ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Sen. Johnny Isakson thinks a public plan competing against private health care programs is a ‘good system.’

Johnny IsaksonOn Monday, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) told the Georgia Public Broadcasting News that although he opposes a single-payer system, he would support a system where there is competition between public and private health care programs:

ISAKSON: Having private competition, facilities like Emory that are private, public like Grady competing with one another is a good system. What we have got to guard against is becoming a single-payer government system. You take competition out of health care and you’ll have less quality and a higher cost.

Listen here:

Indeed, President Obama outlined Monday that he too opposes single-payer and would prefer a system where “the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option” because “it will keep them honest and it will keep — help keep their prices down.” Is Isakson prepared to vote for Obama’s health care plan?

Health

A Good Example Of Bipartisanship In Health Care Reform

majorityleaders4

While elected Republicans are busy polishing their Luntz-inspired, poll-tested talking points about a government takeover of the health care system and complaining about a ‘lack of bipartisanship,’ a bipartisan group of former Senate Majority Leaders — Howard Baker (R-TN), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Bob Dole (R-KS) and George Mitchell (D-ME) — have released a comprehensive health care proposal that incorporates many of the President’s principles. Jonathan Cohn has the details:

There is a requirement that businesses pay towards the cost of insurance for their employees, along with a requirement that everybody get insurance. To make coverage affordable and available to individuals and small businesses that can’t get coverage now, the bipartisan group would set up an insurance exchange; there, insurers couldn’t deny people coverage or charge them more just because they have pre-existing conditions. People buying insurance through the exchange would also be eligible for subsidies, depending on their income levels.

To pay for the plan, the bipartisan group would draw on a combination of new revenues and savings from the health systems–again, not radically different from the ideas now under consideration in Congress. They’d try to squeeze $500 billion out of Medicare and Medicaid, another $500 billion from new revenues including a cap on the exclusion for employer tax benefits, plus $200 billion in some other efficiency changes. That would make the measure revenue neutral, since projections (from MIT economist Jonathan Gruber) show the new outlays would add up to $1.2 trillion over ten years.

This may be the first comprehensive, bipartisan proposal that seeks to truly bridge the gap between the ideologies. As such, it has a little something for everyone. Progressives may be disappointed with the proposal’s reliance on federal standards as a minimum for benefits (although that’s just a minimum and states may go beyond if they chose), limiting the tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage (although retirees and collective bargaining agreements are exempt) and a state-based trigger that would allow the federal government to provide financial and technical assistance to states that want to establish alternatives to private insurance.

But this is what compromise looks like. In turn, Republicans Dole and Baker embraced Medicaid expansion, an employer mandate, an individual mandate, an independent health care council that would “make recommendations to improve quality of care and avoid unnecessary costs in federal health programs,” comparative effectiveness research “relevant to patient decisions and effective health care policy reforms,” funding for quality measures, and reimbursement reforms to reward quality and care coordination. These are no small concessions and they would have been unimaginable just 16 years ago.

The truth is, this fully financed proposal includes 70-80 percent of the President’s principles. It builds on the employer-based system and really goes a long way towards ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable and adequate coverage. But the politics are also important. Baker, Daschle, Dole and Mitchell know the Senate and the mechanics of achieving bipartisan compromise. Their endorsement is not only refreshing (given the current state of debate) but it’s also politically encouraging.

Politics

Copy Of Black’s ‘Strongly Worded Reprimand’ To Aide For Racist E-mail: ‘I Look Forward To Working Together’

dianeblackred Pressure has been building on Tennessee State Sen. Diane Black (R) to fire her aide, Sherri Goforth, who sent an e-mail with a racist image of President Obama. Today on CNN, for example, former Cheney aide Ron Christie said that “I think the appropriate course of action would be for this staffer to be dismissed.”

However, Black has dug in her heels. Yesterday, she told CNN that that although the e-mail “does not represent the beliefs or opinions of my office,” she decided to keep Goforth on:

When I did find out about the communication that was sent out, I immediately called the H.R. department and through their advice did what they told me needed to be done when there was a violation of an e-mail policy by the state. And so, therefore, as you have already stated, Miss Goforth did get a verbal reprimand as well as a very strongly worded reprimand written and it was put in her file that if this should ever occur again, that she should be immediately terminated.

As the Knoxville News Sentinel reports, the Tennessee Democratic Party has obtained a copy of this “strongly worded reprimand,” which is barely a slap on the wrist. Black advises Goforth not to send communications that are “derogatory regarding any minority” and adds, “I look forward to working together in the future within these guidelines.” The letter:

goforthletter

Goforth initially refused to apologize for the racist imagery, saying only that she sent it to the wrong list. (She eventually apologized for the “offensive nature” of her e-mail.)

Black has repeatedly insisted that Goforth’s e-mail did not “reflect any of my beliefs.” As proof she has cited her time as a nurse, “working with people with black skin who needed medical help” around the world.

Security

Nassar: Twitter Enables Authentic Voices

Our guest blogger is David Nassar, a Vice-President for Strategy with Blue State Digital. In April, Nassar was part of the U.S. State Department’s New Media Technology Delegation to Iraq

In the last days there has been an explosion of Tweets out of Iran, and a resulting boom in the number of stories covering it. There are now nearly 5000 in a Google News search ranging from the Atlantic, to the Christian Science Monitor to Wired. Everyone is touting Twitter and debating the end of the mainstream media.

Most of the focus has been on the tool, and for sure Twitter is amazing. Twitter makes it so simple to post updates about what is happening around you that anyone can do it. That has generated the volume coming in and as enough voices tell similar stories, patterns have emerged that cannot be denied, which is why everyone from CNN to FoxNews has become more engaged.

Beyond the tool though, lost in that debate is a strong analysis of the motivation behind its use. To the extent it has been covered, people have talked about where CNN failed. However, it is not only that mainstream media has shortcomings, which it does. Rather, it is that Twittter is now able to challenge mainstream media for credible reporting. This is historic. If we are going to understand the potential for what is happening with Twitter in Iran, we need to look closely at this.

First, there is the quality of the content. People watch mainstream media to get information and because that information has credibility. However, if they are more likely to get good content from alternative outlets that is better than the mainstream media, they will gravitate towards it. How do we assess quality? One way is clearly presentation, and CNN beats Twitter there hands down. However, Twitter crushes CNN on authenticity. And, as we have learned over the last few years, authentic voices rule the internet.

Second, there is the human connection. The success of mainstream media is driven by our mutual agreement as viewers that the source is credible. Note Al-Jazeeras failure in the USA as an example. What Twitter and Facebook and the others are doing by connecting people is generating credibility by connecting thousands one at a time, rather than all at once with a click. Those connections are happening at lightening speed. If thousands of people are following posts by an activist in Iran, that lends credibility to the source by our mutual agreement to listen to him/her. This is real alternative media but coming to you with a shared sense of agreement that blurs the line between it and a “mainstream” product.

When you combine good content, with ease of use and the power of human interaction, what you get is the reporting out of Iran on Twitter. It’s a world where those doing the reporting are generating their own credibility in real time and that credibility is then fueling more activism. It’s a brave new world. Like any new world there will be risks and challenges, not the least of which is the potential for this kind of reporting to develop a mob mentality. But that is for another piece. For now, I am watching this and am amazed.

Climate Progress

Debunking Breakthrough Institute’s attacks on Obama, Gore, and top climate scientists

The Breakthrough Institute (TBI) has dedicated the resources of their organization to trying to kill prospects for climate and clean energy action in this Congress and to spreading disinformation about Obama, Gore, Congressional leaders, Waxman and Markey, leading climate scientists, Al Gore again, the entire environmental community and anyone else trying to end our status quo energy policies, including me (see “Memo to media: Don’t be suckered by bad analyses from the Breakthrough Institute” and “Will America lose the clean-energy race? Only if we listen to the disinformers of The Breakthrough Institute“).  Now they are embracing and defended those who deny the reality of climate science.

This year TBI founders Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger published a string of factually untrue, egregious statements in an essay titled:  “The Green Bubble:  Why environmentalism keeps imploding.”  The biggest whopper:  “It has become an article of faith among many greens that the global poor are happier with less and must be shielded from the horrors of overconsumption and economic development-never mind the realities of infant mortality, treatable disease, short life expectancies, and grinding agrarian poverty.”  No one in the environmental movement believes that, but it is a right-wing fantasy of the “greens.”  Robert J. Brulle, Professor of Sociology and Environmental Science, Drexel University utterly debunks this essay (see below) and writes of this quote, “Who or what environmental group has ever said anything of this nature?  This statement is an out-and-out fabrication.  One wonders if there are any fact-checkers at The New Republic.

They misrepresent Al Gore’s entire thesis and worldview:

Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, like Silent Spring, was considered powerful because it marshaled the facts into an effective (read: apocalyptic) story”¦..

In promoting the inconvenient truth that humans must limit their consumption and sacrifice their way of life to prevent the world from ending, environmentalists are not only promoting a solution that won’t work, they’ve discouraged Americans from seeing the big solutions at all.

Yes, that’s right, they are even attacking the Rachel Carson who died decades ago after helping launch the modern environmental movement!

And no, Gore doesn’t believe nor has he written anything like that as I explain here.

So I just wanted to collect in one place some responses to set the record straight and to defend the reputation of the many, many scientists and environmentalists and leading political figures that they routinely attack:

The rest of this post focuses on how TBI and its founders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus are spreading falsehoods about President Obama and publishing very bad analyses designed to push their anti-climate-action, anti-environmental agenda.  In particular, we’ll see how just how hypocritical TBI is — how desperate are they to sell out their principles in order to attack President Obama.  I’ll end with Brulle’s debunking of the TNR essay that George Will so loved.

Read more

Politics

Attorney General Holder reminds Sessions who’s boss.

This morning, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) slammed the Justice Department’s release of Bush-era memos authorizing the use of torture on terrorist suspects, telling Holder that his “predecessor, Judge Mukasey, and Mr. Hayden,” the former Director of National Intelligence, “didn’t approve of that at all.” Holder reminded Sessions that Mukasey and Hayden were no longer in charge:

SESSIONS: Well it was disapproved by your predecessor, Judge Mukasey, and Mr. Hayden, the CIA, um, DIA [sic] director. They didn’t approve of that at all. … You were willing to release matters that the DNI and the Attorney General believe were damaging to our national security.

HOLDER: Well, one attorney general thought that. I am the Attorney General of the United States, and it is this attorney general’s view that the release of that information was appropriate, as well as the president of the United States. I respect their opinion, but I had to make the decision, holding the office that I now hold.

Watch it:

Economy

Financial Services Industry Thrilled It Has ‘Lots Of Time’ To Influence Regulation Reform Bill

takeanumberEven before the administration officially released its plan for regulatory reform today, the legislation wasn’t given much of a chance of passing this year. The thinking is that, with health care and climate change bills currently in markup, there just isn’t time to devote to financial regulation. The Senate will reportedly not even touch the topic until after August recess (though the House may move on it in July).

I get that there is a lot going on in Congress. Still, I worry that the delay not only kills any momentum for changing the system, but also gives the banking and financial services industries ample time to throw their money and influence around. Consider this reaction to the plan from the institutional brokerage firm Concept Capital (via Economix):

In our view, this plan is as negative for financial firms as the industry feared. Still, this is not the end of the game for financial firms. This proposal will change radically as it slowly moves through Congress. We expect a flood of negative headlines in the coming weeks and months, especially as we expect the House Financial Services Committee to begin voting on legislation in July. Yet the congressional agenda is packed and key Senate leaders are distracted. So we see little Senate movement in 2009. That gives the industry lots of time to try to modify the final bill.

As Ezra Klein put it, a delay provides a window “in which the broader public can lose interest in financial regulation and the financial industry can ramp up its lobbying effort in the Congress. It also puts us a lot closer to an election, which will make that lobbying effort all the more effective.” And here’s Concept Capital, admitting what a great opportunity the delay is!

Look at the example provided by the failure to pass cram-down legislation. There was pretty widespread agreement that something needed to be done to address the housing market, and a bill that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to cram-down mortgage payments for troubled homeowners eventually made its way through the House. Then it sat in the Senate, the banking and mortgage industries picked it apart, and it ultimately failed.

Peter Solomon, an investment banker and counselor to the U.S. Treasury in the Carter administration, said that the administration’s plan may already have been scaled back “because lawmakers and the public perceive the financial crisis has abated.” An administration official, meanwhile, told reporters that “the president wants to see a bill he can sign this year.” “We can’t afford to wait. We can’t afford to let our financial system continue to operate under a regulatory system that is inadequate,” the official said. I hope the administration can hand at least some of that sense of urgency over to Congress.

Politics

Republicans try to obstruct health care bill.

Today, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee began marking up Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-MA) Affordable Health Care Act. Republicans, who pushed for the incomplete HELP legislation to be studied by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and then pretended that the agency scored the entire bill, tried to obstruct the effort by complaining that the CBO had not yet scored the full proposal. During the hearing, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) argued that the hearing be postponed until a full cost-analysis is available. Watch it:

The GOP then maneuvered to introduce a host of amendments simply as a delaying tactic. Rather than offering constructive improvements that could lower costs and expand coverage, a good number of the GOP’s proposed amendments do nothing to solve the health care crisis. The Wonk Room has the run-down.

Yglesias

Endgame

I feel like it’s been raining almost every day in DC for months:

—The New York Stock Exchange’s Sarah Palin shrine.

— An interesting discussion of bus lateness metrics.

— America’s closing car dealerships.

— Health wonks know that doctors are evil, but nobody knows that.

— An Iranian nuclear weapon would be bad no matter who’s running Iran.

— What was Khameini trying to accomplish in this election business?

Today is a good day for happy hour.

Security

Alleged Minuteman Killer Co-Hosted Anti-Immigration Event Featuring GOP Presidential Candidates

Firedoglake reports that Shawna Forde, the anti-immigrant leader of the Minuteman American Defense (M.A.D.) who was recently charged with the murder of a 9-year-old Hispanic girl and her father, co-hosted the 2007 Washington State Illegal Immigration Summit that reportedly featured presidential candidates Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Fred Thompson.

The Reagan Wing, a conservative blog dedicated to picking up Ronald Reagan’s “sword” still features a plug for the summit which it describes as “the pinnacle Conservative event of 2007“:

In addition the event is co-hosted by Minutemen American Defense, a Washington state-wide American citizen defense coalition headed by Shawna Forde, a re-born Rock promoter from the days of the music world-shaking Seattle Rock explosion. Shawna will speak.

Representatives (or the actual candidates) will appear from Presidential campaigns for TOM TANCREDO, DUNCAN HUNTER and FRED THOMPSON.

Minuteman leader Jim Gilchrist, who has tried to distance himself from Forde in recent days, also headlined the 2007 event.

The summit, which featured the slogan “The Great Gringo awakens from siesta,” was reportedly attended by “white supremacists, militia types, neo-Nazis, and skinheads.”

Right wing anti-immigration groups are frantically trying to distance themselves from Forde. The anti-immigrant group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), issued a press release this afternoon denying any association with Forde after a video popped up of Shawna Forde speaking as a FAIR activist. The blog Long Island Wins reports that web pages from Gilchrist’s website where he supposedly defends Forde are nothing but broken links in a google cache. VDARE, “the homepage of educated racism” has reportedly also “scrubbed” all of its web pages that once supported Forde. So far, CNN’s Rick Sanchez has been one of the few mainstream journalists to question Forde’s connection to the larger movement against immigration.

SANCHEZ: The nation’s largest minuteman group has distanced itself from Forde we should say. And we’ve learned that within Minuteman circles she is considered a bit of a loose canon. But you do have to wonder: how did Shawna Forde–a supposed fringe element–turn up on PBS as a player in the anti-immigration movement?

Watch it:

Immigration advocates are outraged at the mainstream media’s lack of coverage and are asking their supporters to share the story of the 9-year-old victim’s death. Today, Crooks and Liars posted an emotional recording of the 911 call placed by her mother on the day of the attack.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up