It's astounding to me, that California voters still remain so largely uninformed (or indifferent) about the root causes of the state's yearly fiscal crisis. Those who want to change things have an uphill battle:
Reporting from Sacramento - Backers of an overhaul of California's government, who hope to leverage disgust with Sacramento into support for changing how the state raises taxes and spends money, have a difficult path ahead, according to a new poll of California voters.
Major segments of the electorate see the state's problems as the product of unrestrained lawmakers driven by special interests to waste taxpayer money, and reject arguments that structural issues with the state's Constitution and government institutions are to blame.
Voters don't want the tax code overhauled in the ways that many fiscal experts promise would tamp down the wild revenue swings that have led to a constant state of budget crisis in California. They don't want the Constitution changed to allow a simple majority of lawmakers to push a budget onto the governor's desk, as most other large states allow. And they don't want the state to touch Proposition 13 property tax restrictions, even if residential property taxes would remain strictly limited.
President Barack Obama is “getting bad advice from… clowns” on Afghanistan and “sucking up to the wrong people” on health care, U.S. Rep. John Conyers told a Detroit radio audience this morning, according to show host Rev. Horace Sheffield.
Conyers, a Detroit Democrat, made the comments during a discussion about the effects of the economic recession on the urban poor, Sheffield said. The liberal congressman expressed frustration that health care legislation pending in Washington, D.C., was too solicitous of insurance companies and special interests, Sheffield said.
“He wasn’t angry. He was just deeply concerned that some of the issues being focused on don’t address the human reality,” said Sheffield, who hosts the program “On The Line” on WGPR-FM radio.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 79
PLAYS: 11
(FDR - taking the right-wing brickbats in stride)
From April 28, 1935, his seventh Fireside Chat since taking office in 1933. FDR took the opportunity to lay out his plans for Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. The Social Security plan hadn't been voted on yet and was about to be introduced, along with a flood of relief and New Deal legislation. In 1935 these were new ideas that hadn't flown before.
FDR: “The program for Social Security that is pending before Congress is a necessary part of the future unemployment policy of the government. While our present and projected expenditures for work relief are fully within the reasonable limits of our national credit resources, it is obvious that we cannot continue to create governmental deficits for that purpose, year after year after year. We must begin now to make provision for the future. And that is why our Social Security Program is an important part of the complete picture. It proposes by means of old age pensions to help those who have reached the age of retirement to give up their jobs, and thus give to the younger generation greater opportunities for work. And to give to all, old and young alike, a feeling of security as they look towards old age. The Unemployment Insurance part of the legislation will not only help to guard the individual in future periods of layoff, against dependence upon relief, but it will by sustaining the purchasing power of the nation, cushion the shock of economic distress.”
Then, as now, any sort of social legislation that involving the common good was viewed with skepticism by the right-wing. This one was no different. Charges of Socialism popped up in the media, not to mention to aborted takeover attempt of the government by business and Wall Street interests in 1934.
FDR had his hands full. But he was able to weather the storm and the pundits and create many Programs that are in place today (although, it should be pointed out that a number of programs, including Social Security have withstood attempts at gutting during the Reagan years). Not listening or caving in to special interests or the hysterics proved to be the wise choice in the long run. The interests of the American people were what concerned him.
Something we could use a bit more of, especially today with the Health Care battle raging.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (737)
PLAYS: (1602)
Bill Moyers interviewed health care experts Marcia Angell and Trudy Lieberman about the Obama healthcare reform proposals this week, and their remarks are being quoted all over the blogosphere this weekend. Sounds like pretty depressing stuff - it has many bloggers upset. (Complete transcript here.) But read it carefully:
BILL MOYERS: Given what you've said, why the rush? Why not slow this down and give this very big issue more due deliberation?
TRUDY LIEBERMAN: It's really a political calculation. And I think that they believe that they have to act quickly, because it might not happen. Because the sooner you have the special interests going back home, during the August recess and holding town hall meetings and talking to people in coffee shops, they're going to find that maybe this isn't something that people really want or have doubts about.
MARCIA ANGELL: Well, I think we are in a hurry. I think that President Obama's worried, that what happened with the Clinton plan can happen with him. And I do have a feeling of déjà vu all over again. That this is like 1993. That the opposition is having a chance to mobilize. To march out these Canadians who say they had brain tumors and had to die. Or these ads that say 20 percent of Europeans drop dead.
TRUDY LIEBERMAN: And Harry and Louise are back.
MARCIA ANGELL: And I think he does. He is right to worry about that. And he is right to want to do it in a hurry. The problem is he is not doing the right thing.
BILL MOYERS: Because?
MARCIA ANGELL: Well, the plan is not for all the reasons we've said. It leaves the bad guys in place. And it tries to kind of make concessions. And what the Clintons found out is they too wanted to keep the private insurance industry at the table. And maybe regulate them a little. And what the private insurance industry decided was, "Why should we take half a loaf when we can have the whole thing?" And that's what I'm seeing happen. Happening now.
TRUDY LIEBERMAN: We are having the same debate, almost, that we had in '93-'94. And it's something I've written about for the Columbia Journalism Review. It's actually the same debate we've had decades before. And it's the unwillingness to look at what we could learn from other systems. Single payer, multiple payers, as they have in Germany and Japan. Or even in the Netherlands, where there are private payers. What's really happening there?
So, I think there's an unwillingness on the part of politicians-- on the part of advocacy groups, some advocacy groups, to really educate Americans on what the possibilities are. And we at C.J.R. have been saying we really have not had a vibrant discussion about other possibilities.
MARCIA ANGELL: I think we have to start all over on this. I really do. I think we have to go for a single payer system. You could institute that gradually. You could do it state by state. You could do it decade by decade. You could improve Medicare. That is, make it nonprofit. But extend it down to age 55 and age 45 and age 35. It would give the private insurance industry a chance to go into hurricanes, earthquakes or something. To get out of the health business. It could be done gradually. I think that has to be done. And it's the only thing that can be done.
Okay, so the experts have looked at what's happening and they have their own recommendations. Now, let's look at this comment at Open Left in response to the Moyers piece:
And now, besides "starting over," what is the difference in the approach suggested by these policy analysts? "You could institute that gradually. You could do it state by state." I thought the gradualism was awful? And I thought the most vibrant version of the Bill moving out of the House HELP committee had an Amendment, passed bipartisanly, that makes provision for, makes the rules allowing, gives permission to: States Implementing Statewide Single Payer Systems.
They continue:
"It could be done gradually. I think that has to be done. And it's the only thing that can be done."
So except for "starting over" - they are in complete agreement with the present process. I think they want a title on the final Bill that says "We are moving to Single Payer, don't be too patient or in too much of a hurry." But otherwise, despite their trepidation, they have a descriptive laying out of congress's and the administration's arm-twisting, panderer-molifying, greed distracting, regionally diverse and constantly-attacked plan of action, as it appears to be moving through the tunnel of that resembles Hunter S. Thompson's description of "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
What they want is so close to what is happening as to be merely a description.
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but damn. No public plan until 2013? Yeah, that'll be a huge help to people like this. And in the meantime, lazy reporters write stories that are spoon fed to them by special interests:
WASHINGTON — The final installment of a three-part increase in the federal minimum wage is proving to be the most controversial.
Two previous wage hikes, one in 2007, the other in 2008, pushed the federal wage to $5.85 and then to the current $6.55 an hour. The third, which goes into effect Friday, will push it to $7.25 an hour.
That's not a life-changing raise — an extra $28 a week for a fulltime worker earning the federal minimum — though low-wage earners like Kendell Patterson in Oklahoma City, Okla., say it'll help.
Only someone who lives a relatively privileged life thinks $112 a month isn't real help. But then, our ladies and gentlemen of the media do seem to live in a world of their own!
But some economists worry that the wage hike is coming at the worst possible time and will only make the recession-battered job market tougher for the very workers it's intended to help.
"Some" economists? The story only mentions one, and guess what? She works for a front group, the Employment Policies Institute - run by lobbyists and funded by the usual suspects. From SourceWatch:
EPI has has been widely quoted in news stories regarding minimum wage issues, and although a few of those stories have correctly described it as a "think tank financed by business," most stories fail to provide any identification that would enable readers to identify the vested interests behind its pronouncements. Instead, it is usually described exactly the way it describes itself, as a "non-profit research organization dedicated to studying public policy issues surrounding employment growth" that "focuses on issues that affect entry-level employment." In reality, EPI's mission is to keep the minimum wage low so Berman's clients can continue to pay their workers as little as possible.
I'm guessing this entire story was grounded in a press release from EPI, making it sound like an impending economic crisis. You'd like to think that a decent news organization like McClatchy would catch things like this, but I guess that's where parasitic blogs come in handy.
The increase will have minimal impact in most states. Eighteen states and the District of Colombia already have minimum wages that are higher or equal to $7.25 an hour. In nine more, the minimum wage is higher than $6.55 an hour and so workers in those states will see their wages rise by only a fraction of the 70-cents-an-hour increase, from four cents an hour in Florida to 40 cents an hour in Nevada.
That leaves 23 states where minimum wage workers covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act will enjoy the full 70-cents-an-hour increase.
Patterson, a 38-year-old child care worker with two children, can certainly use the extra cash. Most of her $262 weekly paycheck goes for food, utilities, her car payment and $650 per month rent.
Her oldest son,19, is taking a fast-food job to help with the bills, but Patterson is still looking for a second job on weekends to help make ends meet.
She tried to get food stamps, but her income was too high.
"How can a person who makes minimum wage make too much money?" she said.
Patterson also needs help with her medical bills. She has no health insurance and recently found four lumps in her breast. She also suffers from asthma and takes several anti-seizure medications.
One medication costs $500 for 30-day supply while the other costs $350, she said. Sometimes her parents help with the costs. Other times she simply goes without.
Patterson said the minimum wage increase won't help her very much, but even a little help is appreciated because times are so hard.
Working her ass off to stay afloat, and she's supposed to hang on until 2013 if she wants help with her healthcare bills. Yes, this is indeed an economic Katrina - and the boats will be here in 2013.
I spent a lot of time thinking about the metrics behind the article last week that Obama was upset at Democratic activists fighting for the public option. And there were two things that occurred to me: 1) first and foremost, any lede generated via Ceci Connolly should be taken with a grain of salt; and 2) we're getting under the skin of the congresscritters and making them very uncomfortable.
Think about it.
Here's the scenario as I see it: some moderate Democratic congressperson who has been trying to placate the special interests in their district--be it health insurance companies or lobbyists--complains to Obama that the calls they've been fielding are just not nice--after all, a huge majority of Americans want minimally a public option and are getting pretty testy at the corporatist response of the Dems. Obama pats the congressperson on the shoulder and commiserates, "Yes, I wish you didn't have to deal with those calls," without really addressing the substance of the calls. Constituents being nasty on the phone are a pain to deal with, even if their complaints are completely valid. That congressperson (or his/her aides) go running to the very eager Ceci Connolly to spin it that Obama wishes that these activists would leave the Beltway Bubble residents alone and voila! We have an article that claims Obama is irked by those pushing for Universal Health Care.
So what should our response be? I know what MoveOn, SEIU and Change Congress/PCCC have no intentions of cutting their ad buys pushing for a vibrant public option. Nor does Blue America. And you shouldn't stop demanding it either.
As inspiring as it was to watch Iranian citizens risk their lives and use new media like Twitter and YouTube to fight for better lives for themselves, it was also impossible not to have a sense that of self-consciousness about how lax and lazy we are in America about our own lives and political system. We’re not afraid of getting shot for expressing our opinions - we just have other stuff to do.
That’s exactly how the corporate owned media and lobbyist funded politicians want it, of course. They don’t actually want us too involved in the political system on issues. If we all have a general sense of helplessness and cynicism, we won’t bother to make phone calls to politicians…even on an issue as vital as health care.[..]
All of this hit me last week and I decided to do something about it. In the course of about seven days, I made 10 short videos about health care reform. I wasn’t hired to do it, I wasn’t asked to do it. I just did it because the issue is important to me personally, to my family and to my country. And I did it because I could.
Don't stop demanding that Washington listen to us. We ARE having an impact, even if they don't want us to know we are. We will not get what we want by remaining silent.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1069)
PLAYS: (3418)
Nate Silver breaks down the numbers for us on the influence of lobbyists on blocking health care reform and who those lobbyists are likely to target. Nate has more at FiveThirtyEight: Special Interest Money Means Longer Odds for Public Option.
Bernie Sanders weighs in on what the differences are between President Obama's budget, what the Conservadems are going to agree to, and what the Republicans are going to try to block. Sanders feels that if the Democrats are forced to get sixty votes for anything they'd like through the Congress it will be watered down and likely not be worth passing. Always one to fight the good fight, Sanders tells us what most of us here anyway already know. It's going to take a strong grass roots movement to combat all the special interest dollars flowing into the campaign coffers of members of Congress.
Olbermann: There's a quote in The Atlantic magazine from an unnamed White official who says these pro-budget ads won't hurt, won't help. What do you think on this? Should the President's supporters be calling their Congressman's and their Senator's offices and saying look this is what I voted for. Don't screw this up.
Sanders: I think so. I think what we need to never forget Keith is that here in Washington we have enormously powerful special interests. You know the financial institutions in the last ten years spent five billion dollars so that we can deregulate Wall Street and that got us to where we are today.
The insurance companies and the drug companies make huge amounts of money keeping us the only nation in the industrialized world without a national health care program. So what we need to combat that enormous power of the big money interests is a strong grass roots movement.
This is a subject close to my heart, since I've spent at least half of the past decade as a member of the uninsured class. Right now, I'm unemployed again and paying COBRA out of reader donations - donations which run out next month, with no job in sight. Oh well!
When Obama announced Tom Daschle as his health czar, my heart sank. After all, Daschle worked for a law firm whose lobbying arm represented the insurance industry, and that didn't bode well for actual reform. Instead, it seems to point toward corporate-friendly incrementalism.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress are focused enough to produce legislation which actually solves this massive problem. But voters will certainly have to stay vocal if they want to make their own interests the priority in this national healthcare debate:
Karen Goroncy, a home health aide in Washington, Pa., has taken care of people for 25 years but can't afford health insurance to take care of herself.
A reader has promised to buy Goroncy insurance after she was profiled this fall in The Inquirer, and she hopes to have hernia surgery in the New Year.
But short of the generosity of readers - not a good national solution - Goroncy and millions like her are awaiting the sweeping health reform now being considered by President-elect Barack Obama.
Obama's plan, which has not been formally announced, could mark the biggest change in health care in 40 years. A central goal will be to cover 50 million Americans who don't have insurance. It is conceivable that all Americans will be required by law to have health insurance.
A principal architect of Obama's reform - Tom Daschle, nominated to become secretary of the Health and Human Services Department - has written at length about creating a powerful new board that would control health-care spending much like the Federal Reserve Board influences the nation's monetary policy.
