Progressive News and Views

Progressives Fiercest Critics of Obama's War Policy

2011-04-01T17:18:00.000-07:00

Published on Friday, April 1, 2011 by The Hill

Liberals Among Fiercest Libya Critics

by Mike Lillis

As President Obama struggles to sell a contentious Libya strategy to a skeptical Congress, Capitol Hill's most liberal voices have emerged as some of the fiercest critics.

"In two years we have moved from President [George W.] Bush's doctrine of preventive war to President Obama's assertion of the right to go to war without even the pretext of a threat to our nation," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, an anti-war liberal, said Thursday during a House floor speech. "This is a clear and arrogant violation of our Constitution. Even a war launched for humanitarian reasons is still a war -- and only Congress can declare war." (UPI Photo/Kevin Dietsch) Liberal Democrats — the heart and soul of Obama's meteoric rise to the White House — are using floor speeches, op-eds, committee hearings and even legislation to condemn the administration's decision to send U.S. forces to help Libyan rebels oust longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

The lawmakers have questioned the timing, cost, wisdom and constitutionality of the White House endeavor, stealing headlines from Democratic supporters of the policy and practically drowning out the condemnations from Obama's more traditional conservative critics. Less then 30 months after Obama ascended to commander in chief with a message disdainful of unilateral military operations, the liberal detractors are all but charging him with hypocrisy.

"In two years, we have moved from President Bush’s doctrine of preventive war to President Obama’s assertion of the right to go to war without even the pretext of a threat to our nation," Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), an anti-war liberal, said Thursday during a 40-minute broadside fired from the House floor.

"This is a clear and arrogant violation of our Constitution," he added. "Even a war launched for humanitarian reasons is still a war — and only Congress can declare war."

Rep. John Conyers (Mich.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, agrees. Conyers conceded that Congress and the White House "have long grappled over the exact division of powers in times of war." But, he added, "the Constitution grants sole authority to the Congress to commit the nation to battle in the first instance."

"That decision is one of the most serious that we are called upon to make," Conyers said last week, "and we should never abdicate this responsibility to the president."

With Gadhafi threatening to attack even civilians critical of his regime, international forces — led by the United States — launched air and missile strikes in March to establish a no-fly zone over the beleaguered North African nation. The United States on Sunday handed over control of the operations to NATO.

Obama went on national television Monday to explain his decision, which he said was based largely on humanitarian grounds.

"In this particular country — Libya — at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale," Obama said. "We had a unique ability to stop that violence."

The message was embraced by a number Democrats, but did little to appease the early liberal critics of the operations. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) characterized Obama's speech as "more eloquent than persuasive," while Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) accused the president of sidestepping Congress by waiting until lawmakers left town to launch the attacks.

"How premeditated, and how irresponsible, I believe the current course of events to be," Kaptur said.

Wednesday's classified briefing from administration officials — including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates — also didn't alleviate liberal concerns over how the intervention was initiated.

"It still needs authorization," Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) told The Hill as he emerged from the briefing.

These concerns are aired as the Pentagon and the White House are reportedly at odds over the scope and pace of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Those reports are sure to exacerbate the concerns of lawmakers already wondering about Obama's exit strategy in Libya.

On Thursday, White House officials made the rounds on Capitol Hill yet again, appearing before four committees — two in each chamber — on the Libya situation. Skeptical lawmakers on both sides of the aisle voiced four primary concerns:

— Did the administration have the legal authority to enter Libya without congressional approval?

— Who will pay for the conflict?

— Who exactly are the Libyan rebels the U.S. is protecting?

— How can the United States and NATO ensure Gadhafi is bumped from power without sending ground troops to knock him off ourselves?

Rep. Brad Sherman (Calif.), a liberal Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, didn't let the opportunity to lash out at the White House go to waste.

Sherman went after the witness, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, for using taxpayer dollars to fund the Libyan operation rather than tapping Libya's own enormous resources — largely derived from oil — to cover the tab. The California Democrat also accused the White House of neglecting to ensure the rebel forces don't include those with a history of fighting against Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sherman said he asked about extraditions of such rebels during Wednesday's classified briefing with Clinton and Gates, but didn't get a response. "I'm sure if you give me another classified briefing, I'll still get no answer," he said.

Steinberg noted that President Ronald Reagan launched an air and missile attack on Libya in 1986 without congressional approval. "The test is when the action is limited in scope and duration," Sternberg said.

"Each case," he added later, "has to be taken on its own terms."

Some liberal Democrats are lining up behind legislation to push back against the administration's approach to Libya. A GOP bill to defund the intervention until Congress authorizes it already has as many Democratic co-sponsors as Republicans. Three Democrats — Reps. Kucinich, Pete Stark (Calif.) and Michael Capuano (Mass.) — endorsed the bill this week.

Some Senate liberals want more conditions applied to the White House's Libya policy, as well. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) urged the administration Thursday to provide support to the Libyan rebels only if they agree to hand over Libyan national Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was the only person convicted in the 1998 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The blast killed 281 people, including all 270 aboard the plane. Scottish authorities released al-Megrahi in 2009 citing his poor health — a deal reportedly influenced by Britain's desire to secure an oil contract with Libya.

"This should be straightforward and simple: If you get our support, we get al-Megrahi," Schumer said. "It makes perfect sense to insist that support for their cause is conditioned upon sending al-Megrahi back to prison where he belongs."

Today's Social Security Propaganda Rebuttal Post

2011-03-17T14:43:00.000-07:00

Campaign for America's Future

Today's Social Security Propaganda Rebuttal Post

By Dave Johnson

March 17, 2011 - 1:02pm ET

Marketing works. If you put a lot of money into repeating a marketing message over and over and over, eventually people's brains absorb the message. Conservatives have put a lot of money and effort into convincing people that there is something wrong with Social Security, and that effort is paying off.

So maybe it's a good idea to start with some facts. Social Security cannot borrow, so it does not contribute to the deficit. In fact, working people have been paying a large share of their earnings into Social Security to save for their retirement, and because of this the program has been running a huge surplus. The government has been borrowing FROM Social Security to fund tax cuts for the rich. This borrowed money was used to purchase Treasury Notes, just like China does when we borrow from them, and those notes earn interest, just like China's, which also helps fund the program. So all of this money people have been putting aside for their retirement adds up to a huge trust fund, which doesn't get used up until approx 2037 -- if the economy doesn't get better; later if it does. Even then it only runs a bit short.

OK, so those are some facts about Social Security . Now,on to the conservative propaganda.

Conservatives hate Social Security because it is a demonstration of government working and serving the public. This contradicts their anti-government, anti-democracy ideology so something has to be done about it. Also, it involves a lot of money in that trust fund that working people have been setting aside for their retirement, and the people who fund the conservatives want to get their hands on it. Hence the propaganda campaign to convince people that it is a bad program.

Here is a sampling of today's propaganda:

Social Security needs to be fixed - So just do it,

Without changes, entitlements will squeeze out other spending priorities. They will push up tax rates, and they will create a drag on the economy. Basically, they will bust the budget.

Social Security is the easiest to fix since, unlike health care, we actually know what will work: It boils down to some combination of benefit reductions and revenue increases.

"Fix" that trust fund that working people have been setting aside for their retirement by cutting their payback?

GOP Calls To Overhaul Social Security Grow Louder

Republicans say that without reform, Social Security is bound to be an ever greater fiscal burden. ... "Social Security is now at the tipping point, the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency if we don't do something about it," [Sen. Richard] Shelby said.

Paying back the money that working people have been setting aside for their retirement is "a fiscal burden" in a time of tax cuts for the wealthy...

Coburn: Government ‘Stole’ From Social Security,

“We have stolen $2.6 trillion from it. We put paper money in there. The problem is, we spent the money – we didn't just take it, we took it and spent it,” Coburn said Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “Social Security ran about a $53 billion deficit last year – it's projected to run a continuous deficit.

“There's no question that there's an IOU in there,” Coburn said. “But our country’s borrowing $4 billion a day. There’s no question, if we had the money, we could wait 10 or 15 or 20 years to fix Social Security.

I wonder if Coburn is also telling China that the government has "stolen" the money they put into Treasury Notes?

Senate GOP bloc demanding entitlement reform in exchange for debt limit hike,

In a letter sent to President Obama Wednesday, 23 GOP senators warned it will be "difficult, if not impossible" to approve a hike to the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling if the president does not take the lead on reforming Medicare and Social Security.

The Results Of The Propaganda Campaign

That's just today's news. And the result of a decades-long propaganda campaign?

Poll: 81% fear for Social Security

The vast majority of Americans see Social Security headed toward a crisis, and most think the system needs a major overhaul, a new poll suggests.

Eighty-one percent of those surveyed for a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Thursday said they think that if no changes are made to Social Security, the program will be in trouble, while just 15 percent said the system will be fine as it is.

Marketing works. But the fact is that working people have been setting aside money for their retirement, and that money is in a trust fund that has purchased Treasury Notes. Some people are trying to get out of paying that money back, because paying it back would involved doing something about those tax cuts for the rich...

Core Democratic Party Principles And Commitments

2011-02-27T14:59:00.000-08:00

Daily Kos

Core Democratic Party Principles And Commitments By Lolligolli and HoundDog

We believe our noble Democratic Party has strong core principles, values, and historic commitments to highly valued constituent voters such as woman, people of color, ethnic and religious minorities, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, retired, those without basic health care, veterans, and underdogs in our political system such as immigrants, and the gay, lesbian, transgendered communities.

The Democratic and Republican parties have been locked and a five decades long battle between what rights are sacrosanct to the individual -- and what powers can be exercised by the state. And what is the role of the Government in protecting individual rights and the common good.

The Democratic party has staked out the moral high ground in our commitments to the constitutionally based principles of the separation of church and state, the right to privacy, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the principles of full equality and protections of individual rights.

Our Proud Democratic History

We are pround of our party's consistent efforts to protect the individual and the minority underdogs against our society's tendency to concentrate both economic and political power in the hands of a few, and in the abstractions and unconsciousness of the majority not yet always aware of certain injustices that might incur to the disadvantage through traditional but sometimes prejudicial ways of thinking.

Our struggles have revolved around our consistent interpretation of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and more specifically, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in favor of protecting the sacrosanct respect our Constitution places on the rights of the individual.

Also, although not directly mentioned in the constitution, the Democratic party has been a champion of the working man, fair wages, fair trade agreements that protect America jobs, worker safety, OSHA protections, environmental protection, and the respect for international law and the Geneva conventions in foreign policy, as well as respect for the multi-lateral rights of other nations, Just War theory and a more cautious approach to unilateral military interventions in the affairs of other nations.

Core Democratic Principles

Let's first focus on the origins and foundations for what many of us call the "progressive social issues" or agenda. We have banded together to fight and win on these issues and changed the definition of our party by remembering the advice of our founders "We either hang together or hang separately."

For woman, people of color, the disabled, gays, lesbians, the bisexual, transgendered, religious and ethnic minorities, and others who were inspired by the great words of Martin Luther King Jr., solidarity around these issues in the face of oppression became a matter of survival. And our winning formula and strategy for almost five decades of elections.

These principles and associated political philosophies define what it means to be a Democrat and what our party stands for. These principles and truths we hold to be self evident, noble, and still inspire the aspirations of people around the world.

There is no going back now.

Looking Forward and Looking Backwards

Republicans are the party of the past. Their backwards looking vision does not inspire the aspirations of others around the world yearning for freedom, equality, and democracy. This is the source of the terms regressive and progressive. Because progressives believe in progress that will lead to a better future for all individuals. By overcoming superstition, prejudice, discrimination, and injustice implied in unexamined assumptions of the past.

It is the progressive principled Democrats who represent the ideals and hopes of the future. Because we committed ourselves to stands on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments that have proven to be the historically correct. Now the rest of society is catching up with us. And the Republicans who bet on the wrong side of these historic charges are in collapse and disarray.

Perhaps, there is a lesson here? When in doubt, going with the wonderful Constitution of the United States of America is our safest bet. But now after an incredible, noble, painful, bloody, and expensive series of battles, and bets on the future that we got right, it would be unwise and tragically sad, to throw out our hard won badges of honor. And betraying our core and loyal constituent voting blocks, would be an insult the memories of the many who like Martin Luther King Jr.,died and paid with their lives to put us where we are today.

We Stand On the Shoulders of Giants

We should be proud and honored that our Democratic Party has taken such noble, courageous, and principled stands on these challenging issues. But we must not become frightened our distracted and return our gaze the past. But need to keeping facing forward.

Let us continue to lead the way to a brighter future for all Americans and people around the world. Many whom have still not yet tasted the fruits of Martin Luther Kings Jr's inspiring dream.

Support for 14th Amendment Rights of full Equality and Individual Rights For All Americans

I think most might agree that full support for civil rights and equality for woman and people of color is a such a party commitment. And a fortunate one, although we paid a big price in the short term for driving the George Wallace "Democrats" out of the party. The sexism and racism that were common and tolerated just decades ago are now anathema

But does our unqualified support of the 14th amendment rights of equal protection extend to full equality and rights for the gay, lesbian, and transgendered community with regard to marriage equality and civil unions? I believe it should. And it would be philosophically inconsistent and even hypocritical if we did not carry out the logical conclusions to "The Dream."

Our Right To Privacy

The constitutional right to privacy that is the basis for Roe versus Wade, protects a woman's right to choose. And contrary to what we hear from Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), the Supreme Court of the United States keeps re-affirming this right. Most recently in a 6-3 decision in Lawrence versus Texas (2003), The SCOTUS struck down all remaining state laws banning sodomy that were the basis of making homosexuality illegal in many states. Anton Scalia wrote the minority decision and is strongly opposed to this right.

But even many Democrats are strongly and even religiously opposed to abortion at a personal level. This is okay and not inconsistent with our party's philosophy. What unites the Democratic party is the Constitutional principle, that this decision belongs to the individual woman. It is every American woman's right to control her own body in whatever consultation she wishes to make with her doctor, family, and religious advisors. And it is our proposition that this support for a woman's right to choose has become a minimum irrevocable commitment for all future Democratic Presidential candidates regardless of their personal opinions. And is a valid criteria for discussing the suitability of all future nominations to the Supreme Court.

The Rule of Law Not Of Men Versus Right Makes Right

We propose that another core element of our commonly held Democratic beliefs is the respect for the rule of law, both at home and abroad. Just about the exact opposite of all the basic principles of the Neocons, who were explicitly trying to lead our nation away from our relatively successful and traditional Democratic foreign policy positions, as advocated by John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, and John Kerry.

So our respect for our signatures on the Geneva Conventions, and the 1945 United Nations Charter should not require "focus groups" or poll approvals for support from most Democrats.

The Neocon Philosophy Of Might Makes Right, and the Preemptive- Unilateral, Projection of Military Power Is Opposite Of the Democratic Philosophy Which Favors Respect For International Law, Multi-lateralism, and the Use Of War And Military Power Only As A Last Resort

The Neocon's led the Republicans over the cliffs of short term political opportunism, by advocating unilateral projection of US Imperial Military power as a first choice in opposition to the Democratic principle of respect for international law, multi-lateralism, and Just War theory which allows initiating war only as a last resort, and negotiation among regional powers to settle disputes.

We must continue our support for the international rule of law, Geneva Conventions, 1945 U.N. Charter, Just War Theory, and opposition of the Neocon philosophy of pre-emptive first strike, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Muslim populations.

Progressives and other Democrats Need To Reunite And Defend Our Principles

The Democratic party cannot start treating loyalty to our foundational commitments as sort an optional Constitutional smorgasbord. If we do this, no one can feel safe. If we stand by, without protest, as one minority group after another is thrown overboard in the "triangulation theory of the day," it will only be a matter time, before we have lost every victory we have fought so hard and so consistently to achieve over the last 5 decades. And now, we face new encroachments from a creeping Patriot Act and President Bush's attempts to bypass FISA courts and Congressional Oversight.

The principles of separation of church and state, the right of privacy, protection against warrantless search and seizure as well as warrantless wiretaps which is in effect search and seizure as well as violations of our right to privacy or our personal information, support for full equality (equal protection under the law) and support full individual rights for all citizens are no longer optional for Democrats.

And supporters of this indivisible set of core Democratic principles and this holistic and integrated political philosophy are not examples of single issue extremists.

We are the mainstream of the progressive Democrats. And represent the trend of American mainstream values. And we are going to reunite, in vigorous and loud support for continuation of the 5 decades long coalition that has successfully got us here today and advanced our society in the right direction on what are now considered modern American centrist values.

Conclusion

The Democratic Party is committed to a powerful and noble set of progressive principles and a political philosophy that distinguishes us from the Republicans.

This philosophy, and these principles and values, form one set of interconnected and indivisible foundational principles that recognize and uphold the sanctity of the individual as the cornerstone of American society. We have successfully united a broad coalition of voters to gain power against the Republicans.

Only by basing our party's definition on real progressive principles, and standing on the shoulders of our founding mothers and fathers, and all the great visionary leaders supporting the sanctity and primacy of individual rights and our voluntary social contract to use government to affect our common good, will we continue to build a powerful party for the future. And by re-committing ourselves to our noble Democratic traditions we will have the staying power to revitalize and sustain our great and historic party into this next century.

So the good news, for those asking if our Democratic Party should have common core principles, is that the answer is yes, and many of these principles have already been chosen and are well known, noble, and correct. True much work and discussion will always remain ahead of us, particularly with regard now to the challenging topics of immigration, and free versus fair trade, and fiscal and budgetary responsibility.

And it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge the vast gap that remains between knowing what the principles are and being able to figure out how to implement them in specific real time circumstances. For example, the time that knowing that we believe in international law would have been most helpful was before we got involved in the Iraq war. It its not immediately clear how this helps us achieve graceful and effective exit from Iraq. Although, the principles of respect and negotiation between all the regional stakeholders can still yield opportunities for improvement.

Our purpose here as not been to advance a basket of abstractions too oversimplified to be useful, but rather to argue that the glass is half full not half empty. We have greater foundations of commonality to be proud of. And here "we" means not just progressives and all Democrats, but also all Americans, and increasingly in the future, all of our citizens of the world.

We believe as just one example, that Former Vice-President Al Gore is just one example, of a current day Democratic leader, who seems to us, to understand and exemplify all aspects of this Democratic Party ideal and integrated philosophy. And represents a new generation of American politician who can be as comfortable and potentialy respected at home or abroad. Al Gore fluency in global issues as well environmental issues, represents a fine example of all of these values, and Al Gore is an example of the kind of politician who is capable of successfully unifying a broad coalition of key loyal voters. Without leaving anyone out.

We believe many other progressive leaders such as Senators Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, General Wesley Clark, and many others embody these committments as well. We just want to offer these few examples, so as not to leave the impression that we are speaking of abstract impossible to acheive ideals, but the reality of out core party leaders and constituents.

We just have to continue to turn our heads from the past, and remove them from the dark places, and look forward into the light. And recommit ourselves to understand our historic progressive principles and require that our leaders understand and remain committed to them as well.

PostScript: We intend this essay as more an invitation to open more discussion towards the development of a broader consensus within our party rather than as a statement of any particular unique political insight. We are both relative newcomers to the world of blogging about the Democratic Party and progressive issues. So this common post is meant to be more of a progress report on our first year of blogging that arose out of a dinner conversation about lessons learned so far. And thought others may be curious to what these issues look like from the point of view of folks like ourselves. So we look forward to other different viewpoints with the same spirit of open mindedness and tolerance for diverse viewpoints as we hope this essay will be received.

And we have been tremendously encouraged and excited about the opportunity to join such a thoughtful and passionate community of progressive Democratics here at Daily Kos. We apologize in advance for any error of understanding or proposition we may have introduced into the discussion. And hope we have proven our willingness to here, respond to and incorporate appreciatively all opportunities for learning and improvement.

We are looking forward to doing every thing we can to help the Democratic party win as many seats in the House and Senate in 2006, and win back the White House in 2008. And we remain committed to supporting all of our Democratic candidates in all of these races whomever they should be.

What Are the Opportunities In Wisconsin

2011-02-23T21:45:00.000-08:00

February 23, 2011 at 23:12:57

What Are the Opportunities In Wisconsin

By Rob Kall (about the author)

opednews.com

There is chaos. There is danger. There is risk. There is much courageous, much bravado, much hubris. There is foolishness and arrogance and the possibility of success of failure.

Wisconsin could be a game changer. Let's make it one that falls our way.

Governor Walker is not looking good. He's looking like some of history's most malevolent people. So are Kasich, Scott and the other right wing Governors looking to fly when the election gave them room to walk.

There are immense opportunities here to trip these Republican governors up, to punk them and prank them and frame them so they look as bad as they are, only they look that way to independents and moderate republicans.

We can do this. Today, Walker was pranked by someone who pretended he was one of the Koch billionaire brothers-- the troglodytes at the stirring up the bottom of the right wing cesspool.

Wisconsin offers the left an opportunity to show the big middle how ugly, stupid and meanspirited the right is.

Wisconsin offers progressives an opportunity to show the real differences between populism and plutocratism.

We need to identify language, framing, memes, stories, narratives, new victims, new heroes who further the story of the ugly Republicans... or whatever language is used to paint them as undesirable.

Please talk about your ideas for language, framing, memes, stories, narratives, new victims, new heroes.

Let's crowdsource this.

Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, Host of the Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show (WNJC 1360 AM), President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Building Progressive Message Amplification, Part 2

2011-02-18T22:00:00.000-08:00

February 17, 2011 at 19:34:20

Building Progressive Message Amplification, Part 2

By Beth Becker (about the author)

opednews.com

Three weeks ago, I posted this diary outlining the first steps toward the goal of building a long-needed "Progressive Echo Chamber". Since then, I'm thrilled to report, efforts have begun to crystallize and a path forward is taking shape. That path will combine effective framing for message creation with a carefully planned system of message delivery

In that first diary, I laid out a vision for creating message unity within the Progressive Community. Progressives in Washington are making an effort work together to craft messaging and build a community to work with to push forward a progressive agenda. Intrinsic to their vision is that this message must reach beyond the hill and beyond the Beltway; this is where you and I come in. So I often get emails from people I work with telling me I can share some of the messaging with others, which I do.

Today I'd like to focus on the blogosphere: What role do bloggers play in the Echo Chamber? And specifically, how can bloggers get involved?

Of all of the pieces of the Echo Chamber puzzle, bloggers have the most eyes that can then digest and further amplify the common messaging. Daily Kos alone gets millions of page views per month. A typical regional blog may get hundreds of thousands of page views per month and an individual local blog may get thousands. Those page views translate into people reading the message, hopefully from multiple bloggers, and then, in turn, writing and talking with that same message. That chain of message amplifcation is invaluable to our Progressive Community.

The second crucial role of bloggers is in message expansion. Let's face it, there are some things that an elected official just can't say. Bloggers, on the other hand, don't have those same constraints. So while a US Representative may take the messaging of say "the no jobs agenda of the GOP" and carefully couch their delivery to be powerful yet tactful, we bloggers can call individual members of the opposition out with more force. We can take a hashtag like #nojobs on Twitter and dominate it... if we do such things together.

So how do bloggers become involved in this Echo Chamber? First: join our email list. Do this by sending a request to me at progressiveechochamber at gmail dot com asking to be put added to the Echo Chamber list. When you receive those emails you can then take the messaging offered and use it in your conversations about the issues at hand. Most importantly, you can use that messaging as you blog about those issues.

Second: you can join us in the Daily Kos Progressive Messaging group. In that group we will be talking about how to best frame the messaging we are being told about and we will exchange ideas about how we can best expand and amplify Progressive messaging.

Third: when you have ideas about messaging, drop me a note that I can then forward to those involved in message creation.

Last: tell everyone you know what we're doing and invite them to become involved. The more people echoing each other, the louder we get.

In the past, we as progressives have not been known for our messaging unity and strength. Now is the time to show that things have changed...that we as a Progressive Community have changed.

This diary is a part of my new series on Progressive Messaging. Please note that my company, Progressive PST, works for Rep. Grijalva's legislative office as an independant consultant, assisting them with netroots outreach and social media strategy. I'm happy to say they understand the importance of this echo chamber building and are working to help unify our messaging but these diaries and my efforts are independent of anything they are doing.

http://www.progressivepst.com

I work as a social media strategist for campaigns and legislative offices. When I blog often I blog what I call "fluff" in an attempt to build community but I am now turning my writing efforts to an attempt to help unify Progressive messaging. I'm (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

The Shrinking Market for Progressive Groups and Websites

2011-02-13T18:00:00.000-08:00

February 12, 2011 at 14:08:40

The Market for Progressive Groups and Websites

By Don Smith (about the author)

opednews.com

Recent news items got me thinking about progressive media.

The sale of HuffPost to AOL raises questions about corporate ownership of progressive infrastructure.

House Republicans' efforts to defund NPR and CPB further threaten the Left's ability to get its message out.

Progressive Democrats of America plans to build a community communication website for progressives.

OpenLeft has closed down, due to lack of financial support.

So I ask:

How can the left build an effective media and political infrastructure outside the market system?

Progressives believe that markets are not the best and only way to provide services. For example, progressives believe in a strong public sector. Markets should be regulated and limited, and the People should join together, both nationally and locally, to cooperate on shared initiatives funded via taxation. Progressives believe that government can provide certain goods and services more efficiently and more equitably than can the private market system. Hence, progressives support public health care, public education, public pensions (Social Security), public transportation, public news media, and an ample safety net for the elderly, the poor, and the sick.

Government is the ultimate form of cooperative endeavor. But political parties and advocacy groups and blogs and even unions and corporations use cooperation to further shared goals.

But it's rather ironic: despite progressives' ambivalence towards markets, and despite their support of cooperation, there's an intense competitive market for progressive groups and websites. Progressive groups and websites compete for market share, struggling to gain funding, viewership, and support.

In contrast, the Right seems more united and better at cooperating. Perhaps that's because they share an immediate economic interest in avoiding taxes and regulation.

Can progressives and other leftists agree to support a common lefty advocacy group or political party? Or is progressivism doomed by the competitive conflict of egos and interests? In other words, will market competition doom progressives to powerlessness?

Ideally, the government, or at least, say, the Democratic Party, would represent the People's interests and would advocate progressive ideas. Since that's not the case, there's a market for progressive groups and websites. (Jim Dean of Democracy for America once made a similar point.) In fact, there are hundreds of national progressive groups: MoveOn, Common Cause, PDA, Bold Progressives, DFA, anti-war groups, health care groups, media reform groups, civil rights groups, environmental groups, women's rights groups, gun control groups, ... the list goes on and on. I can't keep track of all the emails in my inbox from lefty groups soliciting funds and signatures.

I sometimes wonder if the Left would be better off if all these lefty advocacy groups would dissolve and if all the activists would instead devote their energies to taking over the Democratic Party and pushing it leftwards -- the way religious conservatives and Tea Party activists took over the Republican Party and pushed it to the right.

But the Democratic Party is so compromised by "corporate interests" that many progressives feel that it's beyond redemption. Hence the proliferation of lefty advocacy groups.

These various groups compete for market share. To some extent this is natural and healthy. Even in a progressive society, you still want the skilled and effective people to lead. And you want to guard against concentration of power in unresponsive and unrepresentative groups and individuals. So you want a meritocracy and a democracy: a market system of ideas and people and services that compete for democratic support. And that's what progressive groups provide: a service. If you support us and donate money to us, we'll represent your interests: the progressive ideals you hold dear.

But because of the competition among advocacy groups, the Left is weak and inefficient. Nationally, corporations and the rich have effectively taken over the reins of power. On the left, power is too diffuse to be effective. There's duplication of infrastructure (e.g., websites), There's competition for funding. There's competition for readership at blogs and websites.

There's a trade-off between effectiveness and egalitarianism. A highly egalitarian movement is diffuse, with multiple foci of power. It's less corruptible, and people feel they have a say. Such a movement is likely to lack direction and leadership.

Sure, you don't want too much concentration of power in the hands of any one group. But you want some coordination and leadership. Likewise, nothing much gets done without charismatic leaders.

One often hears it said that organizing progressives is like herding cats -- that progressives are hesitant to follow leaders. But it's also true that progressives are looking for a strong leader. In 2008, Barack Obama filled the role of the charismatic leader (a pied piper) who inspired progressives with his talk of change. In 2004 it was Howard Dean that provided that leadership. In 2000 maybe it was Ralph Nader.

So progressives are like cats but they are also like sheep. They will follow effective, inspiring leaders.

Perhaps the Left should agree to concentrate power in fewer groups, even if this means that the movement is less democratic and more vulnerable to power-grabbing by the few.

Alternatively, perhaps leftists should encourage closer coordination among existing groups, so that they can be more effective and less dependent on corporations and on wealthy benefactors to fund their endeavors. (Consider the sale of HuffPost to AOL, which many progressives suspect is a sell-out analogous to the sellout-by Dick Gephardt.)

With concentrated power, there needs to be some form of democratic decision making. MoveOn, for example, polls its members to decide supposedly on which issues to work on. When groups get as large and as centralized as MoveOn, it's difficult to feel that one has much say, and often one finds oneself frustrated by the inaccessibility of the leadership.

PDA recently announced its intention to build a community website for lefties (See this article.). "We want to elevate the site so it becomes a community bulletin board for the entire progressive community." Good luck, one thinks. Every group wants to own the web. Websites such as OpEdNews, TruthOut, TruthDig, DailyKos, and HuffPost cross-post many articles but also compete for market share. And I see competition among lefty groups locally, as described here.

In short, my aim in this article has been to suggest an alternative to market-based progressive activism. I'm suggesting that out of self-interest, the left will come together and better organize and coordinate its (online) infrastructure. It needn't mean ceding power to a monolithic national organization. It just means to share links and some content. Everyone wants to own the web. That's not the way progressives should do things. They should cooperate. This is hard to do nationally, but perhaps it's easier to do locally. Hence my proposal for organizing Washington State leftists: How the Left can better market its message.

The key is that people need to be willing to share power and editorial control.

If things get bad enough, maybe people on the left will come together, out of necessity.

Perhaps this is all a quixotic fantasy and progressivism is doomed. Even if the Left coordinates better, will it ever be anything more than an echo chamber? And if it does gain market share and affect the wider public, as Huff Post did, perhaps it will end up being sold to a corporate interest.

DFA organizer, Democratic Precinct Committee Officer, writer, and programmer. My op-ed pieces have appeared in the Seattle Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and elsewhere. See http://TruthSite.org for my writing, my musical creations, and my (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Beyond Barack Obama

2011-01-30T21:57:00.000-08:00

In These Times

Features » January 27, 2011

Beyond Barack Obama

Lefty focusing on the president and his shortcomings distracts us from the work we need to do.

By Richard Flacks

If we spend a lot of our energy in anguish and attacks on Obama, our own cynicism may ruin the chance to spark new possibilities. (Photo by: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

To wish for The Leader and to cry when he seems to abandon us is childish, and it bespeaks impotence.

The growing progressive drumbeat about President Barack Obama’s failed presidency, coupled now with fantasies about opposing his re-nomination, or with anguished hand-wringing about his failure to communicate, to lead, etc. etc., dismays me. This hysteria is rooted in fear and anger over the intransigence of the corporate plutocracy we are up against. But the answer to corporate dictatorship and kleptocracy has to come from social movements—not the White House. History strongly suggests that grassroots disruption that threatens to unravel the social fabric is the fundamental impetus to real reform.

Yet the loudest voices on the left keep wishing that Obama would lead such a movement. It’s a natural wish—since the work of movement-building is hard, risky and costly for those who take it on. But to wish for The Leader and to cry when he seems to abandon us is childish, and it bespeaks impotence.

Let’s start by giving up a lot of BS about “principle.” There is no history of Democratic Party or liberal principle that Obama is betraying. FDR’s compromises to achieve Social Security and labor legislation abandoned African Americans with effects still strongly felt in our social order. No Democratic president was able to pass universal healthcare and all bargained away any chance of achieving it. It was FDR who gave J. Edgar Hoover the authority to spy on the Left, and JFK who gave him the same to spy on Martin Luther King. Bill Clinton’s abandonment of welfare and his other ‘triangulations’ were larger and more cynical betrayals than Obama’s (so far). Obama’s record of accomplishment, leadership and betrayal stacks up well against all his predecessors.

And let’s stop using ideological yardsticks to judge politicians. Is Obama “really” a progressive? Whatever he tells us he is, he must be a pragmatist in the real world he works in. And we should appreciate and even welcome that!

Ideology is a very poor predictor of integrity or action. Ideology is not what determines the political assessments that most Americans make. This is a big topic, but one advantage the Left has over the Right these days is that the latter is driven by narrow ideological thinking and therefore inevitably going to fail to connect with the American majority.

A big reason we aren’t yet in the midst of a movement on the Left has to do with the faults of the leadership in the national progressive organizational world. For example, it took months for the national organizations to call for a march on Washington for jobs. The One Nation event turned out to be a good start toward some kind of national agenda—and yet I don’t see much evidence of a concerted follow-up to it.

Many of the national leaders are now saying that they intend to be more assertive and independent. But even with a will to mobilize, strategies for effective action have to be grasped—and defining these is not an easy matter. Equally important, there is a loss of “vision”—an absence of articulate expression of how a better world might look.

Lefty focusing on Obama distracts us from the work we need to do.

What progressives have to try is to implement strategies that directly challenge corporate and financial domination. These have to include direct action that disrupts the institutional order. One essential theme: The costs and burdens of economic contraction and austerity must not be borne by the weakest and poorest.

The disgusting cycle, perpetuated by the Obama tax deal, that gives virtually all economic gain to the very top of the income pyramid has to be disrupted.

The wars, which hugely drain the public budget, have to be resisted.

Demands that might actually help people materially—and help the economy as well—need to be voiced and acted on—a massive mortgage write-down being one obvious example. Movement-based organizing on such issues needs to find targets that can be seen and addressed. For example, make locally accessible banks and their executives responsible for the mortgage crisis.

A final suggestion: Progressive organizations need to reinvest in college campus organizing. Instead of seeing students just as election time fodder, we need to consider that the campus is the primary space for generating deep, extensive discussion and debate about the social future. It’s also the place where human energy for bold and creative action can be generated. Back in the early 1960s, a few unions and older liberals more or less recognized their own political staleness, and put a little money and encouragement behind the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committeee and Students for a Democratic Society—even as these upstart groups made them nervous because they weren’t “disciplined.”

Once again, the progressive side needs activist energy that isn’t controlled by big organizational practices and perspectives—energy and thinking that can break molds and invent new modes. But if we spend a lot of our energy in anguish and attacks on Obama, our own cynicism may ruin the chance to spark new possibilities.

Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
Or win a subscription to In These Times by taking this short survey!

Richard Flacks, an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is the author of Cultural Politics and Social Movements (co-editor, 1995); Beyond the Barricades: The '60s Generation Grows Up (1989); Making History: The American Left and the American Mind (1988), and many articles on social movements, left culture and strategy.

More information about Richard Flacks

5 Things Progressives Should Do—and Not Do

2011-01-30T21:50:00.000-08:00

In These Times

Features » January 28, 2011

5 Things Progressives Should Do—and Not Do

By Barbara Ehrenreich

#1 Don’t talk, write or argue about Obama, who has proved himself irrelevant to the progressive project, no matter how narrowly that project is defined. Similarly, don’t conflate progressives with Democrats, since the latter category prominently includes Obama.

#2 Organize the unemployed of all collar colors—white, pink and blue. The unions aren’t doing it, or at least not very much of it, for the simple reason that the unemployed can’t pay dues. You can either support existing organizing efforts like the Unemployed and Anxiously Employed Workers Initiative, which can be found on Facebook, or you can start your own by getting together with other economically challenged folks for purposes of mutual support and advocacy.

#3 Do not “mount an unapologetic defense of government.” It doesn’t deserve it. What we need is a progressive attack on government in its various armed and coercive functions– including the criminal justice system, the war on drugs, ICE, and the TSA. The faux libertarianism of the right should also be challenged with a militant defense of abortion and gay rights.

#4 Organize for a collective defense against foreclosures and evictions. Every time a bank swoops down to snatch up a home, it should be met with a crowd of jeering, obstructive neighbors. And although this may be point 4.5, how about organizing a mass refusal to pay back student loans?

#5 Don’t talk about the need for a “narrative.” Outside of literary theory, that word has become synonymous with “lie.” We know what’s going on here, a no-holds-barred class war of the top 1 percent—augmented by what Tom Frank calls the snake-flag crowd—against the rest of us. That’s not a “story” or a clever new “framing.” It’s what’s happening. We either fight back or get pummeled into the dust.

Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
Or win a subscription to In These Times by taking this short survey!

Barbara Ehrenreich, a journalist and author, first wrote for In These Times in 1977. Her recent books include Bright-sided: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, and Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War. She has been a regular contributor to The Progressive, Harper’s, Time and In These Times, where she is a contributing editor.

More information about Barbara Ehrenreich

The True Progressive Voice

2011-01-22T11:16:00.000-08:00

There is a split in the Democratic Party, that's for sure. The Health Care Bill has found some Democrats ready to settle for anything that will pass; others see the President's Bill as more benefits for the insurance companies.

Lots of so-called progressive talk show hosts have simply abandoned those principles to support a bad bill. They have devoted much air time to this.

IF you are a true progressive and you can help, please try and do so.

If you are merely a partisan and want to spew party-line rhetoric, please don't.

I/we don't need to hear it, and you'll just make yourself look the fool.

Doing what is correct always trumps ideology.

Thanks.

Progressive Voice:
An American Manifesto

by David Dvorkin

A cabal of right wing politicians and fundamentalist Christians has seized control of America. They have dishonored our founders and destroyed our good name. They have claimed ownership of our history and have tried to redefine what America means. They are un-American, they are anti-American, and we progressives, the true Americans, must now save America.

There will be quibbling on the left about what we should call ourselves. We worry too much about nomenclature. We waste time drawing fine distinctions between "progressive" and "liberal" and "left" and so on. At this grim time in American history, such quibbling is foolish and self-destructive. The movement will have the luxury of splintering after it has regained the ascendancy in America. Right now, we're in a war. Yes, a war. Not the so-called War on Terror, that excuse for the grasp for empire and the destruction of our civil liberties. The real war is a war for America's soul, a war to save America from the un-American cabal that has taken control of it. That cabal is reactionary, regressive, destroying the ideals of the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers even while paying lip service to them. We, the progressives, are the true patriots, America's last hope, and we must focus on that war and not on labels.

We need to distinguish between a general, broad progressive movement and the Democratic Party. It may be that progressives will some day gain control of the Democratic Party. It may be that the Democratic Party, in continuing to try to hew to what it sees as the political center, will drift ever further to the right and will in fact become as indistinguishable from the Republican Party as some on the left have long insisted it is. For now, the aims of progressives and Democrats are sufficiently complementary that only the self-deluded progressives did not vote for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Nonetheless, the programs followed by the progressive movement and the Democratic Party are necessarily different. A political party must focus on winning elections and then on holding onto power. A movement focuses on communicating its philosophy and winning converts.

In particular, progressives today must work to change the public discourse and how America views itself. That's what the right started doing in Goldwater's era. In 1964, Goldwater called for the Republican party to become "A choice, not an echo." We laughed at him, but that was the beginning of the right-wing takeover. (We can stop to acknowledge the irony. Goldwater mellowed into a far better man than the curs who, thanks to his work, now control America.) Give the right wingers due credit: The country laughed at them, but they spoke out and stuck to their guns. They did not abandon their principles; they did not weaken or waver. It took the right wing decades, but they ended up defining what America means and stands for. We progressives must now do the same thing, but we must do it in a very few years. Because of the Internet, that's not an impossible task.

In this war, we must have the courage to speak out and to stick to our guns no matter what. We must not lose faith in the rightness of our cause. We must not change or compromise. We must be louder - yes, louder - and more forthright than ever. Right is on our side. American history is on our side. We are Americans in the grand tradition of this country, and our opponents are the enemies of that tradition. Always remember how small and weak they are, behind their facade. Like all bullies, in their hearts they fear they're wrong.

I said "enemy." That's not too strong. The right wing is the enemy of the Constitution and of the ideals on which America was founded. The enemy has learned the value of speaking loudly and in tones of command. He demands. He orders America about. He speaks in imperative voice. We will win back America by speaking in the progressive voice.

Here is what we must say, over and over, until our words penetrate the fog and change America's mind.

Class Warfare

The Republican Party has noble origins, but it abandoned its principles long ago. The party has fallen under the control of a gang of thugs whose beliefs and actions would make Lincoln weep. America and the Republican Party are now in the hands of a strange alliance of amoral corporate interests and religious crazies. The latter do have principles, but those consist of a collection of bizarre ideas utterly at odds with everything the founders of America worked for. No king but Jesus? Freedom is a gift from God? Every knee shall bow? What kind of principles are these for a free and sovereign people to espouse?

The principles of the religious fundamentalists are alien and primitive, better suited to being preached in a cathedral in Medieval Europe than in a church in modern America. Their corporate partners in rule are even more detestable. While they pay lip service to the wonders of the free market and its power to improve the lives of all Americans, they are actually bent on accumulation of wealth and power at the expense of everyone below them on the socioeconomic ladder. By means of tax cuts for the wealthy and government subordination to corporate interests, the wealth of America's population is steadily and rapidly being transferred into the pockets of a small class of greedy self-styled aristocrats.

So the enemy talks much about his principles, but he either has none or he has principles that are alien and evil. We are the ones with principles, and ours are the principles that motivated the men who founded the United States.

Class warfare is well under way in America and has been for a long time. We must not ignore that reality. Instead, we have to talk about it openly and condemn the right wing for pursuing it. Our nominally classless society has always been burdened with a group of the very rich who see themselves as inherently superior, as a natural aristocracy, lacking only the titles. They are clever enough not to award themselves titles and not to rule openly. We must be clever and brave enough to confront this reality, to talk about it, to fight against it. In this fight, most of America is our natural ally. It is our job to open their eyes to that reality.

The Media

Ah, the Fourth Estate! The fearless crusaders for truth, digging into dark corners, exposing corruption and malfeasance. Where would we be without them?

Well, we've been without them for a long time. The press is now an arm of corporate rule, each major media outlet a subsidiary of a huge, faceless business organization. The right wing has repeated the lie that the press is liberal until the public has come to believe it. In fact, the press has been a willing accomplice in convincing the American people to accept the stealing of the last two presidential elections. The press has dulled the public's sensitivity to lies from the White House and to war crimes committed by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does a memo from Republican party headquarters really circulate among America's press lords every morning, setting out the official line for the day? It might as well, judging by the results.

The situation isn't hopeless. Individual journalists may be sensible and on our side, but with very rare exceptions, they are unable to stand against the pro-Republican bias of their corporate masters. There is one factor that works in our favor: The real bias of those corporate masters isn't toward right-wing ideology but toward money. Allied to this is the spinelessness of those masters. Show them that continuing to support the right-wing-fundamentalist gang will in the long run threaten their revenue stream, and they will quickly reconsider their apparent allegiance. Convince them that proper journalistic balance will protect that revenue stream, and they will magically become more balanced. We saw hints of that as the election of 2004 approached and polls predicted a solid Kerry victory. The press only switched back to its habitual posture of licking the jackboots of the right when it became clear that the rigged voting machines were doing their job and that the Bush occupation of the White House would continue.

Write letters. When you see political bias displayed in news or entertainment, write a letter or e-mail to the appropriate media entity and advertiser(s) and say that you won't buy products that pay for such un-American bias. Use the word "boycott" freely. The right wing has been using this tactic effectively for years. Barrage them with mail. Let nothing pass. Do sweat the small stuff.

Obviously, it's important for progressives to support Web sites and other outlets that present our side. Let's go further. Imagine a free weekly or even daily newspaper, available in highly visible stands on street corners everywhere. It would carry reprinted articles from the great liberal/left newspapers of the world and new work from leftwing American reporters. If George Soros is reading this . . .

Religion

Respecting freedom of religious practice does not mean kowtowing to Christianity or giving in to the dangerous and unhistorical claim that America is a Christian country. It also doesn't mean going along with public reverence toward religion.

It is a scandal that in a nation founded in large part by freethinkers, the majority of our citizens say they would never vote for an atheist as president just because he is an atheist.

It is also a scandal that politicians feel pressured not only to declare that they are monotheists but even to inject religious rituals into every public act. Who doubts that if John Kerry had been declared the victor in the 2004 election, he would have followed shameful tradition and tacked a reference to God onto the end of the oath of office at his swearing in, or that he would have sworn that oath on a Bible? The presidential oath specified in the Constitution has no reference to God at all, but when will we have a president with the courage and understanding to use the original Constitutional oath?

The demolition of the Wall of Separation between church and state on which the hoodlums of the Bush administration are engaged was made possible because the Wall was already weakened. Every time a public official swears an official oath on a Bible or mentions God, every time an official meeting is opened with a prayer, every time a politician closes a speech with "God bless America," another brick is removed.

There can be no compromise on this issue. We cannot give an inch. We must once again publicly embrace the legacy of Jefferson and Madison and do so proudly. We must constantly remind our fellow citizens that America is not a Christian or Judeo-Christian nation, that it was not founded on Christian principles, that the Ten Commandments played no role in the formulation of our system of government, and that the Wall of Separation between church and state is one of the foundations of our freedom.

Progressives must never defer to preachers. We must deny them an elevated status and any cloak of authority. Preachers who are leftists have done much good, but even they claim authority and justification from a supernatural power, and this is fundamentally anti-democratic. In our system, all power comes from the people and is delegated by them to those in positions of authority. We the people are the masters. We acknowledge no king, no lord, whether mortal or imaginary. Those who say otherwise, no matter how good their intentions or elevated their natures, are not true democrats.

Preachers on the political right are a more dangerous matter. Like their leftwing brethren, they preach un-democratic submission to a supposed supernatural power. But what is even more sinister, they tend also to preach submission to Earthly power, to those supposedly appointed by God to rule over us. Right wing preachers are the dangerous heirs to the Medieval parish priest telling the peasants to serve the needs and obey the whims of the aristocracy and the king. Moreover, it is only on the right that one finds preachers who live high on the hog, scamming money from the gullible sick, poor, and old.

A free society cannot tolerate such leeches. It must not allow them to wear the cloak of authority and moral superiority. We must drive them out into the wasteland and reclaim our country.

Community

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is more than a description of a collection of individuals acting together to further a temporary common interest. Rather, the Preamble to the Constitution emphasizes that we are a community, a people. In this sense, the groundwork for the American Revolution was laid early in the 18th Century, when many of the colonists began to refer to themselves not as English colonists but as Americans. We cannot survive as a community unless we grant every American full community membership, full legal and social equality. The alternative is disintegration into numerous mutually hostile groups. If our enemy's divide-and-conquer tactic is allowed to succeed, then the work of generations of Americans will have been in vain.

Progressives must be steadfast in their support of gay rights, abortion rights, immigrant rights, etc. The issues here are inclusiveness and equality. We must be especially quick to challenge the right wing when they speak of "special rights." We must remind Americans that there are no special rights, just equal rights, that we are all created equal and are all entitled to the same civil liberties. We must challenge America to live up to its own ideals and to confront its prejudices and hatreds.

A community helps its members who need help. It guarantees medical care for all and minimum standards of living for even the poorest. "Every man for himself" is not a description of a modern, civilized society. Remember the rest of that saying: ". . . and Devil take the hindmost."

The wealthy man who lectures the poor to help themselves is a hypocrite. He is disguising callousness as tough-mindedness. Those at the top of the ladder may like to think they climbed there entirely under their own power, but in fact they have been sucking from the public teat all their lives. The wealth and power of the wealthiest Americans are a product of tax breaks for the rich and special privileges for corporations that have served to funnel public wealth into private accounts.

This is not a call for leveling, just for human decency. Those who achieve wealth honestly should be able to enjoy its privileges, but they must also remember that they, too, owe a debt to the society as a whole. Their success did not occur in isolation. It was made possible by our laws and institutions.

The Common Defense

Unjustified, aggressive wars are not new in America's history. Ask Mexico, Canada, Spain, and the American Indians. Invented justifications for such wars are also not new. Remember the Maine. There were always protestors, and they were always shouted down or intimidated into silence. While none of this is new, it will always be shameful. Aggressive, unjustified warfare is not a progressive value, and we must not let the scum now controlling our government enshrine it as an American one.

We must always speak out loudly against unjust wars. We must not let ourselves be cowed into supporting an evil war just because it is already under way. Otherwise, we surrender our right to protest. Should Germans have supported war and their troops once Hitler's invasions were under way because their troops were now in danger? Those who say yes are saying that even the most evil war becomes its own moral justification the instant it has started. Was a German who objected to Hitler's invasions of other countries a traitor? Isn't it clear to us today that such a German was the true patriot?

Yes, this is exactly the same as our current situation. No, citing Hitler and the Nazis is not a rhetorical surrender. We must not be cowed into pretending that the historical parallel isn't there. We must not be the good Germans - witnesses to evil, but afraid to speak out against it. If we let the current evil continue and say nothing, then we are giving Bush and the rest of the cabal our permission to continue to change America into this century's Nazi Germany.

Worship of the military and reverence for its institutions is one of the defining characteristics of a fascist state. Historically, it is not an American value. Americans used to deride an excessive love of uniforms and military rituals. Presidents, even those famous for their military careers, never wore uniforms when in office. How far the nation has fallen! Now America must endure a peacock in the White House who struts about in a padded flight suit. We are one step away from Perón, two from Hitler.

"Support the troops" is a rhetorical tool used to force people to support an evil government and its evil wars. The only meaningful way to support the troops is by ending our wars of aggression and bringing the troops back home. Support them by not sending them on dishonorable, disgraceful missions.

If we call for the troops to be brought back home, the right acts horrified and morally outraged. "Are you saying their deaths were pointless?" they ask, daring us to say yes. We must have the courage to say, "Yes! Their deaths were pointless for them and their families and pointless for the country and the cause of freedom." The only ones who gain from their deaths are our would-be ruling class, those scum of the earth masquerading as noblemen.

Cruel and Unusual

The death penalty is a shameful relic of a barbaric age. Its true face is that of George Bush giggling while signing Texas death warrants. Statistical evidence and widespread experience argue against it even on pragmatic grounds. Civilized peoples reject it. The right wing barbarians now in control of America are among the benighted few who support it. Progressives must speak out against this moral evil.

The same barbarians have played on public fears to push through mandatory minimum sentencing and three-strikes laws. The results - lives destroyed because of minor crimes or victimless crimes, shocking numbers of young black men behind bars - have been catastrophic for America. We have degraded our population and crippled our society with laws and penal institutions that shame us before the world and which do nothing to reduce the rate of real violent crime or of corporate crime. We must work to replace this unjust and destructive court and prison system with one worthy of a free and progressive society, one that protects society from genuine wrongdoers but does not destroy the innocent.

Fiscal Responsibility

The right wing has always liked to pretend that they are the fiscally responsible ones. The contrast between recent Democratic and Republican presidents shows how false this claim is. Progressives have always sought to balance fiscal responsibility and social obligations. We understand the complexity of ethical allocation of resources and the moral significance of the choices we are forced to make. Unlike the right wing, we are adults and we have a conscience. They have no sense of social responsibility, which is to say no hearts, and so their "fiscal responsibility" posturing is a sham, just a rhetorical device. They don't hesitate to bankrupt future generations because it's not their future generations being bankrupted. The children of the very rich will continue to be okay.

Counting Votes

They wrote these glorious words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

And then they saddled us with the Electoral College, that abomination designed to keep the election of the president in the hands of the colonial ruling class and to maintain the disproportionate influence of the slave states. Slavery is gone and the ruling class no longer directly controls the choice of Electors, but the Electoral College still prevents the American people from electing their own president. This became clearer than ever when the Bush family used the machinery of the College to steal the White House in 2000.

All the arguments in favor of the Electoral College are so much wind. No other democracy would tolerate such an interference with its citizens' right to vote. Every vote must count equally, or we cannot call ourselves a democracy. Yet it is the essence of the Electoral College that votes for the presidency are not all equal. It is a scandal and a disgrace that the College still exists. Progressives must push for its abolition and for direct popular election of the president.

Progressives must also explore and champion other ideas that will ensure that all votes count equally, that everyone gets a chance to vote, and that all votes are counted: proportional representation; national elections spread out over a weekend or an entire week; restoration of the franchise to felons who have completed their sentences; allowing naturalized citizens to become president and vice-president; a truly independent commission to administer elections and count the votes.

Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. In our system, government officials are not our rulers but our employees. In our elections, we don't choose our leaders. Rather, we interview applicants for the job of running the machinery of government for us. Americans must reject any job applicant who doesn't understand this basic concept. Any politician who ascribes his authority to God or claims that freedom is a gift from God has proven himself disqualified to hold office in America. Indeed, he has proven himself unqualified to vote in America.

Growing Up and Facing Reality

America has been infantilized.

The vermin who seized power in 2000 proclaimed that the adults were now in charge. In fact, they are a gang of petulant, ill disciplined children. They have learned, however, to play on the fears of a timid country, on its desire for protection by a daddy figure, on its old preference for pretence over reality, on its reluctance to think for itself.

Like a child who doesn't want to be told that Santa Claus isn't real, America wants to believe that the second-string cheerleader posing as its president is a cowboy, a tough guy, a straight shooter. We must be insistent about the truth: George Bush is an impotent, effeminate wimp, a mentally befuddled fool, a greedy, spoiled brat, a pretend cowboy who cannot even ride a horse and lives on a former pig farm he calls his ranch, compelled to swagger and lie about his athleticism just as he lies about his intellectualism and knowledge of Spanish.

Bush and his puppet masters play upon childish pack behavior, inciting baseless resentment and hostility toward old friends such as France. In this way, they encourage obedience based on an us-against-them, circle-the-wagons mentality. They condemn the French for what is called ingratitude for our coming to their aid in two World Wars. Ah, America, how quickly you forget the sacred sword of Lafayette!

Our enemies preach disdain for the rest of the world. They will listen half-heartedly to those whom they consider allies - which means, in practice, those, like the increasingly pitiful Tony Blair, who have subordinated their own countries' best interests to the interests of the criminals who now control America. But even Blair's words are welcome only so long as they conform to our prejudices and intentions; otherwise, the advice even of our allies is ignored or openly scorned. The Founding Fathers felt otherwise: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, . . . a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Our enemies like black-and-white language because it makes them seem straightforward and strong and because an infantilized populace responds to such language. They make fun of progressives for talking about shades of gray. But adult life is shades of gray. Learning that is one of the most difficult lessons children must master on the way to adulthood. We must challenge Americans to grow up. We must say to America: "The right wing wants to keep you childish and dependent. They want you to let them take control and be your stern father. They invoke bogeymen to terrify you so that you will beg them to protect you. And so you have handed over control of America to a rabble of greedy plutocrats, jingoistic madmen, and thuggish preachers. Where is your self-respect? Stand up! Think for yourselves and show some courage."

Our enemies have learned well from Joseph Goebbels: "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed." They lie about everything. They lie reflexively, even when it's not necessary. It seems to be ingrained in their nature. They are masters of packaging. They are a false front hiding greed and the lust for power and control. We have to point this out over and over. We have to respond to their big lie with the plain truth.

Monarchy or Democracy

Our enemies are without honor. Honorable people keep their word. In signing and ratifying a treaty, the United States pledges its word to the rest of the world. The fascist swine now controlling America have violated those pledges, such as the Geneva Convention, when the treaties are inconvenient. They have not just turned a blind eye to the violation of the treaties; they have even promulgated new doctrines under which violating the treaties is encouraged. In order to invade a small country which did nothing to us, they have lied to the American people and to the world. These men without honor have dishonored the United States and soiled our once good name in the world.

A treaty signed by the United States and ratified by Congress has the force of law. We are said to be a nation of laws, not of men. That is our true guarantee of security, both domestically and internationally. But our enemies care nothing for laws or treaties. Monarchists at heart, they feel free to govern by proclamation. They are anti-democratic and thus un-American by nature. Claiming power derived from God, they are working to undo hundreds of years of history and struggle and to subject us all to a tyranny derived from the most primitive parts of the Old Testament.

One of their most important tactics is the cult of personality, something to which Republicans have long been prone. By this means, they transform an elected office into one possessing supernatural authority, whose decrees no one dare question. They will elevate to sainthood - no, godhood - even the poorest material. Ronald Reagan? George W. Bush? Laughter, contempt, and derision should be our most important weapons here.

The Patriotic Pose

The right wing is rife with flabby wimps affecting macho poses and wild-eyed harridans pretending to be intellectuals. This is all contemptible but ultimately laughable. We must take more seriously their lie that they are patriotic and we are not.

These snakes would abandon America in an instant if it ceased giving them wealth, fame, and power. Those three things are the real focus of their loyalty, and they will follow them anywhere.

Their political allies, the fundamentalist crazies, are no different. Obsessed by the need to regulate the lives of everyone else, they go where they see a chance to rule. They are the heirs to the Puritans, who left England for the New World, seeking not religious freedom, but religious control. When these deranged creatures proclaim that the only commonwealth they acknowledge is one ruled by an imaginary creature in the sky, they mean it.

Thus their insistence on their loyalty and our supposed disloyalty is perhaps the filthiest lie of this filthy cabal. These are the slimy chickenhawks who attacked the wartime valor of John Kerry and Max Cleland. They tell any lies that will serve their cause, and they tell them over and over. The press repeats the lies uncritically, and eventually the lies assume the respectable appearance of well known and unquestioned truth. Ignoring the lies was Dukakis's fatal error during the election against the sleazy elder Bush, and it was Kerry's fatal error during the campaign against the execrable younger Bush. The only defense against these lies - against all of their lies - is an instant, loud response with the truth. The progressive left must never be silent and must never let an insult pass unchallenged, no matter how minor it may seem. When it comes to these major, outrageous lies and insults, we must roar the truth and counterattack ferociously. If they try to sully us, we must destroy them.

Reclaiming America

We are the true Americans, and we must reclaim America.

Our enemies are not American. They are alien to our history and our traditions. They are un-American and anti-democratic. They are a gang of insurgents who have captured the media and the machinery of government, Fifth Columnists working on behalf of the forces of aristocracy and reactionary fundamentalism. They have worked to conquer America so that they can undo not only the New Deal, but the American Revolution as well. They are reactionaries, remnants of the 16th Century and intent on remaking America in the image of those times. They have already made dangerous progress in that direction.

The enemy is a minority. Self-identified conservatives constitute only one-third of the population, and even that number includes those who are conservatives in an older sense, people who have little in common with the foaming-at-the-mouth wackos who infest the halls of government and spew their poison over rightwing talk radio and Fox television.

They are hypocrites, epitomized by Rush Limbaugh, a secret drug addict who called for tough treatment and no mercy for drug addicts, and Bill Bennett, preacher and writer about traditional virtues, who is a glutton and addicted to gambling and nicotine. And yet we have let these pigs own the language. This must end. We must take back words like virtue, family, and patriotism.

The irony is that their monarchical impulse has seduced them into imperial overreach. In destroying small countries, America is destroying itself. Empires decline and fall, and ours would have followed that inevitable path even if Bush had not been inserted into the White House. However, we would probably have remained the greatest of the great powers until the middle of the century. Thanks to Bush's destructive maladministration, we'll be lucky if we remain first among equals into the century's second decade.

We must say all of this loudly and often, but this means we must have the courage, the backbone, to keep speaking out despite the inevitable orchestrated sneers and slurs of the captive press. Our courage will come from remembering that we are the real Americans, the true heirs to the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers.

Always remember: They are the aliens, the outsiders, the corrupters, the betrayers of our history and ideals. We are the true Americans.

New Poll Confirms Country is Clearly Progressive

2011-01-04T21:21:00.000-08:00

January 4, 2011 at 20:56:07

New Poll Confirms Country is Clearly Progressive

By Cenk Uygur (about the author)

opednews.com

New poll out indicates that the country is clearly, massively, overwhelmingly progressive. While they talk about cutting so-called entitlement programs in Washington, the American people have completely different priorities.

When asked what's the first thing they would do to balance the budget, Americans had an unmistakably clear answer -- raise taxes on the rich. It came in number one by a mile, with a whopping 61 percent.

If that wasn't progressive enough, cutting defense spending came in number two, with 20 percent.

And if all of that wasn't clear enough, when asked about cutting Medicare, only 4 percent were in favor of it. Only 3 percent wanted to cut Social Security as a way to balance the budget.

I thought the country was center-right? That's what all of the pundits tell us 24/7 on television. What happened now? Do those answers look center-right to you? They look decidedly center-left to anyone with a pulse.

Washington is going to hate this news because they were just getting ready to cut people's Social Security. That's what the president's Deficit Commission suggested. That's what all of the Republicans are massively in favor of. That's what a lot of the Democrats are already saying is "necessary." All the meanwhile, they just gave a $407 billion tax cut to the richest people in the country.

Well, apparently the American people disagree with Washington's priorities. If the Democrats, Republicans and the president persist in trying to cut Social Security in the face of these numbers, then we will know that we have lost our democracy altogether. That the people in power couldn't give a damn what we want. That the take over of the American government by the corporations, the rich and the powerful is complete.

Every time you hear any politician or pundit say we have to cut Social Security or what they derisively call entitlement programs (you paid into them your whole life, that is why you are "entitled" to them), send them this poll. And ask them why they don't care at all about the will of the American people.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter:www.twitter.com/theyoungturks
Become a Fan of The Young Turks on Facebook: www.facebook.com/tytnation

Cenk Uygur is host of The Young Turks, the first ever live, daily web television talk show. The Young Turks are on XM Satellite Radio 8-9PM ET (XM 167, America Left) and on Sirius Left 146. The Young Turks is one of the Top 100 You Tube Partners, (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Obama: Drastic Times Require Drastic Measures: Fire Geithner

2010-02-11T20:49:00.000-08:00


	Drastic Times, Drastic Measures Fire Geithner

It is no surprise that Wall Street is recovering, since the US taxpayer has shelled out trillions of dollars to save the financiers who brought our economy to its knees. The rest of us are still waiting for the economy to turn around. Considering the challenges that face us, it will be quite a long wait, unless the President takes some drastic steps to alter our course.

Any number of things could have been done to stimulate our economy, but under the advice of Timothy Geithner, Robert Rubin, and Larry Summers, President Obama chose to throw our eggs into the Wall Street basket. In a not so stunning turn around, the rich are once again getting rich while the rest of us are losing our homes, jobs, health coverage, life savings, and retirement benefits--everything we've worked for our entire lives.

Drastic times call for drastic measures. In order to right the ship of state, President Obama should hire new financial advisors whose main concern is creating a working economy for all Americans, rather than padding the pockets of their former employers.

It's time to fire Geithner, Summers, and Rubin.

We encourage you to use your own words to alter the title and text at this link.

The Obama Disarmament Paradox

2010-02-11T14:36:00.000-08:00

The Obama Disarmament Paradox

By Greg Mello
February 11, 2010

Published by Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Last April in Prague, President Barack Obama gave a speech that many have interpreted as a commitment to significant nuclear disarmament.

Now, however, the White House is requesting one of the larger increases in warhead spending history. If its request is fully funded, warhead spending would rise 10 percent in a single year, with further increases promised for the future. Los Alamos National Laboratory, the biggest target of the Obama largesse, would see a 22 percent budget increase, its largest since 1944. In particular, funding for a new plutonium "pit" factory complex there would more than double, signaling a commitment to produce new nuclear weapons a decade hence.

So how is the president's budget compatible with his disarmament vision?

The answer is simple: There is no evidence that Obama has, or ever had, any such vision. He said nothing to that effect in Prague. There, he merely spoke of his commitment "to seek . . . a world without nuclear weapons," a vague aspiration and hardly a novel one at that level of abstraction. He said that in the meantime the United States "will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies."

Since nuclear weapons don't, and won't ever, "deter any adversary," this too was highly aspirational, if not futile. The vain search for an "effective" arsenal that can deter "any" adversary requires unending innovation and continuous real investment, including investment in the extended deterrent to which Obama referred. The promise of such investments, and not disarmament, was the operative message in Prague as far as the U.S. stockpile was concerned. In fact, proposed new investments in extended deterrence were already being packaged for Congress when Obama spoke.

To fulfill his supposed "disarmament vision," Obama offered just two approaches in Prague, both indefinite. First, he spoke vaguely of reducing "the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy." It's far from clear what that might actually mean, or even what it could mean. Most likely it refers to official discourse--what officials say about nuclear doctrine--as opposed to actual facts on the ground. Second, Obama promised to negotiate "a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty [START] with the Russians." As far as nuclear disarmament went in the speech, that was it.

Of course, Obama also said his administration would promptly pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, an action not yet taken and one entirely unrelated to U.S. disarmament. The rest of the speech was devoted to various nonproliferation initiatives that his administration planned to seek.

On July 8, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced their Joint Understanding, committing their respective countries to somewhere between 500 to 1,100 strategic delivery vehicles and 1,500 to 1,675 deployed strategic warheads, very modest goals to be achieved a full seven years after the treaty entered into force. Total arsenal numbers wouldn't change, so strategic warheads could be taken from deployment and placed in a reserve--de-alerted, in effect. The treaty wouldn't affect nonstrategic warheads. It wouldn't require dismantlement. As Hans Kristensen at the Federation of American Scientists has explained, the delivery vehicle limits require little, if any, change from U.S. and Russian expected deployments.

Ironically, it's possible that the retirement of 4,000 or more U.S. warheads under the Moscow Treaty and other retirements ordered by George W. Bush may exceed anything Obama does in terms of disarmament. As for the stockpile and weapons complex, Bush's aspirations were far more hawkish than Congress ultimately allowed. Real budgets for warheads fell during his last three years in office. Now, with the Democrats controlling the executive branch and both houses of Congress, congressional restraint is notable by its absence. What Obama mainly seems to be "disarming" is congressional resistance to variations of some of the same proposals Bush found it difficult to authorize and fund.

Last May Obama sent his first budget to Congress, calling for flat warhead spending. At that time, the administration was still displaying a measured approach toward replacement and expansion of warhead capabilities.

That said, in last year's budget the White House did acquiesce to a Pentagon demand to request funding for a major upgrade to four B61 nuclear bomb variants--one of which had just completed a 20-year-plus life-extension program. Just one day before that budget was released a grand nuclear strategy review previously requested by the armed services committees was unveiled. It was chaired by William Perry, a member of the governing board of the corporation that manages Los Alamos, and recurrent Cold War fixture James Schlesinger. [Full disclosure: Perry is also a member of the Bulletin's Board of Sponsors.]

The report's recommendations for increased spending and weapons development quickly began to serve as a rallying point for defense hawks--surely the point of the exercise. Overall, it was largely a conclusory pastiche of recycled Cold War notions, entirely lacking in analysis and often factually wrong. But neither the White House nor leading congressional Democrats offered any public resistance or rebuttal to its conclusions.

More largely, opposition to nuclear restraint within the administration quickly emerged from its usual redoubts at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the Pentagon, STRATCOM, and interested players in both parties in Congress. Plus, Obama left key Bush appointees in place at NNSA while the Pentagon added some familiar faces from the Clinton administration, leaving serious questions about the ability of the White House to develop an independent understanding of the issues, let alone present one to Congress.

Either way, potential treaty ratification is surely a major factor in White House thinking. Senate Republicans, as expected, are demanding significant nuclear investments prior to considering ratification of any START follow-on treaty. Democratic hawks, especially powerful ones with pork-barrel interests at stake such as New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, also must be satisfied in the ratification process. All in all this makes the latest Obama budget request a kind of "preemptive surrender" to nuclear hawks. So whether or not the president has a disarmament "vision" is irrelevant. What is important are the policy commitments embodied in the budget request and whether Congress will endorse them.

Investments on the scale requested should be flatly unacceptable to all of us. The country and the world face truly apocalyptic security challenges from climate change and looming shortages of transportation fuels. Our economy is very weak and will remain so for the foreseeable future. The proposed increases in nuclear weapons spending, embedded as they are in an overall military budget bigger than any since the 1940s, should be a clarion call for renewed political commitment in service of the fundamental values that uphold this, or any, society.

Those values are now gravely threatened--not least by a White House uncertain about, or unwilling or unable to fight for, what is right.

Greg Mello cofounded the Los Alamos Study Group (LASG), which since 1989 has endeavored to provide leadership on nuclear disarmament and related issues in New Mexico. Based in Albuquerque, LASG's work includes research, organizing, education, litigating, and providing information on nuclear weapon issues for journalists. A former supervising hydrogeologist for the New Mexico Environment Department, Mello was a visiting research fellow at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security in 2002.

Home Underwater? Walk Away from Geithner's Perverse 'Homeowner Relief' Plan

2010-02-11T14:30:00.000-08:00

Home Underwater? Walk Away from Geithner's Perverse 'Homeowner Relief' Plan

February 10, 2010

Take Action: Tell Pres. Obama "Fire Geithner"

Published by AlterNet.

The plan to supposedly aid homeowners drowning in debt adopted by Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is just a money trough for the banks.

The homeowner relief plan adopted by President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has not been working for a full year now. What's worse, as the program is currently structured, its chief benefits accrue directly to the nation's largest banks, leaving troubled borrowers to twist in the wind. But despite the administration's indifference, underwater borrowers can still take matters into their own hands. If you owe more than your house is worth, just walk away.

"The rational thing for these people to do is to send the keys to the bank and say, 'Good luck,'" says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research. "Every month that you keep that person in their home paying that mortgage, that's a gift to the bank. So if you could keep a lot of people from sending their keys to the bank, and keep sending their checks instead, that helps the banks directly."

According to the administration's latest update on the Home Affordability Modification Program, just 66,456 borrowers have received a permanent mortgage modification from their bank over the past year, out of about 900,000 trial modifications. Even judging from the trial-stage figures, the program barely making a dent in the actual problem. Data from First American CoreLogic indicate that for 10.7 million U.S. homes, borrowers owe banks more than their house is worth (they're "underwater"). That's a full 23 percent of all mortgages in the country. Another 2.3 million borrowers are down to their last slivers of equity.

But the primary problem is not that the administration's program isn't reaching enough borrowers—it's that the "relief" offered by the plan is actually worse for a lot of borrowers than outright foreclosure. And despite heavy criticism from community groups and borrower advocates, Geithner's Treasury Department—which oversees the plan—has refused to alter HAMP's core objectives, opting instead for a series of minor paperwork processing tweaks.

HAMP attempts to keep people in their homes by reducing how much they have to pay every month. Banks can make all kinds of revisions to the loan contract to bring down this payment, and on the few permanent loan modifications that have been agreed to, borrowers have seen their monthly payments go down by about $500. But buying a home is so expensive, especially at bubble-level prices, that even borrowers receiving this aid could usually rent a comparable home for less. Still more troubling, this payment assistance does nothing to address borrowers' overall debt burden. The total amount the borrower owes to the bank—the loan principal—is still exactly what it was when the mortgage contract was first signed. If you bought your house for $280,000, but the house is now worth only $210,000, paying off your mortgage in full, even with help from HAMP, will mean losing $70,000.

"You can't make a significant dent in mortgage defaults without reducing principal," says Raj Date, a former Capital One executive who now heads the Cambridge Winter Center for Financial Institutions Policy.

The average underwater borrower today owes about $70,000 more than their home is actually worth, according to CoreLogic. Since 10.7 million mortgages are currently underwater, the banking system could see losses of up to $749 billion from problem mortgages—and the number gets much bigger if home prices decline further. Banks have probably already booked some of those losses, but it's still a huge hole, one many banks will not be able to fill. The entire U.S. banking system only has about $1.25 trillion to absorb losses, according to the Federal Reserve ($11.58 trillion in assets minus $10.33 trillion in liabilities). So while most large banks booked big profits and paid out huge bonuses in 2009, the potential for serious financial trouble has always been right around the corner. We have not, in fact, fully revived the U.S. financial system. We've just helped banks book profits on the backs of troubled borrowers. With HAMP, we've even encouraged borrowers to waste their money on irrational payments.

A New Strategy for Labor and the Left

2010-02-11T14:22:00.000-08:00

A New Strategy for Labor and the Left

By Richard Wolff
February 11, 2010

Published by Professor Richard D. Wolff.

We are overdue for a new strategy. Labor and the Left are at low points in long declines. One cause has been adherence to a failed strategy. We need to acknowledge that reality and answer two linked questions. First, what part of getting into this situation was our own doing? Second, what changes in labor’s and the Left’s strategy could revive the two groups and rebuild their coalition into a powerful political force? To answer the first question: labor’s and the Left’s strategic attitude toward capitalism undermined both partners and their coalition. To answer the second: changing their attitude toward capitalism could, I believe, revive them significantly in the near future.

With rare exceptions, the strategic orientation of labor and the Left toward capitalism has been one-sidedly macro-focused on the nature and extent of state economic interventions. Thus it emphasized taxing enterprises rather than workers, the rich rather than the middle- and lower-income earners. It generally favored state regulation of the private economy rather than laissez-faire, public over private enterprises, and state planning/controls over private/free markets. The welfare state, social democracy, socialism, and communism were all understood chiefly in the macro sense of state intervention. Differences among them concerned the extent of those interventions (ranging from regulation, to control, to state ownership of enterprises and productive resources).

In contrast, labor and the Left paid far less attention to capitalism at the micro level, the internal organization and operation of the enterprise. They did not challenge the basic position of corporate boards of directors as appropriators and distributors of the surpluses produced by other people, the workers. They accepted—or simply presumed—that those boards would exclude workers from the appropriation and distribution of the enterprise’s surpluses (or profits). Rarely did Left forces seriously raise the goal of workers themselves becoming, collectively, the appropriators and distributors of enterprise surpluses. When that idea surfaced, it was usually dismissed as unworkable, utopian, and irrelevant to workers’ practical interests. The Left restricted itself to demanding state-enforced employers’ exploitation of workers, deception of customers, and abuse (both socially and environmentally) of surrounding communities.

Labor’s and the Left’s implicit micro-level strategy with regard to the enterprise thus became reduced to improving the terms of the employer-employee relationship for the workers, not eliminating that relationship altogether. Unions were to bargain collectively for better wages, benefits, and working conditions, leaving employers to receive and distribute the surpluses. Such (micro) bargaining within enterprises was to be allied with leftist political (macro) struggles for state interventions to benefit workers (via tax reforms, market regulations, greater welfare payments and/ or subsidized public services, and socialized medicine).

Capitalist employers have always responded by deploying the surpluses they kept appropriating to evade, weaken, and undo whatever reforms and gains labor and the Left could win. They did so at both the micro and macro levels. They distributed portions of their appropriated surpluses at the micro level to support intrusive supervisors, to alter technologies, and to outsource production. They distributed other portions of their surpluses to support think tanks, build mass media connections, finance selected academics, and buy politicians to improve their macro-level conditions. Such dispositions of capitalists’ surpluses eventually undid most of the gains that the Left and labor won via Roosevelt’s New Deal. Examples include the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, as well as the subsequent undermining of progressive taxation in favor of profit-oriented deregulation, and so on. Capitalists’ surpluses today fund all the major efforts to block or weaken reforms initiated by Obama’s administration.

Thus, in the U.S. and beyond, the old strategy that allowed corporate boards of directors to keep appropriating and distributing the surpluses of enterprises had repeatedly disastrous consequences for labor and the Left. Similarly, in countries such as the U.S.S.R. and China, “socialist” strategies—that replaced corporate directors with state officials the internal employer-employee structures of state enterprises initial gains won by their revolutions. Yet Left and labor forces in both situations seem unable to criticize their parallel old strategies and draw the lessons for a new strategy. Today, they again demand reforms, especially in response to the current global capitalist crisis. And once again, those reforms leave largely unchallanged the employer-employee relationship within enterprises.

A new strategy would not leave in place an adversary with the incentive and the resources to block, minimize, and then undo what labor and the Left can win. The key new strategic component is micro-focused in two parts. First, enterprise boards of directors must no longer be non-workers or elected by shareholders. Second, their functions—the appropriation and distribution of surpluses—must henceforth be performed instead by the workers collectively. The new object for struggle is thus the internal transformation of each enterprise. The goal is a fundamentally transformed job description for each worker, one that would involve both: (1) the realignment of particular tasks within an enterprise’s division of labor; and (2) full participation on that enterprise’s collective board of directors. No worker could meet one part of such a job description without also meeting the other.

Making this new strategic goal a central part of Left, labor, and socialist and/or communist programs would radically transform them from what they have long been. To the macro focus on state interventions (via reforms and regulations) would be added this new micro-level goal. By achieving it, workers would acquire the requisite status, incentives, and resources to make enterprise policies support their traditional macro-level goals (such as economic planning, social welfare, and greater wealth and income equality). However “radical” the new strategy may be considered, it offers the only real hope to secure any future reforms won by labor and the Left.

This new strategy is unapologetically anticapitalist. It aims to challenge the essence of the capitalist organization of production—the employer-employee relationship—and replace it with a communitarian organization. On that basis, all the other dimensions that are characteristic of capitalist societies would open up for democratic reconstruction as well. Will the distribution of resources and products be achieved by market exchanges, or by other mechanisms (e.g., decentralized economic planning based on combinations of democratically defined social and individual needs)? Will there be private ownership of enterprises—by individuals, groups, or communities—or will there be regionalized, nationalized, or internationalized ownership? What success criteria will govern investment decisions: enterprise profits, progress toward social objectives, local community goals? Raising and answering these questions would finally become the business of everyone, as befits any genuinely democratic society. As workers’ different perspectives and evolving preferences gradually inform these questions, their long exclusion from democratic decision-making within capitalist economic systems will finally come to an end.

This new strategy’s brand of anti-capitalism is distinguishable from mainstream socialism or communism. Those traditions, both theoretically and as seen in the regimes they established once in power, also left in place the micro-level exclusion of workers from the appropriation and distribution of the surpluses they produced. Socialist and communist traditions were chiefly macro-focused: on transformations of property—from private to public—and on distribution mechanisms, from market to state planning. Their microlevel goals were to improve the conditions of employees within enterprises rather than end those enterprises’ employer-employee relationships. The failure of “actually existing socialist and communist economies” to overcome that internal enterprise division eventually undermined them and enabled their greater or lesser reversions back to private capitalist economies.1

This new strategy, if successful, would do more than democratically transform production. Workers who also served on their own boards of directors would make different decisions—about what to produce, how and where to produce, and what to do with the surpluses their labor generates—than traditional boards elected by shareholders. Their decisions would, for example, be far less likely to relocate production across the country or the globe, or install technologies harmful to workers’ health, or use enterprise surpluses to bulk up on intrusive supervisory staff. Worker-directed enterprises would much more likely establish funds to retrain and reposition workers in response to changes in technology or altered demands for output. The capitalist conception of unemployment would end, as jobs and individual incomes finally become basic human rights and labor is considered everyone’s shared social obligation. Workers’ broadly defined well-being (an inclusive standard) would displace individual enterprise profits (a narrowly exclusive standard) as the prevailing objective of enterprise decisions.

Because workers live in the communities that surround their enterprises, the decisions they make as collective directors will continuously monitor and improve local economic, political, cultural, and environmental impacts unlike the decisions made purely on behalf of the capitalist enterprises’ boards of directors and major shareholders. Indeed, because residential communities are complexly interdependent with enterprises, new political mechanisms would be needed to share final social decision-making authority democratically between worker-directed enterprises and their community-based counterparts. That could end the capitalist pattern by which enterprise directors and major shareholders prevail over residential communities by channeling their disproportionate resources toward bribery, public relations, or other manipulations of community decision-making. Government at all levels, from local to international, would be transformed into more collaborative structures based conjointly on enterprises and those residential communities that are interdependent with them.

By democratically reorganizing enterprises at the micro/internal level, this new strategy builds a foundation for a society-wide transition from today’s merely nominal democracy to the real thing. Workers functioning in and responsible for democratically structured enterprises will more likely understand, demand, and lead a social movement for parallel democracy and responsibility within their communities. When workers themselves dispose of the surpluses generated from within their enterprises, they are likely to use them to further the macrofocused policies that they supported as citizens. No longer would a separate group of people (a social minority comprised of boards of directors and major shareholders without any democratic obligations to their employees) be able to sabotage the macro-level policies supported by the majority of those employees.

The new strategy calls upon workers to recognize the need and take responsibility for the implementation of change in the places where they work, inside the enterprises where they spend most of their adult waking hours. It gives workers the sequential tasks of first transforming production within each enterprise, and then maintaining and developing the new production organization. Workers themselves become the self-conscious and self-directed foundation of society’s economic development. This could lead to the concrete realization of longstanding commitments of labor and the Left to workers’ empowerment, liberation, and self-actualization: commitments that had long been only vague, rhetorical gestures. This new strategy might inspire a revival of the labor movement, as well as other Left movements. Continued adherence to the old strategy has failed to do that for a long time, and it promises nothing better for the future.

The emphasis herein has been on strategy partly because that, rather than tactics, is what most needs change. Tactical adjustments and innovations, as well as exemplary creativity, have often been strengths of both labor and the Left. Owning up to fundamental strategic problems has not. The tactical roles involved with advancing the proposed new strategy that will be taken by trade unions, political parties, and/or social movements outside electoral politics thus remain open questions. They will likely be resolved variably, in line with the different social histories that have shaped workers and the conditions they confront. So, for example, it might be best, under some circumstances, to initially demand that about half the seats on corporate boards of directors be worker-based.

Another tactical question is whether the initial focus should be on workers becoming their own boards of directors at the decentralized level of the individual productive unit (i.e., at the factory or office) or at the centralized level of the enterprise or entire industry. These tactical choices require risks and advantages to be weighed. Beyond the economy, another tactical question would address how education would need to be reorganized and refocused to prepare young people for future jobs that include serving on collective boards of directors.

Imagine the promise of a strategically reoriented labor movement, no longer stuck in an ineffective, defensive rut.

1. See S. Resnick and R. Wolff, Class Theory and History: Capitalism and Communism in the U.S.S.R. (New York and London: Routledge, 2002).

See: Taking Over the Enterprise pdf version

Richard D. Wolff is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst where he taught economics from 1973 to 2008. He is currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University, New York City. He also teaches classes regularly at the Brecht Forum in Manhattan. Earlier he taught economics at Yale University (1967-1969) and at the City College of the City University of New York (1969-1973). In 1994, he was a Visiting Professor of Economics at the University of Paris (France), I (Sorbonne).

Obama Administration: US Forces Can Assassinate Americans Believed to Be Involved in Terrorist Activity

2010-02-11T14:18:00.000-08:00

Obama Administration: US Forces Can Assassinate Americans Believed to Be Involved in Terrorist Activity

By Amy Goodman
February 11, 2010

Join PDA's Accountability and Justice Issue Organizing Team (IOT); learn more here.

Published by Democracy NOW!

The Obama administration has acknowledged it’s continuing a Bush-era policy authorizing the killing of US citizens abroad. The confirmation came from Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair in congressional testimony last week. Blair said, “Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans.” We speak to Rep. Dennis Kucinich and blogger and attorney Glenn Greenwald.

Guests:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), last week he wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting an explanation of the Obama administration’s legal basis for the extrajudicial killing of US citizens.

Glenn Greenwald, constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger for Salon.com. He wrote a widely circulated piece for Salon last week called ‘Presidential Assassinations of US Citizens’

Transcript of interview (Watch it here.):

AMY GOODMAN: The Obama administration has acknowledged it’s continuing a Bush-era policy authorizing the killing of US citizens abroad. The confirmation came from Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair in congressional testimony last week.

Blair told the House Intelligence Committee US forces can assassinate Americans believed to be involved in terrorist activity against the United States. Blair said, quote, “Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans.” He added, “We don’t target people for free speech; we target them for taking action that threatens Americans.”

Blair’s comments came one week after the Washington Post reported at least three US citizens are on “hit lists” maintained by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command. The most well-known target is the US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is accused of having ties to the failed Christmas Day airline bombing and the shooting at Fort Hood.

My first two guests have been among the most vocal critics of the continued assassination policy. Democratic Congress member Dennis Kucinich joins us from Washington, DC. Last week he wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting an explanation of the Obama administration’s legal basis for the extrajudicial killing of US citizens. And we’re joined on the telephone by Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger for Salon.com. He wrote a widely circulated piece for Salon last week called “Presidential Assassinations of US Citizens.”

Let’s begin with Congress member Dennis Kucinich. Explain what you wrote to Attorney General Holder.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I think it’s incumbent upon the Attorney General to explain the basis in law for such a policy. Our Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, our Seventh Amendment, our Fourteenth Amendment all clearly provide legal protections for people who are accused or who would be sentenced after having been judged to be guilty. And what’s happened is that the Constitution is being vitiated here. The idea that people are—have—if their life is in jeopardy, legally have due process of law, is thrown out the window.

And, Amy, when you consider that there are people who are claiming there are many terrorist cells in the United States, it doesn’t take too much of a stretch to imagine that this policy could easily be transferred to citizens in this country. That doesn’t—that only compounds what I think is a slow and steady detachment from core constitutional principles. And once that happens, we have a country then that loses its memory and its soul, with respect to being disconnected from those core constitutional principles which are the basis of freedom in our society.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, you’ve been writing about this extensively. Can you talk about your major objections and where you think this policy is going?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, look at the controversies that Democrats and progressives were so vocal about during the Bush years. They objected vehemently over the Bush administration’s wiretapping of American citizens without any court warrants or judicial oversight. They objected when the Bush administration put, not American citizens, but foreign nationals into cages at Guantánamo, merely on the say-so of the President that these people were terrorists.

Here, you’re talking about the worst elements of those policies, but even more extreme. You’re talking about American citizens not being merely wiretapped by the President with no oversight, but murdered, assassinated, killed, based solely on the unchecked say-so of the President.

And I think what really has to be emphasized is, look at how many times over the past decade that the administration—both first the Bush administration, then the Obama administration—has accused people of being terrorists, the worst of the worst, and it turned out that they were completely wrong. Hundreds of people who were at Guantánamo ended up being released because there was no evidence of wrongdoing print. Ever since the Supreme Court in 2008 granted habeas corpus rights to detainees, thirty-three out of thirty-nine Guantánamo detainees who brought their cases before a court were ordered released by federal judges on the grounds that there was no evidence to justify the accusations against them.

So there are few things more dangerous than allowing the executive branch to label people terrorists and treat them accordingly, and that danger is compounded severely when you’re talking about American citizens who have constitutional rights and talking about not merely eavesdropping on them or imprisoning them, but actually murdering them.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn, you quote a 1981 executive order signed by Ronald Reagan.

GLENN GREENWALD: Right. Well, you know, assassinations have a very long and sordid history in the United States, and the reason is, is that the CIA has used assassinations as a major weapon in its arsenal, so much so that they’ve assassinated people who ended up being wrongly killed, who ended up causing great controversy because it’s extrajudicial killings. And even Ronald Reagan, who engaged in all sorts of extreme policies in Central America waging covert war, declared political assassinations, assassinations of political leaders, to be illegal. Now that applies only to political assassinations, not necessarily to assassinations of people accused of terrorism, but the principle is the same, that these kind of extrajudicial killings, which we condemn when virtually every other country does, was so extreme, so contrary to our values, that even Ronald Reagan issued an executive order banning it.

And now here’s President Obama doing it again, not with regard to foreign nationals or to foreign leaders who we accuse of all kinds of extremities, but United States citizens, in the case of al-Awlaki, born and raised and educated in the United States. And it’s as severe and extreme a policy as can be imagined.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Congress member Dennis Kucinich, what can you do about this in Congress?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, Congress has the authority, under a joint resolution, to challenge any presidential directive. It’s not widely known, Amy, but there are at least three states of national emergency that we’re operating under right now by presidential declaration: one relating to 9/11, another one relating to the war on terror, and a third one relating to Iran. You know, this idea of being governed by an edict, of being locked into this war on terror, poses all kinds of challenges to our Constitution. I take an oath to defend the Constitution. And when I see in the Fifth Amendment where it says that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, I want to know what’s the constitutional basis for suspending this provision for anyone, even for a moment, because if this is—if this, in any sense, can be set aside, then we are on a slippery slope to anti-democracy.

And I think that the reason why this is important for the Attorney General to reflect upon is that the President and all federal officials take an oath to defend that Constitution. This is the Constitution. If they’re saying that the authorization for the use of military force passed after 9/11 is the basis for this action, we should know that they’re saying that. But a fair reading of that said it applied only to those who were involved in 9/11, not someone who joins an organization later on, no matter how misguided or wrongheaded that that may be, that is seen to be a threat to the US, that someone can just say, “Well, you know, you’re done. You’re dead.”

You know, what about the right to be able to be told of the charges against you? What about the right to a trial? What about the right to be able to have—be presented by your accusers? This is—this is a dangerous moment. And either—I see it as a constitutional crisis. And Congress has to start stepping up to review these actions without regard to whether it’s a Democrat or Republican administration.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you have support among your colleagues, Congressman Kucinich?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I just raised this issue in the last week, and it’s been snowing here, so I’ll be speaking to my colleagues about that when I see them. I’m here. I’m hopeful that this week there will still be some sessions of Congress, so we can begin the discussion.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, thank you for making your way into the studio today. On another issue, I wanted to ask you about the Supreme Court decision. You ran for president. You were part of the Democratic primary. In fact, wasn’t it true that ABC News stopped following you when they said you hadn’t raised enough money? I wanted to ask you about the Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates for corporate money in politics.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: We’re working on a constitutional amendment right now, Amy, that would address this—the core issues in not only the Citizens United case, but the Buckley v. Valeo case. Our government right now is like an auction, where policy is—goes to the highest bidder. And this pay-to-play environment is destructive of any hope that people could have to have their practical aspirations addressed by the government. You know, the idea that Wall Street is now moving its smart money over to the Republicans is quite instructive. The idea that health insurance interests could raise money during the very—for members of Congress, during the very time that legislation is before the Congress that would change the way that they do business, these are things that reflect on the danger to our democracy.

And I think this Citizens United case, which gave the corporations the ability to interfere in elections in a major way, through their money, puts us at risk of openly having a corporate-dominated government. Now it’s kind of a secret, I suppose, in some places. But it’s now—you know, once Citizens United was decided by the Supreme Court in the way it was, now it’s basically open season on anyone who challenges these corporate interests and a free pass for anyone who supports them. A real danger to our democratic tradition calls out for constitutional remedies, and there are many that are now being considered, and I’m certainly working on some.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Glenn Greenwald?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, you know, it was interesting because I was—I agree with Congressman Kucinich completely with regard to the constitutional arguments he was making about the presidential assassination program. If you look at the Fifth Amendment, it really does say no person shall be deprived of life without due process. It says that in clear terms. To me, the First Amendment is just as clear, and it says Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. And as Justice Hugo Black said, I read that to mean Congress shall make no law abridging free speech.

So, I certainly agree that corporate dominance of our Congress—you know, Senator Durbin recently said the banks own the place, an extraordinary statement for the second-highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate to make. I think the corporate dominance of our political process is one of the two or three greatest threats we face. But I also think that whatever solutions we try and find for that need to be consistent with the clear constitutional prescriptions of the First Amendment, and allowing the government to ban or regulate corporations from speaking out on elections, to me, seems very problematic.

So I think there are ways around it. I think public financing of campaigns can equalize the playing field. I think some constitutional amendment might be viable, but I do think it’s a very difficult question constitutionally to allow the government to start saying who can speak about our elections and who can’t. So, I think the First Amendment needs to be just as honored as the Fifth Amendment when we talk about these issues.

AMY GOODMAN: Congress member Kucinich?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I would agree with Mr. Greenwald and also thank him for the three important articles he wrote in the wake of Dana Priest writing in the Washington Post about this assassination program.

With respect to corporate contributions, let’s take for example anyone who gets a contract from the government. Why should they be permitted to plow the money they get from taxpayers back into political contributions? Because since money is fungible, that is what would happen. There should be restrictions there. That would go a long way to stopping these interest groups from being able to compete for government contracts and then turn around and rewarding those who give them money. I mean, take, for example, the bailouts. You know, we have an—will have an unending bailout culture, if you can have Wall Street continuing to give money to politicians who will then vote for bailouts for them. When does it stop?

This is why the only remedy is constitutional. And certainly one of the factors that has to be in there is public financing. I mean, if you have public financing of campaigns, you have public ownership of the political process. You have private financing of campaigns, you have private ownership of the political process. So, again, we have to—we’re continuing in this experiment in government to decide what kind of government we want. Do we want government of the people? Do we want government of the corporations? Right now, with two Supreme Court rulings, we have moved towards the balance towards government of the corporations. This is something that Jefferson feared, something that Lincoln feared, something that Eisenhower warned about. And we should find out, in this time, in 2010, whether or not we truly believe that this Declaration of Independence and Constitution is a living testament or whether it’s just, you know, a document gathering dust in some place in antiquity.

AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, in this last minute, Congress member Kucinich, the death of your close friend, Congress member Murtha.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: You know, when you see someone like John Murtha, who had the capacity to listen carefully and to watch carefully what was happening in Iraq and to come forward as he did in 2006 to change and to challenge the war, that was an important moment. Congressman Neil Abercrombie and I spent many long discussions with John Murtha talking to him about the war and expressing to him, in 2004, 2005, our deep concerns about the direction that the war had gone, and John Murtha listened carefully. And that really was the measure of Mr. Murtha.

I have to tell you, on a personal note, I mean, despite the fact that he and I may have had some, you know, fundamental differences of opinion about the great mass of money that went—that goes into the Department of Defense, he was someone—because of his openness, he was someone who was really loved by members of Congress. And my—[no audio]

AMY GOODMAN: We just lost Congress member Kucinich. But we’re going to go to break, and when we come back, we’re going to play a brief conversation I had with Congress member Murtha in 2006. It was about the killings in Haditha. It was about the war in Iraq. Congress member Kucinich, joining us from Ohio, and Glenn Greenwald, joining us on the phone, constitutional law attorney and legal blogger at Salon.com.

Progressive Democrats of America Wants War Money for Healthcare

2010-02-11T14:15:00.000-08:00

Progressive Democrats of America Wants War Money for Healthcare

By Ralph Lopez
February 11, 2010

Take Action: Eat lunch for peace--become a "brown-bagger"

Published by Daily KOS.

Unveiling a potentially powerful campaign which goes beyond pointless marching in the street on a Saturday in DC when no one is around, and the march is roundly, thoroughly, even aggressively ignored by the media, Progressive Democrats of America has come to a realization that International ANSWER has not. It's our house.

With the cost of a robust public option put at about $50 billion, it turns out we spend that in about 5 months on military operations (not civilian help) in Afghanistan. This is major motion for the Anti-Waste-on-War Movement, my own tongue in cheek moniker which is intended to reflect that if attacking a bunch of 19 year-old-Afghans kids who joined the Taliban because there were no other jobs were buying us security, it might not be waste, though it would still be immoral. The fact is it is buying us the opposite. Hatred, astonishment at our government's will toward war. And more hatred. 100 Al Qaeda in the country at most, according to the Pentagon's own estimates, who Afghans would willingly dispatch themselves given the chance.

But that's how Lockheed and General Dynamics, Halliburton and Blackwater-XE like it. When you are an executive or a shareholder looking at your starter castle, your vision can get blurred. You don't care about the educational system. Your kids will go to private school. And those bloody fools out there, My God, they think this is about security. PDA is calling for citizens to join its Brown Bag lunch series, every third Wednesday of each month, in which like-minded folks will be going into congressional district offices, relaxing with their sandwiches in the spaces their taxes are paying for, and asking congress members to commit publicly to voting against further war funding. So far about 36 District Offices are on tap. They'll be talking to each other via cellphone, by Skype, and having all kinds of fun.

"Further war funding," obviously, does not preclude the minuscule amount, relatively, for orderly withdrawal or economic stabilization ($5 a day jobs for for former and potential Taliban, they would jump at it.) No one is talking about letting soldiers run out of bullets in the middle of a battle, a ridiculous response it's time to take head-on.

This beats shouting in the streets where no one, and I mean absolutely no one, gives a rat's a%#.

Add this to plans being made for constant, regular actions in DC, including civil disobedience, and by God we've got a real chance of stopping this thing. We're bringing camcorders and Skype video connections to beam back to the constituents just why Congressman A would rather finance Lockheed than your prescriptions that you can't afford or even a basic coverage plan. If you are a conservative some of it could go toward deficit reduction. The dirty little secret, that many people are just starting to wake up to, is that what we spend on insecurity is so golddarned much we wouldn't even have to choose. We could, literally, have it all. Jobs, healthcare, deficit reduction. $9 billion a month is the "burn rate" for more insecurity. Burn rate is the term recently used by General Barry McCaffrey for the cost of Afghan war operations. I'm not making this up. Burn, as in money into a fireplace.

Join PDA's Brown Bag Vigils here. Make new friends. Meet the love of your life even! Democracy is fun, once we realize IT'S OUR HOUSE.

SEE HOW MUCH IN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS YOUR CONGRESS MEMBERS TAKE FROM THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY (aircraft makers here)

The diarist is co-founder of Jobs for Afghans.

Take Action: Eat lunch for peace--become a "brown-bagger" http://pdamerica.org/articles/misc/2009-11-13-12-49-50-misc.php

Site Design by Virgo Graphics
Web Development by Turtle Island Web Design
Contact the PDA webmaster at webmaster@pdamerica.org.
Copyright © 2004-2010 Progressive Democrats of America • All text available for public use with appropriate attribution.

Give Peace Spending a Chance

2010-02-11T14:09:00.000-08:00

Published by t r u t h o u t.

Give Peace Spending a Chance

By Maya Schenwar
February 11, 2010

Take Action: Tell Congress "Stop funding war"

Published by t r u t h o u t.

Last week, when President Obama requested thelargest-ever military budget since World War II, hardly anyone batted an eyelash. The Bush years immunized many of us to the shock of colossal defense spending bills skating across the table--and zipping through Congress to sure passage--regardless of shriveling public approval.

Perhaps, more eyelashes would have started batting if Americans realized that this year the US will spend more on its occupation of Afghanistan alone than any other country except China spends on its entire defense budget.

There's no question that war spending for Iraq and Afghanistan will top $1 trillion after Obama's request is implemented. That's enough money to stretch--in dollar bills--from the earth to the sun. It's also enough to pay for ten years of universal primary education for all of the world's children, according to UN statistics.

It costs $1 million to keep one soldier in Afghanistan for a year. The same amount of money could build 30 or 40 girls' schools in Afghanistan--one surefire way to reduce the number of men joining the Taliban over the long term.

This simple numbers game begs a painful question: as we fling ever more money toward war and occupation, where's the funding for peace?

The answer: it's there, but you'll miss it if you blink. US defense spending has long been notoriously imbalanced between military and nonmilitary priorities, and Obama's 2011 budget is no exception. In fact, it's even worse than usual. Military spending towers over spending on preventative measures by a ratio of 12 to 1, according to statistics from the Institute on Policy Studies. Last year, it was 11 to 1 - roughly the same as the ratio under Bush.

Despite a Democratic Congress and administration--and a Nobel Peace Prize-winning president--nonmilitary security funding is still being squashed by its nasty counterpart.

Maybe, our leaders have lost sight of what "security" means beyond violent defense. What can we do to prevent potential threats besides bombing the hell out of them before they get us? Travis Sharp of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has some good ideas:

With the additional $30 billion to be spent in Afghanistan during 2010, the United States could:

Double the amount spent on nuclear nonproliferation, anti-terrorism [focusing on specific terror threats] and de-mining ($1.6 billion)
Double US support of migrants and refugees throughout the world ($3 billion)
Quadruple the Civilian Stabilization fund for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq ($1.5 billion)
Triple federal funding for renewable energy research and development ($7.4 billion)
Double overall contributions to international institutions like the WHO and IAEA ($2.1 billion)
Double federal funding for DHS First Responder and CDC Disease Prevention programs ($4.2 billion)
Strengthen capacity of Coast Guard to close off the far-more-likely route of nuclear weapons coming into the United States - through ports ($6 billion)

Steps like providing disaster assistance, aiding refugees and contributing to international health care would go a long way toward deterring potential terrorist wannabes. Plus, decreasing our dependence on oil, shoring up our homeland security and finding safe ways to reduce nuclear weapons could deter future hawkish US leaders from waging war for stupid reasons.

Other diplomatic priorities, such as foreign service personnel and intercultural educational exchange programs, could also use a raise. A November report from Foreign Policy in Focus cites a sobering example of our diplomatic deficiency:

During the violent conflict that erupted in Kenya during its 2007 national elections, an American NGO called the State Department to consult with the appropriate people on the Kenya desk. They were told that these people were out of the office and not available. Asked when they would be available, the person on the phone replied that only two people covered Kenya, and both were on extended leave. In other words, nobody was home at the US government, it appeared, to be "first diplomatic responders" to this crisis.

Nobody home to respond to an international crisis, in a government whose "security" budget now reaches solar-systemic proportions? It's time to redivvy up this pie.

Nonmilitary programs are the true security measures. Not only are they a whole lot less likely to kill innocent people, but they also offer further-reaching, longer-term rewards.

In this age of never-ending wars, military spending is band-aid money, in a ghastly sort of way: as conflicts erupt, we continually attempt to bandage them with bombs, instead of addressing the root cause of each injury.

If we want to salvage "security" policy, we must reconceptualize what it means to keep our country safe. Otherwise, we risk simply reapplying the bloody band-aid until the money runs dry.

Showdown in Vancouver: The Olympic Industrial Complex Meets Gold Medal Resistance

2010-02-11T14:05:00.000-08:00

Showdown in Vancouver: The Olympic Industrial Complex Meets Gold Medal Resistance

By Jules Boycoff
February 11, 2010

Published by Counterpunch.

Upon arrival at Vancouver International Airport everything was smooth, suave, and sparkly. I immediately encountered colorful billboards splashed with 2010 Winter Olympic Games ad copy blending gold medals, commercial merchandise, and sports clichés. I was barraged with offers of assistance by friendly folks donning shiny nametags and chartreuse vests emblazoned with the official Olympic logo.

But as I took mass transit into downtown Vancouver—where the Olympic Games opening ceremonies will take place on Friday—I began to sense what activist Harsha Walia of No One Is Illegal and the Olympic Resistance Movement described as “the overall militarization of Vancouver, an encroaching police and surveillance state.”

Within sniffing distance of official venues like the Olympic Village this militarization is palpable, with a multiple-cop-a-corner mentality the norm. Chain link fences sheathed in teal-colored Olympic banners block off massive swathes of the urban center from public access. Police perpetually patrol the perimeter, handguns jutting from holsters. Helicopter buzz above, punctuated by the occasional whoosh of a CF-18 Hornet fighter jet.

Just behind the slick, smiley-faced façade of Olympic spirit, the Canadian state is flexing its militarized muscles, employing an array of tactics designed to suppress political dissent in the lead-up to the Olympics.

Meanwhile a parallel universe of anti-Olympic resistance thrums full-throttle. This movement marked by creative resistance and cross-class solidarity has achieved significant rollback of repressive measures, setting the stage for a showdown with state forces in the days to come.

Repressive Measures

The International Olympic Committee’s official charter forbids the expression of anti-Olympic dissent, stating in Rule 51,“No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.”

The City of Vancouver followed suit, issuing synergistic “2010 Winter Games By-laws” that demonstrated to the IOC its willingness to squelch free-speech rights. For instance, the “Sign By-Law” outlawed placards that were not “celebratory,” though one could still tote “a sign that celebrates the 2010 Winter Games, and creates or enhances a festive environment and atmosphere.” That meant anti-Olympic signs were a no-go and Canadian authorities had the right to remove such signs, even from private property.

After a legal challenge from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) and plaintiffs Chris Shaw and Alissa Westergard-Thorpe, the city backed down, amending the by-laws to allow for anti-Olympic signage (though signs that don’t chime with the logos of Olympic corporate sponsors are still not permissible).

In 2003 Olympic boosters low-balled their estimate for the Olympic security budget at $175 million. Since then, security costs have ballooned to almost $1 billion, with taxpayers on the hook for a huge chunk of it. Much of this money has been spent on the Vancouver Integrated Security Unit (ISU), created specifically for the Olympics in 2003 by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Comprised of groups like the Vancouver Police Department, the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS—Canada’s top spy organization), and the Department of National Defense, the ISU patently shatters the thin glass wall between policing and military activity.

As the Olympics approach, the ISU has made numerous moves to intimidate activists and gather intelligence on them. For starters, there is a concern among activists and civil libertarians that ISU officials are infiltrating activist groups and that these undercover agents lack proper safeguards guiding their actions. In February 2009 B.C. Civil Liberties Association President Rob Holmes wrote letters to CSIS and the ISU asking for assurance that agents would not inflame tensions and tactics as agents provocateur or attempt “to influence the political direction, policy positions, or internal discussions of any organizations infiltrated by security forces.” In clipped, written responses, both CSIS and ISU officials refused to rule out the possibility that their infiltrating agents would break the law or try to assume leadership positions within anti-Olympic groups.

Law enforcement officials have also frequented the homes and workplaces of anti-Olympics activists as part of their “threat assessment” program. On January 20, 2010, ISU personnel visited the workspace of Vancouver-based dissident Franklin Lopez. An hour earlier, Lopez had filmed a public talk that political sportswriter Dave Zirin delivered at the Maritime Labour Centre in Vancouver. “To be honest,” Lopez told me, “I was not surprised, being that most people that I have been involved with either through friendship or through organizing have been visited, some multiple times.”

First Nations activist Gord Hill was also visited by the ISU’s Joint Intelligence Group after he offered strongly worded criticism of the Olympics in the media. It should be noted that the Olympics are taking place on unceded indigenous territory—hence, the slogan “No Olympics on Stolen Native Land” is plastered on kiosks across Vancouver, which sits on unceded Coast Salish territory. ISU officials visited Hill’s residence in October 2009, leaving their business cards when they did not find him home. Hill, from the Kwakwaka’wakw nation, promptly plunked images of these cards online along with an account he penned, “Statement by Gord Hill Regarding Visits by Olympic Police Agents.”

As David Eby, the Executive Director of the BCCLA, points out, treating activists as a “threat assessment” sends the message that anti-Olympic activists are neither to be trusted nor taken seriously: “The net effect is that the public has the perception as a result of the visits that the police are properly investigating these people because of their dissent. It becomes equivalent in the public mind to a threat to security.”

In addition to such face-to-face surveillance, nearly 1,000 surveillance cameras have been installed in Vancouver. According to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, around 900 CCTV cameras will be used at Olympic venues and another 50 to 70 will be deployed in other urban areas. A majority of the cameras have been leased rather than purchased outright, but normally surveillance camera companies offer the right of purchase at a deep discount, so while Canadian officials have asserted most of the cameras will come down after the Olympics, they may well argue later that it would be less expensive to just keep them installed.

Eby commented, “Our concern is that under the guise of a special state of exception, these cameras will be brought in and then they’ll become permanent.” Am Johal, the Board Chair of a Vancouver-based group called Impact on Community Coalition (IOCC), added, “There’s going to be a net expansion of cameras that will remain after the Games with pretty much little to no discussion of whether we wanted that in the city.” Johal views Olympics as a pretext for the intensification of the Canadian security apparatus.

The ISU has also ramped up its stock of high-tech weaponry, purchasing a Medium Range Acoustic Device (MRAD) for possible use against anti-Olympic activists. The MRAD emits painful, piercing sound that can damage human hearing. After pressure from activists, Canadian authorities have promised to erase the weapon function from the hard drive and only use the MRAD as a public address system—essentially a massive bullhorn, and a pricey one at that. The MRAD’s bigger, louder brother—the Long Range Acoustic Device, or LRAD—was used in Pittsburgh during the G20 meetings last September, much to the chagrin of protesters and their eardrums. The sonic weapon has also been deployed in Mosul, Iraq. The timing of the MRAD’s purchase—just before the Olympics—is suspicious, to say the least.

To assist in crowd control, the ISU has also planned “safe assembly areas” where protests can occur under the watchful eye of the authorities. In the US these are know as “free speech zones” but dissidents on both sides of the border more commonly refer to them as “protest pens.” The “safe assembly areas” have generated great confusion, as the Vancouver Police Department and RCMP have offered conflicting information about their locations, functions, and the rules that will inform their use.

Canada has also played border games with potential Olympics critics. In a highly publicized incident last November, Amy Goodman and two of her colleagues at Democracy Now! were detained and questioned on their way to Vancouver where Goodman was scheduled to speak at the public library. Suspicious she intended to speak out against the Olympics, border guards rifled through her personal effects and questioned her about the topics she intended to cover in her talk and whether one of them was the Winter Olympics. Just this week, Martin Macias Jr., a freelance radio journalist from Chicago, was held up and grilled by Canadian border officials regarding his knowledge of anti-Olympics activism.

Jittery Citizens and the Downtown Eastside

The police-induced intimidation anti-Olympic activists are experiencing has long been ingrained into the everyday existence of downtown eastside residents—an area often cited as the poorest postal code in Canada. But according to Harsha Walia, in the lead-up to the Olympic Games, the heightened police presence in the neighborhood has clicked into “full-on warfare” mode, “with four to six beat cops on every block in the neighborhood.”

While the mainstream media swarm the downtown eastside to collect poverty porn for middle-class public consumption, the Vancouver Police Department has been working furiously to sanitize the neighborhood so it doesn’t undermine the smooth-surfaced spectacle Olympic organizers so desperately wish to produce.

The number of homeless in Vancouver has more than doubled since the Olympic bid process began, thereby widening the scope of people susceptible to police intimidation and harassment. One element of the state’s legal arsenal is the “Assistance to Shelter Act” which allows police to round up homeless people and use force to remove them from the streets and place them in shelters. Walia dubs it the “Olympic Kidnapping Act” and notes that even if the police don’t use it to move people into shelters, it affords the cops an enhanced opportunity to interact with downtown eastside residents and to snatch them up on other charges, should any conflict arise.

There are also laws already on the books in Vancouver that usually remain either unenforced. Not so as the Olympics approaches. Selective enforcement is now the order of the day.

Take the case of longtime Vancouver activist Ivan Drury. On February 4, he was putting up anti-Olympics posters when he was stopped and handed a $100 ticket for “Defacing Poles (Posting Signs).” Drury reported, “I was confused because I have put up tens of thousands of posters in my life, all in Vancouver, and I have never gotten a ticket before. There were even a couple years where I was trying to get a ticket in order to launch a constitutional challenge against Vancouver’s anti-postering by-laws and I couldn’t get a ticket no matter how hard I tried.” This is clearly a new era: broken-window theory gone wild.

Police recently embarked on a ticketing blitz for minor municipal bylaw infractions like jaywalking and unlicensed street vending, zeroing their attention on the downtown eastside. Given the extreme material poverty of those receiving the tickets, many people are unable to pay the fines. This, in turn, shunts the vulnerable more firmly onto the treadmill of what Walia calls “the criminal injustice system.” In effect many of these laws criminalize who people are as much as what they do, as they’re disproportionately wielded against people of color, indigenous peoples, and the poor. This, notes Am Johal of the IOCC, is part of an intimidation process designed to silence those who might like to speak out against the Olympics.

Five-Ring Catalytic Converter

Despite intensified state suppression, activists have ramped up their resistance, with the anti-Olympics Convergence kicking off today, preempting the Olympic opening ceremony by two full days. The Convergence, which runs through the 15th is designed is to deepen already existing social movements, pressing the Global Justice Movement forward with energy and vision.

Media activists from the Vancouver Media Coop, W2 Community Media Arts, VIVO Media Arts, and other groups have the alternative-media machine firing on all cylinders, providing the public with up-to-date information, politically driven art, and all the news that’s unfit to print in the corporate media. There will be direct actions, mass rallies, festivals, art shows, a tent city going up in the downtown eastside. The Olympics has been catalyst for solidarity—a coalition of coalitions, a movement of movements—with numerous groups expressing their resistance to the Olympic Games. As Johal notes, “It’s about asserting human rights in the urban domain.”

All this hard work is already working. A recent poll found 50% of respondents in British Columbia do not expect the Olympics to have a positive impact on their province. Anti-Olympic activists have created this space of dissent for the population to saunter into.

Pierre de Coubertin, a key figure in the founding of the modern Olympic Games, once said, “The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part; the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well.”

Activists and organizers are taking this advice seriously. The Olympics promises to be a remarkable seventeen days, and it may just be the activists who take home the gold.

Jules Boykoff is the author of Beyond Bullets: The Suppression of Dissent in the United States (AK Press 2007) and The Suppression of Dissent: How the State and Mass Media Squelch USAmerican Social Movements (Routledge 2006). He is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Pacific University in Oregon.

Jules Boykoff is the author of Beyond Bullets: The Suppression of Dissent in the United States (AK Press 2007) and The Suppression of Dissent: How the State and Mass Media Squelch USAmerican Social Movements (Routledge 2006). He is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Pacific University in Oregon.

Healthcare NOT Warfare, Sign the Petition

2009-12-10T20:20:00.000-08:00

Healthcare NOT Warfare, Sign the Petition

As Martin Luther King Jr. observed forty years ago, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." While millions of Americans remain in a healthcare crisis, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are able to post huge profits

Today, nearly one in six Americans has no health insurance. Tens of millions of others are woefully under-insured. Meanwhile the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan drain our resources and overburden our budget, while raising the levels of violence in regions already traumatized by war.

We call on President Obama and members of Congress to support H.R. 2404, calling for an exit strategy from Afghanistan, H.R. 3699, prohibiting any increase in the number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan, and to enact Medicare for All to guarantee comprehensive publicly-funded, privately-delivered healthcare for everyone in the U.S.

We call on the Democratic Party--in party platforms and resolutions--to commit to redirecting wasteful and unnecessary military spending to meet human needs beginning with comprehensive healthcare reform-expanded and improved Medicare for All.

This petition will be presented in congressional districts to the appropriate member of Congress.

Please fill out the form completely--we need your street address to determine who your member of Congress is.

Push Harry Reid toward Medicare for All

2009-12-10T20:12:00.000-08:00

Push Harry Reid toward Medicare for All

Put your fingers on the right trigger—Amendment No. 2837

The US Senate just had a working weekend that was supposed to methodically go through the amendments to its healthcare bill. The Medicare for All, single-payer Sanders Amendment No. 2837 should have gone before the body for debate on Sunday.

Funny thing, though. In spite of Sen. Harry Reid’s statement that he would get to amendments “in numeric order,” the two amendments voted on last Sunday had higher numbers than No. 2837. Senator Reid gave no explanation for this.

We’ve been through this before. We had promises from the House leadership that the Weiner Amendment for single-payer would receive a full debate and go to a vote. We know how that worked out.

Unless we act now, Senator Reid can easily argue that he’s skipping over amendments that are considered less important to senators and their constituencies. We can’t let this happen.

Tell Senator Reid in no uncertain terms that a full debate and vote on Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Amendment No. 2837 is absolutely essential.

Senator Sanders’ amendment, cosponsored by Sens. Sherrod Brown and Roland Burris, gives states the power to enact single-payer programs with federal funding. It has everything a state single-payer bill needs: one plan that covers health, mental, dental, vision, and long-term care.

Right now the Congressional Budget Office is scoring a plan to establish private, nonprofit health insurance programs run by private companies, with a trigger for a new government insurance plan if the private plans are not “acceptable.”

Let the American people decide what’s “acceptable” before everything falls to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and their influence over the Senate. Tell Harry Reid that this amendment matters.

Make the calls to Sen. Harry Reid NOW.

• Washington, DC, office: (202) 224-3542
• Las Vegas, NV, office: (702) 388-5020
• US Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

In solidarity,

Tim Carpenter, National Director
Conor Boylan, Field Coordinator
Roberta McNair, IOT Coordinator

Playing Health Care Reform Straight

2009-11-13T18:28:00.000-08:00

Playing it straight

To members of Progressive Democrats of America

Conor Boylan November 13 at 9:17pm Reply

House Healthcare Measure Undeserving of Progressive Cheerleading

Hi,

With the passage of HR3962, fundraising emails from Democratic groups cheering the passage of the House healthcare bill have been issued faster than denials for service from healthcare corporations. Disappointingly, MoveOn, True Majority and Democracy for America are among them. They’re not just cheering, they’re exalting the bill’s public option as the best thing since sliced bread, despite the further degradation of women’s reproductive rights.

There is no doubt that these organizations have done great work on progressive issues, but on this legislation they are wrong. This bill is, so far, a very bad bill that will further enmesh corporations into our government and our daily lives without addressing the problem. It diminishes all of our rights, not just reproductive ones, by failing to recognize healthcare as a human right, not a commodity to be traded on Wall Street.

The measure’s public option, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), will only attract 6 million out of the 45 million uninsured Americans, and the monthly premium will likely be more costly than corporate premiums. So much for affordable healthcare.

And, it does next to nothing to help Americans who are now being gouged by healthcare corporations. “if you like your insurance--you get to keep it” has morphed into “if you have insurance, you have to keep it whether you like it or not, and if you don’t have it--you have to buy it.”

Together with our allies, we kept single-payer healthcare alive much longer than anyone thought possible, which demonstrates its majority support. We never wavered, we never strayed from our goal, we made tangible progress--please help us carry on https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/309/donate.asp?formid=donate

Just because a massive bill manages to include a few sensible measures that should have been enacted years ago, a mandate that we all buy a defective product to swell the profit margins of the very corporations who created this crisis in the first place does not make it reform, or acceptable. It certainly does not make it the much-ballyhooed achievement of the 21st century.

MoveOn’s email targeting any Democrat who voted against the House bill is unacceptable, as well. While there’s value in targeting Democrats who do not support the solution to the crisis, Medicare for All, there’s no value in targeting the two brave souls who actually exercised their backbones and voted against the bill for the right reasons--Congressmen Kucinich and Massa. This bill is a band-aid at best, not the scalpel needed to excise the cancer of for-profit, employer-based corporate healthcare insurance, which kills tens of thousands of Americans a year. Please take a moment to thank these courageous progressives http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=14323226

MoveOn’s most recent mailing will raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to support incumbents who voted for this bad bill. We hope to raise tens of thousands of dollars to back only candidates who support Medicare for All and women’s reproductive rights.

Help us keep agitating, educating, and acting to secure this human right—instead of supporting “progressive organizations” that support halfway measures, which won’t do the job. Please become a PDA Change makes Change partner http://pdamerica.org/articles/misc/2008-01-24-01-07-46-misc.php

You can contribute as little as $5, $10, or $15 a month. There are additional benefits to investing in PDA; when you become a sustaining partner, we stop sending you regular fundraising letters, for one. One-time contributions are welcome, too. http://pdamerica.org/articles/misc/2008-01-24-01-07-46-misc.php

The fight isn’t over as long as we continue to demand Medicare for All:

* Take action for Sanders single-payer bill in the Senate http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=14212486
* Add the Kucinich amendment during the reconciliation process.
* Establish single-payer systems in the states while we continue to push for Medicare for All.

In solidarity,

Tim Carpenter for the PDA National Team

P.S. Read this article by Rose Ann DeMoro of the California Nurses Association, which details the bill’s few positive and many negative aspects http://pdamerica.org/articles/alliances/2009-11-10-01-39-56-alliances.php . See also Dr. Marcia Angell’s article http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-11-10-01-13-16-news.php .

P.P.S. Due to the healthcare debate and the upcoming holidays, PDA has moved the launch of the Brown Bag Lunch Vigils to January. We’ll maintain a pilot program among several chapters who will begin their vigils next Wednesday, November 18, and will keep you informed of developments.

Inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale

2009-11-11T18:05:00.000-08:00

Inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale

To members of Progressive Democrats of America

Next Steps Following our Week from Hell

Hi,

Rest assured, we certainly would have done things differently if it had been up to us; yet the events of last week are instructive, albeit incredibly disappointing. That said, Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Eric Massa need to hear from us for their brave stand against the corporatocracy when they voted against HR 3962 for the right reasons -- http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=14323226

We’ve heard from many of you--particularly over the cancellation of the Weiner amendment vote. The PDA community is angry and rightfully so. Your national team is upset and angry, too. Most responses were an expression of frustration--some called upon us to excoriate members of the CPC or run candidates against them.

We will not always agree with what progressive members of Congress do, but we do not face the immense pressure exerted on them by a centrist White House beholden to special interests.

We're building a movement here, and we don't just discard leaders within the movement because they were unable to force our issue through. We force out the opposition, the Rahm Emanuels, Joe Liebermans and Max Baucuses of the world, and replace them with progressive candidates. Once we have a Democratic progressive majority, then we can discuss firing the leaders who fail to represent our values, at the ballot box.

While anger motivates many people to action, it is too easy to over-react when angry—we need to cool down and assess the situation. This is just the first act in a three-act play:

Next, the Senate passes a bill. We need to get ready to support Bernie Sanders in his single-payer fight in the Senate. http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=14212486

Third is the reconciliation process. We need to get the Kucinich amendment inserted in the bill, and we need our progressive Congress members to make this happen. Details are forthcoming.

The reason we're active is because we recognize the system is working against the people--our democracy is broken. Our opposition is not within the progressive movement but the corporations who control our elected officials. We need to go after the cause--not the effect.

At this point, we should focus on electing candidates who are not beholden to corporate interests and are running against the Blue Dogs, not replacing incumbent progressive members of Congress.

We all need to work for candidates like Marcy Winograd (http://www.winograd4congress.com) and Mike Capuano (http://www.mikecapuano.com) and wherever else they may be, in the upcoming election--true progressive candidates. We need to get out the vote, or we could lose our majority. While having the majority has proved to be frustrating for us, it's still better than the alternative--imagine a few more Michele Bachmanns getting elected in the midterms.

Mostly we need to stay focused on the prize and get single-payer established in the states. This will do more to move our progressive candidates and us forward than focusing our ire on Congressional single-payer advocates who voted for the bill.

Later this week, look for an email in which we’ll be announcing the Brown Bag Vigils as part of the Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign.

Until then, inhale and exhale.

In solidarity,

Tim Carpenter for the PDA National Team

P.S. Read John Nichols latest article, Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill -- http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-11-09-13-42-04-news.php

Please join our PDA FB Fanpage -- http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/pages/Progressive-Democrats-of-America/164462034235?ref=ts

Please join Norman Solomon on our End War and Occupation, redirect funding call tonight. RSVP here -- https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/309/personalopt1.asp?formid=meet&c=8645634

Kudos to you, Congressman! Kucinich & Massa

2009-11-11T17:56:00.000-08:00

Kudos to you, Congressman!

Headquarters Home • Find Your Elected Officials • Issues • Election • Write The Media

Legislative Alerts and Updates

•

Current Legislation

•

Key Votes

•

Capitol Hill Basics

Action Alert


	Kudos to you, Congressman! Kucinich and Massa vote "NO" on healthcare legislation for the right reasons

H.R. 3962, the remnants of healthcare reform legislation more widely recognized as health insurance legislation, passed the House on Saturday November 7, 220-215.

Among the Democrats who voted against it, Congressmen Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Eric Massa (D-NY) were the only two who voted against it for the right reasons:

Read "Massa says he can't support healthcare bill."

Read "Dennis Kucinich Explains Why He Voted No On Affordable Health Care for America Act."

They were also the only supporters of Medicare for All, single-payer healthcare to vote against the bill.

They demonstrated real backbone and stuck to their guns despite the arm-twisting and deal-making demonstrated by House leadership.

Call them up and thank them! Let's make sure they know we have their backs when the final vote comes down.

For Rep. Massa's Washington, D.C. Office call (202) 225-3161, or Fax: (202) 226-6599

For Rep. Kucinich's Washington, D.C. Office call (202) 225-5871, or Fax (202) 225-5745

Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing? Worse!

2009-11-09T21:39:00.000-08:00

Published on Monday, November 9, 2009 by Huffington Post

Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing?

by Marcia Angell

Well, the House health reform bill -- known to Republicans as the Government Takeover -- finally passed after one of Congress's longer, less enlightening debates. Two stalwarts of the single-payer movement split their votes; John Conyers voted for it; Dennis Kucinich against. Kucinich was right.

Conservative rhetoric notwithstanding, the House bill is not a "government takeover." I wish it were. Instead, it enshrines and subsidizes the "takeover" by the investor-owned insurance industry that occurred after the failure of the Clinton reform effort in 1994. To be sure, the bill has a few good provisions (expansion of Medicaid, for example), but they are marginal. It also provides for some regulation of the industry (no denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions, for example), but since it doesn't regulate premiums, the industry can respond to any regulation that threatens its profits by simply raising its rates. The bill also does very little to curb the perverse incentives that lead doctors to over-treat the well-insured. And quite apart from its content, the bill is so complicated and convoluted that it would take a staggering apparatus to administer it and try to enforce its regulations.

What does the insurance industry get out of it? Tens of millions of new customers, courtesy of the mandate and taxpayer subsidies. And not just any kind of customer, but the youngest, healthiest customers -- those least likely to use their insurance. The bill permits insurers to charge twice as much for older people as for younger ones. So older under-65's will be more likely to go without insurance, even if they have to pay fines. That's OK with the industry, since these would be among their sickest customers. (Shouldn't age be considered a pre-existing condition?)

Insurers also won't have to cover those younger people most likely to get sick, because they will tend to use the public option (which is not an "option" at all, but a program projected to cover only 6 million uninsured Americans). So instead of the public option providing competition for the insurance industry, as originally envisioned, it's been turned into a dumping ground for a small number of people whom private insurers would rather not have to cover anyway.

If a similar bill emerges from the Senate and the reconciliation process, and is ultimately passed, what will happen?

First, health costs will continue to skyrocket, even faster than they are now, as taxpayer dollars are pumped into the private sector. The response of payers -- government and employers -- will be to shrink benefits and increase deductibles and co-payments. Yes, more people will have insurance, but it will cover less and less, and be more expensive to use.

But, you say, the Congressional Budget Office has said the House bill will be a little better than budget-neutral over ten years. That may be, although the assumptions are arguable. Note, though, that the CBO is not concerned with total health costs, only with costs to the government. And it is particularly concerned with Medicare, the biggest contributor to federal deficits. The House bill would take money out of Medicare, and divert it to the private sector and, to some extent, to Medicaid. The remaining costs of the legislation would be paid for by taxes on the wealthy. But although the bill might pay for itself, it does nothing to solve the problem of runaway inflation in the system as a whole. It's a shell game in which money is moved from one part of our fragmented system to another.

Here is my program for real reform:

Recommendation #1: Drop the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 55. This should be an expansion of traditional Medicare, not a new program. Gradually, over several years, drop the age decade by decade, until everyone is covered by Medicare. Costs: Obviously, this would increase Medicare costs, but it would help decrease costs to the health system as a whole, because Medicare is so much more efficient (overhead of about 3% vs. 20% for private insurance). And it's a better program, because it ensures that everyone has access to a uniform package of benefits.

Recommendation #2: Increase Medicare fees for primary care doctors and reduce them for procedure-oriented specialists. Specialists such as cardiologists and gastroenterologists are now excessively rewarded for doing tests and procedures, many of which, in the opinion of experts, are not medically indicated. Not surprisingly, we have too many specialists, and they perform too many tests and procedures. Costs: This would greatly reduce costs to Medicare, and the reform would almost certainly be adopted throughout the wider health system.

Recommendation #3: Medicare should monitor doctors' practice patterns for evidence of excess, and gradually reduce fees of doctors who habitually order significantly more tests and procedures than the average for the specialty. Costs: Again, this would greatly reduce costs, and probably be widely adopted.

Recommendation #4: Provide generous subsidies to medical students entering primary care, with higher subsidies for those who practice in underserved areas of the country for at least two years. Costs: This initial, rather modest investment in ending our shortage of primary care doctors would have long-term benefits, in terms of both costs and quality of care.

Recommendation #5: Repeal the provision of the Medicare drug benefit that prohibits Medicare from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices. (The House bill calls for this.) That prohibition has been a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry. For negotiations to be meaningful, there must be a list (formulary) of drugs deemed cost-effective. This is how the Veterans Affairs System obtains some of the lowest drug prices of any insurer in the country. Costs: If Medicare paid the same prices as the Veterans Affairs System, its expenditures on brand-name drugs would be a small fraction of what they are now.

Is the House bill better than nothing? I don't think so. It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right.

Marcia Angell, M. D., is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. She stepped down as Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine on June 30, 2000.

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

2009-11-09T21:19:00.003-08:00

Published on Monday, November 9, 2009 by The Nation

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

by John Nichols

The Affordable Health Care for America Act was approved by the U.S. House Saturday night with overwhelming support from progressive Democrats who serve in the chamber and from a president who was nominated and elected with the enthusiastic support of progressive voters.

But that does not mean that informed and engaged progressives are entirely enthusiastic about the measure.

In fact, some are openly and explicitly opposed to it -- among them former Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and CPC member Eric Massa, D-New York, both of whom broke with the majority of their fellow Democrats to vote "no" when the House approved the measure by a narrow 220-215 vote Saturday.

How can this be?

Isn't this a fight between Democrats and Republicans? Between reforming liberals and tea-party conservatives?

How can there possibly be any subtlety or nuance to this debate?

Well, of course, the debate over this 1,900-page behemoth of a bill is more complicated than the easy spin of political insiders -- and media cheering sections -- would have Americans believe.

Key interest groups, such as the National Organization for Women, and key congressmen who have been long-term supporters of reform, such as single-payer backers Massa and Kucinich, argue that the bill is not the cure for what ails the U.S. health care system.

Indeed, they suggest, the bill as it is currently constructed could make a bad situation worse.

Many sincere progressives in the House, and outside of it, chose to back the bill as the best that could be gotten. Others supported it on the theory that flaws could be fixed in the Senate and in the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills.

But those repairs will only be made if activists are conscious of what ails this bill.

For that reason, even supporters of the House legislation would be wise to consider the criticisms of it by groups that advocate for the rights of women, patient advocates, unions and some of the most progressive members of the House.

Here are six smart progressive complaints about the House bill:

1. FROM CONGRESSMAN ERIC MASSA: "This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry"

At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it. I believe the private health insurance industry is part of the problem.
This bill also, I believe, fails to address the fundamental question before the American people, and that is how do we control the costs of health care. It does not address interstate portability, as Medicare does. It does not address real medical malpractice insurance reform. It does not address the incredible waste and fraud that are currently in the system.

2. FROM THE CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION: This Bill Fails to Control Costs

While the current bills will provide limited assistance for some, the inconvenient truth is they fall far short in effective controls on skyrocketing insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital costs, do little to stop insurance companies from denying needed medical care recommended by doctors, and provide little relief for Americans with employer-sponsored insurance worried about health security for themselves and their families.

3. FROM THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: "This Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose"

The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.
Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.

The Stupak Amendment (to the House bill, which was approved and attached on Saturday) goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

• Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

• Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

4. FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S CECILE RICHARDS: This Bill Embraces Religious-Right Extremes

It is extremely unfortunate that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and anti-choice opponents were able to hijack the health care reform bill in their dedicated attempt to ban all legal abortion In the United States.
Most telling is the fact that the vast majority of members of the House who supported the Stupak/Pitts amendment in today's vote do not support HR 3962, revealing their true motive, which is to kill the health care reform bill.

These single-issue advocates simply used health care reform to advance their extreme, ideological agenda at the expense of tens of millions of women.

5. FROM CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH,: This Bill Worries About the Health of Wall Street, Not America

We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.
Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000 percent. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross.

By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.

6. FROM "SICKO'S" DONNA SMITH: The Bill Does Not Cure What Ails Us

Passing a healthcare reform bill that does not provide me with better access to care or protection from bankruptcy and financial ruin is not what I asked you all to do. Stripping away all reference to a progressively financed, single standard of high quality healthcare for all - also known as single-payer -- is done only to more deeply ensconce the deep pocketed interests in healthcare: the private, for-profit insurance giants, the big pharmaceuticals, the medical equipment companies, the hospital corporations and all the other making huge profits as thousands die needless deaths.
Healthcare is a basic human right. Granting that right is not something to be calculated differently in swing Congressional districts, off-year election strategy or second-Presidential term planning. It is your (members of Congress') duty to me, to my fellow citizens and to your nation.

And (members of Congress) are marching away from reality when you think all the hard-working people who counted on you to make this a better healthcare system will not notice when you deliver insurance purchase mandates and a corporate bail-out that will dwarf the Wall Street trillions you've already justified.

Watch Smith's video: "American Sickos: Will the Current Bills Help? No"

Follow Smith's organizing for real reform at the website of Progressive Democrats of America. She is the national co-chair of PDA's Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign.

John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. A co-founder of the media reform organization Free Press, Nichols is is co-author with Robert W. McChesney of Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy - from The New Press. Nichols' latest book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism.

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

2009-11-09T21:19:00.002-08:00

Published on Monday, November 9, 2009 by The Nation

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

by John Nichols

But that does not mean that informed and engaged progressives are entirely enthusiastic about the measure.

How can this be?

Isn't this a fight between Democrats and Republicans? Between reforming liberals and tea-party conservatives?

How can there possibly be any subtlety or nuance to this debate?

Well, of course, the debate over this 1,900-page behemoth of a bill is more complicated than the easy spin of political insiders -- and media cheering sections -- would have Americans believe.

Indeed, they suggest, the bill as it is currently constructed could make a bad situation worse.

But those repairs will only be made if activists are conscious of what ails this bill.

Here are six smart progressive complaints about the House bill:

1. FROM CONGRESSMAN ERIC MASSA: "This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry"

At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it. I believe the private health insurance industry is part of the problem.
This bill also, I believe, fails to address the fundamental question before the American people, and that is how do we control the costs of health care. It does not address interstate portability, as Medicare does. It does not address real medical malpractice insurance reform. It does not address the incredible waste and fraud that are currently in the system.

2. FROM THE CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION: This Bill Fails to Control Costs

While the current bills will provide limited assistance for some, the inconvenient truth is they fall far short in effective controls on skyrocketing insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital costs, do little to stop insurance companies from denying needed medical care recommended by doctors, and provide little relief for Americans with employer-sponsored insurance worried about health security for themselves and their families.

3. FROM THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: "This Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose"

The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.
Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.

The Stupak Amendment (to the House bill, which was approved and attached on Saturday) goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

• Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

• Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

4. FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S CECILE RICHARDS: This Bill Embraces Religious-Right Extremes

It is extremely unfortunate that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and anti-choice opponents were able to hijack the health care reform bill in their dedicated attempt to ban all legal abortion In the United States.
Most telling is the fact that the vast majority of members of the House who supported the Stupak/Pitts amendment in today's vote do not support HR 3962, revealing their true motive, which is to kill the health care reform bill.

These single-issue advocates simply used health care reform to advance their extreme, ideological agenda at the expense of tens of millions of women.

5. FROM CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH,: This Bill Worries About the Health of Wall Street, Not America

We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.
Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000 percent. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross.

By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.

6. FROM "SICKO'S" DONNA SMITH: The Bill Does Not Cure What Ails Us

Passing a healthcare reform bill that does not provide me with better access to care or protection from bankruptcy and financial ruin is not what I asked you all to do. Stripping away all reference to a progressively financed, single standard of high quality healthcare for all - also known as single-payer -- is done only to more deeply ensconce the deep pocketed interests in healthcare: the private, for-profit insurance giants, the big pharmaceuticals, the medical equipment companies, the hospital corporations and all the other making huge profits as thousands die needless deaths.
Healthcare is a basic human right. Granting that right is not something to be calculated differently in swing Congressional districts, off-year election strategy or second-Presidential term planning. It is your (members of Congress') duty to me, to my fellow citizens and to your nation.

And (members of Congress) are marching away from reality when you think all the hard-working people who counted on you to make this a better healthcare system will not notice when you deliver insurance purchase mandates and a corporate bail-out that will dwarf the Wall Street trillions you've already justified.

Watch Smith's video: "American Sickos: Will the Current Bills Help? No"

Follow Smith's organizing for real reform at the website of Progressive Democrats of America. She is the national co-chair of PDA's Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign.

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

2009-11-09T21:19:00.001-08:00

Published on Monday, November 9, 2009 by The Nation

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

by John Nichols

But that does not mean that informed and engaged progressives are entirely enthusiastic about the measure.

How can this be?

Isn't this a fight between Democrats and Republicans? Between reforming liberals and tea-party conservatives?

How can there possibly be any subtlety or nuance to this debate?

Well, of course, the debate over this 1,900-page behemoth of a bill is more complicated than the easy spin of political insiders -- and media cheering sections -- would have Americans believe.

Indeed, they suggest, the bill as it is currently constructed could make a bad situation worse.

But those repairs will only be made if activists are conscious of what ails this bill.

Here are six smart progressive complaints about the House bill:

1. FROM CONGRESSMAN ERIC MASSA: "This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry"

At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it. I believe the private health insurance industry is part of the problem.
This bill also, I believe, fails to address the fundamental question before the American people, and that is how do we control the costs of health care. It does not address interstate portability, as Medicare does. It does not address real medical malpractice insurance reform. It does not address the incredible waste and fraud that are currently in the system.

2. FROM THE CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION: This Bill Fails to Control Costs

While the current bills will provide limited assistance for some, the inconvenient truth is they fall far short in effective controls on skyrocketing insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital costs, do little to stop insurance companies from denying needed medical care recommended by doctors, and provide little relief for Americans with employer-sponsored insurance worried about health security for themselves and their families.

3. FROM THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: "This Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose"

The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.
Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.

The Stupak Amendment (to the House bill, which was approved and attached on Saturday) goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

• Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

• Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

4. FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S CECILE RICHARDS: This Bill Embraces Religious-Right Extremes

It is extremely unfortunate that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and anti-choice opponents were able to hijack the health care reform bill in their dedicated attempt to ban all legal abortion In the United States.
Most telling is the fact that the vast majority of members of the House who supported the Stupak/Pitts amendment in today's vote do not support HR 3962, revealing their true motive, which is to kill the health care reform bill.

These single-issue advocates simply used health care reform to advance their extreme, ideological agenda at the expense of tens of millions of women.

5. FROM CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH,: This Bill Worries About the Health of Wall Street, Not America

We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.
Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000 percent. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross.

By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.

6. FROM "SICKO'S" DONNA SMITH: The Bill Does Not Cure What Ails Us

Passing a healthcare reform bill that does not provide me with better access to care or protection from bankruptcy and financial ruin is not what I asked you all to do. Stripping away all reference to a progressively financed, single standard of high quality healthcare for all - also known as single-payer -- is done only to more deeply ensconce the deep pocketed interests in healthcare: the private, for-profit insurance giants, the big pharmaceuticals, the medical equipment companies, the hospital corporations and all the other making huge profits as thousands die needless deaths.
Healthcare is a basic human right. Granting that right is not something to be calculated differently in swing Congressional districts, off-year election strategy or second-Presidential term planning. It is your (members of Congress') duty to me, to my fellow citizens and to your nation.

And (members of Congress) are marching away from reality when you think all the hard-working people who counted on you to make this a better healthcare system will not notice when you deliver insurance purchase mandates and a corporate bail-out that will dwarf the Wall Street trillions you've already justified.

Watch Smith's video: "American Sickos: Will the Current Bills Help? No"

Follow Smith's organizing for real reform at the website of Progressive Democrats of America. She is the national co-chair of PDA's Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign.

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

2009-11-09T21:19:00.000-08:00

Published on Monday, November 9, 2009 by The Nation

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

by John Nichols

But that does not mean that informed and engaged progressives are entirely enthusiastic about the measure.

How can this be?

Isn't this a fight between Democrats and Republicans? Between reforming liberals and tea-party conservatives?

How can there possibly be any subtlety or nuance to this debate?

Well, of course, the debate over this 1,900-page behemoth of a bill is more complicated than the easy spin of political insiders -- and media cheering sections -- would have Americans believe.

Indeed, they suggest, the bill as it is currently constructed could make a bad situation worse.

But those repairs will only be made if activists are conscious of what ails this bill.

Here are six smart progressive complaints about the House bill:

1. FROM CONGRESSMAN ERIC MASSA: "This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry"

At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it. I believe the private health insurance industry is part of the problem.
This bill also, I believe, fails to address the fundamental question before the American people, and that is how do we control the costs of health care. It does not address interstate portability, as Medicare does. It does not address real medical malpractice insurance reform. It does not address the incredible waste and fraud that are currently in the system.

2. FROM THE CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION: This Bill Fails to Control Costs

While the current bills will provide limited assistance for some, the inconvenient truth is they fall far short in effective controls on skyrocketing insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital costs, do little to stop insurance companies from denying needed medical care recommended by doctors, and provide little relief for Americans with employer-sponsored insurance worried about health security for themselves and their families.

3. FROM THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: "This Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose"

The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.
Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.

The Stupak Amendment (to the House bill, which was approved and attached on Saturday) goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

• Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

• Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

4. FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S CECILE RICHARDS: This Bill Embraces Religious-Right Extremes

It is extremely unfortunate that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and anti-choice opponents were able to hijack the health care reform bill in their dedicated attempt to ban all legal abortion In the United States.
Most telling is the fact that the vast majority of members of the House who supported the Stupak/Pitts amendment in today's vote do not support HR 3962, revealing their true motive, which is to kill the health care reform bill.

These single-issue advocates simply used health care reform to advance their extreme, ideological agenda at the expense of tens of millions of women.

5. FROM CONGRESSMAN DENNIS KUCINICH,: This Bill Worries About the Health of Wall Street, Not America

We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.
Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000 percent. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross.

By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.

6. FROM "SICKO'S" DONNA SMITH: The Bill Does Not Cure What Ails Us

Passing a healthcare reform bill that does not provide me with better access to care or protection from bankruptcy and financial ruin is not what I asked you all to do. Stripping away all reference to a progressively financed, single standard of high quality healthcare for all - also known as single-payer -- is done only to more deeply ensconce the deep pocketed interests in healthcare: the private, for-profit insurance giants, the big pharmaceuticals, the medical equipment companies, the hospital corporations and all the other making huge profits as thousands die needless deaths.
Healthcare is a basic human right. Granting that right is not something to be calculated differently in swing Congressional districts, off-year election strategy or second-Presidential term planning. It is your (members of Congress') duty to me, to my fellow citizens and to your nation.

And (members of Congress) are marching away from reality when you think all the hard-working people who counted on you to make this a better healthcare system will not notice when you deliver insurance purchase mandates and a corporate bail-out that will dwarf the Wall Street trillions you've already justified.

Watch Smith's video: "American Sickos: Will the Current Bills Help? No"

Follow Smith's organizing for real reform at the website of Progressive Democrats of America. She is the national co-chair of PDA's Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign.

Thom Hartmann's November Review of R. Crumb Illustration of the Book of Genesis

2009-11-08T09:56:00.000-08:00

Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash.com

BuzzFlash Reviews

Thom Hartmann's November "Independent Thinker" Review for BuzzFlash.com is the Bestselling R. Crumb Illustration of the Book of Genesis

Reviewed by Thom Hartmann, Illustrated by R. Crumb

BUZZFLASH REVIEWS

THOM HARTMANN'S INDEPENDENT THINKER REVIEW OF THE MONTH FOR BUZZFLASH:
November, 2009

Each month or so, BuzzFlash is privileged to have nationally syndicated progressive talk show host Thom Hartmann review a progressive book or DVD exclusively for BuzzFlash. See other progressive premiums at The BuzzFlash Progressive Marketplace.

Thom Hartmann's Review -- Exclusively for BuzzFlash -- for November, 2009:

"The Book of Genesis"
Illustrated by R. Crumb

Reviewed by Thom Hartmann

The Book of Genesis is arguably the most important of our cultural foundations today. And R. Crumb’s illustration of it – and his postscripted commentary – is astonishing. Jewish and Christian “believers” as well as anthropologists and atheists will find a gold-mine in the stories which most inform our modern culture’s interpretation of who we are as humans relative to the world, its other life forms, and the “god” of the Bible.

In the Introduction, he says, “I, R. Crumb, the illustrator of this book, have, to the best of my ability, faithfully reproduced every work of the original text…” It’s true. For the first time, even the boring or confusing parts of Genesis are readable. Crumb took five painstaking years to produce this masterpiece, and it truly deserves that word when being described.

But it’s in the commentary at the end of the work that R. Crumb reveals a thoughtful brilliance that almost transcends the artistic brilliance he brought to the text. Simple, straightforward, and almost buried with absolutely no fanfare whatsoever at the end of the book, Crumb lays out an understanding and vision of the early Hebrew tribes that is startling, revolutionary, and ultimately totally credible.
According to one of the two different creation stories in Genesis, Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel, but after Cain killed Abel, he went to a nearby city and found a wife. Another city? Apparently Jehovah didn’t create all human beings; he only created the Hebrew tribe. (Virtually every aboriginal tribe in the world, in fact, has its own creation story which is unique to its own people and doesn’t include or often even explain other tribes.)

Crumb explains this in his commentary on Chapter Six of Genesis:

“The divine beings”: In the ancient world everyone, including the Hebrews, believed in the existence of multiple gods and demigods. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that the god of the chosen people is the only god. He is their god. In the Hebrew his is called “Yhwh” (Jehovah) by one of the original writers, and “Elohim” by another. Other times he is called “El-Shaddai,” which may mean “god-of-the-mountain.” In Chapter 14, Abraham swears an oath to “El Elyon,” the “god most high” of the Canaanites. Every tribe, every city-state, had its “god most high” in its pantheon of gods, demigods, demons and spirits.

Referencing Savina Teubal’s 1984 book “Sarah the Priestess,” Crumb begins in Chapter 12 with the stories of Abraham and Sarah, to lay out his vision of how most of the Book of Genesis is actually the story of a matriarchal, matrilineal, often goddess-worshipping tribe that, as it moved from hunting/gathering to pastoralism to urban living was eventually overtaken by a military-industrial complex of sorts that empowered the men to take over.

He notes how “the historical record shows that in the earlier millennia of this development in Mesopotamia and Egypt, there existed a powerful matriarchal order alongside the patriarchy. They coexisted in relative harmony until the size and power of these organized city-states became so great, probably due in part to this male-female balance, that the military elites finally became supreme. The matriarchy was then gradually suppressed, armies of slaves were brought in, kings were declared divine, and property became more important than people.… But back in the days of Abraham, around 2000 B.C.E., matriarchy was just in the beginning stages of being suppressed, and the struggles and assertions of the female characters [in Genesis] are all about this, as Savina Teubal so clearly explains.”

He goes on to suggest that Sarah was actually a High Priestess, and this explains all the bizarre stories of Abraham getting various kings to sleep with her. It wasn’t Abraham’s choice, Crumb asserts, and really was a way of solidifying political relationships with neighboring tribes. Crumb describes the hieros gamos or “’sacred marriage’ in which any powerful man who wanted to be given a position of leadership had to be ‘invited’ into the bedchamber of the high priestess, ‘guardian of the grains stores,’ and he had to meet with her approval. If somehow he failed the text, it went bad for him. The high priestess ‘chose’ him. In this ritual, she represented the ‘most high’ goddess.”

And, as Genesis 12 tells, “…the ‘sacred marriage did not go well for the Pharaoh. ... He must make peace with this powerful woman and her husband. They receive valuable animals and human slaves in compensation for his embarrassment.”

And that’s just the beginning: Genesis has 50 chapters.

If you want to understand the founding pillar of the world’s three most powerful religions, read Genesis illustrated by R. Crumb. But first, flip to the back and read his “Commentary.” It’s worth the price of the book, and makes the illustrated text not only illuminated but illuminating.

Thom Hartmann is a New York Times bestselling Project Censored Award winning author and host of a nationally syndicated progressive radio talk show. You can learn more about Thom Hartmann at his website and find out what stations broadcast his program. You can also listen to Thom over the Internet.

THOM HARTMANN'S INDEPENDENT THINKER REVIEW OF THE MONTH FOR BUZZFLASH

Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash.com

Weiner: Giving Up Single-Payer Was 'Real Politics'

2009-11-07T20:35:00.000-08:00

Weiner: Giving Up Single-Payer Was 'Real Politics'

By Michael McAuliff
November 7, 2009, New York, NY

Published by New York Daily News.

Read Weiner's statement, Waxman's statement, Pelosi's statement and Conyers statement.

Rep. Anthony Weiner says he’s not giving up on a single-payer health care system forever, but stopping the push for it now was the only pragmatic choice.

“I’m disappointed, but this is real politics,” he said, explaining that the vote he was promised on a single-payer system was causing “turbulence” and endangering the reform package.

By turbulence, he meant, among other things, certain Democrats in conservative districts felt they would have to vote for single-payer to keep peace with progressives who put them in office, even though the measure would not pass, then they would have to vote against the reform bill to appease the rest of their constituents.

But Weiner still sees many silver linings in having resurrected the single-payer debate, especially in making it clear that the public option is a compromise for liberals, not the favored option.

“We’ve won a partial victory in that the debates on the the public option have been kind of a weird surrogate debate about single-payer,” he said.

And, in an argument that GOP opponents of single-payer will surely point to, Weiner thinks the public option could be the first step.

“If the public option is a success and it succeeds in reducing costs… it may argue for doing different types of public options in the future,” he said. “This is a laboratory for a goverrment plan, albeit a small one. I think it does help us.”

And he notes that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not withdrawn the promise she made to let him have some sort of vote on single-payer.

“The commitment the Speaker made is still there for me; she still said we’d have this vote and she’s still committed to it,” he said. “This is hopefully just a delay in the stream.”

But the bottom line now is politics. “We did not want to let the perfection of the single-payer be the enemy of the good,” Weiner said.

© Copyright 2009 NYDailyNews.com. All rights reserved.

Co-Authors Question Stand Alone Vote on National Single Payer

2009-11-06T20:42:00.000-08:00

Published on Friday, November 6, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

Co-Authors Question Stand Alone Vote on National Single Payer

by Dennis Kucinich & John Conyers

Dear Friends,

We thank you for your continued devotion to the cause of health care for All Americans. We have worked together for many years to write, promote and campaign for HR676, a single payer, not for profit health care system. Your work, in communities across America, has been instrumental in helping at least ten states create single payer movements, with many more states to come.

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider a single payer bill. As the two principal co-authors of the Conyers single payer bill, we want to offer a strong note of caution about tomorrow's vote.

The bill presented tomorrow will not be HR676. While we are happy to relinquish authorship of a single payer bill to any member who can do better, we do not want a weak bill brought forward in a hostile climate to unwittingly accomplish what would be interpreted as a defeat for single payer.

Here are the facts: There has been no debate in Congress over HR676. There has not been a single mark-up of the bill. Single payer was "taken off the table" for the entire year by the White House and by congressional leaders. There has been no reasonable period of time to gather support in the Congress for single payer. Many members accepted a "robust public option" as the alternative to single payer and now that has disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored the bill scheduled for a vote tomorrow in a manner which is at odds with many credible assumptions, meaning that it will appear to cost way too much even though we know that true single payer saves money since one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to administrative costs caused by the insurance companies. Is this really the climate in which we want a test vote?

While state single payer movements are already strong, the national single payer movement is still growing. Many progressives in Congress, ourselves included, feel that calling for a vote tomorrow for single payer would be tantamount to driving the movement over a cliff. The thrill of the vote would disappear quickly when the result would be characterized not as a new beginning for single payer but as an end. Such a result would be seen as proof that Congress need not pay attention to efforts to restore in Conference Committee the right of states to pursue single payer without fear of legal attacks by insurance companies.

We are always grateful for your support. We are now asking you to join us in suggesting to congressional leaders that this is not the right time to call the roll on a stand-alone single payer bill. That time will come. And when it does there will not be any doubt of the outcome. This system of health care injustice will not be able to endure forever. We are pledged to make sure of that.

Sincerely,
Congressmen John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich is a Congressman (D) from Ohio. John Conyers is a Congressman (D) from Michigan.

On Weiner amendment withdrawal

2009-11-06T17:50:00.000-08:00

On Weiner amendment withdrawal

NOTE: As promised in the email earlier today, the following is a more detailed account of the circumstances surrounding the canceled floor vote on the Weiner amendment.

On the eve of what could have been the first vote on single-payer legislation in our nation’s history, because of last minute developments, the vote and debate on Congressman Weiner’s single-payer amendment will not happen. Speaker Pelosi received a statement from Rep. Kucinich and Rep. Conyers, the co-authors of HR 676, that they do not think that this is the right time for a vote on national single-payer legislation. They made this statement despite the extensive mobilization in support of this vote across the country. In addition, Speaker Pelosi felt that offering a single-payer amendment would open the floodgates to amendments proposed to limit abortion funds, restrict immigrant access to health care and other regressive legislation.

Let us remember that the potential vote on Congressman Weiner’s single-payer amendment resulted from holding fast to our principles of universal, comprehensive health care with no financial barriers. Our efforts have brought truth and clarity to a national debate on health care reform that has been polluted by the corporate influence over Congress. While the private insurance industry has sent 3,000 lobbyists to Capitol Hill this year, spending 1.4 million dollars a day to shape reform that protects their profits, our calls, faxes, and demonstrations have created the momentum to bring legislation based on HR 676 to the floor of the House and Senate.

The vote for Congressman Weiner’s single-payer amendment would have allowed advocates to have their representatives on record as single-payer supporters.

But this legislative battle is not yet over. Our focus can now turn to two remaining efforts for single-payer healthcare in this Congress. Sen. Bernie Sanders will introduce S 703 in coming weeks (http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=14212486), and we understand that he is considering editing it to be more like HR 676. We will have the opportunity again to see the first ever vote on single-payer healthcare in this Congress. In addition, Rep. Kucinich’s amendment to allow states to more easily implement a single-payer system may be reinserted into the bill during the conference committee between the House and Senate.

All of these efforts are crucial to building the movement for the only solution to our health care crisis--single-payer national healthcare.

If this Congress passes inadequate legislation, there will no doubt be emboldened state movements in the coming years. We welcome them. But let us not forget the movement to push our federal legislators to meet the demands of the people, not roll that responsibility onto the states. The Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care remains committed to a national, single-payer solution to the health care crisis. Comprehensive, quality health care is a right that should be extended to every U.S. resident.

At this important time, let us not forget how far we have come. Either now or later, a single-payer national health care system must come to the table. We’ll keep building the movement to make that happen.

For health care justice,

Progressive Democrats of America
http://pdamerica.org

Healthcare-NOW!
www.healthcare-now.org

California Nurses Association/NNOC
www.calnurses.org
www.guaranteedhealthcare.org

Physicians for a National Health Program
www.pnhp.org

Public Citizen
www.citizen.org

Healthcare for All Texas
www.healthcareforalltexas.org

Western PA Coalition for Single Payer
www.wpasinglepayer.org

Alliance for Democracy
www.thealliancefordemocracy.org

Support States' Rights to improve Health Insurance legislation

2009-11-06T12:02:00.000-08:00

Support States' Rights to improve Health Insurance legislation

We're down to the wire on healthcare reform in this Congress. The House will vote on HR 3962 (perhaps this Saturday, November 7). We must act now to ensure the Kucinich amendment is included in the bill after Speaker Pelosi stripped it.

While we appreciate activists dialing up the heat on the healthcare corporations through civil disobedience, Congress needs to hear a steady stream of voices--right up to the vote--demanding support for the Kucinich amendment.

Please call (or fax) your member of Congress TODAY and ask your member to support both amendments.

Enter your zip code in the box (above right) and click on "Go" for contact info and talking points.

While it is more effective to call at this point, you can send an email here

Humana saw their profits rise 65 percent last quarter on Medicare profits: No wonder they oppose healthcare reform & more buzz

2009-11-02T14:22:00.000-08:00

Humana saw their profits rise 65 percent last quarter on Medicare profits: No wonder they oppose healthcare reform

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 4:59pm.

Alerts

BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

November 2 Release from the Office of Senator Harry Reid

Spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Jim Manley, released the following statement today in response to news that Humana had a 65 percent jump in profit last quarter mostly due to their involvement with the Medicare Advantage Program:

“It’s no wonder why Humana has been misleading seniors about health insurance reform -- they saw their profits rise 65 percent last quarter and want to make sure the gravy train doesn’t

BP Contests Record-Breaking OSHA Fine While Allowing 'Hundreds of Potential Hazards to Continue'

Submitted by MargaretS on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 4:07pm.

Alerts

BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
by Margaret Smith

It's shocking enough to hear that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a small subset of the U.S. Dept. of Labor, dropped a whooping $87.4 million fine on oil giant BP.

It comes as even more of a shock, though, when you find out that BP has challenged the fine, as well as the hundreds of cited health and safety violations that came along with it, as more and more of their employees are being injured due to safety accidents, some being fatal.

Yet that's what happened last Friday when BP formally contested the fines and citations imposed by the OSHA for what officials said was the company's failure to correct safety hazards identified after the 2005 explosion that killed 15 workers and injured 170 more at its Texas City refinery, the third largest refinery in the country.

Technorati Tags: Alerts OSHA BP Explosion Oil Refinery

GOP Direct Mail King Weighs in on NY-23, Insisting the Race Is About Teabaggers, Not New Yorkers

Submitted by meg on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 1:31pm.

Be-Elected

BE ELECTED
by Meg White

When President Obama appointed Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) to become secretary of the Army, he set up what was to become one of only two House special elections of 2009 as well as a test case for the midterm elections next year.

It seems everyone and their mother is weighing in on this race, and with the recent suspension of GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava's campaign and her subsequent endorsement of Democratic candidate Bill Owens, the district may be watched more closely than even the New Jersey gubernatorial race. In fact, the race is almost a Rorschach test indicating what the onlooker thinks of electoral politics in this country. The one thing it seems the election is not about is New York's 23rd district.

In a post Saturday afternoon, conservative pundit Richard Viguerie condemned Scozzafava for not endorsing the conservative third-party candidate Doug Hoffman.

Viguerie's stance should be no surprise to those who have been following him recently as he promotes his re-launch of the Republican Party by purging what he calls "big-government Republicans" from the helm of his Web site, ConservativeHQ.com. The one-time heavy hitter of the GOP emerged from the 1970s to become that era's Karl Rove, credited for creating the once-influential direct-mail campaigns for the political world.

Scozzafava, as a relatively moderate Republican who supported the stimulus plan, is an obvious target for Viguerie. What does strike one in Viguerie's statement is his insistence that this race is about the inevitable rise of the teabaggers (emphasis mine):

Technorati Tags: Be-Elected hoffman owens scozzafava NY NY-23 house congress rep. new york tea party teabag viguerie government bailout

Dave Lindorff: Country Joe, Kenny Rogers, and Obama

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 1:06pm.

Dave Lindorff

Country Joe McDonald said it best in his iconic "Fixin' to Die" Rag: "Oh, it's one, two, three, what are we fightin' for? Don't ask me. I don't give a damn." In fact, we were fighting for nothing in Vietnam. It was a war that started out because the U.S. didn't want the Commies to win a battle in the so-called Cold War, and even though it was on the farthest side of the world, in a poor nation of peasants, even though they had been struggling to throw off colonialism for years and we had simply become the new colonists, no president dared to admit the obvious -- we had no business being there, and all the killing and dying had no point.

Afghanistan is the same thing all over again. We "got in" surreptitiously for the same reason. Russia had helped organize a coup to take over what passed for a "central government" and had found itself mired in a brutal war of occupation, and the U.S. had begun, back in the '70s, organizing and providing arms to the forces fighting the Russians, not because Afghanistan -- a country even more remote and meaningless in terms of U.S. interests or security than Vietnam -- had any importance but because it was a way to "stick it to" the Russians in the waning days of the Cold War.

Technorati Tags: Dave Lindorff

BuzzFlash Mailbag for November 2, 2009

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 12:30pm.

BuzzFlash Mailbag

BUZZFLASH MAILBAG

Want to join the conversation? Share your thoughts with other Mailbag readers by clicking here. You also may comment below; post articles yourself at BuzzFlash.net; or send urls for BuzzFlash to post to: www.buzzflash.com/contact/newstip.html.

Subject: Cheney's little deferment, Liz lies.

The apple does not fall far from the tree!

While daddy sent our troops like lambs to the slaughter to his ego war, so goes Liz Cheney to lie for him and as we all know she was taught by the best of liars ever, her daddy. A daddy drunk with power!

How can this little girl live with herself if she had to accept the guilt of her father's lie that sent our troops to die, and then refuse to be there to honor them when they returned home to their families.

Cheney's motto must have been 'if you don't see them they where not there.' Also, this did not happen, and no one will remember who sent them or why they had to die!

While President Obama, by doing the loving thing as Commander in Chief and being there to honor those who died in the line of duty, is chastised. Can you believe it? Being honorable they, these troops, went, not knowing, it was on a Cheney power, ego trip. Baby Liz along with daddy have the shameful nerve to lie about President Obama's motive to be there when these heroes arrived home to their grieving loved ones. Why? Because the guilt would be so hard to bear for baby and daddy, and the truth does not permit them to live in peace with themselves. So lie they must to survive. Liz can't get her head around what? The truth??? I'll bet she can't!

Liz, daddy's little girl, who are we to judge you our your daddy, there is a higher authority that does have the power to do just that, and believe me there will be an atonement to be sure, because those who died for the daddy's big lie will not rest in peace till then. And all your lies will not do a darn thing to make daddy's sins go away.

A BuzzFlash Reader

Technorati Tags: BuzzFlash Mailbag

Barbara's Daily BuzzFlash Minute for November 2, 2009

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 11:06am.

Barbara's Daily Buzz

BARBARA'S DAILY BUZZFLASH MINUTE

MEMO to CNN: As long as you give enough airtime to choke a horse to the likes of Repuglican Boner Boehner who says absolutely nothing of any substance, as long as you have Mary Matalin castrating her husband James Carville on air, as long as your bias is to the right, your ratings will remain in the tank! "State of the Union" is a reflection of the State of CNN, and your ratings will continue to be zip unless and until you stop reporting lies as the truth, and the truth as a lie!

Technorati Tags: Barbara's Daily Buzz

Susan J. Demas: Everything you ever wanted to know about the NY-23 starts with Tim Walberg

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 9:53am.

Guest Contribution

BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY
by Susan J. Demas

Some people might be shocked about the carnage in the NY-23, where moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava was just forced out of the way to make room for uber-conservative Doug Hoffman, puppet of the anti-tax group Club for Growth.

I'm not one of them, because I covered the dress rehearsal back in 2006 in the MI-7. This was the start of the Republican civil war, which few people recognized at the time. But with the subsequent federal purges of Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and Heather Wilson (R-NM), and now Scozzafava, it's clear that the Club for Growth-sponsored bloodletting won't be stopping anytime soon.

U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-MI) was in his first term representing a rural southern Michigan district and was named one the top 10 most effective freshmen. The seat was hand-drawn as the second-most conservative in the state with a 57-percent GOP base.

Today, it is represented by U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer, a pro-choice Democrat who has voted repeatedly to raise taxes.

How did this happen?

Technorati Tags: Guest Contribution

NY-23, less 1, part 2 Submitted by pmcarpenter on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 5:44am.

P.M. Carpenter

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

Dede Scozzafava's Saturday understatement of withdrawal -- "Polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be" -- was the most clarity we've heard from New York's 23rd Congressional District in days.

A Scozzafava-campaign associate had earlier offered the rather vague but universal view: "This is the strangest thing I have ever seen. I don’t know what to make of this thing, to be honest. There are so many angles to this thing. It’s wild."

Political angles, both strange and wild, have dominated this suddenly two-man race, now between Republican-Scozzafava-endorsed Democrat Bill Owens and the Conservative Party's Doug Hoffman. But some things never change. For instance, prominent national Republicans who, out of deep convictions and imperishable principles, of course, had steadfastly backed Scozzafava and roundly condemned Hoffman, lurched on Saturday with unalarming alacrity to their former enemy's camp.

What a Hoffman victory could mean for liberals

Submitted by pmcarpenter on Sat, 10/31/2009 - 6:16am.

P.M. Carpenter

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

In New York's Owens-Scozzafava-Hoffman race there had loomed two major narratives of keen-enough interest in the right's internal spats, but both are suddenly receding in the early shadows of, perhaps, a much broader electoral -- and unspeakable -- shift.

First, a short look into the conventional narratives.

The Times concisely framed one of them earlier this week: "The race ... has become a contentious referendum on the [Republican] party’s future, and its outcome will help shape what kinds of candidates the Republicans run as they look to rebuild their ranks in Congress next fall."

And none other than conservative Newt Gingrich, who, as you know, is backing the "liberal" GOP candidate, just as concisely framed the other narrative, which is largely procedural in nature: He cautioned his fellow Republicans about the "grave danger of establishing the precedent that every faction can run a third-party candidate if they lose a primary or a convention," thus sabotaging many a legitimate GOP candidacy and electing the Democrat.

Sue Wilson: Culpability in the Jennifer Strange Saga

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Fri, 10/30/2009 - 2:37pm.

Guest Contribution

BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY
by Sue Wilson

Today, a divided jury rendered a unanimous verdict against Entercom Sacramento in the case of Jennifer Strange, a mother of three who died as a result of radio station KDND's water drinking contest in January 2007. The jury of seven men and five women awarded Jennifer's family more than $16 million compensation.

For much of the past two months, I have been observing and live blogging the trial. There is much to process before I comment at length. But in brief:

KDND 107.9 "the End's" Morning Rave ruled the airwaves in Sacramento's morning drive. The on air personalities ruled the radio station, too, the proverbial inmates running the asylum. And they clearly knew a person could die from drinking too much water: just a month before the contest, the Morning Rave spent an entire show making fun of a local college kid who had died from water intoxication. They made fun of Matthew Carrington's death, and they knew someone could die from drinking too much water.

Technorati Tags: Guest Contribution

Take Action: Call Speaker Pelosi--demand the Kucinich amendment be reinserted

2009-11-02T14:16:00.000-08:00

Pelosi's Not-So-Robust Public Option

By John Nichols
October 30, 2009

Take Action: Call Speaker Pelosi--demand the Kucinich amendment be reinserted.

Published by The Nation.

The public option was always a compromise for serious supporters of health-care reform, who--like Barack Obama when he was running for the Senate in 2003--knew that a single-payer "Medicare for All" system was what America needed to provide health care to everyone while controlling costs.

But, in the reform legislation debuted Thursday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the compromise was even more compromised than had been expected.

Pelosi says the legislation is "historic," and celebrates the fact that is does still include a public option--a component many pundits had said was destined for abandonment.

But, while there is a public option, it is anything but robust.

Progressives believe Pelosi has bent to far to the right.

And The New York Times suggests as much in its analysis, which declares that:

Under pressure from moderate-to-conservative members of the House Democratic caucus, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to propose a government-run insurance plan that would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, rather than using prices set by the government...
Ms. Pelosi said the public plan, which she prefers to call a "consumer option," would compete with private insurers. But the speaker was apparently unable to muster the votes needed for the 'robust' liberal version of a public plan, which she has repeatedly said would save more money for consumers and the government.

Translation: The "public option" Pelosi and her team have proposed a plan that would not make payments for care based on Medicare rates, as the Congressional Progressive Caucus and key Senate Democrats have proposed.

Rather, under the Pelosi plan, the rates be tied to those of the big insurance companies. That's a big, big victory for the insurance industry, as it will undermine the ability of the public option to compete--and to create pressure for reduced costs.

Pelosi's plan also drops a number of provisions that had been advanced at the committee level to promote consideration of "Medicare for All" models and to allow states to experiment with single-payer plans.

That's an especially bitter pill for House progressives, who has won support for state-based experimentation in committee votes.

Groups such as Progressive Democrats of America were quick to raise alarm bells because some of the most innovative responses to the health-care crisis are being forged at the state level. While single-payer proposals are being blocked at the federal level, PDA national director Tim Carpenter says the single-payer fight is ramping up in the states.

"Last week, members of the PDA national team traveled to Pennsylvania for a rally at the capital rotunda in Harrisburg, in support of Healthcare for All Pennsylvania and their single-payer bill," notes Carpenter. "The momentum for single-payer healthcare grows daily. It appears Congress will have to be forced to follow the lead of states like Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, Ohio and Massachusetts--all working to implement single-payer healthcare at the state level."

House progressives were quick to express disappointment, as they were counting on the House to advance a strong alternative to the Senate Democratic leadership's very weak public option proposal--which would allow states to opt out of the plan.

Reviewing the details of Pelosi's plan in a passionate speech on the House floor, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, one of the chamber's most ardent advocates for reform asked: "Is this the best we can do? Forcing people to buy private health insurance, guaranteeing at least $50 billion in new business for the insurance companies?

Kucinich continued:

Is this the best we can do? Government negotiates rates which will drive up insurance costs, but the government won't negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies which will drive up pharmaceutical costs.
Is this the best we can do? Only 3 percent of Americans will go to a new public plan, while currently 33 percent of Americans are either uninsured or underinsured?

Is this the best we can do? Eliminating the state single payer option, while forcing most people to buy private insurance.

If this is the best we can do, then our best isn't good enough and we have to ask some hard questions about our political system: such as Health Care or Insurance Care? Government of the people or a government of the corporations.

Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Lynn Woolsey, D-California, said she and her allies would continue to battle to muscle-up the public option.

"It's not even the fourth quarter,'' said Woolsey, who noted the public option had only recently been dismissed as dead by many pundits. "We will be insisting on (the option) being as strong as it possibly can be.''

Woolsey and other progressive Democrats are set to meet with President Obama Thursday.

"He needs to hear from us that he needs to support the public option,'' Woolsey told the Los Angeles Times. "He's not saying it loud enough. We want to make sure he lets the Senate know he wants a public option in the bill."

The focus on Obama is appropriate. He has the authority, as a man with a bully pulpit and a veto pen, to tell Pelosi that a soft public option is insufficient. At the same time, he can and should be more involved in challenging the absurd proposals--advanced by conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans--for "opt-outs" and "triggers," which threaten to weaken the public option to the point of meaninglessness.

Progressive House Dems Want Medicare for (E)veryone

2009-10-21T18:22:00.000-07:00

Published on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 by The Hill

Progressive House Dems Want Medicare for (E)veryone

by Mike Soraghan

Say hello to "Medicare Part E" - as in, "Medicare for Everyone."

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in this file photo. Kucinich called his single-payer coverage proposal "Medicare Part E." But, the question remains, can the so-called 'public option' be re-branded as Medicare, which more people understand but may present other problems for health reform advocates. (SEIU file)

House Democrats are looking at re-branding the public health insurance option as Medicare, an established government healthcare program that is better known than the public option.

The strategy could benefit Democrats struggling to bridge the gap between liberals in their party, who want the public option, and centrists, who are worried it would drive private insurers out of business.

While much of the public is foggy on what a public option actually is, people understand Medicare. It also would place the new public option within the rubric of a familiar system rather than something new and unknown.

The idea has bubbled up among House Democrats and leaders in the past week, most prominently in a caucus meeting last Thursday.

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) spoke out last week in favor of re-branding the public option as Medicare, startling many because he has loudly proclaimed his opposition to a public option.

Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), the veteran chairman of the House Transportation Committee, also voiced his support, as did House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.).

John Schadl, a spokesman for Oberstar, explained the congressman likes the idea because people are familiar with Medicare.

"One of his concerns is that people don't know what a public option is. Medicare is a public option," Schadl said. He said Oberstar started talking about "Medicare for Everyone" during August town hall meetings.

A notable incident last summer demonstrated the popularity of Medicare and the confusion over the public option when a man famously told Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) planned to unveil a proposal to her caucus Tuesday night that would include the public option favored by liberals in the healthcare bill Democrats want to bring to the floor, according to two House sources.

The plan, called the "robust" option or "Medicare Plus 5" in the jargon that has emerged on Capitol Hill, ties provider reimbursement rates to Medicare, adding 5 percent. Leaders are planning to roll the bill out next week, and are hoping to vote the first week in November

Some Democrats say there's no need to rename a legislative concept that's gained steadily in support since being lambasted as a "government takeover" in August. A Washington Post-ABC poll published Tuesday showed 57 percent of the public supports the idea - up five points since August - while 40 percent opposes it.

"It keeps polling better and better as a public health insurance option," said a senior Democratic aide. "I don't think it's changing." Polling experts, however, have documented that many people don't know what a public option is, and that small changes in language can cause poll results to vary widely. An August poll by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates showed that only 37 percent of those polled correctly identified the public option from a list of three choices.

"Before this year, few people had ever heard of the term ‘public option,' " Ross said last week.

It's not clear exactly how the new Medicare idea would work. Some want to expand Medicare itself to uninsured people under 65. Others want to simply rename what is now called the public health insurance option.

Oberstar, who supports a "single-payer" system that would be completely run by the government, doesn't want a Medicare public option to be based on existing Medicare rates because he believe Minnesota is one of the states shortchanged by Medicare reimbursements.

Republicans mocked the idea of re-branding a plan they still consider a government takeover of healthcare.

"It didn't matter what they called Crystal Pepsi; no one wanted to drink it," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). "No matter how the Democrats ‘re-brand' their government takeover of healthcare, the American people oppose it."

Republicans also note that Medicare is already $37 trillion in the hole and is projected to go bankrupt by 2018. "Has anyone noticed that Medicare is completely broke?" said Andrew Biggs, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who worked in the White House on President George W. Bush's plan to overhaul Social Security.

The public health insurance option would be a government-run plan designed to push all insurance premiums down by creating more competition in a business where one or two insurers dominate many markets. The idea has gotten a cool reception from some Senate Democrats, and Republicans are adamantly opposed. But Pelosi has flatly stated that the House bill will include a public option.

In a closed-door caucus meeting last week, Ross, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, offered support for expanding Medicare, saying it would prevent the need to create a new bureaucracy. He said he wasn't advocating a plan, however, and added that the new coverage would have to have much higher reimbursements for physicians and hospitals. He also said it would need to compete with private insurers.

In an odd reversal, that idea was shot down as too liberal by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), himself a liberal champion. Waxman said expanding Medicare would essentially move toward a fully government-run single-payer system, while the public option was designed to spur competition.

People have been talking about some sort of Medicare Part E since Congress debated the prescription drug benefit, Medicare Part D, in 2003. In the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) called his single-payer coverage proposal "Medicare Part E."

The idea of expanding Medicare while still keeping private insurance was proposed in 2007 by Johns Hopkins University Professors Gerard Anderson and Hugh Waters. They presented a paper at a forum of the Brookings Institution advocating "Medicare Part E(veryone)," and said their proposal would expand Medicare to ensure universal coverage while allowing people to stay on their employers' health plans.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC)

2009-10-19T11:03:00.000-07:00

PROGRESSIVE CHANGE
CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
BOLDPROGRESSIVES.ORG

OUR MISSION: The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) works to elect bold progressive candidates to federal office and to help those candidates and their campaigns save money, work smarter, and win more often.

We also advocate for bold leadership on the most important and pressing causes. Read about our campaigns, and sign up to join our fight.

The Atlantic: Obama Campaign Staffers Press President On Health Care

MSNBC: Keith Olbermann features PCCC's New York Times ad.

Huffington Post: Group Organizing Obama Workers For Ad Targeting President

Talking Points Memo: New Ad Hits Grassley for Ties to Special Interests, Opposing Public Option

Politico: 'Honor Kennedy' movement gathers steam

Huffington Post: August Ad Wars Begin: Progressive Group Targets Ben Nelson (VIDEO)

Local TV Evening News Video -- KULR-TV (Montana): Ad Targets Senator Baucus

GET INVOLVED: Do you have special skills you want to contribute to the progressive movement -- including to bold congressional candidates or the PCCC? Are you a great web designer, a talented video editor, or do you simply have time to volunteer? If so, click here to sign up!

Join me and 200k others in the bold progressive movement. Great activism at the Progressive Change Campaign Committee @BoldProgressive #p2

Share on Facebook

thewendelicious Join me and 200k others in the bold progressive movement. Great activism at the Progressive Change Campaign Committee @BoldProgressive #p2 8 days ago reply

RobSample Join me and 200k others in the bold progressive movement. Great activism at the Progressive Change Campaign Committee @BoldProgressive #p2 7 days ago reply

lukababy 59,000 folks put their name in a public option TV ad! Will u? http://bit.ly/LAgRj #health #p2 via @BoldProgressive & @DFAaction 7 days ago reply

mataliandy Progressive Change Campaign Committee @BoldProgressive #p2 7 days ago reply

JKS23 59,000 folks put their name in a public option TV ad! Will u? http://bit.ly/LAgRj #health #p2 via @BoldProgressive & @DFAaction 6 days ago reply

LadyInBetween 59,000 folks put their name in a public option TV ad! Will u? http://bit.ly/LAgRj #health #p2 via @BoldProgressive & @DFAaction 6 days ago reply

Join the conversation

Just include @BoldProgressive to your message and it will appear...

FEATURE CAMPAIGN:

NEW TV AD. Help us air our new public option ad in Nevada asking, "Is Harry Reid strong enough?"

Sign the petition here!

PSN Leaders & Allied Legislators Meet With White House and Capitol Hill Leaders on Health Care Reform

2009-10-15T12:55:00.000-07:00

PSN Leaders & Allied Legislators Meet With White House and Capitol Hill Leaders on Health Care Reform

Thursday, October 15, 2009

PERMALINK: http://www.progressivestates.org/node/23809

With final negotiations moving forward on Capitol Hill on a final health care reform bill, over two dozen state legislators met with the White House and Capitol Hill leaders to share views of how to build a strong state-federal partnership to provide quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

Working with the Progressive States Network and the White House Work Group of State Legislators for Health Reform, the legislators met with over thirty Congressional offices, including directly with Senators Tom Harkin, Mary Landrieu, Mary Cantwell, Max Baucus, Chuck Grassley, Amy Klobuchar, Patty Murray, the top staff of Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and top White House officials including David Axelrod and Nancy-Ann DeParle. (See full list of participating state legislators and Capitol Hill leaders they met with below).

The legislators shared state concerns on a wide range of issues and highlighted the need for balancing strong federal standards with promoting continued innovation by state policymakers.

1000+ State Legislators for Health Care Reform

Part of the message that legislators brought to D.C. was the wide support by state leaders for reform. The meetings followed the announcement last week by Progressive States Network that 1,057 state legislators from all 50 states have signed letters to President Obama and Congress asking for real health reform, including a public health insurance option, strong affordability protections, and shared responsibility among individuals, employers and government for health care costs. (See here for letters and signatories in the states).

“President Obama and Congressional leaders recognize that state legislators have been on the front lines of health care reform for decades,” said Texas Representative Garnet Coleman, co-chair of Progressive States Network. “Most proposed elements of federal reform are based on ideas already debated and in many cases enacted in the states. So state legislators know what is needed to make reform work.”

In addition to these letters showing broad-based state legislator support for reform, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) in August voted to support federal health care reform, including a public health insurance option. (See full NCSL health reform policy and excerpts of key points). The vote at the annual NCSL conference was overwhelming, with representatives of 38 states supporting the resolution. As Iowa State Senator Jack Hatch (D, Des Moines), who is chair of the White House Work Group and introduced the amendment at NCSL, said “We sent a very clear message to people dragging their feet in Washington: the time to act on health reform is now. We need a public health insurance option to make sure working families and small businesses are free to choose the best health care available at a price they can afford.”

State legislators and our allies have been having a tremendous impact on the D.C. health care debate. As Tom Harkin said of our work back in June during the first legislator delegation to D.C. that PSN organized, “Thank you for your tremendous leadership... This is very meaningful what you are doing here and at the White House, because I can assure you that there are powerful forces at work to keep us from having a public plan.”

View video coverage of Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, speaking at the Progressive States Network press conference on Capitol Hill by clicking on the video still below:

More Resources

Statement of Purpose and Recommendations of the Legislator Delegation

State leaders highlighted broad principles that should guide reform, with an understanding of why states matter and will continue to be key players in implementing health care reform. (See here for the full Statement of Purpose distributed to the White House and Capitol Hill leaders). Key principles included:

Create a Floor, Not a Ceiling – As with Medicaid and SCHIP, reform ought to create necessary standards of accessibility and affordability for all states while enabling states to go further if they choose.
Avoid Preemption – Reform should not preempt or prevent state laws that provide stronger consumer protections, coverage expansions, and industry and medical standards than what it is enacted by Congress.
A Public Option – State legislators are committed to the necessity of a robust public option to provide more choice for Americans and businesses, and create competition in the insurance market.
Ensure Reform is Sustainable During All Economic Conditions – The federal government must create a system of counter-cyclical funding to ensure health care for all, including an extension of the existing enhanced federal match to maintain state health programs.
Provide All States with Necessary Financial Support – Reform must provide states with the necessary financial support to implement new programs and achieve the access, cost and quality goals of reform.
Ensure Affordability of Coverage – The cost of health care must be limited to an affordable percentage of income for all families.
Provide for Shared Responsibility – Government, individuals, the industry, taxpayers and businesses must all equitably participate in reform. Reform must protect the ability of states to set a higher mandate for employer responsibility than the federal floor.
State Flexibility to Implement Reforms Early, Show Results – Reform should support states that are primed to act early on key reform provisions early in order to reinforce public support for reform and maintain public programs financed by state-only funds as states face continued deficits.

Progressive States Network had also worked with the delegation to provide an analysis of the various versions of health reform approved by committees (House committees' version, Senate HELP committee, Senate Finance committee) and how each were likely to impact the states. (See here for the full Policy and Recommendations distributed to Capitol Hill leaders, see here). A few of the key recommendations by the delegation included:

Medicaid Expansion: In expanding Medicaid coverage to 133% of poverty, following House language, which calls for 100% FMAP state aid for the expansion population.
Insurance Exchange/Gateway Administration: In creating insurance "exchanges" to allow individuals and small businesses to purchase health insurance, support House language for the creation of a national exchange, with option to create a state exchange. Support HELP language, flexibility for multi-state Gateways and encourage creation of a national Gateway. Go beyond all proposals to support inclusion of small and larger businesses in option to participate in the Exchange/Gateway
Insurance Reforms: On insurance reforms such as guaranteed issue, no pre-existing condition exclusions, no denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions, no health status or gender-based rating, support strong House and HELP language
Affordability and the Individual Mandate: To assure premium affordability, support House language. Although the level of the hardship exemption is not clear, the cap on out of pocket costs and limit of premiums to 11% of income for those closest to 400% of poverty is strong.
Shared Responsibility: Support House language requiring employers to cover at least 72.5% of premiums for an individual employee and 65% for family coverage.
Public Option: Support the House language from two committees there that would foster the creation of a national public option using Medicare rates plus a 5% bonus for primary care doctors and providers.
Financing Reform: Support House surcharge to be paid by families with incomes above $350,000 and equals, on a sliding scale, from 1% to 5.4% of modified adjusted gross income. The Finance Committee's proposed excise tax on employee health care plans is highly objectionable to workers and unions as the cost would likely get passed on to workers.

More Resources

Capitol Meetings & Members of the Legislator Delegation

Over two days, legislators met with a wide range of White House and Capitol Hill leaders, including:

Top White House officials, including David Axelrod and Nancy-Ann DeParle, as well as top staff for Majority Leader Harry Reid's and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Met directly with Sen. Baucus (MT), Sen. Cantwell (WA), Sen. Grassley (IA), Sen. Harkin (IA), Sen. Kerry (MA), Sen. Klobuchar (MN), Sen. Landrieu (LA), and Sen. Murray (WA).
Met directly with Rep. Cuellar (TX), Rep. Driehaus (OH), Rep. Edwards (TX) , Rep. Ellison (MN), Rep. Giffords (AZ), Rep. Grijalva (AZ), Rep. Inslee (WA), Rep. Kirkpatrick (AZ), Rep. Kratovil (MD), Rep. Kucinich (OH), Rep. Lynch (MA), Rep. McCollum (MN), Rep. McGovern (MA), Rep. Melancon (LA), Rep. Michaud (ME), Rep. Mitchell (AZ), Rep. Peterson (MN), Rep. Smith (WA), and Rep. Walz (MN).
Top staff for Sen. Franken (MN), Sen. Lieberman (CT) , Sen. Snowe (ME), Rep. Walz (MN) and Rep. Peterson (MN).

Most of these reflected home state representatives of state legislators visiting DC and many are potential swing voters on federal reform who expressed appreciation at hearing about how robust health care reform could improve federal-state collaboration in improving the long-term health of Americans.

Along with PSN Executive Director Nathan Newman, the the delegation to Washington, D.C. included Sen. Luz Arce (Puerto Rico), Sen. Linda Berglin (Minnesota), Sen. Maggie Carlton (Nevada), Rep. Karen Carter Peterson (Louisiana), Rep. Garnet Coleman (Texas), Rep. Steve Conway (Washington), Rep. Steve D’Amico (Massachusetts), Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (Maryland), Rep. Bob Hagan (Ohio), Sen. Jack Hatch (Iowa), Del. Tom Hucker (Maryland), Rep. Tom Huntley (Minnesota), Rep. Verla Insko (North Carolina), Sen. Karen Keiser (Washington), Del. Roger Manno (Maryland), Rep. Erin Murphy (Minnesota), Sen. Margarita Nolasco (Puerto Rico), Sen. Matt Rector (Guam), Rep. Elizabeth Ritter (Connecticut), Rep. Josh Shapiro (Pennsylvania), Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona), Rep. Michael Skindell (Ohio), Rep. Sharon Treat (Maine), and Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy (Montana).

Raising the Voices of the States in the Federal Debate

With Congress on the verge of passing long-awaited and potentially robust health care reform the state leaders raised the voice of state legislators to ensure that states’ needs and priorities are accounted for in the final legislation agreed to by the Congress and President Obama.

Tell a Friend About This

Resources

1000+ State Legislators for Health Care Reform

Progressive States Network - Over 1000 Legislators Sign Letters Supporting Federal Health Care Reform
National Conference of State Legislators- Full Health Care Reform Policy and Excerpts of Policy

Statement of Purpose and Recommendations of the Legislator Delegation

State Leaders Statement of Purpose
State Leaders Policy and Recommendations

Health reform is getting down to the wire.

2009-10-15T11:00:00.001-07:00

Down to the wire!

Health reform is getting down to the wire. Just this week, the final Senate committee approved its reform bill, and now the issue moves to the floor in both chambers of Congress – where anything can happen!

You can bet the insurance industry and opponents will be pulling out all the stops to weaken or kill any bill on the floor. We need every last voice in support of reform so members of Congress know that we expect access to affordable, decent health coverage – just like they get.

Sign our petition in support of common-sense health reform, and we’ll hand deliver it to your local Congressional offices. The more signatures we can get in each state, the more we can put Washington on notice that people back home expect solutions to our health care problems this year!

Add your name – Don’t let Congress put off fixing our health care crisis!

We produced a TV ad that puts our trusted Consumer Reports brand behind the call for common-sense health reform, and have been airing it in Washington, D.C., to build support. Momentum is growing once again for reform after a frustrating summer where well-organized opponents used lies and scare tactics in hopes of paralyzing us in fear.

Help us keep the momentum growing. Your voice is needed to push for real choice, clear debate and an end to ‘politics as usual.’

Sign our petition to Congress. Tell members to fix our crisis – not add to it!

Consumers are tired of getting the short end of the stick from the giant insurance companies when it comes to health care, and we need more coverage choices that are affordable and reliable. We have the opportunity now if Congress can find the courage to stand up to the lobbyists and give us health coverage we can afford – and without the fear that it will be yanked away on an insurance company whim.

Your voice matters – make sure your elected officials know that you’re watching, and that you want them to work for reform that benefits you, not the insurance industry.

Sincerely,
Liz Foley
PrescriptionForChange.org
A project of Consumers Union
101 Truman Ave.
Yonkers, NY 10703

Progressive News and Views

Progressives Fiercest Critics of Obama's War Policy

Today's Social Security Propaganda Rebuttal Post

Help us spread the word about these important stories...

Email to a friend

Core Democratic Party Principles And Commitments

What Are the Opportunities In Wisconsin

Building Progressive Message Amplification, Part 2

The Shrinking Market for Progressive Groups and Websites

Beyond Barack Obama

By Richard Flacks

5 Things Progressives Should Do—and Not Do

Features » January 28, 2011

By Barbara Ehrenreich

The True Progressive Voice

Progressive Voice:An American Manifestoby David Dvorkin

Class Warfare

The Media

Religion

Community

The Common Defense

Cruel and Unusual

Fiscal Responsibility

Counting Votes

Growing Up and Facing Reality

Monarchy or Democracy

The Patriotic Pose

Reclaiming America

New Poll Confirms Country is Clearly Progressive

Obama: Drastic Times Require Drastic Measures: Fire Geithner

The Obama Disarmament Paradox

By Greg MelloFebruary 11, 2010

Home Underwater? Walk Away from Geithner's Perverse 'Homeowner Relief' Plan

February 10, 2010

Take Action: Tell Pres. Obama "Fire Geithner"

A New Strategy for Labor and the Left

By Richard WolffFebruary 11, 2010

Obama Administration: US Forces Can Assassinate Americans Believed to Be Involved in Terrorist Activity

By Amy GoodmanFebruary 11, 2010

Join PDA's Accountability and Justice Issue Organizing Team (IOT); learn more here.

Progressive Democrats of America Wants War Money for Healthcare

By Ralph Lopez February 11, 2010

Take Action: Eat lunch for peace--become a "brown-bagger"

Give Peace Spending a Chance

By Maya SchenwarFebruary 11, 2010

Take Action: Tell Congress "Stop funding war"

Showdown in Vancouver: The Olympic Industrial Complex Meets Gold Medal Resistance

By Jules BoycoffFebruary 11, 2010

Healthcare NOT Warfare, Sign the Petition

Push Harry Reid toward Medicare for All

Push Harry Reid toward Medicare for All

Playing Health Care Reform Straight

Playing it straight

Inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale

Kudos to you, Congressman! Kucinich & Massa

Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing? Worse!

Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing?

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill

Thom Hartmann's November Review of R. Crumb Illustration of the Book of Genesis

Weiner: Giving Up Single-Payer Was 'Real Politics'

By Michael McAuliffNovember 7, 2009, New York, NY

Co-Authors Question Stand Alone Vote on National Single Payer

Co-Authors Question Stand Alone Vote on National Single Payer

On Weiner amendment withdrawal

On Weiner amendment withdrawal

Support States' Rights to improve Health Insurance legislation

Humana saw their profits rise 65 percent last quarter on Medicare profits: No wonder they oppose healthcare reform & more buzz

Take Action: Call Speaker Pelosi--demand the Kucinich amendment be reinserted

Pelosi's Not-So-Robust Public Option

By John NicholsOctober 30, 2009

Take Action: Call Speaker Pelosi--demand the Kucinich amendment be reinserted.

Progressive House Dems Want Medicare for (E)veryone

Progressive House Dems Want Medicare for (E)veryone

Progressive Voice:
An American Manifesto

by David Dvorkin

By Greg Mello
February 11, 2010

By Richard Wolff
February 11, 2010

By Amy Goodman
February 11, 2010

By Ralph Lopez
February 11, 2010

By Maya Schenwar
February 11, 2010

By Jules Boycoff
February 11, 2010

By Michael McAuliff
November 7, 2009, New York, NY

By John Nichols
October 30, 2009