Today, the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats (RIPDA) announced their endorsement of Betsy Dennigan for Congressional District 2, the seat currently being held by incumbent James Langevin.
To earn the endorsement, candidates were required to complete a six- section questionnaire reflecting their positions on the Progressive Democrats’ core issues. Candidates were also required to appear at the endorsement meeting held at the William Hall library in Cranston on Monday, August 16, 2010 to answer additional questions regarding the questionnaire. The side-by-side comparison of Rep. Langevin and Ms. Dennigan provided the endorsement committee with the opportunity to scrutinize the perspectives of the two candidates on issues that are very important to progressive groups and to decide which person’s vision for the country most closely reflects that of progressives.
The two candidates had similar views on several issues; however, Ms. Dennigan stood resolutely against the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and stated that she would never vote for any supplemental funds to support that buildup. In contrast, while Congressman Langevin expressed some reservations against the war, he did vote in favor of the $37 billion dollar supplemental funding bill. He told the group of RI Progressives that he was giving General Petraeus “a grace period.”
Another significant distinction between the two opponents is their view on President Obama’s bi–partisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform—a group which many progressives think will suggest major cuts in Social Security and MediCare while maintaining the military budget. Ms. Dennigan does not support any attempt to balance the budget by reducing the social services network while leaving the military budget completely intact.
Other differences between the two candidates included the candidates’ views on abortion and gay marriage. Dennigan is unequivocally in favor of a woman’s right to choose. Further, Ms. Dennigan is in favor of full marriage equality for the LGBT community.
Brian Hull, Interim State Coordinator of RI Progressive Democrats said that, “a strong commitment to progressive values is what the country needs moving forward. Ms. Dennigan has shown her commitment and it is with great pleasure that the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats throw their support behind her candidacy for Congress.”
In response to the endorsement, Mrs. Dennigan said, “in Congress, I will fight for progressive issues and stop the business of corporate influence taking priority over the public interest: campaign finance reform and fair elections, making sure our medicines and health care premiums are truly affordable, bringing our combat troops home, zealously protecting our environment, supporting women’s reproductive rights, marriage equality, and economic justice and easing the tax burden of the middle class are part of my progressive platform. I look forward to serving you in Congress.”
The endorsement committee of RIPDA is very enthusiastic about Betsy Dennigan’s candidacy, and is confident that the members of the RIPDA, as well as members of other like-minded organizations, will work hard to ensure her victory in the Democratic primary election on Sept. 14th and in the general election in November.
The Rhode Island Progressive Democrats is the state chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America. We strive for progressive change in the state of Rhode Island and this great nation both by working within the Democratic Party, reminding it that it is the party that represents the people not corporate elites, and by working outside the party through coalition building to collectively achieve mutually beneficial goals.
An RIPDA endorsement meeting will be on Monday, August 16, from 5-7 pm at the William Hall Library, 1825 Broad Street in Cranston, RI. The phone number for the library is 401-781-2450. This meeting will be to discuss who the RIPDA should endorse for Congressional District 2, the seat currently held by James Langevin. As many of you probably know, there are currently three Democrats running for this seat (the primary election will be on September 14).
An endorsement questionnaire was sent out to each candidate. Betsy Dennigan and James Langevin returned their questionnaires, therefore, only Dennigan and Langevin will be considered for the endorsement.
At the August 16 endorsement meeting, the membership will hear from Betsy Dennigan at 5:30 pm and from James Langevin at 6:15pm as they present their case as to why they should receive the endorsement of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats. Members will have an opportunity to ask questions, although questions should be directly related to the issues covered in the endorsement questionnaire or their governing style.
After the candidates have spoken, the membership will discuss the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses and will vote on whom to endorse.
“PDA is honored to join with Rhode Island PDA in endorsing David Segal in his race for Congress,” said Tim Carpenter, National Director of the Progressive Democrats of America. “David has a long track record speaking out on the issues that unite progressives. He has been out front calling for an end to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and speaking in favor of ’Medicare-for-all’. David will be a strong leader fighting for heath care not warfare in Washington DC!”
The national PDA endorsement is added to a growing list of progressive activist organizations supporting Segal’s campaign: Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, Rhode Island chapter of Democracy for America, USAction Fund for a True Majority, Blue America PAC, and the Rhode Island chapter of the American Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals.
“I’m honored to receive the support of the Progressive Democrats of America,” David Segal said. “The members of PDA are leaders nationally in the fight for health care for all, for ending the wars, and for making sure that our elected officials represent the will of the people, not the corporations and very wealthy that fund their campaigns.”
“We have a chance to have RI represented in the House of Representatives by a nationally-recognized progressive voice, one which our country desperately needs,” said Pat Smith, East Bay organizer and Congressional District 1 point person. ”David would vote no to additional funding for the war in Afghanistan; he would work to really end the war in Iraq; he has pledged to take no money from corporations for his campaign; basically he has an enlightened and moral view on every issue.”
State Coordinator, Robert Malin added, “David is running on Progressive principles because these are his core values. While Patrick Kennedy was becoming more progressive over the course of his career, David will be an independent thinker moving a progressive agenda ahead while the other candidates represent more of the status quo inside the Democratic Party.”
We must now answer the call to action and ensure that a reliable progressive champion, David Segal, is elected to the 1st Congressional District. The Rhode Island Progressive Democrats will be hosting a “calling party” for David Segal on Tuesday, August 3rd from 6:00–8:30pm at the home of Pat & Sam Smith, 59 Governor Bradford Dr. in Barrington, RI.
Additionally, David Segal’s campaign for Congressis knocking on doors and calling voters every single day at the campaign headquarters, 38 Transit Street in Providence’s Fox Point Neighborhood (between Benefit St and South Main). Please sign up and volunteer.
Today, the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats (RIPDA) announced their endorsement of David Segal for Congressional District 1, the seat being vacated by Patrick Kennedy.
“The endorsement vote went overwhelmingly for David Segal,” said Sam Smith, RIPDA member and moderator of the event. “Segal has a profound and thoughtful understanding of progressive issues and is committed to standing up for average Rhode Islanders, fighting for social and economic justice, protecting the environment, and working for peace in the Middle East.”
In response to the endorsement, Mr. Segal said, “I am honored to have earned the Rhode Island Chapter of Progressive Democrats of America’s support for our campaign, and your recognition that Rhode Islanders want a member of Congress they can trust to stand up to corporate interests and win real victories for working families.”
To earn the endorsement, candidates were required to complete a six section questionnaire reflecting their positions on the Progressive Democrats’ core issues. Candidates were also required to appear at the endorsement meeting held at Rochambeau Library in Providence on Thursday, July 15 to answer additional questions regarding the questionnaire.
Both Mr. Lynch and Mr. Segal sought the RIPDA endorsement and complied with the endorsement process. Mr. Gemma did not respond to two separate requests to seek the RIPDA endorsement. After multiple attempts to accommodate the Cicilline campaign, including extending the deadline for submitting the endorsement questionnaire twice, providing an opportunity to show a recorded statement at the endorsement meeting, and allowing for campaign staff to speak at the meeting, the Cicilline campaign chose not to participate in the endorsement process.
Robert Malin, State Coordinator for the RIPDA, commented, “many of Bill Lynch’s answers were consistent with the views of PDA, both on the questionnaire and at the meeting; however, Rep. Segal demonstrated that he was more committed to PDA’s progressive principles. It was unfortunate that Mayor Cicilline and Mr. Gemma chose not to return the questionnaire for consideration. The side by side comparison would have presented a unique opportunity to delve into the similarities and differences among these candidates.”
Both the Progressive Democrats of America and the RIPDA are very enthusiastic about Mr. Segal’s bold and reliably progressive candidacy, and are fully committed to ensuring his victory in the Democratic primary election on Sept. 14th and the general election in November.
In response to the endorsement, PDA national director Tim Carpenter said this, “We’ve had our eye on David Segal for a while and look forward to the July 29 meeting, where I have reason to believe, he will receive PDA’s national endorsement. Segal is exactly the right candidate at the right time to help address the worsening economic conditions for America’s working families.”
The Rhode Island Progressive Democrats is the state chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America. We strive for progressive change in the state of Rhode Island and this great nation by working within the Democratic Party, reminding them that they are the party that represents the people not corporate elites, and by working outside the party through coalition building to collectively achieve mutually beneficial goals.
Step One: Form a “Fiscal Commission” tasked with developing a plan (with the end result of implementing the plan) to reduce the budget deficit during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. This will be done by slashing spending on social services, MediCare, Social Security, education, etc. (all the things that working folks depend on), but not the military budget, bailouts for banks, corporate subsidies to businesses sending jobs overseas, etc. Check!
Step Two: Ignore the growth of income inequality in the U.S. over the past 30+ years, which is actually at the root of the economic problems the country faces. Don’t even mention it, and especially don’t do anything about it. Check!
I have watched in shocked horror over the past couple weeks, as conservative deficit hawks enabled by the Democratic Party, have marched toward a fiscal austerity program that will take the depressed and down economy and pummel it to a bloody pulp. This is all being done in order to alleviate some mythical inflationary pressure that wealthy bankers are terrified of (remember, inflation is the biggest enemy of accumulated wealth).
Of course none of this really matters to the tens of millions of people who are looking for work, have had their hours cuts, have been forced into part-time work, or are in fear of losing their jobs (55% of all adults in the labor force have been affected by this recession in some way).
The real problem is that people aren’t spending money because of the recession, and that is directly related to the growth in income inequality, albeit in complicated ways. Since the 1970s, U.S. wages have largely remained stagnant. At the same time, the vast majority of all the wealth created in the country over the last 30 years has been flowing upward.
Because the super wealthy don’t actually work to generate their income, wages as a share of national income has been declining for just as long. What that means is less and less money is being earned by workers, and that’s bad for the economy because workers spending money is what fuels economic growth. Consumers earning more money means that they can buy more goods and services, increasing the effective demand in an economy. Seems pretty simple, right? Well, yes, it is.
But Brian, if wages have been stagnant for 30 years, then why has the economy been growing that whole time? I’m glad you asked. The economy didn’t tank sooner because people have been supplementing their stagnant or declining wage income with credit and debt. As a society, America took out more and more, and larger and larger, loans either through credit cards, home equity loans, mortgages, payday loans, and all the other delightful financial products offered by financial institutions intent on making money off of your debt. Notably, as fake housing wealth grew, people used their homes as ATMs – we’re currently seeing how good of an idea that was (and once the housing bubble burst, the $1 trillion of increased demand that was based on it vanished).
As a result of all this borrowing, middle class Americans tripled their debt over the last 30 years. As we all know, when debt rises, service on the debt rises. That is yet another mechanism that sucks dollars from a local economy and puts it in the bank account of CEOs, exacerbating the income inequality problem (always remember that when millions of people have been losing their jobs since 2007, Wall Street managed to find $145 billion to pay in bonuses in 2009 alone).
Yes, there’s more to the story, there always is. But here we are, discussing the budget deficit and the national debt when the real problem is that average workers are getting screwed, they haven’t been making enough money to keep pace with the increases in the cost of living, virtually all the wealth accumulates into the hands of the few, and Democrats and Republicans continue to let it happen.
We need to put more money in the hands of people who will spend it in the economy – that’s the only way jobs will come back. Why the federal government isn’t spending every waking moment developing a strategy for making this happen is beyond me. Instead we get bank bailouts and financial reform legislation that makes Wall Street happy.
We expect Republicans to screw workers – that’s what they do. But Democrats have, time and again, been complicit in the weakening of the middle class. And it’s no different now.
An RIPDA endorsement meeting will be on July 15th from 6:30-8:30pm at the Rochambeau Public Library, 708 Hope Street in Providence, RI 02906. The phone number for the library is 401-272-3780. This meeting will be to discuss who the RIPDA should endorse for Congressional District 1, the seat being vacated by Patrick Kennedy. As many of you probably know, there are currently four Democrats running for this seat (the primary election will be on September 14).
An endorsement questionnaire was sent out to each candidate with a deadline for completion of June 30. Only two candidates returned the questionnaires, David Segal and Bill Lynch, therefore, only these two candidates will be considered for the endorsement.
At the July 15 endorsement meeting, the membership will hear from David Segal and Bill Lynch as they present their case as to why the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats should endorse them. Members will have an opportunity to ask the candidates questions, although questions should be directly related to the issues covered in the endorsement questionnaire or their governing style.
After each candidate has spoken, the membership will discuss the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses and will vote on whom to endorse for Congressional District 1.
In the furious debate gripping America over the future of its health system, one voice has been lost amid the shouting. It is that of a distinguished gynaecologist, aged 67, called Dr Joseph Manley.
For 35 years Manley had a thriving health clinic in Kansas. He lived in the most affluent neighbourhood of Kansas City and treated himself to a new Porsche every year. But this is not a story about doctors’ remuneration and their lavish lifestyles.
In the late 1980s he began to have trouble with his own health. He had involuntary muscle movements and difficulty swallowing. Fellow doctors failed to diagnose him, some guessing wrongly that he had post-traumatic stress from having served in the airforce in Vietnam.
Eventually his lack of motor control interfered with his work to the degree that he was forced to give up his practice. He fell instantly into a catch 22 that he had earlier seen entrap many of his own patients: no work, no health insurance, no treatment.
He remained uninsured and largely untreated for his progressively severe condition for the following 11 years. Blood tests that could have diagnosed him correctly were not done because he couldn’t afford the $200. Having lost his practice, he lost his mansion on the hill and now lives in a one-bedroom apartment in the suburbs. His Porsches have made way for bangers. Many times this erstwhile pillar of the medical establishment had to go without food in order to pay for basic medicines. In 2000 Manley finally found the help he needed, at a clinic in Kansas City that acts as a rare safety net for uninsured people. He was swiftly diagnosed with Huntington’s disease, a degenerative genetic illness, and now receives regular medical attention through the clinic.
So how does he feel about the way the debate in the US has come to be dominated by Republican-inspired attacks on Britain’s NHS and other “socialised” health services which give people the treatment they need even if they cannot afford to pay for it?
“I find that repulsive and an absolutely bone-headed way to go,” he says. “When I started out practising I certainly didn’t expect this would happen. I thought the system would take care of everybody.”
Over the last month President Obama’s attempts to live up to his election promise to extend healthcare to all Americans has stalled in the face of a sustained rightwing guerrilla attack. Opponents of Obama’s reforms have succeeded in distracting attention from Manley and the 46 million other medically uninsured, swinging the focus instead on to the “evils” of publicly funded healthcare. The fear tactics were epitomised by Sarah Palin’s wholly inaccurate claim that the reforms would set up “death panels” that would force euthanasia on to older people.
Such scaremongering has dismayed and infuriated Sharon Lee, the doctor who now treats Manley in Kansas City. “I’m very angry, very angry,” she says. “Many of the people I treat have already been in front of a death panel and have lost – a death panel controlled by insurance companies. I see people dying at least monthly because we have been unable to get them what they needed.”
Lee’s clinic, Family Health Care, is a refuge of last resort. It picks up the pieces of lives left shattered by a health system that has failed them, and tries to glue them back together. It exists largely outside the parameters of formal health provision, raising funds through donations and paying all its 50 staff – Lee included – a flat rate of just $12 an hour.
Poverty line
Lee has just opened an outpost of her clinic in the outlying neighbourhood of Quindaro, an area of boarded-up houses and deserted factories where work is hard to find and crack plentiful and a per capita income is $11,025. A third of the population is below the federally defined poverty line.
And yet the local health department has decided the only health centre in the area will be closed by the end of this year and moved 30 blocks west to a much more prosperous part of the city where income levels are five times higher. Before long, one of the poorest areas of Kansas – of America – will be left without a single doctor, with only Lee’s voluntary services to fall back on.
Even that is academic. Many of the residents of Quindaro were unable to see a doctor in any case – because they were uninsured. In Kansas, anyone who is able-bodied but unemployed is not eligible for government-backed health insurance as is anyone earning more than 39% of federal poverty levels. That leaves a huge army of jobless and low-income working families who are left in limbo. “It’s the working poor who are most at disadvantage,” Lee says.
As a result, she sees the same pattern repeating itself over and over. People with no insurance avoid seeking medical help for fear of the bills that follow, until it is too late. “When people come in they are already very, very sick. They have avoided seeing the doctor thinking that something may clear up, hoping they may be getting better.”
Beth Gabaree, who came in to see Lee for the first time this morning, has experiences that sound extreme but are in fact quite typical. She has diabetes and a heart condition. Until two years ago they were controlled through ongoing treatment paid for by her husband’s work-based health insurance. But he was in a motorbike crash that pulverised his right leg and put him out of work.
That Catch 22 again: no work, no insurance, no treatment. Except in this case it was Beth who went without treatment, in order to put her husband’s dire needs first. He receives ongoing specialist care that costs them $500 a go, leaving nothing for her. So she stopped seeing a doctor, and effectively began self-medicating. She cut down from two different insulin drugs to regulate her diabetes to one, and restricted her heart drugs. “I do what I think I need to do to keep four steps out of hospital. I know that’s not the right thing, but I can’t justify seeing the doctor when my family’s already in money trouble.”
The problem is that she hasn’t kept herself four steps out of hospital. Her health deteriorated and earlier this year she became bedridden. Even then, it took her family several days to persuade her to go to the emergency room because she didn’t want to incur the hospital costs. “It was hard enough without that,” she says.
After an initial consultation, Lee has now booked Gabaree for a new round of tests for her diabetes and is arranging for free medication. “It’s wonderful,” Gabaree says. “I’m so blessed. I didn’t know you could get this sort of help.”
That she sees basic healthcare as a blessing, not as a right, speaks volumes about attitudes among the mass of the working poor. Also revealing is the fact that Gabaree has absolutely no idea about the debate raging across America. She hasn’t even heard of Obama’s push for health reform, nor the Republican efforts to prevent it. “I don’t watch much television,” she says.
That provides Palin et al with a massive advantage: the 46 million people who would most benefit from Obama’s plans are also among the least educated and informed, and thus the least able to make political waves. All of which leaves Lee fearful about the prospects for change. She has, after all, been here before – in 1993 when Hillary Clinton’s pitch to overhaul the health system foundered. That attempt ended up doing more harm than good from Lee’s perspective. Many of her most important donors stopped funding the centre because they assumed that the White House was fixing the problems. After the Clinton reforms crashed, brought down by the same rightwing assault that Obama is now enduring, it took many months for the centre’s funds to regain their pre-1993 levels.
Recession
Lee fears history could be repeating itself. This time round there is the recession more unemployed equals more uninsured people who come knocking on the door of Family Health Care. Last year Lee and one other doctor between them dealt with 14,000 visits, and the numbers are rising daily. All of which leaves Lee part despairing, part determined to fight even harder for the bare minimum of human dignity. The frustration is that every day she must beg and plead with other health providers for simple treatments for her patients. “It drives me crazy with frustration,” she says.
She rattles off a litany of horror stories. There was the man who walked into the clinic with a brain tumour. It took Lee three months to get him an MRI scan and another two to get an appointment with a neurosurgeon. Or the patient whose nerves in his neck were pushed against his spinal cord so that he lost use of both arms; by the time Lee found a way of getting him an MRI he was so sick he had to be operated on immediately. Or the woman who had such heavy periods she would wind up in ER every three months requiring a blood transfusion. What she really needed was a hysterectomy. “It took us almost a year to beg hospitals until she finally did get a hysterectomy,” Lee says.
These are the stories, the broken lives, that have been obscured by the fury generated by the Republican rump. Unless Obama finds a way to regain the political initiative, to remind Americans that only nine months ago they voted overwhelmingly for change, then the future of millions appears bleak.
“Here’s what I’d like to ask Palin,” Lee says. “People without health insurance are dying, here in America, right now. So I’d like to ask her: how does that fit into your vision of good and evil, Sarah Palin?”
Obama’s plan: health of the nation
What is Obama trying to do?
The goal is to increase access to healthcare by regulating costs. His plan would guarantee all citizens eligibility for care, but the government is not proposing a “single-payer system”, like the NHS. Instead, private health insurers would continue to operate under new rules that would lower premiums and remove loopholes that allow them to avoid paying for treatment when it is most needed. Per person, healthcare costs are higher in the US than in any other country, and have been rising faster than the level of inflation. The quality of care is less of an issue — although citizens with solid insurance may be frustrated by the paperwork and costs associated with the current system, they have fewer complaints about their doctors and hospitals.
Who’s opposing Obama’s plan?
Those who fear the government would introduce congressional “death panels” to make end-of-life decisions for the elderly. The insurance industry is worried about their bottom lines. Members of Congress and voters on the left and right are concerned about the future tax burden. Many Americans also object to any increase in government involvement in their personal lives.
How can healthcare costs get so out of hand?
Many insurance plans do not cover “pre-existing conditions”, so it can be difficult for people who have a chronic ailment to secure cover. Loopholes allow insurers to refuse reimbursement even if the policyholder did not know they had a particular condition when they took out insurance. “Lifetime caps” allow insurers to set a maximum amount of cover.
Who are the uninsured?
Up to 46 million Americans are uninsured, because they are unemployed, or their employer does not provide cover, or because they do not qualify for existing government-funded healthcare. People 65 and older can qualify for Medicare, the poor can qualify for Medicaid, veterans and members of the military can qualify for Veterans Health Administration and Tricare and children can be covered under a programme called SCHIP. Those overlooked by the system include the young just entering the workforce, the self-employed, the unemployed and people who work for small businesses.
Vice President Joe Biden told us this week that the Obama administration “misread how bad the economy was” in the immediate aftermath of the inauguration.
Puh-leeze. Mr. Biden and President Obama won the election because the economy was cratering so badly there were fears we might be entering another depression. No one understood that better than the two of them. Mr. Obama tried to clean up the vice president’s remarks by saying his team hadn’t misread what was happening, but rather “we had incomplete information.”
That doesn’t hold water, either. The president has got the second coming of the best and the brightest working for him down there in Washington (think of Larry Summers as the latter-day Robert McNamara), and they’re crunching numbers every which way they can. They’ve got more than enough data. They understand the theories and the formulas as well as anyone. But they’re not coming up with the right answers because they’re missing the same thing that McNamara and his fellow technocrats were missing back in the 1960s: the human equation.
The crisis staring America in its face and threatening to bring it to its knees is unemployment. Joblessness. Why it is taking so long — seemingly forever — for our government officials to recognize the scope of this crisis and confront it directly is beyond me.
There are now five unemployed workers for every job opening in the U.S. The official unemployment rate is 9.5 percent, but that doesn’t begin to tell the true story of the economic suffering. The roof is caving in on struggling American families that have already seen the value of their homes and retirement accounts put to the torch.
At the present rate, upwards of seven million homes can be expected to fall into foreclosure this year and next. Welfare rolls are rising, according to a survey by The Wall Street Journal. The National Employment Law Project has pointed out that hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers will begin losing their jobless benefits, just about the only thing keeping them above water, by the end of the summer.
Virtually all of the job growth since the start of the 21st century (which was nothing to crow about) has vanished. If you include the men and women who are now working part time but would like to work full time, and those who have become so discouraged that they’ve stopped actively searching for work, you’ll find that 16.5 percent of Americans are jobless or underemployed. Nearly everyone who is fortunate enough to have a job has a spouse or a parent or an in-law or a close friend who is desperate for employment.
Anyone who believes that the Obama stimulus package will turn this jobs crisis around is deluded. It was too small, too weakened by tax cuts and not nearly focused enough on creating jobs. It’s like trying to turn a battleship around with a canoe. Even if it were working perfectly, the stimulus would not come close to stemming the cascade of joblessness unleashed by this megarecession.
I’d like to see the president go on television and, in a dramatic demonstration of real leadership, announce a plan geared toward increasing employment that is both big and visionary — something on the scale of the Manhattan Project, or the interstate highway program or the Apollo spaceflight initiative.
My choice would be a “Rebuild America” campaign that would put men and women to work repairing, maintaining, designing and rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure in the broadest sense — everything from roads and schools and the electrical power grid to innovative environmental initiatives and a sparkling new mass transportation network, including high-speed rail systems.
One of the ways of financing such an effort would be through the creation of a national infrastructure bank, which would provide federal investment capital for approved projects and use that money to leverage additional private investment.
There was a time when Americans could think on such a scale and get it done. We used to be better than any other nation on the planet at getting things done. It would be tragic if the 21st century turns out to be the time when that extraordinary can-do spirit disappears and we’re left with nothing more meaningful and exciting than lusting after tax cuts and trying to pay off credit card debt.
The joblessness the nation is experiencing is crushing any hope of a real economic recovery. With so many Americans maxed out on their credit cards and with the value of their homes deep in the tank, the only money available to spend in most cases is from paychecks. The best and the brightest in Washington may have a theory about how to get the economy booming without dealing with the employment crisis, but I’d like to see that theory work in the real world.
A few weeks ago there was a furor when the budget office “scored” two incomplete Senate health reform proposals — that is, estimated their costs and likely impacts over the next 10 years. One proposal came in more expensive than expected; the other didn’t cover enough people. Health reform, it seemed, was in trouble.
But last week the budget office scored the full proposed legislation from the Senate committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP). And the news — which got far less play in the media than the downbeat earlier analysis — was very, very good. Yes, we can reform health care.
Let me start by pointing out something serious health economists have known all along: on general principles, universal health insurance should be eminently affordable.
After all, every other advanced country offers universal coverage, while spending much less on health care than we do. For example, the French health care system covers everyone, offers excellent care and costs barely more than half as much per person as our system.
And even if we didn’t have this international evidence to reassure us, a look at the U.S. numbers makes it clear that insuring the uninsured shouldn’t cost all that much, for two reasons.
First, the uninsured are disproportionately young adults, whose medical costs tend to be relatively low. The big spending is mainly on the elderly, who are already covered by Medicare.
Second, even now the uninsured receive a considerable (though inadequate) amount of “uncompensated” care, whose costs are passed on to the rest of the population. So the net cost of giving the uninsured explicit coverage is substantially less than it might seem.
Putting these observations together, what sounds at first like a daunting prospect — extending coverage to most or all of the 45 million people in America without health insurance — should, in the end, add only a few percent to our overall national health bill. And that’s exactly what the budget office found when scoring the HELP proposal.
Now, about those specifics: The HELP plan achieves near-universal coverage through a combination of regulation and subsidies. Insurance companies would be required to offer the same coverage to everyone, regardless of medical history; on the other side, everyone except the poor and near-poor would be obliged to buy insurance, with the aid of subsidies that would limit premiums as a share of income.
Employers would also have to chip in, with all firms employing more than 25 people required to offer their workers insurance or pay a penalty. By the way, the absence of such an “employer mandate” was the big problem with the earlier, incomplete version of the plan.
And those who prefer not to buy insurance from the private sector would be able to choose a public plan instead. This would, among other things, bring some real competition to the health insurance market, which is currently a collection of local monopolies and cartels.
The budget office says that all this would cost $597 billion over the next decade. But that doesn’t include the cost of insuring the poor and near-poor, whom HELP suggests covering via an expansion of Medicaid (which is outside the committee’s jurisdiction). Add in the cost of this expansion, and we’re probably looking at between $1 trillion and $1.3 trillion.
There are a number of ways to look at this number, but maybe the best is to point out that it’s less than 4 percent of the $33 trillion the U.S. government predicts we’ll spend on health care over the next decade. And that in turn means that much of the expense can be offset with straightforward cost-saving measures, like ending Medicare overpayments to private health insurers and reining in spending on medical procedures with no demonstrated health benefits.
So fundamental health reform — reform that would eliminate the insecurity about health coverage that looms so large for many Americans — is now within reach. The “centrist” senators, most of them Democrats, who have been holding up reform can no longer claim either that universal coverage is unaffordable or that it won’t work.
The only question now is whether a combination of persuasion from President Obama, pressure from health reform activists and, one hopes, senators’ own consciences will get the centrists on board — or at least get them to vote for cloture, so that diehard opponents of reform can’t block it with a filibuster.
This is a historic opportunity — arguably the best opportunity since 1947, when the A.M.A. killed Harry Truman’s health-care dreams. We’re right on the cusp. All it takes is a few more senators, and HELP will be on the way.
Back in 2002, the Rhode Island General Assembly, in its infinite wisdom, passed what is known as the alternative flat tax option. This special tax break went into effect in 2006, and is essentially a reduction of the top marginal income tax rate for the state. Year after year this flat tax rate gets smaller and will eventually cap out at 5.5% in tax year 2011.
Now, I know what some of you are going to say, any reduction in taxes is a good thing because Rhode Island’s taxes are just too damn high. While Rhode Island’s taxes may seem high, it’s not entirely true and depends on the specific taxes. More importantly, however, while anyone can use the alternative flat tax to determine their tax liability to the state, the benefits of the alternative flat tax flow almost exclusively to those Rhode Island tax filers making over $200,000 a year. This special tax cut only benefits less than 1/2 of 1% of those filing Rhode Island personal income tax forms. Of the 490,975 tax forms filed in 2007, only 2,267 of them were flat tax forms.
Even more egregious, almost 2/3 (63%) of the people benefiting from the alternative flat tax live out-of-state – there were 1,429 of them in tax year 2007. So not only are we lowering taxes on those who are most able to pay while the rest of us struggle to make ends meet during the recession, 2/3 of the benefit crosses the border into Massachusetts and Connecticut. Only 838 Rhode Island residents benefited from the alternative flat tax in 2007.
Now let’s look at the escalating cost of the alternative flat tax option. In tax year 2007, the reduced personal income tax revenue cost the state $14.1 million. This means that each of the 2,267 flat tax filers, who each make more than $200,000 annually, received an average tax cut of over $6,200. As the flat tax rate decreases, more individual tax filers will benefit from the reduced tax rate and will use the flat tax option, and the state will lose even more money. This will happen year after year, until 2010 when the state will lose over $77 million every year. As a reminder, about 2/3 of this money (around $50 million starting in 2011) will leave the state.
The alternative flat tax is expensive, and it is a growing problem. It benefits only a handful of Rhode Island residents while 2/3 of the tax cut leaves the state. So, let me ask a simple question… Why did the state “spend” $14.1 million for the benefit of the wealthiest 838 Rhode Island residents?
We are at a critical point for Rhode Island’s fiscal health. The newest update from the Revenue Estimating Conference shows Rhode Island’s deficit grew by $200 million to a total deficit of $590 million for FY 2010. Since 2004, the structural deficit has grown each year, despite the repeated claim that tax cuts will generate jobs and grow our economy. The Governor has presented his budget designed to handicap Obama’s stimulus plan, the House and Senate Finance Committees are debating it now, and it is assumed that the vote will happen sometime in mid-June.
Please join us for a discussion about Rhode Island’s current budget deficit and taxation policy. The current fiscal crisis will be examined with regard to recently enacted budget and taxation policies and the current economic recession. Components of the Governor’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget will be explained and a responsible alternative will be presented to ameliorate the ongoing structural deficit.
Ample time will be provided for a question and answer period. After the presentation, attendees will be encouraged to contact their state Representatives and Senators.
For your convenience, the budget presentation will be given in six different locations around the state. Space is limited, however, so please RSVP by clicking the links below.
Monday, June 1st – 6:30-8pm – RSVP Richmond Senior Center, 1168 Main Street, Richmond, RI
Tuesday, June 2nd – 6:30-8pm – RSVP
Middletown Public Library, 700 West Main Road, Middletown, RI
Wednesday, June 3rd – 6:30-8pm – RSVP
Harmony Public Library, 195 Putnam Pike, Harmony (Chepachet), RI
Thursday, June 4th – 6:30-8pm – RSVP
Rogers Free Library, 525 Hope Street, Bristol, RI
Tuesday, June 9th – 6:30-8pm – RSVP
Peace Dale Library, 1057 Kingstown Road, Peace Dale, RI
Thursday, June 11th – 6:30-8pm – RSVP
Rochambeau Public Library, 708 Hope Street, Providence, RI
In recent weeks, new revelations about the harsh interrogation and torture of detainees during the Bush administration years have made headlines and stirred controversy. The positions of prominent advocates and opponents on each side are clear. But what do we know about how the American people in general have come to view the use of torture by the U.S. government?
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has been polling Americans on this key question for almost five years. Since 2004, representative samples have been asked, “Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?” The results over this time period have shown only minor fluctuations. The most recent numbers, from last month, reveal that 15% of Americans believe torture is often justified, 34% think it is sometimes justified, 22% consider it rarely justified, and 25% believe torture is never justified. So not only do 49% consider torture justified at least some of the time, fully 71% refuse to rule it out entirely.
Further insight into these numbers can be garnered from a different poll conducted a few months ago, in January 2009. Fox News/Opinion Dynamics asked a national sample of Americans, “Do you think the use of harsh interrogation techniques, including torture, has ever saved American lives since the September 11 (2001) terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?” The results: 45% “Yes” and 41% “No” (with 14% responding ‘Don’t Know”). In other words, almost half of Americans think torture “works.”
BAGHDAD – An American soldier opened fire at a counseling center on a military base Monday, killing five fellow soldiers before being taken into custody, the U.S. command and Pentagon officials said.
Although it was unclear what prompted the shooting, the incident draws attention to the issue of combat stress and morale after six years of war as the mission of the 130,000-strong force transforms to one of training and mentoring the Iraqis.
Attacks on fellow soldiers, known as fraggings, were not uncommon during the Vietnam war but are believed to be rare in Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Barack Obama said in a statement that he was “shocked and deeply saddened” by the report, adding that “my heart goes out to the families and friends” of all those involved “in this horrible tragedy.”
After a meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Obama said he would make sure “that we fully understand what led to this tragedy” and will do everything possible “to ensure that our men and women in uniform are protected as they serve our country so capably and courageously in harm’s way.”
A brief U.S. military statement said the assailant was taken into custody following the 2 p.m. shooting at Camp Liberty, a sprawling U.S. base on the western edge of Baghdad near the city’s international airport. Obama visited an adjacent base last month.
The current economic crisis threatens to be worse than the Great Depression, yet our federal government hasn’t shown any indication that it will thoroughly investigate how it happened and why. Instead, we’ve only been told that our economy will collapse unless we give unprecedented amounts of public money to the very financial markets whose actions have created this crisis. It is unwise to carry on in the same way without fully understanding what occurred in the financial markets to bring us to this outcome.
To this end, we advocate for the authorization of a special prosecutor with full subpoena power to investigate any person or institution that had a major role in creating or exacerbating this crisis. A precedent for this has already been set when in 1932 the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking and Currency began the Pecora Investigation to determine the causes of the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
A thorough investigation is necessary to learn the facts in order to guide corrective legislation and to prevent further financial crises. The public has suffered dearly in terms of lost employment, lost retirements, lost homes, lost health care, as well as the staggering sums of money paid to banks instead of being spent for other public needs. These catastrophic losses have occurred to the public even though they have done nothing wrong.
In particular, the following subjects need to be critically examined by a special prosecutor with unrestricted subpoena power:
1) To what extent did the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act (1999) contribute to the economic crisis?
2) To what extent did the unregulated nature of Credit Default Swaps (CDS) contribute to the crisis? Furthermore, because CDSs are essentially derivative contracts more akin to an insurance policy rather than a financial instrument, should they be regulated according to insurance industry standards?
3) To what extent did members of Congress and/or their family members benefit from the deregulation of derivatives and CDs and did the potential monetary gains influence the method of passage of specific deregulation (the legislation was added to the 11,000 page Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 leaving no time for review it before its passage)? Specific individuals to investigate in this regard are: Senators Gramm, Lugar and Ewing.; Larry Summers, then Treasury Secretary, now in the President Obama’s National Economic Council; Alan Greenspan; Arthur Levitt.
4. To what extent has the creation of specific derivatives led to payment avoidance of U.S. taxes? These derivatives should be identified and outlawed.
5. Should a tax be levied on any or all financial instruments in order to assist investment banks in the repayment of public monies granted from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)? Reliable sources estimate that a small 0.1% tax on such instruments could generate about $500 billion each year.
6. Would the direct lending from the federal government through a newly establish consumer lending bank be more fruitful in relieving the credit crisis than giving money to failed banks, at no interest, so the banks can begin loaning money back to the public at an interest rate of their choosing? Moreover, should the banks receiving public funds through TARP be allowed to charge interest on the loans given to the public?
7. Explain where the trillions of dollars of money went which was made each and every year on financial instruments. How could that money have simply vanished, causing a credit crisis which required interest-free public money to correct?
8. Address why, If Larry Summers helped cause this crisis, why is he still on the Obama team?
9. Have any of the sellers of bundled mortgages, derivatives, CDS’s, or other financial instruments committed consumer or banking fraud according to existing laws?
10. Is it possible that a group of financial extremists within the financial industry didn’t intentionally create this crisis so they could profit when the market was going up (i.e. selling derivatives and CDS’s) and then make even more money when the market was in decline?
11. Did the Federal Reserve have any role, specifically through the promotion of banking deregulation, in causing the current crisis?
12. To what extent did Standard & Poors, Moody’s, and other rating agencies engage in fraud and/or other corrupt practices by issuing extremely high ratings (AAA) to extremely risky derivatives and other financial instruments?
13. Restrict the practice of selling hedge funds, short selling, and options trading.
14. Investigate employees of banks receiving TARP funds who were recipients of bonuses.
“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Baldacci said in a statement. ”I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”
There is serious legislative activity to approve gay marriage in DC (where last night the city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere), New Jersey, New Hampshire and New York.
Also, in California, there’s a state Supreme Court challenge to Prop. 8.
As we wrote this morning, it’s example #457 that we’re long removed from 2004.
Here’s Baldacci’s full statement:
I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully. I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.
I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue. This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.
In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions. I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.
Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’
This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Governor Baldacci said. It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government. Even as I sign this important legislation into law, I recognize that this may not be the final word. Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people.
While the good and just people of Maine may determine this issue, my responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and do, as best as possible, what is right. I believe that signing this legislation is the right thing to do.
Today, the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats (RIPDA) announced their endorsement of 
Following 
