This is my first post to the C&L community. Since my book on the future of the American labor movement (A New New Deal: How Regional Activism Will Reshape the American Labor Movement) came out a few months ago, an important new case study developed that is worth examining. I wanted to use this as an opportunity to share my perspective on political lessons that we can take away from the health care debate. I arrive at the following conclusion: unless progressives change how we do politics, we will never get what we want from Washington.

As Congress prepares to pass health care reform (now that the Senate passed its bill today), most talk among progressives centers on whether we should be satisfied with a piece of legislation that has been diminished and compromised. But regardless of what we make of the final agreement, the real lesson from the health care debate is a political one: Unless we change how we do politics, we will never get what we want from Washington.

It is not insignificant that 35 million Americans will be receiving something more than they had before in terms of health care. Yet even with a progressive president and a supermajority in the Senate’s Democratic caucus, we are left to quibble over piecemeal legislative victories, passed only with huge concessions to corporate interests.

Continue reading »

The Politico, via email:

If the House and Senate are forced to water down the public option (to, say, negotiated rates in the House and a Senate trigger), liberals will have a much weaker negotiating position in the Senate-House conference committee. So look for liberal pressure groups to work on moderate Dems big in coming days as it becomes increasingly clear that the public option’s epilogue could be cast in the debate’s first chapters.

Progressives, start your engines! We have a lot of work ahead of us.

In the meantime, I've finally located the numbers for premium subsidies - or, as they're called in the bill, "affordability credits." Here they are, and as I thought, the numbers simply aren't realistic.

The bill provides financial assistance on a sliding scale. Premiums range from 1.5 percent of income to 12% for those at 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. The plan provides additional assistance for households up to 400% of the FPL by limiting cost-sharing to 3% of plan costs at the lowest tier, to 30% of plan costs at 350-400% of the FPL.

For instance: If your income is under 133-150% of the poverty level, your premiums will be limited to a range of 1.5 to 3%. That means you'll pay 3% of plan costs, with an annual out-of-pocket cap of $500 for individuals and $1000 for families.

And so on:

150-200% - 3-5.5% - 7% - $1000/$2000

200-250% - 5.5-8% - 15% - $2000/$4000

250-300% - 8-10% - 22% - $4000/$8000

300-350% - 10-11% - 28% - $4500/$9000

350-400% - 11-12% - 30% - $5000/$10,000

The Federal Poverty Level is:

Persons in family

1 $10,830

2 14,570

3 18,310

4 22,050

5 25,790

6 29,530

7 33,270

8 37,010

For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.

So although I've been on unemployment for the past year, I would be expected to pay approximately $4000 a year. Huh? Your individual mileage may vary, but those figures aren't very reassuring to me.

Do the math, and let me know if you think this is affordable. If it isn't, it's time to push your representatives into doing the right thing.

I've talked with people in the Spanish radio business who have told me that the "reconquistador" position Michelle Malkin is pushing is complete nonsense. The Latino community was outraged over the House Bill that called them felons and the Mexican flag was used as a symbol of their culture. Calling them the "illegal immigrant" community as Charles Johnson and many others do makes any kind of a civil discussion impossible. The Latino community fully understands the immigration debate and wants a fair and humane way to sort it out.

Families are a primary concern and Atrios sums it up: "Missing in the TV coverage of the immigration rallies I've seen so far is the primary issues that's motivating people to attend them: families.

Duncan has some great pictures posted now.

Here's information about the rallies.

Steve: In one of the more startling examples of influence peddling in recent memory, the Washington Post reported in 2003 that Blunt secretly inserted a special provision favorable to Philip Morris into a House bill dealing with domestic security....read on"

via Huffington Post : A House bill authorizing intelligence budgets for next year was derailed last night when Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) mounted a last-minute effort to limit the ability of the director of national intelligence to transfer workers from one agency to another -- a key power of the new office. The bill, most of which is classified, was slated for passage on the House floor today, but Republican officials said it now will not be considered until next week...

What is wrong with this guy? I know the answer. Power, he can't let go.