Nancy Pelosi on The Huffington Post

Taylor Marsh: If Obama Was a Liberal We'd Have a Better Bill

2009-12-23T01:22:34Z

Forward the video above to around 1:55. Candidate Obama was against mandates before Pres. Obama demanded them for us all. If Obama was a liberal he would have embraced mandates from the beginning, understanding that they go with the public option, which is the only way to offer choice to people while cutting costs. He didn't.

If Harry Reid was a liberal we'd have a better bill, because he wouldn't have played Let's Make a Deal host, with the biggest winner the insurance companies.

If Speaker Pelosi was a liberal she wouldn't have invited religious leaders into the room to craft language that takes rights away from women we won through the law decades ago.

Liberals wouldn't let something like this happen either:

... We're not changing our health-care system very much at all, in fact. Nothing happens in 2010. Or in 2011. Or in 2012. In 2014, when the bill really begins, the insurance situations of 18 million people change. A full 16 million of those people are uninsured. Aside from the small sliver of people who will pay a surtax on the final few dollars of uncommonly expensive insurance plans, the country simply will not notice this legislation. [...] - Ezra Klein, The amazing disappearing bill

If Democrats today were like liberals of the 1960s, some Christmas gift deadline would matter less than getting legislation that offered choice to people, didn't hold them hostage to an insurance monopoly, protected women's rights that have already been enshrined in law, didn't tax the middle class, or penalize people and enforce by fiat mandatory rules to buy insurance inside a fixed market, wouldn't strap elderly and sick in a rigged system, all on the altar of getting it done before church bells ring on Christmas Eve.

If the Democratic majority was liberal, all of the above would be unnecessary, because the conference committee would be real instead of some (likely) arbitrary Senate rubber stamp.

If Russ Feingold was a liberal he wouldn't have waited until now to blame Obama for not backing the public option; but he'd also not have voted against women's preventative health measures.

If Barbara Boxer was a liberal she would have said no to compromises that offer less to women than are already in the law. Ms. Boxer, who said she'd never heard of the largest nurse's union in the U.S., when appearing on "Countdown" last night, if she was a liberal, would likely know their name.

If Tom Harkin was a liberal he wouldn't be trying to sell the Senate legislation that forces people into health care insurance that doesn't guarantee quality health care.

If Democrats in Congress were liberals, we'd at least have a front loaded bill that gave people goodies so they'd bond to the legislation.

If the progressive caucus, wherever they are hiding their spines, were liberals instead, maybe they would have drawn a line in the sand on principle instead of praying to the Let's Go Incremental gods while accepting "progress" in the name of capitulation.

And no liberal would ever believe that something as important as reforming health care has this chance and this chance only to make it happen. Now or never is a rallying cry for losers who don't have the breath for the long haul.

If we had more liberals in Congress, instead of blathering about perfection being the enemy of the good, we'd have heard a rallying cry that mediocre is the enemy of effective. The death knell of solutions at a time when action is required to save this country and its middle class from economic catastrophe at the hands of people who support a corpocracy over our democratic republic.

If we had liberals in the Congress, we wouldn't be levying a middle class tax for health care most families can't afford.

...and on that note, liberals wouldn't lie outright and say we were going to insure another 30 million people, when many of these people will likely have to pay the IRS penalty instead of buying the insurance, because the reason they don't have insurance in the first place is because THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.

If we had a liberal in the White House who understood the middle class at all, maybe we wouldn't be giving the insurance companies a guaranteed new group of customers without any choice at all.

If we had a liberal Congress, they would surely know that once the insurance monopolies have their new Fish Meet Barrel customers there really is no incentive for them to do anything for them.

Honestly, if we had this bunch of legislators in the Senate during the 1960s, JFK's call to go to the Moon would have landed us in the middle of the Atlantic, falling well short of his vision.

You can't shoot for greatness if you won't use all of your powers.

You can't be a senator or representative and do your job for people in the Legislative Branch if you're more interested in saving the person in the Executive Branch, putting political party over what's right for We the People.

But if you're going to insist on a selling out to corporate interests and the insurance monopoly, like what Pres. Obama and the Democrats are doing on health care (just like what happened with big banks), the least you could do is give up the goodies to the people from the get go.

It's always better to give someone a kiss first.

Dumb and Dumber had nothing on this bunch.

Paul Helmke: Gun Lobbyists Against 'Wellness And Health'

2009-12-22T18:43:46Z

One would think that the massive health care reform package hammered out in the back offices of the Capitol over recent weeks would have kept Senators busy with issues focused on better health, but they still found time to bend over backwards for a non-healthy conspiracy theory from the Gun Owners of America (a gun lobby organization even more extreme than the National Rifle Association).

At the behest of GOA, Sen. Charles Grassley was able to get a little-noticed provision tucked into Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's "manager's amendment" (the compromise version of the health care reform bill coming out of the Senate) which takes pains to say:

A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under [this bill] may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to -

(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.

I wonder if Sen. Reid recalls the words of his colleague from Nevada, Sen. John Ensign, who in September recognized (albeit accidentally) the high costs of gun violence in our health care system, relative to much of Europe. Sen. Ensign said:

If you take out accidental deaths due to car accidents, and you take out gun deaths -- because we like our guns in the United States and there are a lot more gun-deaths in the United States [than Europe] -- you take out those two things, you adjust those, and we're actually better in terms of survival rates.

Sen. Ensign was right about the high number of gun deaths in America relative to Europe. Every year, 30,000 people in America are killed by gunfire, while another 80,000 are wounded. (By contrast, England and Wales have about 200 gun deaths total in a year, including 60 gun homicides, with a gun homicide rate over 30 times lower than ours.)

I wonder if Sen. Reid is aware that, as far as Nevada is concerned, the Silver State has the fifth highest overall gun death rate in America, including the 11th highest gun homicide rate, according to the latest government figures.

I wonder if Sen. Reid knows that states with the highest levels of gun ownership have 114 percent higher firearm homicide rates and 60 percent higher overall homicide rates than states with the lowest gun ownership.

I wonder if Sen. Reid knows that the risk of homicide is three times higher in homes with firearms; the risk of suicide is three to five times greater; and that a gun in the home is 21 times more likely to be used against the homeowner or family member in a completed or attempted suicide, a criminal assault or homicide, or an unintentional shooting death or injury, than used in self defense.

I wonder, finally, whether Sen. Reid knows that among gun-owning parents who reported that their children had never handled their firearms at home, 22% of those children, when questioned separately, said that they had, and that of youths who committed suicide with firearms, 82% obtained the firearm from their home, usually a parent's firearm.

Regardless of whether it was even conceivable that health care providers could "require" disclosure of a firearm in the home under health care reform - and it never was - the research is clear that keeping a gun at home increases the risk of serious injury or death to those inside.

Doctors and health professionals asking patients about firearm ownership and safe storage practices is just common sense in the full evaluation of risks to their health.

On this issue at least, it seems clear that some Senators were more concerned with pleasing the extremes of the gun lobby and less concerned with the actual health of American children and families.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Conrad: Senate Health Care Bill Is Basically The Final Version

2009-12-20T09:43:04Z

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) asserted on Sunday that the Senate's version of health care legislation will, by and large, be the final product, even though negotiators in the House and Senate have yet to merge their respective bills.

The North Dakota Democrat, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, offered a reading of the political tea leaves, predicting that several conservative Democratic senators would abandon reform if too many changes were made to the current legislative compromise.

"It is very clear that the final bill that passed in the United States Senate is going too have to be very close to the bill that is being negotiated here," he said. "Otherwise you will not get 60 votes in the United States Senate. So, look, this is a bill that does reduce the deficit according to the independent expert. This is a bill that expands coverage to 30 million people. This is a bill that will begin to control the cost explosion, has got critically important insurance reforms, delivery system reforms, so those who say kill the bill, I think, have really missed the boat."

The conference committee negotiations between the House and Senate should be a very delicate process, for the reason that Conrad notes. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) has insisted that the Senate's version of reform is not going to be the final product. And on everything from affordability provisions to pay-for mechanisms, she and others seem poised to try and pull the Senate bill toward the House's version.

Jim Jaffe: Why Boo A Political Win?

2009-12-19T19:32:55Z

I'm quite confused about why there's so much bipartisan dissatisfaction with a political system that's functioning so well.

Health reform chugs toward inevitable enactment, following the route that I learned in a civics class some decades ago. The process seems to work and the product, which will slash the number of uninsured Americans to a shadow of what it is now, seems impressive by any standard.

Yet those who call themselves friends of the uninsured are unenthusiastic, with some even suggesting an effort that will do a lot of good should be abandoned simply because it isn't better.

Like every major piece of legislation, it is a compromise. Like most, it will require technical corrections and tweaking as the law of unintended consequences kicks in. But that can be said also about the upcoming financial regulation bill as well. And it will certainly be said of immigration reform when it is ultimately enacted.

Such imperfections come with the territory.

Less than a year after a new President took office, we'll have a new law that makes some significant changes in our health system. It was enacted during a period of incredible economic stress that proved an enduring satisfaction. The proposal was subjected to repeated compromises necessary to bridge differences of opinion within the majority about what would work best.

Of course, no one knows what would work best because we're simply in uncharted territory here. Everyone's making an educated guess and we're hopeful that at least some of those guesses are correct.

Some elements of a truly comprehensive answer, like tort reform, have been ignored because those most supportive of them are apparently unwilling to back a broader strategy that includes them.

As usual in the legislative world, things always look darkest right before dawn, partly because our system has difficulty functioning unless it is confined by a holiday-induced deadline. That's human nature.

So what's the beef?

That the job wasn't done in a month?

That no one got everything he wanted?

That the legislation is imperfect?

Members of Congress have followed their own rules and come up with reforms that seem to satisfy our President and many other Americans, including a very high percentage of those who are now uninsured.

The response from the chattering class is a puzzling rancor.

What do critics want?

A quicker system that provides instant gratification? Do they want one where legislators are quicker to compromise so the process can be expedited or one where they see every issue as a moral principle that defies compromise?

If the civics books are wrong, we should revise them with a new vision of how things work - or should work. I'd like to see that description.

May Jeong: Copenhagen Climate Change Marathon: Leaders and Lawmakers Negotiate in the Final Hours

2009-12-18T10:23:27Z

COPENHAGEN - The Copenhagen game of tag-in-the-dark enters its eleventh hour. With over 100 heads of states arriving in the next few hours, negotiators of some 200 countries are gearing up for the last remaining miles of this two week marathon.

The Copenhagen wish list has shrunken slightly, down from a legally binding treaty to a comprehensive operational agreement that will lay the groundwork for said legally binding treaty.

Despite shifting expectations, a mass contingent of United States' senators, secretaries, and speakers flew to Copenhagen this week in hopes of expanding on the good will of the American leadership.

United States Senator, and co-author of Boxer-Kerry Climate Change Bill, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was first to arrive in Copenhagen among his Washington contingent, delivering a speech mid-afternoon Wednesday that earned him a standing ovation. Citing that 33 of the 50 American states have voluntarily signed up for compacts to reduce carbon emissions, Kerry called on the United States leadership to "deliver what is necessary and demand what is needed."

In a speech reminiscent of President Obama himself, Kerry urged the wealthy to forego their "addiction to the status quo" in favour of a political agreement containing the following necessary elements: global emissions reduction targets, commitment by all countries to take action, reference to the Bali Action Plan, commitment to REDD, nod to the urgency of science, and last but not least, that ephemeral quality of the "determination to get the job done."

Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton continued this show of American support. Dressed in persimmon orange, Clinton took to the podium - an unusual gesture at a press conference where the norm is to sit behind designated seats on the table - and delivered what many now suggest to be a critical turning point in climate talks. Acknowledging the need to provide assistance for nations most vulnerable and least prepared, Secretary Clinton announced that the United States would contribute to the international climate fund of $100 billion by 2020 for assistance to, again, the poorest and the most vulnerable.

Clinton made few more references to the plights of the developing countries, even venturing into the Nixon-territory of quoting a Chinese proverb. In pursuit of a strong operational accord, Clinton called for commitment that would pay homage to the relative responsibilities, one in which developed countries' financial assistance is met with developing countries' transparency mechanisms.

Second in line of succession, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) spoke some time later the same day. Arriving with an entourage of senators and house committee chairs, Pelosi began her speech by expressing concern over the next generation.

She went on to add that climate change must be considered a national security issue, and punctuated the speech with a thoughtful remark on the interconnectedness of climate change to health, poverty, and how women play a strong role in addressing these concerns.

The picture that Kerry, Clinton, and Pelosi painted is rich in the classic can-do optimism that America was founded on. But political discord remains.

Kerry urged the United States to be prepared to do more. Yet when pressed to identify what concessions he is willing to make, the senior senator from Massachusetts remained silent.

Clinton appeared to purport her pledge to contribute $100 billion to the climate fund by 2020, a momentous gesture worthy of an equal measure of acknowledgement. Despite the wildly positive reception of this financial commitment though, the official Chinese response to the matter was tepid at best.

Pelosi announced her willingness to exert her political capital to make headway on the issue. She even gave IPCC Chairman Doctor Pachauri a bear-hug and called him an old and dear friend.

Despite the House Speaker's admirable intentions, U.S. legislators back on Capitol Hill do not stand in perfect unison with her on how to address climate change; the Waxman-Markey bill has yet to make significant advancements in Congress.

Amidst the polarizing context in which negotiations on climate change are taking place, hopes of producing a legally binding treaty on the issue has long been replaced with that of a political declaration. This "face-saving text," as the British Guardian labels it, would be around two pages long and outline a 6 month timeline to reach consensus on numbers and the right modifier.

Secretary Clinton quoted the Chinese proverb, "When you are in a common boat, you have to cross the river peacefully together."

Today, at this rare moment in history, world leaders have the opportunity to chart a new global path to a greener and greater world.

Coordinating the rowing has already taken quite some time, but if there was ever a good point in history to set aside our grievances, that time is now. Leaders must raise the proverbial oars together, because we have but one boat, and this river but runs in one direction.

Art Levine: With A Third of Workers at Risk of Job Losses, Progressives Launch New Drive For More Aid (VIDEO)

2009-12-17T02:06:23Z

With heavy defections from Blue Dog Democrats, the House of Representatives still narrowly passed Wednesday evening 217 to 212 a $154 billion jobs package. It included funds for states to retain front-line workers, aid to the unemployed and transportation projects.

But a jobs bill has yet to be voted on in the Senate, where it's likely to be viewed more skeptically and reduced in scope in the absence of a major grass-roots campaign. Political activism becomes even more urgent, because a combination of continuing high unemployment and the transitioning of people in and out of jobs could mean that as many as a third of the workforce could be unemployed or undermployed in 2010, according to Lawrence Mishel, director of the Economic Policy Institute.

That's why a potentially powerful 60-group liberal coalition, Jobs For America Now!, announced earlier Wednesday, becomes especially important. Its leaders are proposing a far more ambitious $400 billion proposal, based in part on plans put forward in the last several weeks by the AFL-CIO and other progressive and civil-rights organizations.

(The full story of the progressive drive for jobs creation can be read here at Truthout.org.)

There's no doubt that they face an uphill battle to get ambitious jobs legislation through Congress. There was, after all, that close vote yesterday in the House, right-wing propaganda about the failings of the first $787 billion stimulus (it actually saved or created up to 1.6 million jobs), and the spread of an aggressive "deficit hawk" mentality to conservative Democrats.

Even so, Thea Lee, the deputy chief of staff of the AFL-CIO, outlined the themes unifying the organizations: "Across the country, working Americans are calling for urgent action on the jobs crisis, and this action must be on a scale to match the crisis. We must also focus on fundamentally transforming our economy so we never face this type of crisis again -- reforming our labor laws, our trade policy, and our financial system to restore needed balance."

During the debate over the jobs bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared on the House floor, "This legislation brings jobs to Main Street by increasing credit for small businesses, rebuilding the infrastructure of America, and keeping police and fireman and teachers on the job. As we create jobs for Americans, we are doing so in a fiscally responsible way. These investments are fully paid for by redirecting TARP funds from Wall Street to Main Street."

With every single Republican voting no, she defiantly pointed out how far the American economy had come under the Obama administration even as joblessness is still rampant. "There were 740,000 jobs lost in the first month of this year compared to 11,000 last month. We're on the road to recovery...We're creating jobs for Main Street, not just wealth for Wall Street," she said. "This legislation creates jobs, helps meet the needs of those who are unemployed, and puts us America back on a path to prosperity."

Action can't come too soon, and our obstructionist legislators would do well to listen to the plight of the unemployed as powerfully described in James McMurtry's song, "We Can't Make It Here." Even though it was written during the Bush era, it's all too applicable now:

The groups and leaders featured in the press conference call Wednesday before the vote were almost a Who's Who of American Liberalism. They included the Campaign for America 's Future; Anna Burger, the chair of Change to Win;, the veteran organizer Alan Charney of the grass-roots advocacy group,US Action, and the coalition's interim director; Benjamin Todd Jealous, the NAACP President;and Wider Opportunities for Women. The importance of the coalition goes beyond the specifics of their proposals to their commitment to provide grass-roots muscle in all 50 states to push for jobs legislation in the tough struggle ahead, especially in the Senate. And that's what's been missing before on this issue: united activism around jobs which could, potentially, have more diverse grass-roots support in 2010 than health care reform did this year.

The importance of the new coalition was underscored by an aide to Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill), who co-chairs the bipartisan Jobs Now! Congerssional caucus. The aide told Truthout: "These are the A-List groups. If that coalition steps up to the plate, they'll bring plenty of resource capacity: polling, lobbying, putting pressure on the usual suspects." Right now, though, the staffer observed, "Clearly everyone's focused on pushing health care across the finish line, and that's not even done. After that, everyone will be talking about jobs, jobs, jobs -- at least until November."

So, despite the narrow vote on Wednesday, there's some realistic hope that a combination of continuing unemployment, grass-roots organizing and political necessity could push through meaningful jobs legislation -- and the Pelosi-backed bill is considered a very good start.

After Wednesday's vote, union leader Anna Burger declared:

Our jobs crisis cannot be solved by one bill alone. But today the House demonstrated the bold and swift leadership the American people demand. It's time to provide relief to the millions of workers who get up each morning and scour the help wanted ads in the hopes of finding a good job that can support a family. Congress today made an essential first step to invest in programs to immediately put people back to work...

But our work is far from over. Our leaders must continue to work non-stop to pass a comprehensive jobs agenda that puts millions of Americans back to work today and makes strategic investments to create the jobs that Americans will need in the future.

The biggest differences between the House-passed measure and the progressive-backed proposals are the sheer amount of spending and the absence in the current House bill of public sector job creation targeting hard-hit communities. As described by the coalition, this jobs-creation provision -- which could create one million new jobs with $40 billion in federal funding, according to Rep. Keith Ellison (D--Minn.) -- is a vital one. The group's call to action describes its importance:

We can directly create jobs that put people to work helping communities meet pressing needs, including in distressed communities facing severe unemployment. These initiatives must be designed so they maintain existing wage and benefit standards and do not displace existing jobs or simply exchange one group of unemployed workers for another.

[

The urgent call to action is often at odds, though, with the pragmatic, even cynical, calculations of conservaDems who are worried that big deficit spending could be a potent Republican issue in their home states that trumps joblessness.

Compare the different perspectives. First, here's what's at stake for American workers, as described by the Jobs Now! coalition:

An Urgent Call for Action to Stem the U.S. Jobs Crisis

The U.S. unemployment rate exceeded 10% in October for the first time in a quarter century. Over 15 million Americans are able and willing to work but cannot find a job. More than one out of every three unemployed workers has been out of a job for more than six months. The situation facing African American and Latino workers is even bleaker, with unemployment at 15.6% and 12.7%, respectively.

These grim statistics don't capture the full extent of the hardship. There are another 9 million people working part time because they cannot find full-time work. Millions of others have given up looking for a job, and so aren't counted in the official unemployment figures. Altogether, over 17% of the labor force is underemployed--more than 26 million Americans--including one in four minority workers. Last, given individuals moving in and out of jobs, we can expect a third of the workforce, and 40% of workers of color, to be unemployed or underemployed at some point over the next year. (emphasis added.)

Despite an effective and bold recovery package we are still facing a prolonged period of high unemployment. Two years from now, absent further action, we are likely to have unemployment at 8% or more, a higher rate than that attained even at the worst point of the last two downturns.

Joblessness on this scale creates enormous social and economic problems--and denies millions of families the ability to meet even their most basic needs. .

Then take a look at the political machinations among Democrats who feel themselves to be vulnerable politically, along with some retiring members who feel they can vote their conscience on behalf of a jobs package. Here's how The Hill reported their current thinking:

The close votes reflect the growing unease among centrist Democrats that the deficit spending that Congress has undertaken to right the economy is becoming a potent campaign issue.

"We've got to indicate we're serious about the deficit," said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who voted "no" and represents a Republican-leaning district with low unemployment. "We didn't cause the deficit, but we have to address it."

Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who is retiring from Congress, changed his vote to put Democrats over the top. That signals a potent variable in vote counting next year -- retirees who no longer need to respond to traditional political pressures...

Political analysts are closely watching for more centrist retirements. Those members will have no fear of losing committee assignments and can't be won over with promises of campaign help or other inducements...

But Democrats facing tough re-election fights found themselves trying to determine if voters are angrier about 10 percent unemployment or trillions in deficits.

"My staff is looking at it," said a newly elected Democratic member from a conservative district as the clock ticked down. "If I can't make a good case that a lot of money is coming back to my district, I can't support it. I wish we had more time."

He voted "no."

Compare that political calculation with the fear and anxiety gripping America's unemployed, with half of them reporting depression, panic and heavy borrowing from friends. The New York Times reported this week:

Poll Reveals Trauma of Joblessness in U.S.

More than half of the nation's unemployed workers have borrowed money from friends or relatives since losing their jobs. An equal number have cut back on doctor visits or medical treatments because they are out of work.

Almost half have suffered from depression or anxiety. About 4 in 10 parents have noticed behavioral changes in their children that they attribute to their difficulties in finding work.

It doesn't seem that many members of Congress fully understand yet the havoc that's been let loose in the land because of widespread unemployment. Meanwhile, posturing over ideology continues. They all might benefit if they could listen with open hearts to the plight of those without work in their districts and states, as aptly depicted in the song, "We Can't Make It Here," written by James McMurty during the Bush era, even before the meltdown, and unfortunately, it still applies today.

Who is listening to them now?

Nancy Pelosi: Barack Obama Must 'Make His Case' For Afghanistan Funds

2009-12-17T01:33:14Z

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that it's up to President Barack Obama to persuade reluctant Democrats to fund his Afghanistan troop buildup -- his most important foreign policy initiative -- because she has no plans to do so herself.

Pelosi's reluctance to lobby for an Afghan surge appropriation reflects the deep divisions within the Democratic Party over Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.

William Bradley: Copenhagen Blues: Obama's Weak Hand on Climate, and the California Option

2009-12-16T16:56:35Z

As he prepares to go to Copenhagen for the deeply troubled UN climate change summit, President Barack Obama does so with a weak hand. He has no enacted legislation to brandish, no binding agreements on big greenhouse gas cuts with some of the biggest polluters, and no big financing to aid the developing world of poorer nations.

Aside from that, it's really great.

In his first address to the United Nations as commander-in-chief this past September, President Barack Obama addressed the pressing issue of climate change.

Obama has cobbled together some impressive-looking cards. But starting from the zero point that was bequeathed him by the Bush/Cheney Administration, and with far less congressional support than many imagine, he's nowhere near ready to sign a new Copenhagen Protocol, were one to emerge, which it will not. However, having secured some movement on climate through his recent direct diplomacy with China and India, and with some action in the US, in the form of a bill that has passed the House, EPA moves cutting tailpipe emissions and declaring greenhouse gases a threat to public welfare and granting California its customary right under the Clean Air Act to regulate air pollutants, in this case greenhouse gases, he has a hand that at least consists of some respectable-looking cards.

Let's look at the cards the president does, and does not, have.

** There has been no new legislation enacted. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Obama's strongest and most effective ally, working with LA Congressman Henry Waxman, got the House to barely pass a climate change bill to cut greenhouse gas emissions through a combination of regulation and a cap and trade market.

** His pending legislation falls far short of the cuts that most experts say are needed. Pelosi could barely get a bill passed to cut greenhouse gases by 17% from 2005 levels. But the international standard is based on 1990. And by that standard, the bill is only a 4% cut.

** He doesn't have, as yet, a big financing/technology package for poor nations to aid them in transitioning to greentech and dealing with likely climate impacts. Though Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says America will be part of a big financing package if others agree. And if others agree to have their cuts verified.

** He doesn't have binding, verifiable agreements with rising powers China and India to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

U.N. climate talks deadlocked Wednesday, two days before global leaders hoped to sign an agreement. Police confronted protesters outside the Copenhagen conference venue with pepper spray and batons.

** He does have new agreements from China and India to cut "carbon intensity" in fuels and other products, secured during his supposedly unsuccessful tour of China and other Asian nations and his overlooked Washington summit last month with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. (The silly White House gatecrashers got all the attention.)

** He does have an Environmental Protection Agency decision (based on last year's Supreme Court ruling) that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health, rendering them worthy of regulation by EPA under the Clean Air Act.

** He does have new, stricter standards on vehicle fuel efficiency, based on California standards that were blocked by the Bush/Cheney Administration. (That was a 2002 law signed by then Governor Gray Davis in the face of threats by the auto industry to overturn it at the ballot box. Detroit backed down.)

** He does have a new energy policy, based on the energy efficiency/renewables path pioneered in California by Jerry Brown in the 1970s and 1980s.

** He does have the landmark California plan, enacted in 2006, to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The Bush/Cheney Administration blocked it, despite protests from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and legal action by former Governor-turned-Attorney General Brown. But the new EPA recognizes California's historic ability to take action under the Clean Air Act. And under the Clean Air Act, other states may follow California's lead, as they have done in the past. Which in this instance can create a program covering most of America, including a de facto national cap and trade market in greenhouse gas emissions.

Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Copenhagen last Saturday demanding that world leaders take stronger action to fight climate change. This came at the mid-point of the United Nations Global Climate Conference.

Meanwhile, the talks in Copenhagen are in big trouble on a few fundamental points. The trouble is so big that Copenhagen looks destined to be, at best, an interim event, perhaps pointing to further negotiations next year in Mexico City.

The Copenhagen dilemma turns on a few key points.

** Industrialized nations are under pressure to cut back even more on greenhouse gases than they have offered.

** Still developing countries, including giants China and India, have to aggressively cut the growth in emissions, rather than merely reduce carbon intensity. But there is resistance.

** Developing nations need financing and technological assistance to make the leap to green tech, cut emissions, and prepare for the impacts of climate change. The rich nations are talking about a "prompt-start" plan of $10 billion a year for three years. Experts say the funding will be needed for many years, and that $10 billion is a drop in the bucket. Or, in this case, a drop in the rising seas.

And the reality is that European leaders, after much prior hoopla, have only come up with a distinctly underwhelming $3.6 billion a year -- only a third of what was originally planned by the EU -- to help poor nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for climate change.

** America and other developed nations want technical verification of emissions actions by developing nations. But China resists that, saying it's a violation of its sovereignty.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger addressed the U.N. climate summit on Tuesday in Copenhagen, arguing that action at the subnational level can do much.

Against this wonderful backdrop, Obama, based on what Pelosi and Waxman were able to get through the House with a bare one vote majority, has offered to cut US emissions by 4% from 1990 levels by 2020. The European Union has committed to a 20% cut from 1990 levels.

It's hard to see how this works on the current track, at least in the near term. Politically speaking, there is a big bandwidth problem, especially for the Senate, which agonizes over legislation for months on end.

Despite an optimistic statement today from Senator John Kerry, it's hard to see how the Senate passes a bill in 2010, an election year, that barely passed the House this year. Remember that the Pelosi-led House passed national health care reform, with the public option, earlier this year, while the Senate is still struggling to pass national health care reform without the public option.

And most experts say that the barely passed House bill is clearly insufficient to meet the challenge of climate change.

Which leaves two options. Do it all by top-down regulation through the EPA, a less flexible cudgel perhaps best used to gain future passage of legislation. (Big moves through the EPA alone hands the Republicans a club about "unelected bureaucrats.") Or use the EPA to do some regulations and encourage other states, big and small, to follow the California plan, which is highly praised by the UN, which states have done before on other air pollution issues.

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

Aubrey Sarvis: Mr. President: You've Earned Your Stripes, Now Let's End the Gay Ban in 2010

2009-12-16T13:22:53Z

One would be hard pressed to figure out how the White House could credibly avoid tackling the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in its second year. Just this past October President Obama said, "I will end 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

Both the White House and Congress will soon turn their attention to the crowded legislative agenda that will be facing them when they come back to Washington after the holidays. Two wars will be going on and no doubt both will take up much of the President's precious time, but now is the time for President Obama and his legislative team, huddling with House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid, to come up with the legislative list they want to push through Congress in 2010.

Because health care and the Afghanistan war have consumed far more time this year than expected, one assumes the '10 legislative agenda will be very focused, even scaled back a bit. There are the ambitious and big ticket items - jobs, jobs, and jobs - plus financial services reform and climate change.

But there are other urgent initiatives that need to get done too, and some will not be nearly as sweeping or as tough as some in the White House may fear. On this short list should be the repeal of DADT.

In the February-March timeframe, the President will most likely send up to Capitol Hill his defense budget. (DADT was written into the defense budget 16 years ago.) What better place for the President to make good on his words to end this law than in his very own defense budget?

While the President has consistently said the right words, whether it be on the campaign trail last year, at LGBT events, or at a black-tie Washington event, he has not spoken as clearly or as forcefully on repeal to Congress and to his own senior leadership team in the Defense department.

If Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen are going to be tasked by the White House to do something significant on repeal, those discussions must begin in earnest - soon - or the opportunity to get rid of the gay ban next year may slip away.

It seems to me that this President has been measured, agile, thoughtful, and extraordinarily respectful of his top officials in the Department of Defense. During this first year, the Commander in Chief more than earned his stripes, whether it was Dover and the photographing of our returning dead warriors, agreeing to the Afghanistan surge, or delivering more dollars for the Pentagon. The brass pretty much got what they asked for from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Now the time has come for the President to have that very candid DADT repeal discussion with Sec. Gates and Admiral Mullen - and for them (and those who report to Gates and Mullen) to salute. It need not be a come-to-the-woodshed or quid-pro-quo discussion. (We now know that is not the Obama style.) Gates and Mullen have both pointed out that they are well aware of the President's strategic intent and objective. I suspect they both also know that full repeal is the right and best thing to do for all of our troops and for our country, and they both appreciate all too well that the President needs their help here, as well as their remarkable leadership and credibility.

It's past time for Gates and Mullen and the White House to stop circling each other in their awkward tango around "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Let's be candid. No one really expects Gates and Mullen to go first, to actually get ahead of the President on overturning DADT. The reality is the President must initiate this candid discussion and, in doing so, he will establish that the three of them are in alignment on repeal, that the time has come.

No one wants a replay of the sorry and mean-spirited discussion that took place in 1993 on this subject. Our country, including the military, has moved on and is in a far different place. Today, 26 countries allow their gay and lesbian troops to serve without discrimination, and a vast majority of Americans, including churchgoers, think the U.S. should allow that too. When President Obama and Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen say to Congress the time has come for us to join those other 26 countries in allowing open service, and say it clearly in their defense bill going up to the Hill, Congress will follow their recommendation and embrace their bold leadership, and we can finally go about burying this embarrassing chapter.

House Votes To Expand Sanctions On Iran, Focuses On Oil

2009-12-15T21:11:37Z

WASHINGTON — The House voted Tuesday to impose new economic sanctions on Iran as lawmakers cast doubt on Iran's willingness to respond to diplomatic efforts to curtail its purported nuclear arms program.

The legislation, approved 412-12, would end access to U.S. markets for foreign companies selling refined petroleum products to Iran or helping that country develop its petroleum capacity. While Iran is a major crude oil producer, its lack of ability to produce enough gasoline and other refined petroleum products is a major economic vulnerability.

House Democrats Propose $50 Billion For Jobs-Boosting Projects

2009-12-15T20:23:16Z

WASHINGTON — Responding to calls among rank-and-file Democrats for more infrastructure spending, House leaders Tuesday unveiled a plan to add almost $50 billion in spending on highways, housing and school repair as part of a year-end plan to create jobs.

The measure is aimed at keeping the fragile economic recovery on track with money for teachers, the unemployed and small businesses. A vote is planned for Wednesday.

Diane Tucker: What's an Underemployed Gal to Do? Run For Office.

2009-12-15T12:45:58Z

Since the recession began, millions of women have found themselves underemployed, working in survival jobs for which they're overqualified. If you're in the process of making similar life changes, why not run for office? America needs more women in politics.

Because why?

"Governments with more women legislators are more productive," noted the World Economic Forum.

"National parliaments with the largest numbers of women have the lowest levels of corruption," reported the World Bank.

It's a shame more American women aren't thinking outside the box, by putting their names inside the ballot box. Men still dramatically outnumber women in the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, state legislatures, and city councils. The U.S. ranks a pathetic 71st out of 189 countries in the proportion of women in national legislatures. American women aren't even close to the magical 33% tipping point where we could begin to change the conversation.

No wonder the big stimulus winner in 2009 was Wall Street. The Old Boy's Club decided that if we bailed out Wall Street, the problems on Main Street would take care of themselves. "Nonsense!" said my gal pals, but few politicians heard them.

More women in politics -- that's change I can believe in.

I know, I know, it means we would have to knock on doors ... and we would have to raise money ... mean people might diss us ... and ... and ...

Ladies, it's time to stop eliminating ourselves from positions of power. Today I spoke with a woman who took the plunge, got elected, loves her new career, and is happy to share lessons learned. Anne Doyle was one of the first women in the U.S. to gain access to professional locker rooms as a sports reporter for CBS-TV in Detroit. Years later, she rose through the ranks of Ford Motor Company to become director of North America Communications. In 2009 she ran for a seat on the Auburn Hills City Council -- and won.

* * *

Politicians live in a fishbowl. Weren't you afraid of becoming so visible a target?

Anne Doyle: No, not at all, but I understand what you're saying. Fear is a huge barrier for women. I worked for three decades in sportscasting and the auto industry, places where people didn't always want me. I'm not afraid anymore.

But don't you think a lot of women are too thin-skinned for politics?

Women are better able than men to receive emotional messages. It's one of our strengths, but it also makes us more vulnerable. If we're going to put ourselves out there and become leaders, we simply have to accept that a certain number of people aren't going to like us. You grow thick skin like bark on a tree -- it takes time. The more you let the criticisms go, the better you get at it.

Is fundraising another huge barrier for women?

I had no problem raising money at all. In fact, and this is funny, I was so successful at raising money the other candidates started saying, "Hey, she's trying to buy the election!"

Well then, you're the right person to ask for advice on soliciting campaign contributions.

You start with people who believe in you. I wrote a personal letter outlining what I wanted to do, and asking for help. In response, several friends wrote sizable checks and it turbo-charged me. A California woman learned about me online and mailed a check. That was huge! We all have to write bigger checks for other women. It's in our best interest to get more women into politics.

Why is 33% considered the tipping point?

It's critical mass -- the point at which an environment changes in such a way, it can no longer go back to what it was. Take the Supreme Court, for example. One woman justice is newsworthy -- she's first. Two women are still the exception, not the rule. When you have three women on the bench, it stops being unusual.

Whether you're talking about the halls of Congress or a board of directors, until women achieve 33% we're just tokens. Our numbers are too small to influence men to see things in a completely different way. It's not that women are better, it's that balance among the two genders is better. Across the board in a variety of professions, the number of women in leadership positions today is only 18%. We have a long way to go. That's why it's all about numbers now.

How do we move the needle?

We can move the needle the fastest by getting more women elected to political office, because that's where female leaders are the most visible.

I was surprised to learn that women's progress into leadership positions has been stagnating for more than a decade.

We made tremendous progress in the 70s and 80s, but in the 90s and 2000s the numbers got bigger only in the middle. Today we have more women doctors, more women lawyers, more women with graduate degrees, but we are stalled in terms of progress into leadership positions that shape the culture. How many women CEOs are there today? That number has barely changed in 20 years, even though there is a perception that it has.

Let's say I want to throw my hat in the ring. What are the first three things I should do?

First, start talking about it. I guarantee you'll be amazed at the encouragement you get. Next, become very clear about why you want to run. One way to do this is by developing your candidate website. It doesn't have to be fancy, but the process will force you to put into concise words who you are and what you stand for. Finally, make a list of people you can ask for campaign contributions, because you'll need money for postage, a Web site, and campaign materials.

On the slim chance I raise more than $2 in campaign contributions, what's next?

I highly recommend the White House Project training. It's a national, non-partisan initiative focused on dramatically increasing the number of women running for office. They've already trained over 9,000 women candidates, and hope to train well over 36,000 by 2013. I enrolled in their Debate Boot Camp, where I learned how to refine my message and present it to a large group.

You took the risk and ran for office. What was the reward?

Knocking on doors, I met the incredible people who are my neighbors. It created a powerful sense of community. That was the richest reward for me. You can't imagine how it feels, seeing your yard sign on the front lawn of people you've never met. I would jump out of my car and introduce myself. After the election, I was keenly aware these people were counting on me.

How does being a politician compare to being a journalist or a corporate executive?

Journalists are independent operators -- they develop and write a story, it's their own work -- and corporate executives make many decisions unilaterally. Political leaders, however, can't get much done by themselves. You have to collaborate. You have to influence people. Somebody called politics the art of the possible. It's about getting people to evolve together. Where's our common ground?

Can women excel at this?

The experience of running convinced me that women have a tremendous natural ability for politics. We just have to get over our fear of it and go for the brass ring. The good news is that there's been a dramatic change in attitude about women in leadership positions. I want to say to women, "C'mon, let's go!"

Have you run for political office? Are you thinking about running in 2010? In 2012? What is the best advice you would give women thinking of running for a first time? Share your questions, concerns, and experiences with us and other women in the Comments thread below.

Robert Creamer: Pass Financial Regulatory Reform - Then Break Up the Big Wall Street Banks

2009-12-15T09:06:40Z

Last Friday, the House passed critical regulatory reform legislation aimed at preventing the recurrence of the kind of financial meltdown that devastated our economy at the end of the Bush administration.

The lobbyists from Wall Street worked hand-in-glove with the Republicans, and a few Democrats, to try to kill the bill. Astoundingly, the Republicans argued that Wall Street should continue to be free to engage in the same reckless speculation that led directly to 10 percent unemployment and required the taxpayers to inject hundreds of billions into the markets so that the geniuses of private finance would not plunge us all into the abyss of another Great Depression.

With no regard for history -- and here I mean the events of only 12 months ago -- the Republicans and Big Banks have the audacity to contend that the creation of jobs and a growing economy requires the lowest levels of regulation and government involvement possible.

Here's a news flash: we tried it your way for eight years. The results: the lowest level of job creation of any eight-year period since World War II; all of the country's economic growth was siphoned off by the top 2 percent of the population and the financial sector; and the economy imploded. Sure -- let's try that again.

The Republicans even had the brazenness to convene a convocation of 100 Wall Street lobbyists last Wednesday to plot how they could completely kill financial regulatory reform. They failed, largely due to the great work of Americans for Regulatory Reform, House Speaker Pelosi, Finance Chair Barney Frank and intensive lobbying from the Obama administration.

They did manage to water down the House bill -- but it still represents the most important move to re-regulate the out-of-control financial sector since the Great Depression.

Soon, Chris Dodd's Senate Banking Committee will report out the Senate's version of this measure and hopefully a bill will be on the president's desk early next year.

Financial reform is terrific politics for Democrats.

Americans United for Change released a new poll conducted by Anzalone Liszt Research that found broad support for regulatory reform aimed at reining in Wall Street. Among the key findings:

Overall, 70 percent of voters believe that the country's financial system needs either major reforms or a total overhaul.

When voters learn about President Obama's plan, support for specific changes increases dramatically. Once voters hear a description of the president's financial reform plan that focuses on increasing oversight over big banks, protecting consumers, and cracking down on corporate abuses, support rises by 25 points to 60 percent.

Independents are particularly receptive to the plan. Among independents, the increase in support for the plan following the description was particularly large (31 points), leading them to support the plan by a 19-point margin (56 percent to 37 percent).

But financial regulatory reform, while necessary, is not sufficient to end the domination of the outsized financial sector on the American economy. The next step requires breaking up the giant Wall Street Banks that dominate our economy. Nothing less will do in order to create an even modestly competitive financial market place.

Let me relate a story that illustrates their massively inordinate market power.

A couple of weeks ago, I got a letter from CitiCorp informing me that they planned to raise the interest rate on my credit card from a really good 7.24 percent to 11.99 percent -- a big increase by two-thirds, or 4.75 percentage points. Since I never miss a payment, I called to complain --- ultimately speaking to the service people in the office of CitiCorp's President in New York.

I was told that all CitiCorp customers would ultimately have their interest rates increased -- that as far as they knew I would have the lowest interest rate of any they would offer. In fact, the representative told me, people who had 15% rates had increases of up to 22 percentage points -- and that some customers would now be paying as much as 29.99%. That, of course, is getting into the range of your local neighborhood juice loan operator.

I pointed out that interest rates in the United States had not increased at all - much less by almost 5 percent. She said it was due to their "other costs." Then I noted that the material made available to their investors indicated that their overhead costs had actually dropped. "Other costs," she said.

Of course those other costs would be the losses they took on reckless speculative investments, and the increasing credit card default rate caused by the recession -- for which CitiCorp, Goldman Sachs, Chase, Bank of America, AIG, and the other "masters of the universe" were mainly responsible.

Yet these very same banks that caused the economic disaster are all raising credit card interest rates to siphon tens of billions of dollars from the real economy of consumers and workers into the coffers of the financial sector.

How can they do this? Simple. There is no real competition in the credit card sector. The top three issuers control 52.82 percent of the market (JPMorgan Chase 21.22 percent, Bank of America 19.25 percent and CitiBank 12.35 percent). Add American Express (10.19 percent) and Capital One (6.95 percent) -- and it becomes clear that five firms control almost 70 percent of American's credit card market.

Raising interest rates by 5 percent on the approximately $972 billion in outstanding credit card debt would transfer about $48 billion from the pockets of waitresses, file clerks, cab drivers, construction workers, teachers and firemen -- the people who create America's wealth -- into the pockets of Wall Street Bankers.

This is money that would otherwise be used to replace the broken TV, or pay for gas to get to work, or buy holiday gifts -- to make the purchases that would create jobs and economic growth. What will Wall Street do with this money?

According to a report by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, employees at nine banks that received money from the TARP bailout received a combined total of $32.6 billion in bonuses last year. As the Wall Street Journal reported, the bonuses included, "more than $1 million apiece to nearly 5,000 employees -- despite huge losses that plunged the U.S. into economic turmoil."

Bloomberg News reported that: "The top 200 bonus recipients at JPMorgan Chase & Co. received $1.12 billion last year, while the top 200 at Goldman Sachs received $995 million. At Merrill Lynch, the top 149 received $858 million and at Morgan Stanley, the top 101 received $577 million. Those 650 people received a combined $3.55 billion, or an average of $5.46 million.

"JPMorgan Chase had 1,626 employees who received a bonus of at least $1 million last year, more than any other Wall Street firm," according to the report. "Goldman Sachs had 953 employees who received $1 million or more in bonuses, while Citigroup Inc. had 738, Merrill Lynch & Co., 696, and Morgan Stanley, 428. Bank of America Corp. had 172, while Wells Fargo & Co. had 62."

How do they get away with this? They do it -- as the old John Houseman ad for Smith Barney used to say -- "the old fashioned way." They do it the same way that the robber barons of the early 20th century did it before Teddy Roosevelt "busted the trusts." They control such huge percentages of the market that they can do pretty much what they want.

And of course they try to maintain their stranglehold on the market by spending a fortune on campaign contributions and lobbyists. President Obama reported in his Saturday radio address that the Banks had spent $300 million on lobbying Congress this year alone.

There is no economic rationale for allowing a few big private corporations to control America's financial markets. And we've just seen the outrageous outcome. When big banks are "too big to fail" because of the devastating impact of their collapse on the entire economy, taxpayers are forced to reach into their jeans and bail them out, so that they can go on making tens of billions of dollars in "bonuses" as compensation for their "financial genius."

There's something wrong with this picture. To put it succinctly: if a private institution is too big to fail, it's too big to exist.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on amazon.com.

TIME Person Of The Year 2009: See The List (VIDEO)

2009-12-14T11:38:33Z

TIME Managing Editor Rick Stengel previewed the TIME Person of the Year shortlist on the "Today" show Monday morning. The magazine's selection will be unveiled Wednesday morning on "Today."

Below, see the shortlist and vote on who you think should be Person of the Year:

On the "Today" show, Meredith Vieira predicted the Person of the Year would be Ben Bernanke, while Matt Lauer and Ann Curry hinted that they thought it might be Gen. McChrystal.

Watch:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Paul Helmke: NRA Members For Reasonable Gun Restrictions

2009-12-11T17:44:02Z

Republican pollster Frank Luntz conducted a poll released yesterday by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns which helps confirm surveys of National Rifle Association members conducted as far back as 1989.

The Luntz survey shows -- again -- that gun owners strongly support many specific gun violence prevention laws.

For example, the Luntz survey and others show that even NRA members strongly support Brady criminal background checks for all gun sales at gun shows, and also strongly support keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists.

Specifically, 82% of NRA members supported prohibiting people on the "Terrorist Watch List" from buying guns. 69% of NRA members supported requiring Brady criminal background checks for all gun sales at gun shows.

NRA leaders oppose both of these policies. This means they are ignoring not only the wishes of the American people but also their own dues-paying members by blocking these and other policies that would help save lives.

The Luntz survey isn't the only one that shows how out-of-step NRA leaders are with the rest of their claimed constituency.

After Election Day in November 2008, the Brady Campaign commissioned a survey of voters, conducted by the firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland. In that poll, 84% of gun-owning voters favored Brady criminal background checks for all gun sales, while 60% of gun-owning voters even favored the registration of gun sales and the licensing of gun owners.

Data that is now 20 years old tells us much the same thing about the preferences of NRA members on specific gun violence prevention policies. Two researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health examined survey data collected in a 1989 TIME Magazine/CNN survey, and in a peer-reviewed study, the researchers concluded:

[T]he support for the NRA is strongest when measured in very general terms.... However, when gun owners are asked about specific regulatory requirements, they often support the regulation, disagreeing with the stated position of the organization [the NRA]. This finding holds for both NRA members and nonmembers.

For at least 20 years the NRA's leaders have misrepresented to elected officials the feelings of their members on a range of reasonable measures that would help reduce gun violence.

In the face of stubborn data like this, it is time for Congress to start listening to the American people -- including NRA members and gun owners -- instead of responding to the dictates of NRA bosses.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Pelosi Backs Off Public Option

2009-12-10T11:49:52Z

The public health insurance option died on Thursday, December 10, 2009, after a months-long struggle with Senate parliamentary procedure. The time of death was recorded as 11:12 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Its death had been rumored numerous times over the past year, but the public option repeatedly and defiantly battled back. The Senate's insistence on 60 votes, combined with President Obama's decision not to intervene on its behalf, eventually proved overwhelming.

The public option leaves behind a Medicare buy-in for people aged 55-64, an expansion of Medicaid, a quasi-public option for those under 300 percent of the poverty line and a collection of national private plans managed by the Office of Personnel Management.

The one remaining chance for the public option rested with the House somehow forcing its will on the Senate.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pulled the final plug in a press briefing with reporters Thursday.

She had often said in the past that a health care bill without a public option simply wouldn't have the votes to pass the House. She was asked about that claim Thursday, in relation to the Senate compromise, and pointedly told reporters that any bill could pass as long as it met certain broad goals.

"Well, what I said -- it is a two‑part statement that quotes what the President has said. We believe, we in the House believe, that the public option is the best way to hold insurance companies honest -- to keep them honest and also to increase competition. If there is a better way, put it on the table. As soon as we see something in writing from the Senate, we will be able to make a judgment about that. But our standards are that we have affordability for the middle class, security for our seniors, closing the donut hole and sustaining the solvency of Medicare. Responsibility to our children, so not one dime is added to the deficit. And accountability of insurance companies. We will take a measure of that bill in those regards," Pelosi said.

A reporter pointed out that some House liberals had spoken positively of the Senate compromise that drops the House version of the public option. "What I have said, as I have always said to our members: Give the Senate room. I said that about the President. Give the President room, give the Senate room. But we honestly have had no paper on this. And probably we will know a great deal more when the paper comes back from the Congressional Budget Office. But between their bill and our bill, I know one thing for sure, we will have a great bill when we put them together," she said.

In the hallway outside the press briefing, Pelosi was asked about a Senate plan that would have the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) oversee national private plans instead of a public plan. "Let's see what it is. It might come as a surprise," she said. "We haven't seen the paper from the Senate. There is certainly a great deal of appeal about putting people 55 and older on Medicare. That's something people in the House have advocated for for years."

On Tuesday, passionate public-option backer Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said he was happy with what he'd heard of the Senate deal.

"Now, I need more clarification of what the other plan is--the OPM plan--Office of Personnel Management," said Pelosi. "But we've also said, if you want something like what the members of Congress have, this might bear some resemblance to the federal employee plan. I don't know, because I haven't seen it and I don't like to comment on what I haven't seen."

Paul Helmke: Gaps in Protection for Us and the President

2009-12-09T15:00:44Z

The Washington Post reported Monday about a 2003 Secret Service report which indicates that its security checkpoints had been breached at least 91 times since 1980, including at least eight instances where the intruder reached the president or another subject of protection.

On Sunday, the New York Times reported on a number of serious threats leveled against President Obama since he took office, including one from a U.S. Marine who pleaded guilty to threatening to kill the president (as well as attempted armed robbery).

This servicemember had decided that his own interpretation of his military oath to protect the country required him to identify the president as a "domestic enemy," and to take what he thought was appropriate action.

Another incident involved an airport security guard in New Jersey who had "43 guns and allegedly hollow-point bullets at home" and "was thought to be threatening the president."

This same New York Times article mentions that many suspects had "a history of violence or mental illness and easy access to guns and explosives." Others wanted to see "a 50 cal in the head soon" for President Obama or were "practicing shooting skills" so that Obama could "follow in the steps of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy."

These stories should trouble us. We want security not only for the president and our top officials, but also for ourselves and our families. Yet as a nation we make it very easy for dangerous people to arm themselves.

For example, several events attended by President Obama this past summer featured protesters armed with assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols. At least one protester had a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon even though he had recently been released from jail.

The Fort Hood shooter had been issued a concealed carry permit by Virginia. This killer raised a number of red flags before the shooting, including several apparent contacts with a radical cleric "sympathetic" to Al Qaeda. Yet he was able to walk into a Texas gun store, pass a minimal computer background check, and easily arm himself with a "cop killer" pistol (capable of firing armor-piercing bullets) and formerly banned high-capacity ammunition magazines which allowed him to fire 20 rounds at a time without re-loading.

Even if the Fort Hood killer had been placed on the "Terrorist Watch List" because of his reportedly erratic behavior and connections to radical ideology, our weak gun laws would not have been an obstacle to his gun purchases.

While he then would have been blocked from boarding a commercial airliner, he still would have been allowed to buy as many firearms as he wanted. After 9/11, law enforcement is still prohibited from preventing individuals on the "Terrorist Watch List" from buying guns as long as they don't have some disqualifying record in the system, such as a felony or domestic violence restraining order.

And now some elected officials actually want to make it easier for "mentally incapacitated" veterans to get guns. Legislation sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.) would give immediate access to guns to over 100,000 veterans already found to be "mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness."

Sen. Burr wants to take these individuals out of the "prohibited purchaser" category in the Brady background check system even though professional Veterans Affairs personnel made those competency determinations after hearing medical evidence and following a rigorous system which protects due process.

Making it harder for dangerous people to get guns should be part of our nation's security policy. We should do all we can to protect our families and communities from gun violence, along with helping make it easier to protect the President from the next breach of security by someone with far worse intentions than gaining publicity for crashing a White House party.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Rebecca Sive: You Weren't Elected to Congress to Bargain Our Rights Away and Make Deals

2009-12-08T14:12:31Z

A memo to the Democratic women members of the House and Senate.

TO: Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, and Debbie Stabenow, Chair of the Democratic
Steering and Outreach Committee

CC: The Democratic Women Members of the U.S. House and Senate

FROM: Rebecca Sive

SUBJECT: Here Is Today's Must-read Talking Points Memo, And It's Not About White House Party Planning

See below for today's talking point.

But, first, a preface to put today's talking point in context.

· You weren't elected to Congress to bargain away the positions that got you elected.

· You weren't elected to Congress with permission from us, (the women who elected you), to forget about the women of America and what we most need.

· You weren't elected to Congress to then become beholden to those who could care less about the rights of women, instead of to the women who elected you.

· You weren't elected to Congress to become a "player," to go to fancy parties, to sit in backrooms and make secret deals, to deal away our constitutional rights, and then go on holiday fact-finding trips to exotic locales.

You were elected to Congress to fight for us. And, in the words of the old Hebrew prayer: If not now, when?

Twenty-odd years ago, a group of us launched EMILY'S LIST with two explicit goals: Elect more pro-choice women to the U.S. Congress and Senate. We, and the millions of women who joined us, succeeded in our mission.

Thanks to us, you're there. We're not: So, here's what we need from you now:

· Stand-up, and say that a healthy America means equal access by all Americans, female as well as male, to the health care we need.

· Stand-up, and say that there can be no health care reform, worthy of the term, if it doesn't protect women's reproductive health.

· Stand-up, and say that it's a false choice to say that there can't be healthcare reform and protection of access to abortion and related reproductive health services.

· Stand-up, and say that you stand united, all of you, in rejecting the idea that when it comes to dealing with America's health care, it makes sense to give up and start dealing, before you've even tried to do the right thing.

· Stand-up, and say that you don't care one whit whether you're in those ever-so-important , Beltway inner sanctums, or not; that you won't be part of any diminution of women's rights, in exchange for access to those boy's clubs.

· Stand-up, and say that you know the only reason you're in Congress in the first place is to advocate unceasingly for the laws and policies women need.

And, remember this, as you contemplate these actions, so at-variance with Beltway business-as-usual:

· Your male co-workers have already forsaken you. Not a single male legislator has stood-up and said that insuring equitable access to women's reproductive health care, including abortion, is requisite to health care reform. We don't exist for them.

· Your President has forsaken you. The President has said nothing about the fundamental unfairness of Stupak-type legislation, its rewrite of the U.S. Constitution, or its deleterious effect on women's health. Apparently, we don't exist for him, either.

So, here is today's talking point:

· Gather yourselves together, and walk over to the White House and Senator Reid's office: Then, say this: It's time to start over. We're not buying your Hobson's Choice, and neither are the women of America. We know who we represent, and we're here to fight for them. And we won't leave, not a single one of us, until this fight is over, and we have won.

Pelosi: House Dems Don't Support Afghan War Tax

2009-12-03T11:27:49Z

Despite ongoing concerns about the cost of troop escalation in Afghanistan, House leadership does not support a proposed tax to help pay for the war, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at a press conference Thursday.

As Pelosi has acknowledged, many Democrats are unconvinced that the United States can afford to ramp up its longstanding presence in Afghanistan. Among them is Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.), who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee and whose support was key to passing the last war funding bill back in June. Obey said last week that he'd oppose any escalation that couldn't be paid for.

Pelosi quickly backed him up at the time, but on Thursday she distanced herself and her caucus from Obey's solution: a graduated war tax.

"With the highest regard for Mr. Obey, that is his idea, and he was speaking for himself and his considerable reputation he enjoys in the Congress," Pelosi said. "I'm not in support of the proposal of Mr. Obey."

Obey's graduated-tax proposal would add an additional 1 percent to the tax bills of low-income Americans and 5 percent to those of the wealthiest. It has received public support from other powerful House Democrats, including Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) and Jack Murtha (D-Penn.), who chairs the defense appropriations subcommittee.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) recently said he'd support a new tax on the wealthiest Americans to cover the costs of escalation, but that's an even tougher sell in the Senate.

Pelosi said last week that her caucus is concerned about the increasing cost of the Afghan campaign, but she argued Thursday that it's still too early to talk about whether the nation can afford Obama's escalation proposal. "When the president makes a request, we'll make a judgment about what support it has," and budget restrictions will be a factor, she said.

The Speaker sought to portray as hypocrites Republicans who criticize Democrats on fiscal responsibility. Looking forward to the midterm elections in November, she said she expects Afghanistan to have little impact on the electorate compared to other issues such as the ongoing economic crisis.

"I believe that the Democratic base, as well as the Republican base and the independent base, is interested in jobs, jobs, jobs," she said. "That really is what we're all focused on."

Of course, as Pelosi said last week, every dollar spent on the war is one not spent on jobs or economic recovery in America.

Linda Milazzo: Teflon Dick: How Cheney Uses Media For Protection

2009-11-30T04:52:15Z

On January 29, 2001, just nine days after taking office, Dick Cheney created The National Energy Policy Development Group, commonly known as the Cheney Energy Task Force. The task force was charged with the critically important task of designing America's national energy policy. Although the group's efforts would directly impact the entire nation, the new Vice President refused to divulge the names of its members or their specific activities, claiming the Executive Branch's right to confidentiality.

To challenge Cheney's claims of privacy and acquire the names and activities of the task force members, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, but the courts denied their initial requests and subsequent appeals. On July 18, 2007, the Washington Post revealed the names of members of the task force, which included executives of major conglomerates Enron, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, the National Mining Association, and more.

Cheney's refusal to divulge the identities of the members of his task force was the earliest indication of the absolute power America's 46th Vice President presumed. His refusal demonstrated the covert nature of his Vice Presidency and his belief that transparency was not a requirement of the Executive Branch. The policies and practices predicated upon Cheney's presumption of confidentiality remained constant for the full eight years of his Vice Presidency. They ushered in the era of the Bush/Cheney Imperial Presidency that exercised sweeping authority, bypassed established law, and caused widespread concern amongst scholars and average citizens for the future of our democracy.

On August 27, 2004, future Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman wrote the following criticism of Mr. Cheney's pursuit of privacy and power:

"Mr. Cheney's determination to keep his secrets probably reflects more than an effort to avoid bad publicity. It's also a matter of principle, based on the administration's deep belief that it has the right to act as it pleases, and that the public has no right to know what it's doing.

As Linda Greenhouse recently pointed out in The New York Times, the legal arguments the administration is making for the secrecy of the energy task force are "strikingly similar" to those it makes for its right to detain, without trial, anyone it deems an enemy combatant. In both cases, as Ms. Greenhouse puts it, the administration has put forward "a vision of presidential power . . . as far-reaching as any the court has seen."

From January of 2001 right through today, Dick Cheney has committed unconstrained, and as yet unprosecuted offenses, that include circumventing the Constitution, sanctioning unlawful torture, contributing to the outing of a CIA agent, concealing information from Congress, and lying the nation into war. The tragedy of Cheney's unrestrained lawlessness is further compounded by his unprecedented authority to preside over economic and foreign policies so calamitous that they drove this nation financially, militarily and morally into the ground. Despite his constant international and domestic catastrophes, for his first six years in office Cheney's crimes were supported by an ideological Republican legislative majority and a weak Democratic minority, both of whom succumbed to Bush and Cheney's Unitary Executive.

After the 2006 election, when Democrats took control of both Houses, Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to abide by her Constitutional duty to investigate Bush and Cheney's crimes. Irrespective of public clamor for backbone and accountability, the Democratic majority rolled over for Bush and Cheney. They financed their plunder and allowed America to decay from within. Structural chasms in bridges, roadways, pipelines, and schools were matched by ideological chasms over religion, economics, politics and war. As Americans battled each other, Bush and Cheney bombed and tortured on, comforted by knowing there would be no repercussion. For a full eight years, they wreaked havoc on America and the world, and today, post administration, both men remain free.

Bush and Cheney understand that they're vulnerable to prosecution. Bush, for the most part, has stayed out of the limelight, though he's recently become more visible, perhaps inspired by Cheney's success at using THE BIG TOOL - the media - for protection. Since the beginning of the Obama presidency, Cheney has used the media full on. He's commandeered its major outlets, newspapers, cable and network TV, and the most caustic outlet of all, talk radio, to attack the very sources he knows could bring him down - the President and Attorney General. Cheney's best defense is his mass media offense and he knows exactly how to use it.

Dick Cheney has used the complicit American media, his most powerful anti-prosecution tool, to near Machiavellian perfection. He understands implicitly that American media employs no ethical standards that would prevent it from promoting him despite the atrocities he has caused. Regardless of his catastrophic failures, the shameless complicit media freely provides Cheney the platform to attack the President and Attorney General and advance his standing as their fiercest political critic. Because of this granted visibility to pummel Obama and Holder, Cheney is more able to establish himself as a victim of partisanship should Obama and Holder try to charge him for his crimes. Through widely broadcast speeches, like the one below of Cheney bashing Obama on Afghanistan, the complicit media is helping to immunize Cheney - and it's doing so knowingly.

It's baiting for ratings and justice be damned!

Cheney's transparent media offensive places him squarely, frequently and loudly in the public eye attacking Obama and Holder, and setting the stage for an adversarial relationship from which he can claim that he's their target. He's banking on the theory of American exceptionalism to keep his contrived "adversaries" from taking him down. American exceptionalism implies that America as a nation is superior to the rest of the world. In lesser nations, political rivals are targeted and imprisoned. Exceptionalism presumes that superior America, with its highly evolved democracy, would never do the same. Exceptionalism presumes that political targeting only happens in undeveloped and undemocratic nations led by unsavory leaders; Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Museveni of Uganda, Nkrumah of Ghana, Putin of Russia, have all imprisoned their opponents. Cheney's calculus has determined that American exceptionalism would prevent America's leaders from publicly engaging in tactics they condemn - like imprisoning political opponents.

Last week, Cheney's Machiavellian strategy reached a whole new level when his daughter Liz raised his status from political adversary to political opponent by floating the prospect of candidate Cheney in 2012. Brilliant! Behold Dick's calculating progeny doing his bidding on Fox TV:

What better protection from legal worries than planting the notion of a presidential run, elevating Cheney from harsh critic to political rival. It's the epitome of legal immunity in exceptionalist USA. Of course, there's little probability that Cheney would actually run. His approval ratings are dismal and he battles for breath whenever he speaks. But this is media manipulation - not political reality. Truth rarely imposes itself on TV.

Then there's the blogosphere, and the Keep America Safe website, created by scions Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol to propagandize for Cheney. The Cheney cabal is in full media combat when it comes to protecting Dick Cheney.

Notice the front page attack on Attorney General Holder - though Cheney's attacked Holder for a while.

On August 30th on Fox News, Cheney characterized AG Holder's decision to conduct a review of CIA interrogations as 'politically motivated,' laying the groundwork for Cheney's future claim of partisan targeting should the AG investigate him. Recognizing that Cheney and his "BFF" Donald Rumsfeld are thought to have instigated and sanctioned the interrogations, there is strong indication that CIA investigations would lead the AG directly to Dick Cheney. Here's Cheney's politicization of Holder's decision, broadcast on Fox TV:

Could the Cheney media strategy be any more obvious than it is in this video?

The saddest and perhaps most despicable irony in this symbiotic relationship between Cheney and the all encompassing media is the manner in which the media permits itself to be the tool to thwart justice. I recognize that in this article I've reproduced the messages Dick Cheney wants to send. But I've done so in the context of revealing Cheney's manipulations. It's my sincere hope that all media stop providing Cheney the wherewithal to immunize himself from prosecution. But sadly that won't happen. American media thrives on the point-counterpoint model, and Cheney has fashioned his offense perfectly to fit it.

William Bradley: Heads Should Roll Over Obama State Dinner Security Breach

2009-11-27T10:25:22Z

It turns out to be shockingly easy to assassinate President Barack Obama.

In a fabulous show of security, it emerged late Wednesday that a pair of reality show contestants succeeded in crashing the Obamas' first state dinner. One posted photos of the couple with Vice President Joe Biden and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who she referred to as "Ron," on her Facebook page.

Amusing though it may seem, this situation is very serious, and totally unacceptable. Heads should roll over this.

President Barack Obama hosted Prime Minister Singh of the Republic of India at a State Dinner on November 24, 2009.

It's great that his Secret Service detail liked Obama enough to give him the watch they wear for his 46th birthday two years ago, a watch he wears constantly -- it's a terrific watch, I have one -- but this is ridiculous.

Especially since Obama, the first black president, assailed by right-wing extremists as illegitimate, gets far more death threats than any previous president.

The guy, who easily penetrated White House security, looks like a total dweeb. Not that appearances mean much. But the reality is that the woman, who also easily penetrated White House security, could have been a serious threat, too.

Let me tell you a little story.

As a political writer, I have frequently penetrated various security schemes to get to a principal. I'm recalling now a cover story I did for the LA Weekly a decade ago on Michael Milken, the infamous global financier. His handlers, Democrats all, imagined I was out to demolish him. Not exactly so. I viewed him as a flawed genius. But they granted no access. So I took to finding out where he would be, showing up there, and chatting with him.

A spokeswoman for Bravo says the couple who crashed a White House state dinner were trying to get on a reality TV show.

In the end, I easily penetrated his big dinner at the Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles, despite not having an invitation. What I did have was one of my Armani suits and an authoritative yet polite attitude. Even though Milken's security was seemingly everywhere.

It was child's play, actually, and, notwithstanding his vaunted, and very high-priced, Hollywood security detail, I ended up talking with Milken for 20 minutes as his handlers looked on in dismay.

A skilled person can nose around any situation. It's the role of security to minimize the ability to do that.

It's never occurred to me to penetrate a state dinner at the White House, where I've been several times with appropriate clearance during the Bill Clinton days. I've been to a great many snazzy events, and my observation is that they generally do not live up to their billing, though of course it's always nice to be there. Except when it's a bore.

But if I lived on the East Coast rather than the West Coast, and cared about not being invited to the first state dinner of the Obama era, I see now that I've been missing out.

Evidently all you need is a very nice suit, a pretty blonde, and a bit of attitude. None of which are all that hard to pull off.

So, how could this go very badly for America?

Let's count the ways.

Death threats are mounting against Obama and liberal Democrats. Watch Fox News commentator Glenn Beck "role play" an assassination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

One could deploy a biological weapon such as anthrax or a radiological weapon. Yet, the reality is that one would not have to be able to do any of that to assassinate President Obama. A fairly pudgy far right blogger, or a benighted admirer of Al Qaeda, would still be able to pull that off.

All that is needed is to get within a few feet of the president.

And it does not require a gun.

Frankly, even the yutz who accompanied the blonde in crashing Obama's first state dinner could have wreaked havoc. We see pix of the couple with Biden and Emanuel. Their deaths would have been disrupting enough.

Now, the White House says that there was no danger for the president because everyone went through a magnetometer.

That's actually rather amusing.

You don't need a gun to kill the president. You don't even need a fork or a knife -- and those were available on every table at that state dinner -- to pull off an assassination. All you need is a few feet of access and a pair of strong and knowledgeable hands.

Now, I don't want to unnecessarily alarm people. But this president has done any number of things to seriously piss off a great many folks.

From the international far left, in the form of Islamic jihadists who have designs on Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, to the domestic far right, which feverishly imagines that Obama isn't really an American at all, but is instead a fraud who owes his election to the manipulation of ACORN and answers to radical Islam. It's all nonsense, but it's dangerous nonsense.

The couple who crashed a White House dinner shouldn't need legal help, an attorney who knows them said Thursday, as the Secret Service remained quiet publicly about the incredible security breach.

I worry about Obama. The far right in this country -- which increasingly dominates the Republican Party (over 40% believe that Obama isn't really an American, and that the relatively powerless ACORN, somehow, bizarrely, stole the election for him) -- is bent on painting him as a "Manchurian Candidate" other.

The jihadist far left -- or is it really far right? -- is coming to realize that Obama is their worst nightmare. He is America's first black president, with an unusual name and an obvious affinity for the "other." Since he is the "other."

As Rachel Maddow pointed out a few months ago, when she merely replayed an assassination fantasy of an increasingly famous broadcaster, the notion of violence and even assassination is being played up in our political "discourse."

Both extremes -- the Glenn Becks and the Osama bin Ladens -- want this president gone. Both extremes are, whether they acknowledge it or not, setting the stage to rationalize an assassination.

If I were in the White House, given the overall situation and the extraordinary security lapses of this first state dinner, I would be sending some folks to guard snow plows in Antarctica this weekend. The snow plows that aren't being used in vain to try to stop ice shelves from breaking off into the ocean, that is. The stakes are simply too high to be nice about this.

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

Andy Ostroy: Is Obama About to Make a Huge Mistake Over Afghanistan Troop Surge?

2009-11-25T18:38:54Z

President Obama announced this week that he'll be unveiling his war strategy for Afghanistan next Tuesday and in particular his decision on the September request made by Gen. Stanley McChrystal for an additional 40,000 troops. White House sources report that Obama will authorize just 30,000 which, if true, may be a huge political miscalculation.

Any additional troop authorization under the requested 40,000 is going to create a feeding-frenzy of Republicans rhetoric accusing the president of failing to listen to the generals; for being weak militarily; and for placating liberals. At a time when Obama's popularity is waning and he's facing uphill battles domestically on health care and the economy, the last thing he and Democrats need is to have the GOP attacking the administration on the war. So the obvious question is, if Obama's gonna up the ante to 30,000 troops, why not just give the general the 40,000 he asked for, albeit it with stringent progress demands, measurable benchmarks and realistic timetables for "mission accomplished" and a successful exit? In this explosively charged political climate, why feed right into the duplicitous hands of the "Obama doesn't support the troops" crowd?

Also, sending additionally troops--any additional amount--poses a huge political risk for the president among his supporters as well. A Nobel Peace Prize-winning Obama sounding the anti-war alarm while escalating the operation sends a very mixed, confusing message to those who voted for him and expected a troop draw-down rather than a build-up.

To be sure, the 'correct amount' of additional troops needed for the Afghanistan "surge" is an absolutely arbitrary number, with Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gen. McChrystal and countless others in disagreement over how many should be sent to complete the mission, whatever that is. So, why not defer to the leading commander in the region and give him what he sees in his McChrystal-ball rather than over-analyze the situation (as Obama's perhaps done for the past two months...only to come up with essentially the same conclusion), picking another number out of thin air which may or may not be the right one, and which allows your enemies to bash the crap out of you? Wouldn't it be more pragmatic and politically expedient to give the general the benefit of the doubt and shut down the engine of the right-wing attack-machine in the process? It just seems like Obama's regrettably setting the propaganda table for his ravenous GOP dinner guests.

Now on the other hand, instead of trying to play the "let's try to make everybody happy and ultimately make no one happy" game again, Obama could do what many believe he truly wants to, and what voters elected him to do: end the war, period. But this would mean acting on his true convictions. Now that would be novel, wouldn't it?

Harry Moroz: Creating Saved Jobs

2009-11-25T14:31:56Z

Attempts to paint the economic stimulus package as a failure begin with wordy paeans to budget austerity and end with anecdotes of Spanish wind turbines and prison inmates. Responsible Republicans claim to have proposed a more effective alternative to the stimulus, no matter that an economic adviser to their own presidential candidate rates the effectiveness of tax cuts lower than that of government spending.

But the stimulus truly was a model of political compromise, providing that devilish mixture of effective public policy - increased unemployment benefits, help for the uninsured, state aid - and politics - scaled back spending and a bill with a diluted purpose. This last element, embodied by a piece of legislation designed to boost aggregate demand and at the same time increase employment and prevent hardship for the worst off and invest in a clean energy economy and set the stage for long-term economic growth, was probably necessary for passage but also ensured that no single narrative for the stimulus's impact could be created.

Imperfect provisions accepted for expediency's sake - beyond the reduced size of the package - include state aid that shortchanged cities, shovel-ready requirements that have been observed more closely than requirements to focus money on areas of economic distress, and at times overly burdensome reporting requirements. Of course, the fact that we are in the midst of a "jobs crisis" does not mean that alternative measures should not be taken to deal with other problems (for instance, our gaping infrastructure deficit). But, especially now that Speaker Pelosi is considering deficit-neutral jobs legislation, the disparate nature of the stimulus perhaps drove a permanent wedge between what we think of as a stimulus bill and what we consider a jobs bill.

Whatever the actual content of the likely jobs bill, the legislation must be as straightforward as possible with the number of jobs saved and created as simply relatable to dollars spent as possible. This means that the administration and Congress should reconsider its support for something like the jobs tax credit. The credit, which would provide a tax break to companies for hiring workers, is as politically attractive as the housing tax credit, but is also susceptible to the same type of fraud as the housing credit and just as bereft of benefits.

The most important task of the administration, though, is to fight against the notion that saved jobs are any less important than created jobs. Sure, job creation is a sign that the economy has turned around for the non-Wall Street portion of the United States. But saved jobs mean fewer unemployed, fewer benefits paid out, more consumer spending, and less foreclosures, among other things. In fact, one of the best proposals for additional stimulus - direct aid to state and cities - is almost wholly reliant on saving jobs (some 900,000 of them). Right now, the administration is losing the battle for why saved jobs are important.

Future administrations will perhaps be loath to portray "stimulus" bills as job creators. It is essential, then, that the benefits of any "jobs bill" be readily apparent.

Susan Bevan: Reform...at What Cost?

2009-11-23T17:55:30Z

The recent debate on health care reform has brought new focus to the important issue of reproductive choice -- and a clear understanding that it cannot be taken for granted.

As the Senate prepares now to take up its version of a massive health care overhaul, pro-choice Americans are watching closely to see if the Senate will sell out the reproductive rights of women, just as the Democratic leadership did in the U.S. House. The potential ramifications of any legislation that would eliminate women's reproductive health choices -- effectively discriminating against American women -- will undoubtedly reverberate to the 2010 elections, and beyond.

The renewed focus on reproductive choice was triggered by the House's actions. In the frenzy to pass a health care bill -- any bill -- Nancy Pelosi and House majority leadership allowed a vote on the now-infamous Stupak Amendment. Sponsors of the amendment misrepresented their efforts as a move to stop federal funding for reproductive choice. In fact, there is already a ban on federal funding for abortion. What Stupak did was effectively ban insurance coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the new health exchange. Translation: it would make it nearly impossible for any American woman to obtain insurance coverage for abortion.

This travesty took place on the Democrats' watch. They cannot explain it away, and they cannot deny that they had complete control over this amendment's viability. This was an outrageous "compromise" that constituted no compromise at all. House Democrats, determined to push a health care reform bill this year, decided it was acceptable to sacrifice women's current reproductive health rights in the process.

The most unfortunate fall-out from this vote is that Congress is now legislating policy that is discriminatory against women, particularly low-income women. Abortion can be an expensive procedure, and many women, who use protection and practice responsible sex, still find themselves faced with an unwanted pregnancy for a multitude of reasons. The price tag attached to an abortion often means that, while every woman has the right to an abortion, only wealthier women have access to it.

Like it or not, abortion is a legal medical procedure and a decision that has to be left to doctors and families. Why are women being singled out and denied coverage, even through private plans? The claim that abortion is preventable or elective only underlines the discriminatory aspect of the Stupak Amendment. The truth is, countless treatments for preventable conditions, such as smoking cessation or the effects of obesity, are covered by private and public insurance plans. Would Congress ever offer amendments to unduly punish people who act 'irresponsibly' and make poor lifestyle choices by smoking, failing to wear seat belts or eating unhealthy foods? Of course not.

We do not, as a society, say, "I don't want my tax dollars to care for someone who has been in a car crash and didn't have a seat belt on." It sounds ludicrous. We all pay for people's regrettable decisions, and the financial impact of these 'preventable' medical needs is staggering. According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, $96.7 billion is spent on public and private health care combined annually due to smoking. Each year, each household spends $630 in federal and state taxes for expenses related to smoking. A new report released this week projects that in 10 years, 21% of all medical costs will go to treat diseases linked to obesity up from 9% we spend now.

Congress, the Senate and the President need to understand that women's reproductive health deserves the same equitable treatment that these other preventable medical procedures enjoy. It certainly must not be used as a bargaining chip in the rush to pass one of the largest legislative initiatives of our time. In fact, if the controlling Democrats cannot get their own majorities to agree on a health care compromise, that should make it clear that there are major problems that need to be addressed before dumping another expensive, government-run program on the American people.

As difficult as it is for real Republicans like us to admit, we've seen misguided efforts like the Stupak Amendment from extremists in our own party far too often. We have sadly watched as more and more women and 'moderate' voters have left our party because they believed the Democratic Party would do anything and everything to protect our individual freedom of reproductive choice. In one vote, that assumption was erased and pro-choice Americans are outraged.