The Senate got past the second filibuster on the compelling video game that is health-care reform, with one level left. While the final vote is theoretically scheduled for Christmas Eve, I saw Sen. Claire McCaskill on my teevee this morning saying that Republicans are trying to drag it out so that members won't be able to spend Christmas with their families.

Now, Claire, while I'm sympathetic to a point (yes, the Republicans are obstructionist scum), if this legislation is really a historic achievement (albeit one that will force many Americans to stretch their finances to the limit to comply), I don't especially care that your holiday schedule is mildly inconvenienced.

But that's just me!

The Senate cleared the second of three key procedural hurdles on President Obama's health-care legislation early Tuesday with another party-line vote, continuing the effort to pass the bill before Christmas.

All 60 members of the Democratic caucus supported the measure to finalize amendments to the health-care package, while 39 Republicans opposed it.

A third procedural vote is expected Wednesday, with final passage of the bill likely to come late Thursday -- Christmas Eve.

Although they lack any obvious way to torpedo the bill at this point, Republicans remain bitterly opposed to the legislation and have shown little indication that they are ready to relent in their increasingly negative standoff with Democrats.

On Monday, hours after a crucial 1 a.m. vote to end a Republican filibuster, the American Medical Association officially endorsed the legislation, while Democratic leaders defended the dealmaking that has brought the $871 billion package to the brink of passage.

Lacking the votes to block the bill, Republicans heaped scorn on the many concessions made to wavering Democrats in the quest to advance the package. GOP critics warned that support for the effort could mean the demise in 2010 of vulnerable incumbents, including Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.).

I think it's pretty obvious that we need to change the procedural rules in the Senate, and hopefully get around obstructionist tactics while still allowing honest debate and compromise. We can't have a system where senators from sparsely-populated states maintain such disproportionate power (and that's not even getting into the reality of a Congress corrupted by K Street):

WASHINGTON - Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd, who one month ago proposed an overhaul of financial regulations that was hailed by many consumer activists, has all but jettisoned that proposal following Republican objections and has initiated talks for a new approach designed to satisfy some of his fiercest GOP critics.

Dodd’s strategy has raised concerns among consumer activists who were counting on him to come up with a tougher bill than the one recently passed by the House, and now worry that the entire measure will be weakened.

But the Connecticut Democrat, in an interview in which he laid out his strategy, said it would be too risky to launch another legislative effort that might repeat the Senate’s experience with in the health care debate, in which single senators have forced major rewrites or threaten to defeat the measure.

Dodd’s new approach began last week when he paired four Republicans and four Democrats on the Banking Committee to work together to come up with suggestions on reshaping the legislation. The process has not produced any details and is expected to continue through January, but participants have said they are hopeful of brokering a compromise bill that could get a Senate vote next year.

Asked what has become of his initial proposal, Dodd replied: “I laid down a bill that is as much a reflection of where I am on this as to plant a flag. I did what I wanted to do. I provoked people.’’

The strategy contrasts with the method employed by his legislative counterpart, House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank, who oversaw passage of a bill that would transform the regulatory landscape for banks and many businesses - while failing to gain a single Republican vote. Unlike in the House, where bills can pass by a single vote, Dodd needs 60 of 100 senators to avoid a filibuster.

This Times article explains a lot: So zombie temp workers are getting "work", as opposed to people getting actual jobs. Still, I suppose at some point they'll start hiring full-time employees, assuming we don't have a double-dip recession:

The hiring of temporary workers has surged, suggesting that the nation’s employers might soon take the next step, bringing on permanent workers, if they can just convince themselves that the upturn in the economy will be sustained.

As demand rose after the last two recessions, in the early 1990s and in 2001, employers moved more quickly. They added temps for only two or three months before stepping up the hiring of permanent workers. Now temp hiring has risen for four months, the economy is growing, and still corporate managers have been reluctant to shift to hiring permanent workers, relying instead on temps and other casual labor easily shed if demand slows again.

“When a job comes open now, our members fill it with a temp, or they extend a part-timer’s hours, or they bring in a freelancer — and then they wait to see what will happen next,” said William J. Dennis Jr., director of research for the National Federation of Independent Business.

The rising employment of temp workers is not all bad. However uncertain their status, they do count in government statistics as wage-earning workers, adding to the employment rolls and helping to bring down the monthly job loss to just 11,000 in November. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell in 36 states in November, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last week, partly because of the growing use of temps.

The bureau, which issues the monthly employment reports, does not distinguish between permanent and casual employment, with one exception: it has a special category for temp workers, the men and women supplied by Manpower, Kelly Services, Adecco and other agencies.

Last month 52,000 temps were added, greater than the number of new workers in any other category. Not even health care and government, stalwarts through the long recession, did better.

The Post has an in-depth look at how the Fed was oblivious to the nation's looming major banking crisis, and the political maneuvering that will determine its future operation:

The keynote speaker, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, assured the bankers and businessmen gathered at the Westin Hotel on Michigan Avenue that their prosperity was not threatened by the plight of borrowers struggling to repay high-cost subprime loans.

Bernanke, who was in charge of regulating the nation's largest banks, told the audience that these firms were not at risk. He said most were not even involved in subprime lending. And the broader economy, he concluded, would be fine.

"Importantly, we see no serious broad spillover to banks or thrift institutions from the problems in the subprime market," Bernanke said. "The troubled lenders, for the most part, have not been institutions with federally insured deposits."

He was wrong. Five of the 10 largest subprime lenders during the previous year were banks regulated by the Fed. Even as Bernanke spoke, the spillover from subprime lending was driving the banking industry into a historic crisis that some firms would not survive. And the upheaval would shove the economy into recession.

Just as the Fed had failed to protect borrowers from the consequences of subprime lending, so too had it failed to protect banks.

The central bank's performance has sparked a great debate about its future as a regulator, pitting those who want to expand its role against those who want to strip its powers. It also has come under pressure from politicians seeking greater oversight of its primary job, adjusting interest rates to moderate economic growth. The battles have complicated Bernanke's bid for a second term as chairman. The Senate Banking Committee voted to approve Bernanke 16 to 7 on Thursday, setting the stage for a January battle on the Senate floor.

The Fed's failure to foresee the crisis or to require adequate safeguards happened in part because it did not understand the risks that banks were taking, according to documents and interviews with more than three dozen current and former government officials, bank executives and regulatory experts.

Regulatory agencies exist to lean against the wind. But rather than looking for warning signs, the Fed had joined -- and at times defined -- the mainstream consensus among policymakers that financial innovations had made banking safer. Bernanke said the economy had entered an era of smaller and less frequent downturns, which he and others called "the great moderation."

I don't know about you, but I'm so burned out on health care politics, I needed a little break. This story is the perfect remedy - especially since it so beautifully illustrates progressive values about community, and helping each other.

This is about one of the neighborhood diners I frequent, and I was so happy to read this story (and this one, too):

Last Saturday, Dec. 5th, something startling and wonderful happened at The Aramingo Diner in Port Richmond.

The 52-year-old landmark restaurant at 3356 Aramingo Ave. is open 24 hours a day, so it's always a-bustle. But the place really hops during weekend breakfast and lunch time. Last Saturday was no different, and both wings of the diner - the booth area and the bigger dining room - were lively.

The manager on duty, Linda (who asked that I not mention her last name here, for reasons I can't get into but let's just say everything worked out okay...), tells me that a couple in their 30s paid their check at the register, then asked the cashier to let them secretly pay the check of another couple in the dining room - a couple they didn't know.

"They just wanted to do it," she said. "They thought it would be a nice thing to do."

When the unsuspecting patrons went to pay their check, they were floored to find out that strangers had picked up their tab. So they asked the cashier to let them pay another table's check, also anonymously.

When that table's patrons approached the register, they, too, decided to pay the favor forward for yet another table of unsuspecting strangers.

You know where this is going, right?

For two hours, delighted customer after delighted customer continued to pay the favor forward. And a buzz began to grow. Not among patrons, who had no inkling what was going down at the register, but among the dining-room wait staff - Marvin, Rosie, Jasmine and Lynn - and other Aramingo workers moving in and out of the room.

"We were amazed," says Linda, adding that neither she nor her staffers that day recognized any of the participating patrons as regulars. "Nobody knew each other. But once they found out someone paid their check, they got excited and wanted to do the same thing for another table."

The checks weren't huge, says Linda. They varied between about twelve bucks and $30 (many of the sneaky do-gooders even included tip money in the gift).

But the impact made an out-sized impression on the staff, who marveled at how that initial, single act of generosity kept repeating itself.

Says Linda, "In thirty years working here, I've never seen anything like it. You might have someone pick up a check for another table, but usually it's because they know them."

All in all, about 20 checks were "paid forward" (a term coined by author Catherine Ryan Hyde, whose 2000 book, Pay It Forward was made into an earnestly schmaltzy Hollywood movie).

The lovely cycle finally ended, two hours after it began, when a lone diner, clearly unacquainted with the "pay it forward" concept, seemed befuddled that someone had picked up his check. He simply accepted the favor, grunted, and left.

Notes Linda, "He didn't even leave a tip."

Ah, well. Some people have had so little kindness in their lives, they don't know what to do with it when they see it. They don't really understand we're all in this together.

I hope some people read this and try it in their own towns. What a nice Christmas present to yourself!

Spitzer, along with Frank Partnoy, a professor of law at the University of San Diego, and William Black, a professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, make the case in today's Times for releasing all the AIG emails before they're lost forever - and we never really know what happened to trigger their crash. Obviously, it serves the nation to know:

We end this extraordinary financial year with news that the Treasury is in discussions with American International Group about selling the taxpayers’ 80 percent ownership stake in that company. The government recently permitted several banks to break free of its potential oversight by repaying loans made during the rescue. But with respect to A.I.G., the Treasury should not move so fast. There is one job left to do.

A.I.G. was at the center of the web of bad business judgments, opaque financial derivatives, failed economics and questionable political relationships that set off the economic cataclysm of the past two years. When A.I.G.’s financial products division collapsed — ultimately requiring a federal bailout of $180 billion — those who had been prospering from A.I.G.’s schemes scurried for taxpayer cover. Yet, more than a year after the rescue began, crucial questions remain unanswered. Who knew what, and when? Who benefited, and by exactly how much? Would A.I.G.’s counterparties have failed without taxpayer support?

The three of us, as experienced investigators and prosecutors of financial fraud, cannot answer these questions now. But we know where the answers are. They are in the trove of e-mail messages still backed up on A.I.G. servers, as well as in the key internal accounting documents and financial models generated by A.I.G. during the past decade. Before releasing its regulatory clutches, the government should insist that the company immediately make these materials public. By putting the evidence online, the government could establish a new form of “open source” investigation.

Once the documents are available for everyone to inspect, a thousand journalistic flowers can bloom, as reporters, victims and angry citizens have a chance to piece together the story. In past cases of financial fraud — from the complex swaps that Bankers Trust sold to Procter & Gamble in the early 1990s to the I.P.O. kickback schemes of the late 1990s to the fall of Enron — e-mail messages and internal documents became the central exhibits in our collective understanding of what happened, and why.

So far, prosecutors and regulators have been unable to build such evidence into anything resembling a persuasive case against any financial institution. Most recently, a jury acquitted Bear Stearns employees of fraud related to the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, in part because available e-mail messages suggested the employees had done nothing wrong.

Perhaps A.I.G.’s employees would also be judged not guilty. But we would like to see the record to find out. As fraud investigators, we would like to examine the trading patterns of A.I.G.’s financial products division, and its communications with Goldman Sachs and other bank counterparties who benefited from the bailout. We would like to understand whether the leaders of A.I.G. understood that they were approaching a financial Armageddon, and whether they alerted their counterparties, regulators and shareholders to the impending calamity.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (333)

PLAYS: (738)

David Axelrod discusses the healthcare bill on This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, David, the public seems to have questions as well. We did a poll this week, ABC News/Washington Post poll, that showed that 53 percent of the public think their own health care will cost more if this passes, 55 percent think the health care system overall will cost more, and only 37 percent think their own quality of care will be better.

In the face of this kind of skepticism, is it wise to ram through legislation like this, such a huge piece of legislation on a party-line vote?

AXELROD: Well, I would say a few things, George. First of all, you say this is what people think, I think when people see what actually happens after these reforms are passed, those concerns are going to be allayed, and they're going to realize that if they have insurance, they're more secure in their relationship with their insurance company, their costs are going to go down.

If they don't have insurance, they can get it at a price they can afford. It's going to reduce our deficit. It's going to extend the life of Medicare. Medicare recipients are going to get a better deal on prescription drugs and better care. So the reality I think will trump polls numbers in the dead of winter as this debate is going on.

In terms of ramming it through, we've been talking about this, we've been debating it and considering it for eight months. The Republican Party has spent a month engaged in parliamentary maneuvers and dilatory tactics to try and prevent and vote.

Understand, the big question here isn't whether or not we're going to get a vote, whether this will pass or not, the big question is whether the Republican Party will allow a vote. A majority of senators support this reform, and the Republican Party wants to prevent it from coming up for a vote. I think the American people are entitled to a vote.

If you are a person with pre-existing conditions, if you're a small business person who can't afford health care, if you are a person who became seriously ill and was thrown off your insurance -- their insurance because of that, if you're going bankrupt because of out-of-pocket expenses, you need the United States Senate to act.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But most of the changes, even if the bill passes won't be instituted until after the next presidential election, so you're asking people to take an awful lot on faith.

AXELROD: George, that's not really true, almost all of these insurance protections, the things that will protect people in terms of out-of-pocket costs, the pre -- children...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: (INAUDIBLE).

AXELROD: The day the president signs the bill, children with pre-existing conditions will now be -- an insurance company can't keep them from joining their parents' insurance policy. People with pre-existing conditions will have a catastrophic plan they can join.

And then, of course, when the thing goes fully into effect, everyone will be on insurance, insurance companies can't ban anyone with pre-existing conditions. But there are number of insurance protections that go into effect as soon as the president signs the bill. And not to mention, will begin reducing that gap in Medicare prescription coverage. So there...

Continue reading »

I am so tired of living in a country where a group of religious extremists get to hold our rights hostage, but apparently that's not changing anytime soon:

An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D. Mich.) coordinated opposition to a Senate compromise on the place of abortion in health care legislation this morning with the Republican Senate leadership, the Conference Catholic Bishops, and other anti-abortion groups, according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO.

The emails show that Stupak -- who has so far remained silent on language accepted by Senator Ben Nelson (D. Neb.) and faces intense pressure from the White House to accept it -- is already working behind the scenes to oppose the compromise.

They also demonstrate a previously unseen degree of coordination between Stupak and the office of Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Stupak is the leader of a group of pro-life Democrats who say they’ll back the sweeping legislation if it uses government money to pay for abortion, while McConnell is firmly committed to killing the legislation. The fact that the two have made common cause against the Senates health care compromise will likely further infuriate Stupak’s Democratic colleagues in the House, and demonstrates his willingness to stop any bill that doesn’t pass his test.

“Guys - when will we see your letters of opposition to the managers amendment?? We need them ASAP!” wrote Erika Smith, a Stupak aide, at 9:23 this morning, less than an hour after the amendment had become available.

The email’s recipients included key staffers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life, the Family Research Council, as well as Autumn Fredericks Christensen, aide to a top pro-life Republican Joe Pitts, and Lanier Swann, a McConnell aide.

Well! I'm feeling much safer now!

WASHINGTON — A new report finds that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did a poor job of screening medical experts for financial conflicts when it hired them to advise the agency on vaccine safety, officials said Thursday.

Most of the experts who served on advisory panels in 2007 to evaluate vaccines for flu and cervical cancer had potential conflicts that were never resolved, the report said. Some were legally barred from considering the issues but did so anyway.

In the report, expected to be released Friday, Daniel R. Levinson, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, found that the centers failed nearly every time to ensure that the experts adequately filled out forms confirming they were not being paid by companies with an interest in their decisions.

The report found that 64 percent of the advisers had potential conflicts of interest that were never identified or were left unresolved by the centers. Thirteen percent failed to have an appropriate conflicts form on file at the agency at all, which should have barred their participation in the meetings entirely, Mr. Levinson found. And 3 percent voted on matters that ethics officers had already barred them from considering.

Just got off another blogger conference call, this time with Howard Dean, former CIGNA exec Wendell Potter, and Mike Lux.

Dean announced the results of a DFA poll that is "really quite stunning," he said. (You can read the results here.) The Senate cloture vote is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Christmas Eve, he said.

Democracy for America's "No Option, No Mandate" campaign to contact Harry Reid clocked 7000 calls in four hours, too, he said.

Dr. Dean opened the call by saying "this bill has always been a giveaway to the insurance industry, but we were willing to compromise" to get the public option.

He recapped all the compromises we made: "We wanted single payer, but that was taken off the table early on. That was a mistake. We had to get to the place where we had health insurance for all Americans." But now, he said, there's no public option, and no Medicare option.

"You're forced to pay money to an insurance company or get fined $750 by your government, while 27% of your money goes to CEOs who are flying around in these private jets," he said.

He talked about the compromises made for pre-existing conditions, the most disturbing one the ability to charge you 300% more, merely for being older. "It's guaranteed issue, but if you’re making $65,000 a year for a family of four and you’re paying $20,000 for insurance, how is that reform?"

He said the real bad stuff in the Senate bill was
"hidden in the weeds, so you can’t find it."

Dr. Dean brushed aside the "Get a bill, any bill" mentality in Washington. "Any legislation passed will have a huge impact on American healthcare. If they can’t fix it, it shouldn’t pass."

Wendell Potter, former CIGNA executive and reform activist, said the insurance industry got "every single thing they wanted" in the Senate bill.

"There's no individual mandate, no public option. There's also three words, 'benefit design flexibility' in Senate bill – that means the freedom to design plans that will pass more and more of us into ranks of the underinsured - and charge up to 22% of income if someone gets sick," he said.

In Massachusetts, they have a 2 to 1 premium ratio, "and they're already having trouble finding affordable, adequate insurance. The industry wants to shift even more costs to individuals and families, having the government pay them half a trillion dollars. The Senate bill meets every one of their requirements," Potter said.

"They will continue to shift the cost burden to consumers and get around not using preexisting conditions by charging for certain factors like high cholesterol."

Dr. Dean pointed out the House bill "is the compromise, we didn’t think it was right to take the option of an employer-based system away if people liked it."

In Vermont, he said, you can't be charged more than double the lowest premium.

Dean listed some more of the insurance company wish list the Senate was so eager to fill. "Getting rid of the anti-trust provision. This contributes to the predatory effect of the insurance companies – they're essentially unregulated. We need to get the provision in, get them regulated.

Wendell Potter talked about something you often hear pushed from the Republican side: "Just let us sell across state lines and let the market decide." As he points out, insurers would go to the states with least regulation.

Paul Hogarth from Daily Kos asked them to address criticism that if the bill is killed, "there's no reform and we’re worse off, the momentum is gone."

"I don’t know that we’ll be worse off," Dr. Dean said. "We ought to strip down this bill and get rid of the mandate. It should have been done by reconciliation."

Continue reading »

The deal is cut. Women's right to legal abortion? Subject to state legislative lottery! Buh-bye!

The bill will go to conference committee, but it's unlikely that the House will change that much, because Ben's holding their constitutional rights and duties at gunpoint:

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the final Democratic holdout on health care, announced to his caucus Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas.

"We're there," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), as he headed into a special meeting to outline the deal.

Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with him on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.

Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in insurance exchanges the bill would set up to serve individuals who don't have employer coverage. Plus, enrollees in plans that do cover abortion procedures would pay for the coverage with separate checks - one for abortion, one for rest of health-care services.

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax. He also was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

"I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree," Nelson told reporters at the Capitol, of the many changes made at his behest. "But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions."

If any of your loved ones are serving abroad, you might be interested to know the Obama administration, by virtue of SCOTUS's refusal of the case, just got the Supreme Court's blessing to torture. Obviously, other countries will follow our lead:

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal Monday to review a lower court’s dismissal of a case brought by four British former Guantanamo prisoners against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the detainees’ lawyers charged Tuesday that the country’s highest court evidently believes that "torture and religious humiliation are permissible tools for a government to use."

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., had ruled that government officials were immune from suit because at that time it was unclear whether abusing prisoners at Guantanamo was illegal.

Channeling their predecessors in the George W. Bush administration, Obama Justice Department lawyers argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad.

The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By agreeing, the court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" – did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.

The lower court also dismissed the detainees’ claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions, finding defendants immune on the basis that "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants."

Finally, the circuit court found that, even if torture and religious abuse were illegal, defendants were immune under the Constitution because they could not have reasonably known that detainees at Guantanamo had any constitutional rights.

The circuit court ruled that "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants."

That opinion was written by Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson, who was appointed to the federal circuit court by Ronald Reagan in 1986 and to the Appeals Court in 1990 by George H.W. Bush.

The British detainees spent more than two years in Guantanamo and were repatriated to Britain in 2004 with no charges ever having been filed against them.

Eric Lewis, lead attorney for the detainees, said, "It is an awful day for the rule of law and common decency when the Supreme Court lets stand such an inhuman decision. The final word on whether these men had a right not to be tortured or a right to practice their religion free from abuse is that they did not."

"The lower court found that torture is all in a days’ work for the secretary of defense and senior generals," he added. "That violates the president’s stated policy, our treaty obligations, and universal legal norms. Yet the Obama administration, in its rush to protect executive power, lost its moral compass and persuaded the Supreme Court to avoid a central moral challenge. Today our standing in the world has suffered a further great loss."

Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Attorney Shayana Kadidal, co-counsel on the case, told IPS, "In many ways the opinion the Supreme Court left standing today is worse when one gets past the bottom line – no accountability for torture and religious abuse – and digs into the legal reasoning."

"One set of claims are dismissed because torture is said to be a foreseeable consequence of military detention," he said. "How will the parents of our troops captured in future foreign wars react to that?"

Dear Santa Claus,
Good Day, my name is Benjamin I am 10 years old. To me Christmas means the birth of Christ and a time to celebrate and share with family, friends and neighbors and help the needy families.
My wish is to have a bike, a game or what ever you chose to give me.
Thank you Santa Claus and Merry Christmas

Benjamin Rivera

It's hard to describe just how hard life is in Camden if you've never driven through its decaying neighborhoods. Not only is it one of the poorest cities, it's the most dangerous city in America - and it's just across the river from the glittering skyrises of downtown Philadelphia, surrounded by affluent suburbs. It used to be a thriving manufacturing town (anchored by the Campbell's Soup plant, which closed in 1996), but you know how that story goes.

Organizations like Camden Rescue Mission are real bright spots in the town. Knowing that no matter what, your kids will at least get a toy for Christmas makes life a little more tolerable.

But here's this year's equation: 2,500 toys - to be split up among 6,000 families.

I know we're all hurting. But not all of us feel the lifelong, grinding pain of extreme poverty the way people in Camden do. So if you can spare a few bucks to make Christmas a little brighter this year, please donate here.

At the Camden Rescue Mission, the Rev. Al Stewart is facing a tough decision tonight.

He's collected about 2,500 toys for needy children from Camden and other South Jersey communities for the mission's annual Christmas party. But 6,000 children are registered to receive gifts.

Should Stewart hold the party as scheduled on Saturday and give out the toys he has - or postpone the event until he can collect more?

"The party will be rescheduled unless we get a miracle," Stewart said, "and God knows we believe in miracles."

The South Camden mission, along with many charities and hunger-relief agencies across the Philadelphia area and the nation, have received more help requests this season than last because of the economic downturn, charitable groups say.

But organizations such as the Camden Rescue Mission and Salvation Army of Philadelphia say donations are not keeping pace.

The demand for food also has increased. Philabundance, the largest hunger-relief agency in the region, said need rose 35 percent, and the Food Bank of South Jersey said it went up 41 percent.

Early survey results of more than 200 nonprofits across the Philadelphia region this fall show 45 percent indicating they're in worse financial shape than they were six months ago, said Laura Otten, director of the Nonprofit Center at La Salle University's School of Business.

"It's pretty much the economy; it's affected the spirit of Christmas," said Stewart, mission pastor. "From where I'm sitting, it's kind of devastating.

"People have moved from [being] 'haves' to 'have-nots,' and we generally depended on the 'haves' for toys," he said. "Now they need help."

The mission has noticed other demographic changes this year, too.

"Ninety percent of the children [at the party] used to come from Camden," Stewart said. "Now, 80 percent of those coming are from Camden. The rest are from Cherry Hill, Bellmawr, Gloucester City, Westmont, Westville, and Blackwood.

"We haven't had clientele from those areas before. But people are out of work. Their houses have been foreclosed on. Life has changed for them, and they're looking for emergency food, clothing, shelter - and toys.

"I don't think we can afford the luxury of letting the economy steal our Christmas," Stewart said. "We're battling it and we haven't given up."

I think Marcy Wheeler makes the single most compelling argument here about the precedent of a private health insurance mandate:

And for those who promise we’ll go back and fix this later, once we achieve universal health care, understand what will have happened in the meantime. The idea, of course, is to establish some means to get people single payer coverage (before Lieberman, this would have been through a public option or Medicare buy-in) and, over time, expand it.

In fact, this bill will move toward single payer, too–though not the kind we want. For the large number of people who live in a place where there is limited competition, this bill will require them to get health care through the oligopoly or monopoly provider. It’ll work great for the provider: they will be able to dictate rates. But the Senate bill allows these blossoming single payer providers to keep up to 25% of the benefit in profits and marketing costs, and pass little of that benefit onto citizens. If we make private corporations our single payer, how are we going to convince them to cede control when we ask them to let the government be the single payer?

The reason this matters, though, is the power it gives the health care corporations. We can’t ditch Halliburton or Blackwater because they have become the sole primary contractor providing precisely the services they do. And so, like it or not, we’re dependent on them. And if we were to try to exercise oversight over them, we’d ultimately face the reality that we have no leverage over them, so we’d have to accept whatever they chose to provide. This bill gives the health care industry the leverage we’ve already given Halliburton and Blackwater.

It’s the 9.8% tithe that bothers me the most. But for those who think we can fix it, consider this, too. If the Senate bill passes, in its current form, it will mean that the health care industry was able to dictate–through their Senators Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson–what they wanted the US Congress to do. They will have succeeded in dictating the precise terms of legislation.

Now, that’s not the first time that has happened. It certainly happened on telecom immunity. It certainly has happened, repeatedly, on Defense contracting (see also Randy Cunningham). But none of these egregious instances of corporations dictating legislation included a tithe–the requirement that citizens pay corporations to provide their service, rather than allowing the government to contract the service.

This is a fundamentally different relationship we’re talking about–one that gives corporations vast new powers. And the fact that–with one temper tantrum from Joe Lieberman–the corporations were able to dictate the terms of this new relationship deeply troubles me.

When this passes, it will become clear that Congress is no longer the sovereign of this nation. Rather, the corporations dictating the laws will be.

I understand the temptation to offer 30 million people health care. What I don’t understand is the nonchalance with which we’re about to fundamentally shift the relationships of governance in doing so.

We’ve seen our Constitution and means of government under attack in the last 8 years. This does so in a different–but every bit as significant way. We don’t mandate tithing corporations in this country–at least not yet. And it troubles me that so many Democrats are rushing to do so, without considering the logical consequences.

UPDATE: Dems broke the filibuster at 2 a.m. EST.

You know, I'm beginning to wonder if the refusal to operate in good faith isn't a form of official malfeasance. Because voters should impeach these senators for simply refusing to do their jobs - like voting for this bill, which funds their unemployment benefits:

Senate Republicans said Thursday that they would try to filibuster a massive Pentagon bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unusual move that several acknowledged was an effort to delay President Obama's health-care legislation.

Late into the night, Democrats emerged from a huddle confident that they would muster the 60 votes needed to thwart the GOP effort at blocking the military spending bill. An antiwar liberal said he would set aside his reservations and support choking off the filibuster to keep the chamber on a timeline of holding a final health-care vote before Christmas. The vote on the defense spending bill was to occur after 1 a.m. Friday, too late for this edition.

The maneuvering came as Democrats were still trying to round up a 60th vote on the health-care legislation. Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the last holdout in the Democratic caucus and the focus of an intense lobbying campaign by White House officials, rejected an abortion compromise aimed at bringing him on board. Nelson has said he would not support the package unless it explicitly bars the use of federal money for abortion services.

If Nelson's support can be secured over the weekend, Democrats are hopeful that they will be able to begin clearing the parliamentary hurdles that would allow final passage of their version of the legislation by Christmas Eve. That would meet their self-imposed deadline to pass the measure and begin negotiating with House Democrats to craft a final version to send to the president.

Republicans have said their goal is to block the bill and force Senate Democrats to go home and face their constituents, hoping for some supporters of the measure to return after New Year's too fearful to back the legislation.

If the filibuster on the $626 billion defense bill succeeded, Democrats would have to scramble to find a way to fund the military operations, because a stopgap funding measure will expire at midnight Friday. Such an effort might have disrupted the very tight timeline on health care.

Republicans have provided the backbone of support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many have praised Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan, so the plan to oppose defense spending Friday morning put them in an unusual position. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) cited the thousands of earmarks in the bill in explaining his opposition, and others cited factors not related to health care.

But Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) was blunt in explaining his support of a filibuster. "I don't want health care," said Brownback, a member of the Appropriations Committee, which crafted the Pentagon funding bill.

[...] Democrats were furious. They believed they had a deal with Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.), the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, but by Thursday night Cochran was saying he was unsure how he would vote.

UPDATE: Dan Pfeiffer at the White House blog makes the following acute observation:

The depth of the hypocrisy involved is stunning. Back in 2007, when Congress was debating how to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible close, many of these same folks launched blistering accusations about Democrats' commitment to our troops. Here are just a few of the things they said:

"Playing politics with the critical funding that our troops need now is political theater of the worst kind." – Sen. John Cornyn, [Press Release, 4/26/07]

"We have plenty of time and plenty of opportunity to have political debates... but it’s just unconscionable to me to tie the hands of the very troops that we all say we support." – Sen. John Cornyn, [Transcript, Senate Republican News Briefing, 4/10/07]

"Every day we don’t fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened." – Sen. Mitch McConnell, [Press Release, 3/31/07]

"No way to treat the troops, and it is entirely inconsistent with [Senators’] expressions of support for the troops." – Sen. Mitch McConnell, [Congressional Record, 10/4/07]

"I don't understand this attitude of, ‘We can play with; we can risk the lives of these troops by waiting until the last possible minute to get the funding to them." – Sen. Jon Kyl, [FOX News Transcript, 4/10/07]

"Our obligation to those troops must transcend politics." – Sen. Jon Kyl, [Press Release, 11/8/07]

Now though, as we debate not foreign policy but health care, the Department of Defense funding can wait? Incredible.