A report released by the Center for American Progress points out the momentous challenges small employers face in providing affordable, high-quality health insurance plans for themselves and their employees:

Small businesses, which employ 42 million Americans, continue to struggle with the rapidly escalating costs of health insurance. Over the past decade, small-business owners have watched their health insurance premiums rise 133 percent—the same kind of premium growth large businesses have experienced. But because of their smaller scale and thinner margins, they are less able than larger businesses to absorb these increasing costs.

Other factors make it more difficult for small businesses to offer coverage than large businesses. For instance, on average, small businesses pay 18 percent more than big businesses for the same coverage—often due to high broker fees, fixed administrative costs, and adverse selection, which is the upward price spiral that occurs when one plan or market disproportionately attracts high-risk employees.

To combat this obstruction, the ACA has introduced the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP), which is intended to create a marketplace for small business owners to purchase health insurance for their employees. These proposed SHOP exchanges will allow small businesses to consolidate their buying power so they can purchase high-quality insurance with substantially reduced premiums. By spreading the financial risk associated with insuring high-cost enrollees across a wider pool of employers and employees, the exchanges will keep costs affordable, limit the burden posed by the insurance process, and reduce administrative expenses.

“The exchange is the most important component of health care reform for small businesses and it’s critical states set them up correctly so small businesses get the relief a strong exchange can provide,” said Terry Gardiner, Vice President of Policy and Strategy for Small Business Majority.

Under the ACA, open enrollment for SHOP exchanges should commence sometime in late 2013, while small employers and their employees can expect the exchanges to officially open for business on January 1, 2014.

– Fatima Najiy

– Fatima Najiy

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre

The following is the first of a multi-part series by Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor at The American Prospect, on the National Rifle Association’s exaggerated role in American politics.

Last Sunday, Americans watching the Super Bowl saw New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston mayor Tom Menino in an ad sponsored by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, arguing that “America must do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.” The next day, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler wrote an article for the Daily Beast, arguing that Democrats shouldn’t bring up the gun issue, lest the National Rifle Association and its congressional allies rise up and weaken gun laws further. Inevitably, when the issue of guns arises, the myth of the fearsomely potent NRA comes right along. But it is just that – a myth.

To determine just how powerful the NRA really is on election day, in recent months I assembled a database covering the last four federal elections: 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. These years cover two presidential and non-presidential years, as well as two significant Democratic victories and two significant Republican victories. I gathered data on the outcome of every House and Senate election, including the margins of victory, the money spent by each candidate, the partisan character of each district, and whether the NRA made an endorsement in the race and how much money they spent.

The conclusion to be drawn from these data will be surprising to many: The NRA has virtually no impact on congressional elections. The NRA endorsement, so coveted by so many politicians, is almost meaningless. Nor does the money the organization spends have any demonstrable impact on the outcome of races. In short, when it comes to elections, the NRA is a paper tiger.

In a series of posts for Think Progress beginning today, I’ll detail what the data on the NRA’s involvement in elections actually tells us, and what conclusions we can draw about the status of an issue that has been largely dormant in our politics in recent years. The results of this analysis include the following:

• NRA contributions to candidates have virtually no impact on the outcome of Congressional races.

• An NRA independent expenditure (IE) campaign does not improve a candidate’s chance of winning.
• The NRA’s endorsement, so eagerly sought by so many candidates, has almost no impact on the outcome of elections; the bulk of NRA endorsements go to incumbent Republicans with almost no chance of losing.
• Despite what the NRA has long claimed, it neither delivered Congress to the Republican party in 1994 nor delivered the White House to George W. Bush in 2000.
• Gun ownership in America has been slowly but steadily declining for decades.
• While support for “gun control” in the abstract has declined in recent years as the issue has been out of the spotlight, widespread support for specific measures to restrict gun sales remains as high as ever.

All of these facts contradict a conventional wisdom propagated by Democrats and Republicans alike, which says that any discussion of the possibility of restricting gun sales in any way will lead only to electoral catastrophe for Democrats, so formidable is the NRA’s power.

In today’s post, we’ll take up the first question, that of the electoral impact of the NRA’s money. The NRA is a large organization with millions of dollars at its disposal to play in elections, so it is natural to believe they must be getting results out of that spending. The truth, however, is that while the NRA spends a good deal of money in total, that money is spread over so many races – well over 200 House races alone every election – that it has little more than symbolic effect. The typical NRA contribution to a House candidate is around $2,500, including both primary and general election contributions. At a time when a candidate in a competitive House race can expect to spend at least a million dollars and sometimes much more, this amount is insignificant – on average, less than two-tenths of one percent of an NRA recipient’s budget comes from the group. That may be enough to keep the volunteers in donuts, but it won’t swing any races. Their median contribution to the far more expensive races for the Senate comes in under $5,000, representing an even smaller proportion of candidate spending.

Fair enough, one might say, but direct contributions to candidates are subject to strict limits. What about independent expenditure (IE) campaigns, where an organization sets up a separate entity to influence a race, and can spend much more? Does the NRA have its impact there?

The answer is no, because once again, though the NRA may spend a good deal of money in total, it spreads that money to multiple races across the country. In the last four elections, the median NRA House independent expenditure has spent less than $10,000, and the median Senate IE only around $30,000 – numbers too small to have a real impact.

All right, but is the organization spending token amounts on a large group of friendly candidates, but putting its real weight behind a few high-profile races and producing results? Yet again, the answer is no. In the last four elections, the NRA spent over $100,000 on an IE in 22 separate Senate races. The group’s favored candidate won 10 times, and lost 12 times. This mediocre won-lost record, however, tells only part of the story. Let’s take one example, the largest IE the NRA conducted over this period. In 2010, they spent $1.5 million on the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race between Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Joe Sestak. Toomey won by 2 points, but could the NRA claim credit? Toomey’s campaign spent just under $17 million, over twice as much as Sestak’s $7.5 million. The NRA was one of a remarkable 62 outside groups that poured a total of over $28 million into the Pennsylvania race. Put another way, in the NRA’s single largest independent expenditure over this period, the group accounted for less than 3 percent of the money spent in the race.

It would certainly be possible for the NRA to invest so much in one race that they could outstrip the candidates and other groups participating and determine the outcome; for instance, they could target one member of the House and spend, say, $10 million dollars to defeat him. But they have never done so. Instead, the group spreads its money around to hundreds of races across the country, meaning that no one race gets enough of an investment to determine the outcome. Yet Democrats continue to fear the NRA’s money.

Money is only part of the story, however. In the coming posts in this series I’ll detail the other ways the NRA’s electoral power is overstated, from its coveted but largely ineffectual endorsement, to the declining number of Americans it represents, to the historical myths about what the group has been able to accomplish in the past.

I am usually a big fan of Joe Nocera, whether he is skewering Wall Street crooks or exposing the high-handed behavior of the NCAA, but he is all wrong about the Keystone XL pipeline. He claims that Obama, in his “centrist heart of hearts,” also favors KXL. If so, the President is wrong, too.

The first problem is that Nocera, like other pipeline proponents, frames the decision on KXL in isolation. Doing so leads to the following seductive line of reasoning: The United States needs a lot of oil now and for the foreseeable future. If we don’t get the oil from Canada, we will get it from other sources, like Venezuelan oil sands or Nigeria’s polluted delta, that are just as dirty. Therefore, we might as well buy our oil from our friends to the North.

But who says we have to use so much oil? Other countries do not. The United States has the highest oil consumption of any one of the advanced economies that make up the OECD. Why? Primarily because we have the lowest energy taxes and the cheapest oil prices. Low oil prices feed into an endless list of decisions we make. How far from work will we live? Is it worth buying an electric car, even with subsidies, when gas is so cheap? If we build a high-speed rail line, will enough people ride it when it costs so little to drive?

In case you think prices don’t matter, take a look at this chart, courtesy of Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. The United States is the little diamond in the extreme upper-left-hand corner: Lowest oil prices, highest oil consumption.

Once the question is reframed — not as “KXL yes or no,” but as “what kind of an energy policy should we have” — the pipeline starts to look a lot less attractive. If we get the country on a downward trajectory of energy use, we can start to pick and choose which fuels to take. We don’t have to use the dirtiest ones just because they are the closest to hand.

Nocera’s second problem is that he falls hook, line, and sinker for the phony “energy security” argument in favor of KXL. True, as long as we have an every-growing appetite for oil, we do have a real security problem. The problem stems from the political instability, and often open hostility, of many oil producers.

The problem, though, is that getting our oil from Canada doesn’t help much. The world oil market operates as a single pool. Any event that interrupts supply from any source sends prices spiking everywhere. The price spike caused by last year’s conflict in Libya, a relatively minor supplier, contributed to a pause in the U.S. economic recovery that we are just now getting over. A really big crisis, like a closure of the Straits of Hormuz, would derail the recovery altogether.

Those global price spikes, not the danger of a physical disruptions to oil transport routes, are the real security threat. Would a pipeline to Canada protect us in case of a crisis? Not a bit—not unless Canada, in a fit of North American solidarity, decided to sell its oil to us at a big discount from prevailing world prices. I have seen no such clause in the proposed KXL pipeline agreement.

There are much more effective ways than KXL to protect ourselves from the very real security threat of dependence on imported oil. One, which I wrote about at the time of the Libyan crisis, is a price-smoothing oil tax. It would bring us more security at a lower cost to the environment than shifting our dependence to Canadian oil sands.

Nocera closes his argument by telling us that “at least one country in North America understands where its national interests lie. Too bad it’s not us.” Really? It all depends on what you mean by national interest.

If you mean a narrow focus on short-term economic gain at the expense of others, then yes, developing oil sands and exporting them to anyone who will buy them is in Canada’s national interest. The profits stay in Canada, while the resulting pollution spreads around the whole world. In much the same way, I could say it would be in my self-interest to shoplift a few CDs next time I’m in a music store, and sell them on the street corner. The gain would be mine, and someone else would bear the cost.

A better view of national interest, though, is cooperating with others to reach mutual goals. One of those goals is slowing global climate change. No one country can do that alone, but if major energy producers and consumers were to work together, they could enjoy mutual benefits, in the form of a healthier planet, that would greatly outweigh the short-term costs of lost profits for Canadian oil sands developers and continued cheap fuel prices for U.S. drivers. As our President likes to put it, it can be done.

Before any of that can happen, however, the House needs to vote on its version, which could happen as early as this week. The House’s version of the bill, however, is shaping up to be considerably different than the Senate’s.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has made several changes to the legislation which appear intended to at least weaken the final product, if not to kill it outright. The government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) laid out some of those changes:

CREW strongly supported the Senate approved version of the STOCK Act (S. 2038) passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 96 to 3. S. 2038 goes well beyond merely prohibiting insider trading by, among other things, requiring registration by political intelligence consultants, stripping pension benefits from corrupt members of Congress and closing serious loopholes in the nation’s anti-corruption laws.

The bill Rep. Cantor is bringing to the floor removes several of these provisions. Although the House Judiciary Committee passed nearly identical legislation late last year, the new bill drops the Leahy-Cornyn amendment, which responds to court decisions that have undermined prosecutors’ efforts to target public corruption. It also excludes the Grassley Amendment, which would require political intelligence consultants to register with Congress.

Cantor had also tried to expand the legislation to ban other transactions, such as land deals. As UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge noted, “Cantor obviously hopes that including a vast array of economic activity within the bill, exposing members of Congress to disclosure obligations and other restrictions, as well as increasing their liability exposure, will make the bill sufficiently unpopular so as to prevent its passage.”

Despite Cantor’s public protestations that “it is unacceptable for anybody in this body to profit personally from non-public information,” his changes to the STOCK Act have unnecessarily made it weaker. As Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), a chief sponsor of the bill, put it, “I think strengthening here is a euphemism for weakening.” It is also worth noting that, when Bachus proposed an insider trading bill to help repair his image, Cantor blocked it from going forward.

If the House passes a different piece of legislation than the Senate, they will need to be reconciled before they can be signed into law. As the statement from CREW notes, the sections which Cantor removed could still be added back to the final bill in conference, which is why they are still calling for members to vote for passage.

– Zachary Bernstein

– Zachary Bernstein

– Fatima Najiy

In a reflection of the Jewish community’s ongoing commitment to caring for the planet, 50 Jewish leaders from across denominations signed the Jewish Energy Covenant Campaign to protect the environment in a ceremony in Manhattan on February 6, on the eve of Tu Bishvat, the Jewish festival of trees. The campaign’s declaration, titled the “Jewish Environment and Energy Imperative,” reads:

Out of concern for the wellbeing of all nations, and with a particular concern for the poorest among them as well as for future generations, our support for more sources of clean, renewable energy and for energy efficiency is a matter of justice. Enlightened stewardship is not only a religious and moral imperative; it is a strategy for security and survival.

The Covenant Campaign sets a bold vision for the Jewish environmental community. To support their commitment to cutting greenhouse-gas pollution by 14 percent in 2014, signatories pledge to support clean-technology innovation, encourage investment in Jewish environmental organizations, conduct energy audits, promote sustainability in their own communities, and advocate for the reduction by 83 percent of 2005 emission levels by 2050.

Led by the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, or COEJL, a network of nearly 30 national organizations and over 100 community groups, the campaign has brought together leaders from the Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and Reconstructionist movements in a unified effort to protect the environment.

“There’s a growing ecological consciousness in the Jewish community—a lot of concern about global warming, our energy policy, and energy security,” says Sybil Sanchez, COEJL’s director.

The declaration came on the eve of Tu Bishvat (or Tu B’Shevat), the Jewish festival of trees. The holiday, this year falling on February 7 and 8, traditionally involves a celebration of fruit trees and the coming of spring. Many communities observe the day by planting trees.

Over the years, environmental groups have elevated Tu Bishvat to something of a Jewish Earth Day, moving beyond planting trees to actions and advocacy that support the environment as a whole.

“Recently people are talking more and more not only about trees but about nature and the environment in connection with Tu Bishvat,” says Evonne Marzouk, founder of Canfei Nesharim, an Orthodox environmental-education organization. “‘What does it mean to appreciate trees today?’ The Jewish environmental community has both caused and responded to that.”

Though Tu Bishvat is the most overtly “green” festival, most Jewish holy days have an ecological undercurrent. “Each holiday is tied to the seasons; but [with Tu Bishvat] you can’t get more environmentally connected than trees and the land,” says Sanchez.

Tu Bishvat seders, or feasts, use symbols, through various fruits and wines, to represent the planet’s complex system that requires careful stewardship to maintain ecological balance and support life. A verse spoken at seders reads:

Look at My works! See how beautiful they are, how excellent! See to it that you do not spoil and destroy My world, for if you do, there will be no one after you to repair it. (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:13)

Jewish environmental groups are redoubling efforts to put this charge into action as addressing climate change and carbon emissions becomes more urgent. Tu Bishvat, the springtime holiday, is seen as a symbolic season of renewal. This week Jewish leaders in New York and around the country called for renewal of the planet as well as the soul.

Uninsured residents will have the option of seeking coverage though TennCare, Tennessee’s version of Medicaid, or qualifying for private insurance through the state’s own health insurance exchange. Others will qualify for coverage under their parents’ health care plans:

The study also reports that Tennessee will save $2.3 billion in cuts to bad debt and uncompensated care, which will aid in funneling more money into the state’s health care system. “Uncompensated care and bad debt will be reduced from $4.11 billion to $1.84 billion, a 55 percent decrease, the study said”:

In spite of this, Tennessee remains slow in making any sort of progress towards meeting federal deadlines for enacting legislation that must be in place in order to receive federal funding for the implementation of key parts of the health care bill. Much of their choice to hold off is based on whether the Supreme Court decides to overturn the ACA or if the potential election of a Republican president would lead to a repeal of the law.

– Fatima Najiy

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Koch)

Liberal blogs and publications have published countless slanted pieces on Koch Industries, heavy on innuendo and light on facts.

The Obama administration has long been criticized for maintaining a de facto “enemies list” of its perceived political opponents, whether they are respected Supreme Court justices, disfavored reporters or private citizens who just want to keep their own doctors. The Democrats’ obsession with the Kochs as a political target is, indeed, additional evidence of a truly Nixonian approach to politics.

That the Obama administration and its allies use private citizens as symbols to be attacked and vilified is unfair and deeply threatening to our civic life and the rule of law.

In fact, the Koch brothers have made themselves very public figures. After Charles Koch founded the Cato Institute in 1977, David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket he bankrolled in 1980. In person and through their latest front group, the astroturf organization Americans for Prosperity, the Kochs have “attacked and vilified” the Obama administration to a level that approaches “obsession”:

Charles Koch: Obama Is ‘Greatest Assault On American Freedom.’ In his letter inviting fellow conservative millionaires and billionaires to a secret Palm Springs retreat in January 2011, Charles Koch accused President Obama of “the greatest assault on American freedom and prosperity in our lifetimes.” [ThinkProgress]

Charles Koch: Obama Is ‘Saddam Hussein.’ At another secret retreat in the fall of 2011, Charles Koch compared President Obama and the 2012 elections to Saddam Hussein and the Iraq War. “We have Saddam Hussein, this is the Mother of All Wars we’ve got in the next 18 months. For the life or death of this country.” [Mother Jones, 9/6/11]

David Koch: ‘Hardcore Socialist’ Obama Is ‘Scary To Me.’ “Obama’s a hardcore socialist,” David Koch told New York Magazine, “and he’s marvelous at pretending to be something other than that, but that is what I believe he truly is, a hardcore socialist. He’s scary to me.” [New York Magazine, 5/5/11]

‘Radical Global Warming Agenda.’ “President Obama is at again,” the Americans for Prosperity Regulation Reality Tour warns, with a “radical global warming agenda” by “unelected bureaucrats regulating our life,” “ignoring the entire democratic process all together.” Supposed threats of “EPA’s power grab” include “Grass Mileage Standards,” “Government Control of your Thermostat,” “Churches would need EPA Permits,” and The tour features “EPA Carbon Cops” who want to punish you if you “opened your refrigerator” or “drove a car.” [RegulationReality.com]

‘We Might As Well Forget Freedom.’ The Americans for Prosperity Hot Air Tour says that “far left environmentalists” are “radicals” with a “radical Global Warming ideology that claims people are the problem” who “want GOVERNMENT to force us to drive less and live in smaller homes while killing jobs that help grow our economy” and “want GOVERNMENT dictating our lives.” [HotAirTour.org]

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Koch Industries is Pompeo’s largest campaign contributor, having contributed $107,500 to his campaign from both individuals and its PAC, nearly three times more than any other single entity.

The brothers’ combined net worth is about $50 billion, making them the fourth richest Americans individually; combined, they are richer than any American except for Bill Gates. Last weekend, the “private citizens” pledged $60 million of that wealth to defeat President Obama at their semi-annual retreat of right-wing millionaires and billionaires.

– Zach Bernstein

Earlier today, President Obama unveiled his latest initiative to reduce veteran unemployment: a $6 billion jobs corps program which, if approved by Congress, will create opportunities for returning service members to serve their country in a new capacity — as policemen, firefighters, and employees of the National Park Service.

In addition, General Eric Shinseki, the Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs and himself a wounded war veteran, announced that the Small Business Administration will begin offering online entrepreneurial training courses to veterans and their families.

These initiatives are the latest example of the Obama administration’s deep and ongoing commitment to taking care of our men and women in uniform, even as they transition out of the service. Since coming into office, President Obama has substantially increased funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is the VA that assumes responsibility for service members as they leave the force and transition back to civilian life, and its programs will only become more essential as more men and women return from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last November, Obama signed the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, which provides companies with a substantial tax credit if they hire unemployed or disabled veterans. And the President has also used his executive authority to establish a national Veterans Job Bank, authorize 6-months of career counseling at locations across the country, and create My Next Move, an online database that helps connect veterans with jobs that build off their military experience.

Perhaps most importantly, President Obama, the first lady, and Dr. Jill Biden have brought public attention to the problem of veteran unemployment and the valuable skills that our service members possess. All the president and his administration have done to highlight this issue appears to have prompted employers to take a second look.

As a result of the President’s policy, the jobless rate among post-9/11 veterans — as this blog noted earlier today — fell four percent in January, from 13.1 percent in December to 9.1 percent today. This is a tremendous improvement from one year ago, when the unemployment rate for these veterans stood at about 15 percent. And the initiatives announced by President Obama today will continue to target veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, who suffer from unemployment rates significantly higher than those facing the broader veteran population.

President Obama has made much progress in tackling veteran unemployment. But much work remains to be done. The unemployment rate for veterans under the age of 25 is nearly 30 percent, more than twice the rate of civilians their age.

Moreover, with the war in Iraq over and U.S. involvement in Afghanistan coming to a close, the Pentagon has announced that it plans to reduce the ground forces to near their pre-war levels. This process will entail shedding about 100,000 ground troops, a move that will further increase the number of service members looking for civilian jobs.

Over the past decade, in the name of supporting our troops, Congress has steadfastly passed war supplemental after war supplemental. But it is imperative that this support does not end when our men and women in uniform come home. Congress should approve President Obama’s veterans jobs corps and allow these men and women who have served so admirably overseas to reinvest their efforts at home.

Sudan People's Liberation Army-North rebels (photo: Trevor Snapp - Global Post)

At the same time, however, violence on a much larger scale is hitting Sudan’s “new south”: Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile States. Fighting between the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement – North (SPLM-N) has forced tens of thousands of people to flee to Ethiopia and South Sudan. Nearly as many have been internally displaced and face dire food shortages.

Displacement is a growing problem in the region, and aid groups face immense challenges providing enough emergency food and care to support the displaced population. Bombing and fighting in the area have prevented local families from cultivating their crops, and a poor harvest in November left food stocks even lower than usual. The most insidious problem, however, is the aid blockade imposed by Khartoum.

The government’s refusal to allow international aid agencies (both UN and private) into its territory is putting tens of thousands of lives at risk. Only the Sudanese Red Crescent, seen as neither impartial nor capable of handling the needs of civilians in government and SPLM-N areas, has been allowed to enter the area.

The U.N. and countries including the United States have tried to shift Khartoum and stave off a humanitarian disaster. In recent weeks, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the U.N.’s top humanitarian official both visited Sudan and pressed Omar al-Bashir’s government for greater access. But neither visit was successful in opening Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile to desperately needed assistance.

Khartoum is clearly in bunker mode. Feeling that it was not sufficiently “rewarded” for allowing South Sudan to break away, it is now wary of any incentives the West might offer for opening up these war-torn states. It is also keen to avoid a second Darfur, where Khartoum saw humanitarian assistance as merely a friendly façade for Western meddling. More than that, Bashir’s regime sees the aid blockade in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile as another way to force the SPLM-N to surrender for the sake of suffering civilians.

Given the dire need in these two states and the lack of movement by Sudan, some in the U.S. are now calling for forced access to Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile – whereby food and medical supplies might be flown or trucked into the two areas against Khartoum’s will. Certainly, the need is clear; but leaving aside the prospect of Sudanese military retaliation, the practicalities of such a move are thorny indeed. Dropping aid from the air would be incredibly costly, and it’s unclear how the supplies would be distributed once the aid hits the ground. Meanwhile, the land routes from South Sudan into Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan are either impassible or go through Khartoum-held areas. Ethiopia, another possible entry point, would be wary of provoking Khartoum by cooperating with such a plan.

For the time being, Khartoum’s recklessness and intransigence is certain to push more families from Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile into South Sudan and Ethiopia – adding to the over 100,000 Sudanese refugees already there. Those who can’t flee will face even more danger and deprivation; many will surely die.

As humanitarians, we continue to hope that this time Khartoum will prove its critics wrong; that this time it will welcome assistance and not endanger thousands of lives out of pique. But after years of disappointment, it is hard to expect anything better from Sudan. And the fear is that the most the world can do is prepare for the human tragedy that is about to unfold.

The average Medicare enrollee will save approximately $4,181 from 2011 to 2021, while those with high prescription drug costs could save as much as $15,710 over the same period. Those with low drug costs should save roughly $2,964:

The report identifies three other sources of savings for Medicare recipients: 1) premiums for Part B physician and certain other services are expected to increase at a slower rate, 2) beneficiary copayments and coinsurance under Part A and B will increase more slowly because the Affordable Care Act slows the rate of growth in payments to hospitals and other providers, and 3) offer seniors preventive services at no additional cost.

Yesterday, the administration announced that a growing number of seniors are enrolling in Medicare Advantage plans and are paying lower premiums as compared to last year.

– Fatima Najiy

I was arrested today for exercising my First Amendment rights to freedom of the press on Capitol Hill. I was not expecting to be arrested for practicing journalism. Today’s hearing in the House Energy and Environment subcommittee was called to examine EPAs findings that hydraulic fracturing fluids had contaminated groundwater in the town of Pavillion, Wyoming. I have a long history with the town of Pavillion and its residents who have maintained since 2008 that fracking has contaminated their water supply. I featured the stories of residents John Fenton, Louis Meeks and Jeff Locker in GASLAND and I have continued to document the catastrophic water contamination in Pavillion for the upcoming sequel GASLAND 2. It would seem that the Republican leadership was using this hearing to attack the three year Region 8 EPA investigation involving hundreds of samples and extensive water testing which ruled that Pavillion’s groundwater was a health hazard, contaminated by benzene at 50x the safe level and numerous other contaminants associated with gas drilling. Most importantly, EPA stated in this case that fracking was the likely cause.

As a filmmaker and journalist I have covered hundreds of public hearings, including Congressional hearings. It is my understanding that public speech is allowed to be filmed. Congress should be no exception. No one on Capitol Hill should regard themselves exempt from the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states explicitly “Congress shall make no law…that infringes on the Freedom of the Press”. Which means that no subcommittee rule or regulation should prohibit a respectful journalist or citizen from recording a public hearing.

This was an act of civil disobedience, yes done in an impromptu fashion, but at the moment when they told me to turn off the cameras, I could not. I know my rights and I felt it was imperative to exercise them.

When I was led out of the hearing room in handcuffs, John Boehner’s pledge of transparency in congress was taken out with me.

The people of Pavillion deserve better. The thousands across the US who have documented cases of water contamination in fracking areas deserve their own hearing on Capitol Hill. They deserve the chance to testify in before Congress. The truth that fracking contaminates groundwater is out, and no amount of intimidation tactics –either outright challenges to science or the arrest of journalists –will put the genie back in the bottle. Such a brazen attempt to discredit and silence the EPA, the citizens of Pavillion and documentary filmmaking will ultimately fail and it is an affront to the health and integrity of Americans.

Lastly, in defense of my profession, I will state that many many Americans get their news from independent documentaries. The Hill should immediately move to make hearings and meetings accessible to independent journalists and not further obstruct the truth from being reported in the vivid and in-depth manner that is only achievable through long-form documentary filmmaking.

I will be thinking on this event further and will post further thoughts and developments.

I have been charged with “unlawful entry” and my court date is February 15.

Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie

As President Obama said in his State of the Union address, his administration is committed to the promise of American clean energy, even though some companies may fail to others in the marketplace. 180,000 pages of documents from a Congressional investigation confirmed that the Department of Energy’s investment in the advanced technology of Solyndra was based on the merits.

The group, created by Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, launched their 35-second TV spot dishonestly painting “the Solyndra loan guarantee as a corrupt deal aimed at benefiting the president’s campaign donors,” the Hill reports:

“He gave his political backers billions – a big government fiasco- infused with politics at every level,” says a female narrator over the obligatory “SE7EN”-style, cut-and-paste imagery typical of super-PAC attack ads. “Laid off worker: forgotten. Typical Washington. Tell President Obama we need jobs not more inside deals.”

This is the second Crossroads GPS attack ad that uses Solyndra as a scapegoat for the clean economy.

Fossil-fueled conservatives are dead set on turning their imagined Solyndra scandal into a coordinated attack on the clean energy industry. The Crossroads GPS campaign is only the latest in a string of attack ads meant to play up the Solyndra bankruptcy as a potential liability for Obama in the coming election year. To date, Americans for Prosperity, the front group for the petrochemical billionaire Koch brothers, has spent over $8 million in battleground states — Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin — on two intentionally misleading ads taking aim at President Obama over Solyndra.

-Fatima Najiy