This last week we've seen how Washington's elites are able to suppress popular opinion, work against the public interest, and wrap it all up with a bow so that it looks like "democracy in action." It's not. What we're seeing isn't democracy, and it isn't a free press either. It's merely another cynical ploy to rob Americans of government programs they both need and want.

The latest assault is on Medicare. The "Ryan/Wyden plan" is a perfect case study in the cynical workings of an antidemocratic machine - a machine whose cogs are lazy journalists, whose gears are selfish politicians, and whose levers are pulled by the wealthy and powerful.

I held my fire on this for a few days, to see if more details would emerge on the proposal from Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Paul Ryan, who were initially (and deliberately vague) on its specifics. That turned it into Rorschach test for observers, and where the Washington Post sees a butterfly I usually see a vampire bat.

But Malcolm Gladwell would be pleased: It turns out that the first "blink" impression of Ryan/Wyden is the right one. It's a Medicare-killing publicity stunt that undermines the financial security of the 99 percent. And if you happen to be reading this in the Nation's Capital, please note: The "lefty" position on Medicare is supported by most Republicans.

Let's not kid ourselves. Unless we act quickly and aggressively, the Machine will succeed in killing Medicare.

The Program

We've seen this software before. It's been run against Social Security, jobs, and other government services that are both popular and effective. Here's how it works:

1. Concept: An intellectually thin but highly-funded network of corporate-funded and billionaire-backed "think" tanks draft a proposal that would eviscerate a popular government program.
2. Rollout: Congressional Republicans act in lockstep to implement the think tank's policy by gutting something that's typically supported in overwhelming numbers by Democrats and independents - and which is often backed most registered Republican voters, too.
3. Blowback: The backlash from aggrieved citizens comes from all across the political spectrum, but is spun by compliant media figures as a reflexive hostility to "new ideas" from "ideologues" and "extremists" on the left.
4. Sellout: A cynical, self-serving Democrat sees an opportunity to curry favor with billionaires, corporations, and media outlets by endorsing the radical moves the Republicans have proposed.
5. Spin: The media uses that Democrat's endorsement as proof that the corporate position is actually that of "responsible" and "moderate" politicians in both parties.

The software has a political side effect, too: The distinction between Republicans and Democrats is blurred a little more, depriving Democrats of a winnable election issue.

Think of these five steps as a computer program you can run in almost any situation. The only variables are the program that is to be killed, the Democrat that'll do the dirty work, and which media outlet will deliver the machine's message this time. Plug in those three items and the program pretty much runs itself - or, as they used to say in the tech world, it "executes."

The Execution

This time around the government program is Medicare, the Democratic hack who's willing to undermine it for selfish reasons is Ron Wyden, and the media outlet is (who else?) the Washington Post. Here's how the five steps played out this time around:

Continue reading »

enlarge

Credit: Huffington Post

Earlier this year, 235 GOP House members and 40 Republican Senators voted for the Paul Ryan budget and its plan to ration Medicare. By ending the traditional government insurance program and leaving the elderly with under-funded vouchers to purchase much more expensive coverage from private insurers, Ryan's Republicans would dramatically shift the cost burden to America's seniors. It's no wonder that the incredibly unpopular scheme put Medicare at the center of the 2012 election for Democrats and President Obama.

But now Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden is putting that all at risk. Combing bad politics with even worse public policy, Wyden has joined with Congressman Ryan to propose a "bipartisan" plan to convert Medicare into a premium support plan in which the traditionally lower-cost system is just one option in a menu with private insurers. The result doesn't merely threaten to undermine Medicare as we know it. With one stroke, Ron Wyden essentially endorsed Mitt Romney's Medicare plan and with it, is helping to get vulnerable Republicans off the hook.

The Ryan-Wyden proposal, or "Ryden" plan, if you will, looks a lot like the Medicare prescription from last year's Domenici/Rivlin blueprint. Unlike Ryan's previous attempt to end Medicare as we know, Ryden maintains traditional fee-for-service government insurance as one option. As the New York Times explained:

Congress would establish an insurance exchange for Medicare beneficiaries. Private plans would compete with the traditional Medicare program and would have to provide benefits of the same or greater value. The federal contribution in each region would be based on the cost of the second-cheapest option, whether that was a private plan or traditional Medicare.

In addition, the growth of Medicare would be capped. In general, spending would not be allowed to increase more than the growth of the economy, plus one percentage point -- a slower rate of increase than Medicare has historically experienced.

Which is just one reason why Democrats hate the new Wyden initiative. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) told Bloomberg News, I don't know why Ron Wyden is giving cover" to Ryan. " "For starters, this is bad policy and a complete political loser," one Democratic aide said. "On top of the terrible politics, they even admit that it dismantles Medicare but achieves no budgetary savings while doing so -- the worst of all worlds." The Obama White House, too, is worried:

"We are concerned that Wyden-Ryan, like Congressman Ryan's earlier proposal, would undermine, rather than strengthen, Medicare," said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. "The Wyden-Ryan scheme could, over time, cause the traditional Medicare program to "wither on the vine" because it would raise premiums, forcing many seniors to leave traditional Medicare and join private plans. And it would shift costs from the government to seniors. At the end of the day, this plan would end Medicare as we know it for millions of seniors. Wyden-Ryan is the wrong way to reform Medicare."

Republicans, on the other hand, are overjoyed. The reliably Republican Wall Street Journal calls it a "breakthrough." Current GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich, who in the 1990's famously declared he wanted to see Medicare "wither on the vine," described the proposal as a "very important breakthrough." As for his rival Mitt Romney, the Washington Times rightly noted that "Romney's plan is virtually identically to what Wyden and Ryan outlined today."

And that's not a good thing for the millions of Americans counting on Medicare to provide their health insurance in the future.

Continue reading »

I know whenever I'm planning to build a henhouse, I always like to ask the fox where I should put it!

WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 - Three key senators today questioned the U.S. State Department about its dealings with a Canadian company seeking U.S. approval to build a crude oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

The State Department is responsible for deciding whether to approve the billion-dollar Keystone XL pipeline project. TransCanada, the company trying to build the pipeline, reportedly was permitted to screen private firms bidding to perform an environmental impact study.

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton raising what they called "serious concerns" about the matter. Their letter questioned why Cardno Entrix was picked to perform the critical study despite its significant financial ties to TransCanada.

"We find it inappropriate that a contractor with financial ties to TransCanada, which publicly promotes itself by identifying TransCanada as a ‘major client', was selected to conduct what is intended to be an objective government review," the senators said.

"This is a critically important issue for our environment and the energy future of our country. At a time when all credible scientific evidence and opinion indicate that we are losing the battle against global warming, it is imperative that we have objective environmental assessments of major carbon-dependent energy projects," the letter added.
The senators said "the only satisfactory remedy" would be for the State Department to conduct a new, objective, and comprehensive environmental review, either directly or through a contractor with no financial ties to TransCanada.

All of the senators representing west coast states -- California, Oregon and Washington -- have introduced a bill banning Pacific offshore drilling.

Cantwell appeared at a news conference at the Capitol with Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both of California, as well as Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon. Two other sponsors, Sen. Patty Murray, and Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, did not attend.

Feinstein recalled "thick black tar"despoiling the waters after the 1969 oil spill near Santa Barbara, which helped spawn the modern environmental movement.

Absent a permanent ban on drilling, "there is no guarantee whatsoever that this will not happen again," Feinstein said.

I remember the Santa Barbara oil spill too. I took the picture at the top of this post at Surfers' Point in Ventura, less than 20 miles south of Santa Barbara. The beaches in this area are home to endangered birds like these:

The thing is, that Santa Barbara spill took place 40 years ago and it's still not completely gone. If you take a walk on the beach by UCSB in your bare feet, you'll come home with blobs of tar on your feet. The brown pelican is finally making a comeback after fighting back from the Santa Barbara oil spill and then the impact of DDT on its eggs. At sunset, you can see pelicans skimming the shore, looking for that last school of fish before the sun goes down. They're magnificent.

Our coastlines are our first non-renewable resource, not oil.

Advocates for more domestic drilling say the proposed West Coast ban would lead to even more imported oil.

"This is more of the same that we've had for 30 years" under the federal ban, said Dan Kish, senior vice president of policy for the Institute for Energy Research, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group that believes tapping into America's petroleum potential is one answer to energy independence.

Kish said it was particularly galling that California wants to cordon off its coasts when it's the nation's largest energy user. He said polls show the majority of American favor offshore drilling.

Blocking new oil explorations, Kish said, may simply send more ocean tankers carrying foreign oil toward California and elsewhere.

Mr. Kish, we will have to figure it out. I'm just not willing to sacrifice this...

...for the risk of losing it.

You don't suppose they're doing this for political reasons, do you?

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.

The Oregon Democrat isn't inviting opponents to defy the newly-enacted health care law. Instead, he's pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.

Speaking to the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Wyden discussed -- for one of the first times in public -- legislative language he authored which "allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate."

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

"Why don't you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?" the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. "Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?"

Jon Walker at FDL accuses Wyden of being disingenuous:

This is not accurate. You see, the problem is that the individual mandate starts in 2014, but states can’t get a waiver to try a different system, potentially one without an individual mandate, until 2017. So, there is nothing states can do to stop the individual mandate from being in effect for at least three years.

Whether you agree with an individual mandate or not, it is just wrong to say people shouldn’t complain because, at some point in the future, they might possibly have a way for states to opt out of it. If the state waiver started in 2014, Wyden’s argument would be perfectly valid, but as the law currently stands, his statement is pure baloney.

Wyden also seems to be glossing over the serious problem of system entrenchment. While it would be easy for a state to experiment with a new health care system in 2014 if they could get a waiver right away, trying to start a new system in 2017 would be much more difficult. The law requires them to put all the effort into setting up this exchange system. Expecting a state to start all over by uprooting this new system and putting up a whole different system after only three years is a huge hurdle.

Obviously, Wyden's provision wasn't meant to make it easy for states to opt out. But it does make it possible, and that's probably all it needs to do to meet any legal challenges.

As to motive? My guess is, they probably did it this way to hit their CBO targets.

If the Republicans were operating in good faith, it would be a lot simpler to consider reconciliation amendments like the one Jon suggests. Instead, they're doing what they do best: obstructing the process. No no no!

This is a big step in the right direction, and it's something that would go a long way toward easing national insecurity (and not incidentally, expire after the midterms, leaving a possible Republican majority with a ticking time bomb):

With unemployment still hovering in double digits and no real relief in sight, a group of 30 Senate Democrats today is urging party leaders to extend emergency unemployment benefits through the end of 2010 — 10 months longer than current law dictates. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the lawmakers argue that shorter extensions might be cheaper, but they leave state budgeters in a state of constant uncertainty.

Short term extensions, while still helpful to families, only add strain to state agencies that must constantly re-tool their computer systems, and at the same time, continue to assist the millions still searching for work. As our economy continues on a path to recovery, we need a robust extension of safety net programs that have provided a lifeline to families since the recession began.

Signing the letter were Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin (Iowa), Bob Casey (Pa.), Jack Reed (R.I.),
 Sherrod Brown (Ohio)
, Chris Dodd (Conn.),
 Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.),
 Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.),
 Al Franken (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.),
 Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), 
Roland Burris (Ill.), Arlen Specter (Pa.),
 John Kerry (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.),
 Ron Wyden (Ore.), Edward Kaufman (Del.),
 Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.),
 Patrick Leahy (Vt.),
 Robert Menendez (N.J.),
 Herb Kohl (Wis.),
 Tom Udall (N.M.), Ben Cardin (Md.),
 Robert Byrd (W.Va.),
 Daniel Akaka (Hawaii),
 Jeff Merkley (Ore.),
 Barbara Mikulski (Md.),
 Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.), as well as Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.).

Democratic leaders are working on legislation to tackle the continuing problems related to the economic downturn. The package is widely expected to include an extension of unemployment insurance, COBRA health benefits, food stamps and help for states faced with budget crises. They’d hoped to have health care reform out of the way first. Now, that’s looking unlikely.

The Revealer: The “A” section of the December 7 edition of the Los Angeles Times featured five articles on the intriguing intersection of religion, sex and politics. Unfortunately, none of the reporters or editors involved in the stories seemed to make the connection -- or grasp the import.

LiberalOasis: Senator Ron Wyden has proposed a universal health insurance plan. It's a critical issue concerning something we haven't heard much about for the past six years: The Common Good

Empire Burlesque: Presidential tyranny untamed by election defeat (h/t House of the Rising sons)

TalkLeft: Can congress end the war in Iraq?

Lean Left: The Bible against itself

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: HillCountryGal...Arkansas Times Blogs...Truly Equal...Senate 2008 Guru: Following the Races

"Sen. Ron Wyden tied up the Senate for more than 4 1/2 hours Thursday trying to force a vote on a plan to end subsidies of energy companies that lease federal land. When majority Republicans refused to vote, Wyden, a Democrat, took control of the Senate floor...read on"
Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

We salute Wyden's effort yesterday for standing up for principles he felt deeply about. I especially enjoyed Domenici's whining act.