was played with pharma and insurance. They met in a nice room at the White House and went to the Rose Garden for pictures, maybe even some snacks and a little garden frolic with cute puppy, Bo. On the other side of things, the good doctors over at PNHP were treated to an afternoon in jail. They were eventually invited in, but not to talk, only to listen.

It may time for Rahm to sit down and listen himself. Howard Dean challenged the White House yesterday and they chose to attempt to bury him. They claimed he didn't know what he was talking about and they probably thought that would do the trick--wasn't Dean the guy who gave that scream--we'll make him look like a nutjob. Olbermann gave a terrific Special Comment on the state of health care reform. No problem. He could be passed off as a flaming liberal.

Easy, right? Well, some of us noticed what the White House failed to notice. It wasn't just the Deaniacs and flaming liberals who were backing off this thing. The Daily Kos, the big cheeto and hotbed of almost irrational Obama support, melted down in exactly one day. On Tuesday, my comments against the Senate bill were being flamed. On Wednesday, most of the diaries were saying exactly what I said on Tuesday and before. Huffington Post, the site that had gone so far as to change the title of my article on Howard Dean's visit to Deerfield, making it look like Dean was a solid public option supporter, came out against the Senate bill this morning. Arianna says its a bailout of the health insurance industry. True/Slant, remembering that Obama campaigned on health care reform to help those like his mom who died of cancer worrying about medical bills, pointed out that Obama's mother would not have received much help from this deal. Now it appears that only OFA (the White House online itself), Ezra Klein who is still touting the 90% medical loss ratio that is likely out of the final deal because CBO said it would make private insurance a government program, and lonely Nate Silver over at 538, all 20 of his questions easily answered by many of us, remained in the Obama camp on health care reform.

The Internet lost, surely Obama would retain his union support. Well, as it turns out no. SEIU, the sugar daddy of HCAN, came out this morning againt the Senate bill/lobbyist deal. They echoed Olbermann, "enough". They want a real fight for health care reform and not Rahm's backroom deal:

SEIU does not accept that this monumental effort - that this reform that is so necessary to the health and wellbeing of our economy, our families and our future - can be over without a fight. A fight to make it work for you and your families.

The polls have crashed too and too. They're trying to pin it all on Joe Lieberman, but while everyone knows Lieberman is a jerk, it's pretty clear that this all came from the White House. Feingold said it on Tuesday:

This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth.

Rahm blew it. He out Rahm'd himself and even managed to give republicans a couple of credible talking points so they don't even have to lie on this one. As Rahm blew it, one cannot overlook Obama's role. He presided over the lobbyist meetings and failed to defend reform at each opportunity. It's time for President Obama to stop working the Rahm Emanuel strategy of hardball against progressives and liberals and remember who put them in the White House. He should fire Rahm, but please don't send him back to Illinois. We're taking the Gitmo detainees and isn't that enough? Rahm can go to Alaska where there short one right wing loon since Palin quit. Without Rahm, Obama can still rescue this thing. He can join in the growing chorus of those saying "enough" and move this thing back to where it belongs by playing a little hardball against those who need to be its recipients for a change.

Here's Salon writer Glenn Greenwald telling David Schuster that it's not about political anger, it's a substantitive argument:

Here is Greenwald's "must read" piece in Salon. Greenwald is an attorney and author.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Ellen's 20 Answers

Nate over at 538 has 20 questions for bill killers. Markos made a good argument on each. I thought I'd make my own points.

1. Over the medium term, how many other opportunities will exist to provide in excess of $100 billion per year in public subsidies to poor and sick people?

I don't think the subsidies are sustainable. So, you make it ok in the first year or so and they're on their own after that. My former employer did the same thing. They took out high deductible policies for everyone and put some money into an HSA for the first year. OK, no complaints in the first year. What about after that?

2. Would a bill that contained $50 billion in additional subsidies for people making less than 250% of poverty be acceptable?

First, it won't happen. Second, 250% of the poverty level for a family of 4 is $55,125 in 2009. The average cost of insurance for a family of four in 2009 was $16,771 which is about 30% of the income. We, the American taxpayers, have to fund that?

3. Where is the evidence that the plan, as constructed, would substantially increase insurance industry profit margins, particularly when it is funded in part via a tax on insurers?

Mandate + Monopoly = Substantially Increased Insurance Industry Profits. Also, the tax will be passed on to customers, so it's a wash for the industry.

4. Why are some of the same people who are criticizing the bill's lack of cost control also criticizing the inclusion of the excise tax, which is one of the few cost control mechanisms to have survived the process?

The excise tax applies to union negotiated plans. Workers gave up wages for their health care plans. To tax them upsets the collective bargaining.

5. Why are some of the same people who are criticizing the bill's lack of cost control also criticizing the inclusion of the individual mandate, which is key to controlling premiums in the individual market?

Mandates + Monopolies = Substantially Increased Insurance Industry Profits. I don't believe people fail to buy insurance out of any sinister reason. They simply cannot afford it or they don't understand it and the insurance companies want the latter and make their policies and coverages difficult to understand on purpose to achieve it. It cuts down on challenges to claims denial.

6. Would concerns about the political downside to the individual mandate in fact substantially be altered if a public plan were included among the choices? Might not the Republican talking point become: "forcing you to buy government-run insurance?"

I don't care about the political downside re republicans. They say whatever they want to say whether based in truth or not.

7. Roughly how many people would in fact meet ALL of the following criteria: (i) in the individual insurance market, and not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare; (ii) consider the insurance to be a bad deal, even after substantial government subsidies; (iii) are not knowingly gaming the system by waiting to buy insurance until they become sick; (iv) are not exempt from the individual mandate penalty because of low income status or other exemptions carved out by the bill?

I do.

8. How many years is it likely to be before Democrats again have (i) at least as many non-Blue Dog seats in the Congress as they do now, and (ii) a President in the White House who would not veto an ambitious health care bill?

So we take the opportunity to institute bad policy? I don't think that's why I worked for many of these people now in power.

9. If the idea is to wait for a complete meltdown of the health care system, how likely is it that our country will respond to such a crisis in a rational fashion? How have we tended to respond to such crises in the past?

Legislating bad policy will not help prevent a crisis, but lead to one. I think this is just another form of corporate suicide in the long run, comparable to the mortgage meltdown, as insurers impoverish their own customers and price them out of the market.

10. Where is the evidence that the public option is particularly important to base voters and/or swing voters (rather than activists), as compared with other aspects of health care reform?

You guys worked to make it important to the base voters and swing voters. Now you pull the rug out from under them and tell them to live with it. Not smart. No one's buying it.

11. Would base voters be less likely to turn out in 2010 if no health care plan is passed at all, rather than a reasonable plan without a public option?

If handled properly, you can tag the correct people with the failure of reform. Now, it appears to be Obama's fault with Reid as an accomplice.

12. What is the approximate likelihood that a plan passed through reconciliation would be better, on balance, from a policy perspective, than a bill passed through regular order but without a public option?

Single payer. Saves the administrative costs. If not that, then at least a reasonable Medicare expansion that could be built upon in the future. Frankly, this bill is so bad, we'd be better off without any of it than with all of it. They can pass the pilot programs in a separate bill and are already working on that in the House as I reported yesterday.

13. What is the likely extent of political fallout that might result from an attempt to use the reconciliation process?

I don't care. We're making long term policy here. Howard Dean is exactly right that we should not do so with short term thinking.

14. How certain is it that a plan passed through reconciliation would in fact receive 51 votes (when some Democrats would might have objections to the use of the process)?

Worth a try. If you fail, at least we know who voted against it and can act accordingly next election cycle.

15. Are there any compromises or concessions not having to do with the provision of publicly-run health programs that could still be achieved through progressive pressure?

All compromises and concessions have been from the left, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Remember, bipartisanship means republics win everything, all the time. Apparently progressives have no clout with this Administration either even though we brought it to power. Rahm has already expressed his contempt for the left. We protested Rahm just a few years ago on the Iraq War in subzero weather. No need to start supporting him now as he continues to not support us.

16. What are the chances that improvements can be made around the margins of the plan -- possibly including a public option -- between 2011 and the bill's implementation in 2014?

None. Congress is tired of this. There is nothing in it for them either way because they'll be under attack no matter what they do and have no spines to take it from the right. They just want to be done with this and move on.

17. What are the potential upsides and downsides to using the 2010 midterms as a referendum on the public option, with the goal of achieving a 'mandate' for a public option that could be inserted via reconciliation?

Taking a line from Keith Olbermann's special comment, 2010 is now a mandate on compromiseD, not compromise. No one will remember the public option after everything that has happened and no one really understood the public option in the first place. People vote from the gut and this has left a bad feeling all the way around. That's what will be remembered in the voting booths.

18. Was the public option ever an attainable near-term political goal?

It should never have been a goal. It was convoluted, depended on many factors outside of anyone's control and unlikely to operate as theorized. I asked supposed experts on it over and over for an explanation of how this thing would work and why it was a good policy idea. I always got the same explanation: it's an argument that can be made to the right of single payer, could indirectly operate to control costs if done right (the explanation of "right" was very flexible and changed in direct relationship to each capitulation), and it "resonates" with the guys over at the Chamber of Commerce (as if).

19. How many of the arguments that you might be making against the bill would you still be making if a public option were included (but in fact have little to do with the public option)?

All of them. Been making the arguments for months. Read my archives.

20. How many of the arguments that you might be making against the bill are being made out of anger, frustration, or a desire to ring Joe Lieberman by his scruffy, no-good, backstabbing neck?
None. I never thought this was a good idea. When I saw the exchanges and mandates funded by subsidies, I knew this was a problem. Lieberman doesn't matter. He's just the fall guy for the Administration that made this deal months ago.

Nate, almost all of your questions were on the politics of the whole thing. I'm looking for reform and health care, not empty political maneuvering. I think if elected officials do a good job and communicate well and truthfully with their constituents, the re-election is easier.

Ellen's
Illinois Tenth Congressional District Blog