Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Support from a Constitutent

Health care reform holds great promise

On March 28, Americans saw health care reform legislation pass. It was long overdue. In Connecticut this past year, Anthem Blue Cross requested a rate increase of over 25 percent, illustrating how costs are skyrocketing for everyone.

As a practicing physician, I routinely see patients who end up in the hospital because they did not have access to affordable health care coverage or could not pay for their medication. While the new bill benefits this group and would ensure coverage for 40 million people without insurance, it also benefits those with insurance.

By expanding health care coverage to over 95 percent of Americans, it diversifies the risk pool. This will reduce our deficit by more than 138 billion over the next 10 years and will help small businesses provide insurance to their employees.

Some claim that the bill will cut Medicare but what they neglect to mention is that the majority of the cut refers to elimination of the higher, preferential government reimbursement rate for Medicare Advantage Plans (so called "private" Medicare), that is a monetary incentive to lure private insurance companies into the Medicare pool. Despite the higher reimbursement rate given to private Medicare at taxpayer expense, services among plans are essentially no different and private plans are not superior to the less costly non-private Medicare plans.

Other assets of the new bill include a prohibition on insurance companies who attempt to selectively exclude or increase premiums among high-risk patients who are typically less able to afford higher insurance costs. This high-risk group ends up in bankruptcy and we all pay for the uncovered medical costs through higher hospital rates, insurance premiums and government programs.

We should thank our state's representatives, including our own Rep. Jim Himes, who supported this legislation.

Kimberly Yonkers, M.D.

Barbara Boxer













Office Seeking:
U.S. Senate, California

Position Held: Senator, Incumbent

Progressive Credentials:

  • Continuously fought to ensure access to health care, most recently by voting for health care reform
  • A strong supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow workers, not employers, to choose the method of organizing a union
  • Opposed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill that deregulated the banking industry and helped lead to the banking crisis
  • Is a leader in the effort to raise the minimum wage



Primary Election Opponent: Robert Kaus, Brian Quintana

Primary Election Date: June 8, 2010

Primary Election Results: TBD

General Election Opponents: Tom Campbell, Chuck Devore, Carly Fiorina

General Election Date:
November 2, 2010

General Election Result: TBD

Why we like her: Barbara Boxer has been a strong advocate for progressive values for her entire career. Barbara has a long history of working to provide access to quality health care by authoring a bill to combat HMO abuses and voting for health care reform. Barbara has fought to increase jobs here at home by coauthoring the Invest in the U.S.A. Act to encourage companies to bring overseas profits back to the United States to create jobs here.

Candidate website: http://www.barbaraboxer.com/home


Barbara Boxer, a graduate from Brooklyn College with a B.A. in economics, began her career in public service in local government, serving six years as a member of the Marin County Board of Supervisors, including becoming the first woman to be elected by her peers as Chair of the Board.

First elected to the Senate in 1992, Barbara has been tireless in her efforts to improve life for all. She has written laws protecting drinking water standards, opposed bank deregulation and always supported healthcare reform.

Race Type: Democrat Protect

Monday, March 29, 2010

2010 Endorsements Announcement

21st Century Democrats Announces First Round Endorsements

12 Strong Progressive Leaders for America

Washington, DC – 21st Century Democrats today endorsed 12 incumbents for the 2010 election cycle. These candidates have supported a strong progressive populist agenda by voting for important bills such as; Economic Recovery, Climate Change Legislation, Financial Reform and Healthcare Reform.

We work with Democrats who share our vision of a party -- and a country -- which puts ordinary people first. Every election cycle, we look for a candidates running for public office who show great promise of future leadership and aren't afraid to take on big corporate interests. We're building the farm team of progressive populist leadership in the Democratic Party. That's why we were among the earliest supporters of Russ Feingold, Paul Wellstone, and Barack Obama - long before they came to Washington

“These 12 candidates are extraordinary leaders,” said Crystal Plati, Executive Director of 21st Century Democrats. “They are leaders who don’t run for the hills when tough decisions need to be made. They are ready to go into battle and fight to ensure that everyone can realize the American Dream.”

Today’s selection of 12 candidates includes three U.S. Senators and seven U.S. Representatives running for re-election and one U.S. Representative running for an open Senate seat.

21st Century Democrats is a Washington, D.C. based grassroots-oriented political action committee that endorses and helps elect progressive Democrats by building a grassroots organization dedicated to electing progressive leaders. In the last 10 years alone, the organization has helped over 165 candidates in 31 states win election; has employed and trained 475 field organizers and 500 canvassers; and has trained 4,400 activists in the fundamentals of grassroots organizing. By focusing its attention on building aggressive and quantifiable field campaigns, 21st Century Democrats has won the majority of its races for 10 straight years.

21st Century Democrats First Round Endorsements includes:

  • Senator Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senate, California
  • Senator Russ Feingold, U.S. Senate, Wisconsin
  • Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, U.S. Senate, New York
  • Rep. Kendrick Meek, U.S. Senate, Florida
  • Rep. Steve Driehaus, U.S. Congress, Ohio 1st District
  • Rep. Keith Ellison, U.S. Congress, Minnesota 5th District
  • Rep. Alan Grayson, U.S. Congress, Florida 8th District
  • Rep. Martin Heinrich, U.S. Congress, New Mexico 1st District
  • Rep. Jim Himes, U.S. Congress, Connecticut 4th District
  • Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy, U.S. Congress, Ohio 15th District
  • Rep. Ben Lujan, U.S. Congress, New Mexico 3rd District
  • Rep. Chellie Pingree, U.S. Congress, Maine 1st District
  • 2010 Election Candidate Endorsements, Round One

    At long last, 21st Century Democrats is proud to announce its 2010 election cycle endorsements!

    Round One


    U.S. House










    Chellie Pingree- Maine, 1st District










    Martin Heinrich- New Mexico, 1st District












    Jim Himes- Connecticut, 4th District











    Mary Jo Kilroy- Ohio, 15th District











    Keith Ellison- Minnesota, 5th District












    Alan Grayson- Florida, 8th District













    Tarryl Clark
    - Minnesota, 6th District













    Ben Ray Luján- New Mexico, 3rd District










    John Sarbanes
    - Maryland, 3rd District



    U.S. Senate











    Kirsten Gillibrand- New York










    Kendrick Meek- Florida












    Russ Feingold
    - Wisconsin










    Barbara Boxer
    - California


    Governor












    Matt Dunne
    , Vermont














    Ted Strickland
    , Ohio

    Thursday, March 25, 2010

    Russo: Himes not 'independent'

    Former Connecticut state Sen. Rob Russo is betting that Democratic party loyalty can be a bad thing even in a district that gave President Barack Obama 60 percent of the vote in 2008.

    Russo, running against Rep. Jim Himes in Connecticut's affluent 4th Congressional District, predicts the freshman Democrat's voting record will be an obstacle to his first reelection campaign.

    "Jim Himes is in deep trouble because he is not an independent congressman," Russo told POLITICO during a visit to Washington. "Whether it was Chris Shays or Stuart McKinney, you had someone who would break with the party. Shays, at most, would vote with Bush 85 percent of the time. Jim Himes votes with Nancy Pelosi 95 percent of the time."

    Himes has voted with his party on the three signature bills of the 111th Congress: the stimulus, the cap-and-trade energy bill and the health care overhaul that passed this week. And Russo claims the congressman hasn't been effective at explaining that record to his constituents.

    "Himes has very few town hall meetings and when he does, he stands with his arms crossed ... and gives this, I went to Harvard, I'm a Rhodes Scholar, I'm smarter than all of you," he said. "Well, that doesn't work with us. No one's the smartest person in Fairfield County — that's too bold of a claim."

    Russo faces a challenging primary against five other Republicans, including state Sen. Dan Debicella and wealthy Easton Selectman Tom Herrmann. Candidates have to win at least 15 percent of the vote at a May convention in order to qualify for the August primary election.

    Russo has been outraised by Debicella, and Herrmann has pledged to spend money out of his personal fortune on the race. Whoever wins the nomination will have to contend with Himes's formidable fundraising: he ended 2009 as one of the best financed Democratic freshmen, with $1.27 million in his campaign account.

    A real estate lawyer who started out in politics as an intern for pollster Frank Luntz, Russo expects he'll benefit from having a more urban base in Bridgeport. He also told POLITICO he's hoping his relationship with former Republican Rep. Chris Shays might pay off with an endorsement: Russo worked as scheduler and deputy chief of staff to Shays, who represented the 4th District until Himes defeated him in 2008.

    Shays has not weighed in on the race, to date.

    New Mexicans react as House OKs health-care legislation

    By Heath Haussamen

    C-SPAN showed the bill passing 219-212 as time expired on the House vote Sunday evening.

    Here are the statements NMPolitics.net received from New Mexico politicians following the U.S. House’s vote in favor of historic health-care legislation Sunday evening.

    From U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.:

    “Today’s vote to reform our broken health insurance system defines who we are as a nation.

    “My vote today puts an end to insurers rejecting you because you have a pre-existing condition. My vote today closes the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole. My vote today gives small business owners tax credits so their employee coverage will be more affordable. My vote today reduces the deficit by $1.3 trillion over the next two decades. My vote today holds insurance companies accountable.

    “This debate has been long, thoughtful and emotional. And even though we have seen statistics manipulated, misinformation encouraged, and the very patriotism of our fellow citizens called into question, I am confident that my vote today falls on the right side of history.

    “The benefits of reform will be large and immediate for New Mexicans, and our nation will be stronger and healthier because of it.”

    From U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M.:

    “Today, Congress passed historic health insurance reform that will make coverage more affordable and secure for those with insurance, extend coverage for those without insurance, and hold insurance companies accountable.

    “Health insurance reform stops insurance companies from denying people for pre-existing conditions. It provides more choice. It lowers costs and reduces our deficit. It stops insurance companies from dropping people who are sick. It helps small businesses by giving them tax credits. It helps seniors by making prescription drugs more affordable.

    “While this legislation does not solve every problem facing our health insurance system, it does make important steps toward reforming our broken health insurance system, and I’m proud that we were able to pass legislation that will put the people of New Mexico ahead of health insurance companies.”

    Source

    Wednesday, March 24, 2010

    Another Republican NOT Challenging Gillibrand

    Adios, Senor

    From NBC's Mark Murray

    You can add Republican Dan Senor to the growing list of Democrats and Republicans who have decided NOT to challenge NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D), following Harold Ford Jr., Mort Zuckerman, and Rudy Giuliani.

    Senor's statement:

    "Over the past few weeks, I took a very serious look at running for the Senate seat in New York," Senor said in a statement. "I ultimately decided this wasn't the right time in my family and business life for me to run."

    Senor added, "I was privileged to meet so many thoughtful, impressive, and energetic people as I explored this race, and I was very gratified by their enthusiasm. I will continue to look for ways to advance the policy debate here in New York, especially on issues that I am most concerned about: America's declining economic competitiveness, skyrocketing deficits and taxes, a national security strategy that is drifting and a morally equivalent foreign policy that is troubling."

    And he concluded, "There are a number of terrific opportunities for Republicans in 2010 -- including in this Senate race -- and I will lend a hand wherever I can be helpful. I love this state, and I intend to stay involved in matters that affect it."

    Hoyer on 2010 Challengers

    Tuesday, March 23, 2010

    President Obama's Remarks after Signing the Health Care Bill

    Senor Senate Run On Tap

    By Elizabeth Benjamin

    Dan Senor, a Bush II advisor and husband of CNN's Campbell Brown, is poised to announce his challenge to Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand before the week is out, according to multiple sources familiar with his plans.

    GOP and Conservative leaders have been encouraging Senor to throw his hat into the ring. His announcement will likely come Wednesday or Thursday.

    Senor has been working mostly with Washington, D.C.-based consultants. (The Post reports he's being advised by Jon Lerner, the Club for Growth's pollster). But he recently started reaching out to some New York operatives, talking to Susan Del Percio (communications) and Christina Comer (fundraising).

    Del Percio and Comer are both connected to 2006 GOP gubernatorial contender John Faso, who took a pass on running for office this fall, but has been advising Senor on his likely Senate run. (Faso is the co-founder, along with state GOP Chairman Ed Cox, of the conservative PAC New Yorkers for Growth).

    Another consultant with ties to Faso, Michael Hook, is working for gubernatorial hopeful Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy as he ramps up his bid for the GOP line. Faso endorsed Levy's run for governor last week.

    Senor will be Gillibrand's third formally announced GOP challenger.

    Former Port Authority commissioner Bruce Blakeman has been in the running the longest. He announced his candidacy back in January, but has failed to make much of a dent in the junior senator, despite the fact that her standing in the polls is fairly weak.

    Former Rep. Joe DioGuardi, best known as the father of "American Idol" judge Kara DioGiardi, announced his challenge to Gillibrand last week. Economist and Bush I advisor David Malpass is expected to announce next month.

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/03/senor-senate-run-on-tap.html#ixzz0j03XqeqD

    Ex-Congressman Enters Race to Unseat Gillibrand

    As Joseph J. DioGuardi shook hands with friends and supporters at his announcement for his United States Senate bid Tuesday morning, he joked that he had two women to overcome: Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand and his daughter, Kara DioGuardi of “American Idol” fame.

    At times it was unclear which task would be more difficult. “If you don’t know who I am,” Mr. DioGuardi said at Grand Central Terminal, “ask my daughter.”

    But Mr. DioGuardi, 69, who lives in Ossining, N.Y., focused the declaration speech on his experience as a Republican congressman from 1985 to 1988, the state’s ballooning deficit and how the federal government should balance the budget. Mr. DioGuardi, who served 22 years as an accountant with Arthur Andersen before running for Congress, said that Ms. Gillibrand lacked his financial expertise.

    He joins a growing field. So far, two Republicans have said they will challenge Ms. Gillibrand: Bruce A. Blakeman, who dropped out of the New York mayoral race last year, and David Malpass, a former economist at Bear Stearns who worked in the Reagan administration. Dan Senor, a private equity executive and defense adviser to President George W. Bush, is also said to be considering running.

    While in Congress, Mr. DioGuardi helped to write the Chief Financial Officers Act, which required each major department and agency in the federal government to install a chief financial officer to oversee its finances. During his speech, he waved a plastic identification card, which he referred to as the most expensive credit card ever made, that he once used to vote with during his tenure in Congress.

    Mr. DioGuardi said his top priorities were to call for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and to institute term limits.

    “One senator can stop government,” Mr. DioGuardi said. “If they have the nerve, they can stop government.”

    Monday, March 22, 2010

    What Kind of Candidate Can Beat Michele Bachmann?

    That's what it boils down to for Sixth District DFLers, who'll choose between two well-qualified contenders.

    Last update: March 20, 2010 - 5:16 PM

    Who's more likely to perform the politically Herculean feat of ousting GOP cable TV darling Michele Bachmann from her Sixth District congressional seat -- DFL insider Tarryl Clark or outsider Maureen Reed?

    That was the question under earnest discussion by a pair of party veterans March 13 at the Senate District 52 convention, held at Mahtomedi High School. I leaned in to listen.

    "I'm for Tarryl Clark because she's electable," said Mary Vogel of Marine on St. Croix. "We need someone who knows how to run a winning campaign, because she's done it. She's an experienced legislator, and a leader. She's a very good communicator."

    Yvette Oldendorf of Lake Elmo countered, "I'm for Maureen Reed because she's electable. She's a better fit for the district. She's a doctor; she has on-the-ground experience in business and education. Michele Bachmann doesn't know how to deal with someone who knows what she's talking about, like Maureen does."

    In a nutshell, that's the choice confronting delegates at next Saturday's DFL endorsing convention in Blaine. Two top-tier contenders are offering two strikingly different theories about what's required to win in the north suburban/St. Cloud district.

    Their contest bears watching, and not just because they're taking aim at a Republican who has gained a national following with rhetoric that regularly ranges from the right wing to the ridiculous.

    The Clark/Reed contest is illustrative of a national Democratic Party that's struggling to respond to an electorate that's increasingly mistrustful of government and politics as usual. The Sixth District may possess more of that attitude than any other in Minnesota. Traditionally blue-collar and more than a tinge libertarian, it was Jesse Ventura country 12 years ago. The economic storm of the last two years hit the district hard.

    In that unsettled environment, there's something appealing about a candidate who exudes competence and confidence in her ability to win. The dilemma for Sixth District DFLers is that they have two of them.

    Clark, 48, of St. Cloud, is the Minnesota Senate assistant majority leader, former DFL state associate chair and an attorney with an extensive background in nonprofit work. She rose quickly to prominence in the Senate, carrying heavy-duty bills on insurance reform, early education, health care and energy policy.

    She argues that a DFL upset will require mobilizing a true grass-roots campaign. The DFL may not be the district's party. But it has a real on-the-ground network, ready to be activated. Clark says she alone can do it.

    Reed, 56, of Grant, is a physician, former vice president and medical director of HealthPartners, former president of the University of Minnesota Board of Regents and the 2006 Independence Party candidate for lieutenant governor.

    She says Clark's strategy won't cut it in a district whose six counties went 52 percent for John McCain in 2008. Reed says the DFL can win only with a real-world centrist, not a career politician. She fills that bill.

    Next Saturday's delegates are expected to prefer Clark's argument. But they likely won't get the last word. If Clark wins the endorsement, Reed plans to put her name on the Aug. 10 primary ballot.

    The mention of a possible primary fight made some of the DFLers I met at the District 52 convention scowl. Primaries waste time, energy and, most significantly, money, they said. Better to settle early on a candidate who can go full-bore against Bachmann.

    But there's another way to think about that prospect -- especially in a year with an earlier primary than Minnesota has seen in several generations. Money spent on a congressional primary isn't wasted. It builds interest in the race and buys visibility for the winner. Going up against one of the country's best-known members of Congress, the DFL challenger is going to need as much of those things as she can get.

    Pivot to Jobs

    Time for the hard pivot.

    The health care reconciliation bill hasn’t even hit the Senate floor but Democrats are making a quick shift to jobs and financial reform.

    The House Rules Committee, still suffering from a “Slaughter Solution” debate hangover, announced last night it will take up another jobs bill Monday and send it to the House floor. Today the Senate Banking Committee will start its markup of the biggest overhaul of Wall Street in 70 years, while Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner makes a major speech on financial reform Monday to push the cause.

    Still high from their historic health care victory last night, Democrats realize they have to not only show an intense focus on jobs and financial issues, they’ll need to constantly market the health care legislation from now until November to minimize political losses.

    Good Monday morning and welcome to The Huddle.

    FOR THE HISTORY BOOKS:

    POLITICO: “Democrats in the House of Representatives achieved a legislative landmark Sunday night that has eluded generations of lawmakers before them – reshaping the American health care system to extend insurance coverage to nearly 32 million people and halt industry practices that discriminate against the sick.”

    NYT: “House Democrats approved a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health system on Sunday, voting over unanimous Republican opposition to provide medical coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans after an epic political battle that could define the differences between the parties for years.”

    WAPO: “House Democrats scored a historic victory in the century-long battle to reform the nation's health-care system late Sunday night, winning final approval of legislation that expands coverage to 32 million people and attempts to contain spiraling costs.”

    LA TIMES: “Ending the Democrats' decades-long quest to create a healthcare safety net to match Social Security, the House of Representatives on Sunday night approved sweeping legislation to guarantee Americans access to medical care for the first time, delivering President Obama the biggest victory of his young presidency.”

    SENATE BATTLE AHEAD: It may seem anticlimactic after last night, but Republican senators have a bunch of procedural chances to poke holes in the reconciliation bill. Roll Call’s David Drucker and Emily Pierce: “Senate Democrats on Monday are set to pick up the battle over health care reform where the House left off, but the path forward remains uncertain as Republicans comb the reconciliation package for weaknesses and Democrats hunker down in an attempt to preserve the integrity of the bill.

    “It will be important that we stay together so we can keep the bill strong,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said. “We won’t want to erode the bill just because certain people from certain states might want to do something. So, we will to a certain extent have to work together on this.” Countered National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas): “We’ll either bring down the whole bill, or we’ll punch big holes in it.”

    MAYBE NOT: Senior Senate Republicans tell The Hill’s JT Rushing that in the end, they probably can’t stop the reconciliation bill, given that it only needs 51 votes: “Senior Senate Republicans are skeptical of their chances to block major elements of a Democratic reconciliation package of healthcare reforms this week, avoiding the bold predictions of victory that have marked their statements for months.

    “A weeklong series of fits and starts is likely for the 153-page package that Democratic leaders will try to push through the upper chamber using reconciliation rules that will allow its passage with a simple majority of 51 votes. Republicans have threatened for months to make the process as grueling as possible, challenging the bill on virtually a line-by-line basis.”

    Source

    Friday, March 19, 2010

    Humor for Your Friday

    Kos poll: Rubio vulnerable


    In the Florida Senate race, a Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll released Thursday offered a new suggestion that Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek could be competitive in a general election race with former Republican state House Speaker Marco Rubio. According to Kos's poll, Rubio would lead Meek by only one point, 41 percent to 40 percent. Fifty-seven percent of voters said they have no opinion of Meek, while Kos notes "Rubio is now well into net-negative territory," with 29 percent of voters saying they had a favorable impression of him and 36 percent saying the opposite. Rubio leads Gov. Charlie Crist by 28 points in the GOP primary.

    Whatever questions the left may be raising about his electability, Rubio ended the week with yet another embrace from a national conservative icon. His campaign held a joint conference call to discuss health care reform with Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, who told listeners: "We need reinforcements in Washington," adding that he wants to "beg" Floridians to elect politicians with "proven records of when the going gets tough, they don't go wobbly in the knees." Rubio returned the favor with an enthusiastic endorsement of Ryan's "road map" for the federal budget, calling it "by far the most serious proposal out there to deal with things like entitlement reform."


    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34679.html#ixzz0icUp53XR

    Thursday, March 18, 2010

    Dueling Crowds Rally At Rep. Kilroy's Ohio Office

    Don Gonyea | National Public Radio

    Both supporters and opponents of health care overhaul legislation descended on the office of Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy on Tuesday. Kilroy voted yes on the House version of health care legislation in November but has not said what she'll do when the final vote comes up.

    As Congress moves toward some sort of conclusion on health care, Republicans remain united in their opposition, while the White House and Democratic leaders are working to win over still undecided Democrats whose votes are critical to passage.

    But not all of the action on the bill is taking place in Washington. On Tuesday, a pair of noisy noon-time health care rallies dueled for attention outside the district office of Democratic U.S. Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy in Columbus, Ohio.

    Sending A Strong Message

    They lined a quarter-mile stretch of busy road not far from the Ohio State University campus. On one end, there were supporters of the health care bill, and on the other end, the opposition.

    Kilroy, a freshman Democrat who won the slimmest of slim victories in this swing district in 2008, is considered vulnerable in this year's midterm. She did vote yes on the House version of health care legislation in November. But she has not yet said what she'll do when the final vote comes up. Those on both sides said they expect her to support it, though both sides also wanted to send her a strong message Tuesday.

    John Frye, 42, was standing with the opposition. His 5-month-old daughter was sleeping in a sling across his chest.

    "We just took the time to come out here today to try to stop this stuff from getting rammed down our throats," he said. "We really don't want it."

    That's a phrase heard over and over from those opposing the bill. Its repetition is a measure of how organized the opposition is in getting its talking points to the street level. More evidence of that is the fact that many of the people at the rally who opposed the legislation were very aware that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has floated the idea of using a procedural move to advance health care out of the House without a stand-alone vote on the Senate version of the bill.

    "If they can pass it, pass it," he said. "Straight up and down. But don't do this back-door stuff. It's just crazy."

    Nearby, 60-year-old Steve Krempasky said he has been unemployed for two years. He's a truck driver. But his wife works, so he has health insurance. He was wearing a shirt that mimics that iconic silk-screened image of Barack Obama from the campaign — except this shirt features George W. Bush and the phrase: "MISS ME YET?" Krempasky said he does miss the former president.

    "Right now it appears that the government, especially the president, is not listening to what the people have to say," he said.

    'Health Care Is A Right'

    Meanwhile, on the other side, a somewhat smaller but still noisy crowd gathered.

    "I'm here because I believe health care is a right," said Maggie Green, a music teacher and musician. "I believe that people's lives are being destroyed by the system that's currently in place."

    When asked about the possibility that Pelosi is considering procedural maneuvers to get the bill passed without a standalone vote on it, Greene said she hadn't heard about that. But she said it's important to get the bill passed even if it means using other methods — period.

    For the first hour, a wide driveway into the parking lot of Kilroy's Columbus office served as a buffer between the two opposing camps of protesters. Police on bicycles kept an eye on things. There was no trouble. But at some point the divide was breached, with predictable results — arguments ensued.

    Kilroy was not in her district office — she was back in Washington — so she witnessed none of this. She issued a statement thanking each side and saying their views will be crucial in her decision-making process.

    Copyright 2010 National Public Radio. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

    Wednesday, March 17, 2010

    New Ohio Statute to Safeguard Teens

    Shynerra's Law enhances juvenile protection
    Cheryl Rucker visits the grave of her daughter Shynerra Grant, who was killed by an ex-boyfriend despite a juvenile court's no-contact order. The new law toughens such restrictions.
    ( THE BLADE/JEREMY WADSWORTH )

    COLUMBUS - Shynerra Grant did what she was supposed to do after her ex-boyfriend broke her jaw.
    Fearing for her life, she turned to juvenile court and received a no-contact order that prohibited Antonio Bryant Rogers from coming into physical contact with her.

    But less than two weeks after the 17-year-old West Toledo cheerleader graduated from Start High School in 2005, her family and friends attended her funeral. She'd been shot by Rogers after fleeing to a friend's house to escape him.

    That day brought an abrupt end to two young lives. Rogers, 18, went home and shot himself.

    Today, Gov. Ted Strickland will sign Shynerra's Law, handing juvenile court judges a tool they didn't have when the law's namesake first turned to the court for help in 2004.

    The bill, which will take effect in 90 days, would authorize juvenile court judges to issue and enforce protection orders defending one minor from another when one has been accused of committing felonious or aggravated assault, menacing by stalking, a sex crime, or a similar offense.

    Judges in adult courts already have that authority.

    Shynerra's mother, Cheryl Rucker, is expected to be there when Mr. Strickland affixes his signature to the bill that Rep. Edna Brown (D., Toledo) introduced three times over five years before it won passage.

    Shynerra Grant of West Toledo was 17 when her ex-boyfriend killed her in 2005.

    "It's definitely her blood attached to it," Ms. Rucker said. "It can't bring her back, but what happened to her may help so that another young lady won't have to go through the same thing."
    She said she believes her daughter would be alive today, most likely a graduate of Wilberforce University and working as a school teacher, if the judge in her case had the power to issue the juvenile equivalent of an adult protection order against Rogers and follow it up with electronic monitoring or other enforcement.

    That would have been more effective than the no-contact order available at the time, Ms. Rucker said.

    "That meant he couldn't contact her or talk to her, but they could be in the same place together," said Ms. Rucker. "It was basically nothing. He used to show up at games and other activities. Police said he could stay, because he wasn't talking to her.

    "But he was still sending messages through other people, sending text messages, and still tormenting her," she said. "She was still being stalked. I believe he felt invincible because he didn't receive any jail time."

    At one point, she said he convinced a new girlfriend to attack Shynerra.

    Mr. Strickland eventually championed the bill, urging its passage at a domestic violence event last month.

    "Research shows that females aged 16-24 are almost three times more likely to encounter dating violence than older women and that those patterns established in teen years carry over into adulthood," his spokesman, Amanda Wurst, said.

    The bill includes a mechanism to have records of the juvenile proceedings sealed if the subject turns 19 after having complied with the protection order.

    One of the stumbling blocks in getting the bill passed was some lawmakers' concerns that a single incident or a false accusation could haunt an individual into adulthood.

    Judges' opinions of the bill evolved as its language evolved.

    Lucas County Juvenile Court Judge Denise Navarre Cubbon was initially reluctant to be placed in a position of having to judge what constitutes a dating relationship under an early version. The bill's focus has since shifted away from violence within the context of a dating relationship to violence generally between minors.

    "I would still have the option of issuing an interim order of no-contact while a case is still pending," she said. "But I'm going to imagine that, from a juvenile's and juvenile's family's perspective, a civil protection order raises the level of seriousness of this offense."

    Now living in Mesquite, Texas, Ms. Rucker was visiting relatives this week in Toledo when she learned the governor was about to sign the bill.

    "It's taken Shynerra's mom a long time, and she's still not over it yet," Ms. Brown said. "She still has really not found closure. The fact that she will see the bill that she really pushed for become law, I think, might help her to see some closure. It means a great deal to me to have been able to accomplish this for her."

    Also expected to attend today's bill-signing ceremony are Elizabeth Deal, of Oregon, whose daughter Christina, 18, was killed by a former boyfriend in 2003, Johanna Orozco, of Cleveland, who survived being shot in the face by an ex-boyfriend, and several representatives of domestic violence organizations.

    Dems Already Gunning for Thompson













    Convinced he’s on the verge of announcing his Senate candidacy, Democrats are preparing a full-throttle assault on former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, centered on the millions of dollars he made in the private sector.

    While the former four-term governor has not yet publicly signaled his intentions — and many in both parties remain skeptical — Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold’s campaign is operating as if Thompson will announce a run for office in the coming weeks.

    “We take them at their word,” said John Kraus, Feingold’s senior strategist. “Based on everything we know and has been reported, he is likely to run, and this is a race that we are ready for and a debate we are looking forward to having,” he said.

    Former Thompson campaign manager Bill McCoshen raised the prospects of a campaign in early March, telling POLITICO that if meetings with close aides and clients went well, Thompson was expected to set up an exploratory committee by month’s end.

    Thompson’s official spokesman at his Washington-based law firm again pushed back at any assumption that the former Health and Human Services secretary had come to a decision. “He hasn’t even made up his mind,” said Jason Denby of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. “I think he is right in the middle right now, trying to decide.”

    Yet that hasn’t deterred Feingold from launching pre-emptive strikes at Thompson, reminding him of the smash-mouth campaign he can expect.

    At recent events in Madison and Milwaukee, Feingold has singled out Thompson by name, seizing on his ties to Washington lobbyists and the high-powered clients he’s represented.

    “So you might ask, ‘Well, why are these people in Washington asking Tommy Thompson to run?’ Because he’s their friend. Because he does what they want. That’s why they’re asking him to run,” Feingold said.

    “I’ve spent years and years taking on the special interests. And Tommy Thompson spent years taking them on as clients. That’s the difference between the two of us. That’s the difference for Wisconsin as we go forward for this election,” Feingold went on, laying out a general election argument six months before the September primary.

    Thompson’s work as a partner at Akin Gump — where he works with about two dozen clients, mostly on health care policy and regulation — is at the core of the Democratic case. While he is not by law required to disclose his specific roster of clients, the Feingold campaign is pressuring Thompson for more transparency as he considers a bid.

    Thompson’s work on a number of health and pharmaceutical boards is also bound for rigorous scrutiny. He is part-owner and board member of VeriChip Corp., which makes microchips that can be implanted in humans and serves as president of Logistics Health Inc., a company that helped evaluate people who claimed injuries from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.

    “Who is he talking to as part of this process? What is the standard whereby which he would stay on with some and leave others to run? If he’s serious about a campaign this year, as someone who is a D.C. insider with corporate ties, then he should let people know who they are,” said Kraus.

    The Democratic strategy against Thompson appears strikingly similar to the withering attacks that were unloaded on former Indiana Republican Rep. Dan Coats in February, shortly after he announced his interest in retiring Sen. Evan Bayh’s seat. Like Coats, Thompson is being portrayed as an ultrainsider corporate lobbyist who made millions off many of the issues on which he would soon be expected to cast votes.

    Word that Thompson would headline a May 12 Wisconsin Republican Party fundraiser in Washington at the powerhouse GOP lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith & Rogers only fueled the Democratic narrative.

    “The first thing Tommy Thompson does is headline a fundraiser at a Washington, D.C., lobbying shop? It’s not surprising. Where else would a D.C. insider kick off his campaign?” Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate blasted in a statement.

    Asked for a response to that characterization, Denby pointed out: “He’s a businessman. He’s not even a registered lobbyist. He doesn’t lobby.”

    Feingold’s campaign is also beginning to needle Thompson about his early support for President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, a potentially devastating position in a Republican primary, where real estate entrepreneur Terrence Wall and businessman Dave Westlake have already been campaigning for months.

    “There’s a person who was for the Senate bill before he was against it. His name’s Tommy Thompson,” Feingold said last weekend.

    Even when Feingold’s campaign presses the former governor’s two announced opponents to stake out their positions on an issue like earmarks, an elbow is thrown at Thompson for good measure.

    “There has been no mention by Wall or Westlake in the media or on their website indicating where they stand on the issue of wasteful pork-barrel spending,” Feingold’s campaign said in a recent press release. “According to a recent editorial by the Green Bay Press-Gazette, Wisconsin’s structural deficit has its roots in the Thompson administration. As Wisconsin governor, Thompson expanded the size of government and left the state with budget deficits we are still dealing with.”

    On Monday, Feingold took another swipe at Thompson — this time on agricultural policy.

    “Wall and Thompson have both supported unfair trade deals in the past like NAFTA. Feingold opposed those bad trade deals, and they hurt Wisconsin farmers, families and businesses,” the release read.

    Denby said that while Thompson continues to weigh his options, he is not interested in responding to the grenades being tossed in his direction.

    “He respects Sen. Feingold, and he doesn’t want to get into a partisan battle. He’s really just trying to talk it through with his family,” said Denby.

    Thompson might have gotten some more subtle encouragement from a new poll released Monday by the conservative Wisconsin Policy Research Institute that showed him holding a 12-percentage-point advantage over Feingold. Democrats dismissed its findings, but other independent polling has found that Thompson would immediately be competitive if he entered the campaign.


    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34532.html#ixzz0iSEeoRjD

    Tuesday, March 16, 2010

    Florida Senate Candidate Kendrick Meek Nears Petition Goal

    Wesley Chapel

    The leading Democratic candidate for Florida's open U.S. Senate seat, Kendrick Meek, says he is on track to meet his goal of collecting 130,000 signatures by March 29, making him the first statewide candidate to qualify for the Florida ballot by petition.

    Yet his campaign has been largely overshadowed by the fierce GOP contest between Gov. Charlie Crist and former House Speaker Marco Rubio.

    Meek's campaign manager, Abe Dyk, announced Monday that the campaign has 112,000 signatures, though only a portion of those have been turned in to state election officials.

    But the campaign may still pay the qualifying fee in case it gets "dragged into" a legal dispute over the validity of the signatures, Dyk acknowledged. The roughly $10,000 fee is due April 30.

    "We expect that we are going to make the ballot and make it with enough that we won't be paying that fee,'' and if the campaign paid the fee it would be "doing it only to make sure," he said.

    Meek has been crisscrossing the state to gather signatures and raise his profile, with 10 trips to Jacksonville, five to Pensacola and "too many to count" to Tampa Bay and Orlando, Dyk said. Polls show him trailing Crist and Rubio.

    Polling Yes or No on Health Care

    Polling yes or no on health care

    From NBC's Mark Murray
    Here are the first findings we're teasing from our new NBC/WSJ poll, which is released in full beginning at 6:30 pm ET: Americans are essentially divided about how their congressman should vote on the health-care bill.

    According to the poll, if their congressman votes with Republicans to defeat the bill, 34% say they would be less likely to re-elect that member, 31% say they would be more likely to vote for him/her, and 34% say it makes no difference.

    However, if their congressman votes with Democrats to pass the legislation, 36% say they would be less likely to re-elect that member, 28% say they would be more likely to vote for him/her, and 34% say it makes no difference.

    Translation: "There is no easy place right now in the health-care debate," says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the NBC/WSJ survey with Democratic pollster Peter Hart.

    Hart adds, "It would be nice if there was consensus. There really isn't."

    Monday, March 15, 2010

    Jim Clyburn Podcast

    Thompson leads Feingold in WPRI poll














    By Hannah Furfaro

    Tommy Thompson leads incumbent U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., in a hypothetical matchup, according to a poll released Friday from the conservative-leaning Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.

    The poll showed that Thompson has the support of 51 percent of likely voters while Feingold received the support of 39 percent. Nine percent said they were undecided.

    According to a statement from WPRI, Thompson likely leads the race because of support from Independents. Both Thompson and Feingold received strong support from their respective parties.

    Ken Goldstein, UW-Madison political science professor and director of the poll, said hypothetical matchup results could change if Thompson officially enters the race.

    “The survey shows a lead for Thompson and a race between these two Badger state political titans would be intense. Still, hypothetical match ups can change once a potential candidate officially enters the race … it will be interesting to see if his support and lead hold up once the back and forth of a campaign starts,” he said in a statement.

    Feingold’s campaign said their focus will “not be on polls” as they head into the election season.

    “There will be a lot of polls between now and Election Day eight months from now,” Trevor Miller, Feingold’s spokesperson said in a statement.

    The survey polled 600 randomly selected likely voters through phone interviews between March 7 and 9. The poll had a margin of error of plus-or-minus four percentage points.

    Friday, March 12, 2010

    No Front Runner for Vermont Governor's Race







    An analysis of a recently conducted WCAX poll undertaken by University of Vermont Political Science Professor Anthony Gierzynski shows that the Vermont Governor’s race is still wide open, and that when the margin of error is taken into account, three of the Democratic candidates are statistically tied with the Republican Lieutenant Governor, Brian Dubie.

    “We are delighted with the outcome of the poll, particularly considering this higher level of analysis,” said David Babbott, Campaign Coordinator for the Matt Dunne campaign. “Matt has significantly lower name recognition than the Lt. Governor and the other front runners, yet it is now clear he has as good a chance as any of them to win in November.”

    The analysis shows that Sec. of State Deb Markowitz, Sen. Doug Racine and Matt Dunne are all statistically tied with Dubie. Sen. Susan Bartlett and Sen. Pro Tem Peter Shumlin were the only ones to actually lose to Dubie in the trial heat.

    The real meaning of the WCAX poll has come under increased scrutiny lately as Secretary of State Deb Markowitz has tried to claim that her numbers in the poll make her the only candidate who can win in November, mentioning the results in recent candidate forums and placing them prominently on the front page of her campaign website.

    “These results plainly indicate that there is no clear Democratic frontrunner, which is very typical at this early stage of a primary race,” said John Whaley from Garin Hart Yang Research Group, a DC-based polling firm that has worked with Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Patrick Leahy, and candidates across the country. “I can certainly understand why the Secretary of State would want to encourage people to think she’s got this race locked up, but her claim that she is the only candidate polling ahead of Dubie is statistically untrue.”

    The Dunne campaign has been taking steps to continue to boost name recognition around Vermont, and was also the only campaign to have volunteers engaging voters on Town Meeting Day as they left polling locations in 5 counties. Dunne, who won an upset primary in 2006, already has dozens of volunteers devoting many hours of their time every week to the campaign.

    “We know there is a long way to the primary,” said Margaret Kannenstine, Co-Chair of Matt Dunne for Vermont. “We are just delighted that at this early stage Matt is among the leading candidates and also clearly has the greatest opportunity to attract new supporters. With his history of field organizing, that is exactly where we want to be.”

    Source

    Will The White House vs. SCOTUS tiff escalate?

    The Big Question: Will the White House vs. SCOTUS tiff escalate?
    By Sydelle Moore - 03/11/10

    Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer their insight into the biggest news story burning up the blogosphere today.




    Today's question:

    Chief Justice John Roberts fired back at the White House this week. Will the battle between the high court and the White House continue to escalate in 2010?


    Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, said:

    Let's hope so. The Citizens United decision was so radical -- and so potentially damaging to our democracy -- that it is worth the battle. Simply shrugging one's shoulders and moving on should not be an option. The Court ignored precedent and turned back the clock to the era of the robber barons and the “Senator from Standard Oil”. The real world experience of Justice O’Connor -- who understood the disproportionate sway corporations had in the process before the Citizens United decision -- is sorely missed on the court.

    If the Chief Justice wishes to continue publicly complaining about perceived mistreatment in the wake of Citizens United I would welcome it. Reminding the public of the radical turn the Court has taken to empower corporations shortly after a controversial series of massive bailouts of Wall Street firms and other corporations is a good thing.

    Continued focus on the decision will only help to maintain the impetus for Congress to pass the legislation needed to help mitigate the damage caused by a decision which instantly created a new world order. It changed 180 degrees the trajectory of 100 years of campaign finance law.

    Let's hope this subject does not go quietly into the night....


    Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said:

    Only if Chief Justice Roberts doesn't grow up.


    Hal Lewis, professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara, said

    Absolutely. There is no way to achieve the Obama crowd's only-half-concealed ambitions without getting the Supreme Court out of the way. President Roosevelt had the same problem, and his solution---which in the end didn't work---was to increase the size of the Court and pack it with friends. If Obama gets two terms he will be able to achieve the latter without a need for the former. He also needs to tame the Senate, but that's another story. The stakes are very high.



    Glenn Reynolds
    of Instapundit said:

    By starting — and, foolishly, continuing — a feud with the Supreme Court, Obama has managed to preemptively upstage himself for the next State of the Union address, where press coverage will inevitably lead with whether Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, and others show up or not. In this, as in many things, he has demonstrated the immaturity and oversensitivity to criticism that has marked his administration.



    Rob Richie, FairVote executive director, said:

    I hope so. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I think it's healthy to acknowledge that it's political fiction that the Supreme Court is above politics, and that bitterly divided 5-4 rulings are not tied to the politics of the presidents who nominated members of the court. More broadly, Congress and the White House often give the Supreme Court the power to sort out inherently political policy decisions that the other branches choose to ignore due to their timidity, division or failure to try to enact constitutional change. Let's bring all that out in the open as we think about how best to uphold freedom and make our democracy work.



    John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

    Any brakes the Supreme Court can put on the Obama agenda will be most welcome. But I fear the justices will merely be dabbling at the edges of the enormous growth of executive power — most of it not attributable to Obama but to his numerous predecessors.

    There should be no war without a congressional declaration. There should be no involvement of the federal government in education, energy, housing, affirmative action, transportation and a host of other areas where no constitutional authorization exists. The Supreme Court could do the nation a big favor by reasserting the Constitution's clear intent regarding these and many other topics.

    Earmarks? Stop this incredibly expensive process. Federal Reserve? Get rid of it. National debt? Require paying it down, certainly not adding to it. Social Security? Make it voluntary and the young will exit the program while it is phased out in a generation.

    As usual, the Supreme Court will be dealing with numerous fringe matters while the country heads to bankruptcy, totalitarianism and disaster. The headlines about the contentions between the White House and the Supreme Court dealt only with a passing remark given by the president in his State of the Union speech and the reaction to it given by a single justice. Not much of substance there.




    Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at U.C. Irvine, said:

    The court has moved sharply to the right in recent decisions and has the power to enact policies that are contrary to the majority view. Roberts should understand that there is going to be an inevitable backlash against the court and it will come from more than just the White House. Expect increasing divisiveness and more unraveling of the American political fabric.



    Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

    The conflict between the Obama administration and the Supreme Court — or a faction of it — is rooted in the tension between "progressivism" and the constitutional order envisioned by the Founders. You'll recall — or, perhaps, you don't — the battle between Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Supreme Court over the New Deal legislation FDR rammed through Congress, and which was declared unconstitutional by the court majority. Back then, FDR accused the court of trying to drag us back to the "horse and buggy" era: The Constitution? That's just an archaic, yellowing old document that has no possible relevance to the "modern" requirements of the Welfare-Warfare State. That, at least, was the New Dealers' war cry.

    This is the same argument made by today's "liberals," who say the Founders couldn't have foreseen the emergence of large corporations and their influence over our elections and the legislative process. Apparently, these people have never heard of the British East India Company, which, as Wikipedia explains, was on the verge of bankruptcy when the British Crown and Parliament gave it a helping hand:

    "The desperate directors of the company attempted to avert bankruptcy by appealing to Parliament for financial help. This led to the passing of the Tea Act in 1773, which gave the Company greater autonomy in running its trade in America, and allowed it an exemption from the tea tax — which its colonial competitors were required to pay. When the American colonists, who included tea merchants, were told of the act, they tried to boycott it, claiming that, although the price had gone down on the tea when enforcing the act, it was a tax all the same, and the king should not have the right to just have a tax for no apparent reason. The arrival of tax-exempt Company tea, undercutting the local merchants, triggered the Boston Tea Party in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, one of the major events leading up to the American Revolution."

    Yes, the tea partiers of yesteryear were rising up against the same sort of crony "capitalism" that inspires the Obama administration — bank bailouts, insurance company cartels, and all.



    Frank Askin, professor of Law at Rutgers University, said:

    It depends what is meant by "battle." Obama and the Democrats will continue to attack the decision and seek legislative fixes. The court majority's response will probably come in decisions striking down some of those fixes.

    Ohio, Rhode Island crying foul over housing money

    By Silla Brush

    House and Senate lawmakers are criticizing the Obama administration for leaving their states out of a $1.5 billion program that helps five states with battered housing markets.

    Ohio and Rhode Island lawmakers argue the program, which would redirect money from the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, should benefit their states in addition to the five selected: Nevada, California, Florida, Arizona and Michigan.

    President Barack Obama unveiled the program for the “hardest-hit housing markets” when he was in Nevada in February to help campaign for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

    The program was designed to help housing finance agencies in states that have witnessed home-price declines of at least 20 percent from their peak. Just five states have seen such high-percentage declines: Nevada (49.9), California (38.9), Florida (37.4), Arizona (36.8) and Michigan (24.1).

    The administration said the program is aimed at developing new efforts to help housing markets. The recipients can use the money for a range of programs, including mortgage modifications, modifications with principal write-downs and short sales. The state housing finance agencies would not need to repay the money.

    “While many states across the nation have experienced decline, these really are the hardest-hit,” Diana Farrell, deputy director at the National Economic Council, said when the program was announced.

    Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) has raised concerns about the program neglecting Rhode Island, which has the seventh-highest rate of price decline in the country, at 17.2 percent, according to government data.

    “Reed believes this is a flawed plan. He has communicated that to the White House and asked why Rhode Island wasn’t included,” said Reed spokesman Chip Unruh.

    Ohio Sens. Sherrod Brown (D) and George Voinovich (R) have both complained to the administration that there is no reason their state should be left out of the new program.

    “This exclusion has resulted in confusion, concern and resentment from elected officials, housing agencies and organizations, and some of my constituents,” Voinovich wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

    A bipartisan group of Ohio House members in late February wrote a similar letter to the president. The members were Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D), Marcia Fudge (D), Michael Turner (R), Steve Driehaus (D), Mary Jo Kilroy (D), John Boccieri (D), Patrick Tiberi (R), Steven LaTourette (R), Betty Sutton (D), Tim Ryan (D), Marcy Kaptur (D), Charlie Wilson (D) and Zack Space (D).

    The Ohio lawmakers argue that their state has been slammed with high rates of mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures. By focusing on home prices, the program skews toward states that have had heavy speculation, Ohio lawmakers charge.

    Meanwhile, Ohio housing advocates argue the administration’s other programs to encourage mortgage modifications have been of little benefit to the state.

    A report from the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio (COHHIO) pegs the state as the fourth worst in terms of the number of seriously delinquent loans that received modifications.

    “I am deeply concerned that the proposal would disregard states like Ohio that have borne the brunt of the crisis,” Brown wrote to the president.

    Meg Reilly, a spokeswoman at the Treasury Department, said Ohio is receiving a heavy amount of aid from other federal housing programs. Among other efforts, Reilly said, Ohio state and local housing finance offices received a total of $555 million in bond support in October.

    Last week, the administration allocated the $1.5 billion among the five states: California ($700 million), Florida ($418 million), Michigan ($155 million), Arizona ($125 million) and Nevada ($103 million).

    Lawmakers and officials in other states that have seen steep price declines said they were not pressing the administration to be included.

    Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) is monitoring the program to see if it could be beneficial in Maryland, which has the sixth-highest rate of home-price declines, at 19 percent.

    “He would be interested in seeing it expand to other states if it helps a significant number of homeowners stay in their homes,” said Susan Sullam, spokeswoman for Cardin.

    Thursday, March 11, 2010

    Missing the Movement

    by Michael Walzner

    Enclosed are a few pertinent excerpts from a much larger essay, which can be accessed here.



    I have never found the pendulum metaphor particularly useful, since pendulums swing as far to the right as to the left, and politics is obviously not like that. We have had over 30 years in which all the momentum has been on the right, and the leftward swing of the 1960s has been more than equaled. Politically and ideologically, the shift has been very great; the whole country has moved rightward; every argument starts from a different place than it did 30 or 50 years ago. On a whole range of issues, it is extraordinarily difficult to make any headway: on the state’s obligation to provide health care (without the mediation of profit-seeking insurance companies), on the importance of unions, on a decent environmental policy (and a decent regard for the wellbeing of future generations), and even, in the midst of the recession, on the importance of job creation. November 2008 may have been the beginning of a reversal, the pendulum swinging leftward again. Maybe. But it looks right now like a very weak swing.

    What happened to that advantage? I think we all know. Starting with the antiwar movement of the ’60s, the left constituency divided in a pretty radical way: on one side, the liberal, secular, well-educated cosmopolitans and on the other side, the religious, socially conservative, working-class patriots. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama managed in different ways to bring these two groups together, at least to some extent, but only as an electoral coalition, not as a cohesive political force able to mobilize its members between elections. Is cohesion and mobilization even possible today? If not, we are likely to have more presidents like Clinton and Obama, who can win elections but cannot enact anything more than a highly compromised version of their own agenda–which is not, in any case, a strong left agenda.

    This is an incrementalist time, and the crucial thing is to get the increments right. The economic crisis and the two wars that Obama inherited make this difficult for our embattled president–and the fierceness of the opposition, which I don’t think he expected, makes things even harder. Obama certainly believed everything he said about reconciliation; he thought that he could at least take the edge off the bitter partisanship of Washington politics. Obviously he hasn’t been able to do that, and now every step forward, including the small steps, will require a bloody fight. Meanwhile, the costs of the stimulus and of the wars leave the President very little money for social experiments. He has to move forward with health care and the environment and education even if he can only move slowly, much more slowly than he hoped. This is one form of incrementalism, and what is important is that each move open the way for further moves–no dead ends!

    CBC: Obama Not Listening

    By LISA LERER & NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON
    Congressional Black Caucus Chair Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif,,  center, and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus during a new  conference on Capitol Hill Dec. 11, 2009.
    Members of the Congressional Black Caucus don’t expect special treatment from Obama -- but they do want more from him than they’re getting, according to one aide. Photo: AP

    Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are headed to the White House for a meeting on jobs Thursday, and they’ll have a few words to say about how President Barack Obama is doing his.

    The 43-member caucus is fighting through one of the most difficult periods in its 39-year history, and some members and aides said they’re getting far too little support from the nation’s first black president — a man they once believed would be their strongest champion.

    House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) told POLITICO that White House officials are “not listening” to black lawmakers.

    Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) said “there’s not enough attention to poor people.”

    And Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) said: “While I respect President Obama, delivering victories for his political future should be the least of our worries on Capitol Hill.”

    Aides to CBC members said tensions between black lawmakers and the White House have risen in recent months as the caucus has tried to address the extraordinarily high unemployment rate among African-Americans, while navigating a succession of ethical issues — including the ethics committee ruling that cost CBC member Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee last week.

    Privately, lawmakers and aides rattle off a series of grievances with the White House — and particularly with chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and senior aide Valerie Jarrett.

    A CBC aide said that Jarrett has canceled lunch plans with the caucus eight times and that her office is slow to return calls and pays more attention to longtime supporters than to senior CBC members.

    A White House aide said Jarrett is not the White House point person for the CBC but has met with members on several occasions. Jarrett also visited CBC Chairman Barbara Lee’s district two weeks ago and did several events, according to the aide.

    Caucus members were outraged after Jarrett called Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) last summer and pushed him to support the president’s agenda by voting to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The conversation quickly grew heated and ended with both parties feeling frustrated, according to a CBC aide. Obama himself immediately called back to ask why Ellison was giving Jarrett such a hard time, the aide said.

    Several months later, Conyers said Obama called and accused him of “demeaning” him by criticizing White House polices on health care and Afghanistan.

    That report didn’t sit well with many African-American lawmakers, aides and lobbyists, who revere Conyers as an elder statesman.

    “Conyers has been in Congress longer than Barack Obama could spell,” said a black strategist close to both the White House and Congress. “If he’s making a complaint, it’s a shot across the bow, and you might want to pay attention to that.”

    CBC members and aides felt slighted when civil rights leaders the Rev. Al Sharpton, Marc Morial and Benjamin Jealous got a White House meeting on jobs before they did — despite the fact that the CBC had been requesting such a meeting. And White House efforts to push embattled New York Gov. David Paterson out of the gubernatorial race rubbed some CBC members the wrong way.

    “That left a bad taste with CBC members,” said a former CBC aide. “They thought, ‘Why is an African-American president calling to push an African-American governor out of the race?’”

    After repeated requests for comment about the CBC’s concerns, White House spokesman Corey Ealons told POLITICO Wednesday night: “President Obama continues to seek out the best solutions to address the nation’s toughest challenges and values every opportunity to discuss these issues with Chairwoman Lee and members of the Congressional Black Caucus. We look forward to continued work with the CBC on important matters including enacting health insurance reform, creating new jobs and developing a world-class education system.”

    An aide for a senior CBC member said members of the caucus don’t expect special treatment from Obama. But they do want more from him than they’re getting.

    “None of these members think they are going to be onstage with Obama having a black party, but they desperately want to have a relationship,” said the aide. “Everything that is going on right now is pitting the black president against the CBC, and the CBC doesn’t have enough of a bully pulpit to win the fight.”

    Black strategists and lobbyists complain that no one at the White House understands the delicate politics of the CBC or how to make behind-the-scenes overtures that could mollify members.

    Jarrett is from Chicago and has little history with either Washington or the CBC. Members of the caucus have long been distrustful of Emanuel. And even Obama, they noted, was an infrequent participant in caucus events during his tenure in the Senate.

    “They don’t have a person they can go to,” said a former CBC aide.

    Lawmakers said other administration officials — including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood — have been responsive. And CBC Chairwoman Lee (D-Calif.) had praise for administration officials as a whole.

    “They’re very receptive, very open,” she said. “How to get [jobs help for African-Americans] done in this political environment is the issue. But we definitely have been meeting with administration officials.”

    Still, CBC aides and black scholars said there are relatively easy things the Obama administration could be doing to curry favor with the CBC, including adding more staffers with CBC experience and making sure to include CBC members in high-profile meetings. For example, they said that CBC member Donna Christensen (D-U.S. Virgin Islands) — a physician and the CBC’s leader on health care — should have been included in the White House health care summit.

    CBC members said they expect a wide-ranging discussion at the White House on Thursday.

    “Suffice it to say, the president will hear the concerns of the CBC,” Hastings told POLITICO.

    But unlike previous presidents, Obama doesn’t need to win over the CBC in order to pick up support in the black community. Polls show that 96 percent of black voters view him favorably — a number the CBC members probably can’t match themselves.

    “I can’t imagine that any one member of the caucus can come within 15 points of the president in terms of the favorability,” said Michael Fauntroy, a public policy professor at George Mason University. “The sense I get is that people are far more protective of President Obama than they are of their own representatives that they have known for 20 years.”

    That point isn’t lost on Obama, who brought up his polling numbers when April Ryan of American Urban Radio Network asked him in December about grumblings among the black leadership.

    “I think if you look at the polling, in terms of the attitudes of the African-American community, there’s overwhelming support for what we’ve tried to do,” said Obama.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34239.html#ixzz0hs4BSWea