Oregon Senator Merkley Is Fighting for Us

As doubtful as I am that this will have any effect, at least he’s on our side.

...

LETTER FROM SENATE DEMOCRATS TO LEADER REID

Dear Leader Reid:

We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.

There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach – its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.

A Public Option Is an Important Tool for Restoring Fiscal Discipline.

As Democrats, we pledged that the Senate health care reform package would address skyrocketing health care costs and relieve overburdened American families and small businesses from annual double-digit health care cost increases. And that it would do so without adding a dime to the national debt.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that the Senate health reform bill is actually better than deficit neutral. It would reduce the deficit by over $130 billion in the first ten years and up to $1 trillion in the first 20 years.

These cost savings are an important start. But a strong public option can be the centerpiece of an even better package of cost saving measures. CBO estimated that various public option proposals in the House save at least $25 billion. Even $1 billion in savings would qualify it for consideration under reconciliation.

Put simply, including a strong public option is one of the best, most fiscally responsible ways to reform our health insurance system.

A Public Option Would Provide Americans with a Low-Cost Alternative and Improve Market Competitiveness.

A strong public option would create better competition in our health insurance markets. Many Americans have no or little real choice of health insurance provider. Far too often, it’s “take it or leave it” for families and small businesses. This lack of competition drives up costs and leaves private health insurance companies with little incentive to provide quality customer service.

A recent Health Care for America Now report on private insurance companies found that the largest five for-profit health insurance providers made $12 billion in profits last year, yet they actually dropped 2.7 million people from coverage. Private insurance – by gouging the public even during a severe economic recession – has shown it cannot function in the public’s interest without a public alternative. Americans have nowhere to turn. That is not healthy market competition, and it is not good for the public.

If families or individuals like their current coverage through a private insurance company, then they can keep that coverage. And in some markets where consumers have many alternatives, a public option may be less necessary. But many local markets have broken down, with only one or two insurance providers available to consumers. Each and every health insurance market should have real choices for consumers.

There is a history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation.

There is substantial Senate precedent for using reconciliation to enact important health care policies. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare Advantage, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), which actually contains the term ‘reconciliation’ in its title, were all enacted under reconciliation.

The American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein and Brookings’ Thomas Mann and Molly Reynolds jointly wrote, “Are Democrats making an egregious power grab by sidestepping the filibuster? Hardly.” They continued that the precedent for using reconciliation to enact major policy changes is “much more extensive . . . than Senate Republicans are willing to admit these days.”

There is strong public support for a public option, across party lines.

The overwhelming majority of Americans want a public option. The latest New York Times poll on this issue, in December, shows that despite the attacks of recent months Americans support the public option 59% to 29%. Support includes 80% of Democrats, 59% of Independents, and even 33% of Republicans.

Much of the public identifies a public option as the key component of health care reform -- and as the best thing we can do to stand up for regular people against big insurance companies. In fact, overall support for health care reform declined steadily as the public option was removed from reform legislation.

Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public’s perception of it. The Senate has an obligation to reform our unworkable health insurance market -- both to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices. A strong public option is the best way to deliver on both of these goals, and we urge its consideration under reconciliation rules.

Respectfully,

Michael Bennet (D-CO), U.S. Senator

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), U.S. Senator

Jeff Merkley (D-OR), U.S. Senator

Sherrod Brown (D-OH), U.S. Senator

[emphasis original]

Inserted from <whipcongress.com>

At times like this I feel proud that my grunt work on his campaign helped elect him and unseat the Republican hypocrite, goose-stepping Gordon Smith.

Oregon Voters Raise Taxes on Corporations and the Rich

Five days ago I encouraged support for Oregon Measures 66 and 67.  I’m happy to announce that both passed.

Oregon voters bucked decades of anti-tax and anti-Salem sentiment Tuesday, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to prevent further erosion of public schools and other state services.

The tax measures passed easily, with late returns showing a 54 percent to 46 percent ratio. Measure 66 raises taxes on households with taxable income above $250,000, and Measure 67 sets higher minimum taxes on corporations and increases the tax rate on upper-level profits.

The results triggered waves of relief from educators and legislative leaders, who were facing an estimated $727 million shortfall in the current two-year budget if the measures failed.

"We're absolutely ecstatic," said Hanna Vandering, a physical education teacher from Beaverton and vice president of the statewide teachers union. "What Oregonians said today is they believe in public education and vital services."

The double-barreled victory is the first voter-approved statewide income tax increase since the 1930s. Other states, facing similar budget woes, are watching the outcome closely because Oregon, after all, is a state that capped property taxes and locked a surplus tax rebate program into the constitution… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

The people of Oregon, although progressive in many ways, have a long standing antipathy to taxes.  Nevertheless, we recognized that it’s time for the rich, including corporations, to pay more.  We saw through an onslaught of rabid-right advertising laden with lies.  We have set the example for America.  Follow our lead!

Oregon Senators Join in Call to Extend Unemployment Benefits

Until the jobs deficit, engendered by this GOP recession, is corrected, we need to help unemployed workers.

With unemployment still hovering in double digits and no real relief in sight, a group of 30 Senate Democrats today is urging party leaders to extend emergency unemployment benefits through the end of 2010 — 10 months longer than current law dictates.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the lawmakers argue that shorter extensions might be cheaper, but they leave state budgeters in a state of constant uncertainty.

Short term extensions, while still helpful to families, only add strain to state agencies that must constantly re-tool their computer systems, and at the same time, continue to assist the millions still searching for work. As our economy continues on a path to recovery, we need a robust extension of safety net programs that have provided a lifeline to families since the recession began.

Signing the letter were Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin (Iowa), Bob Casey (Pa.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Chris Dodd (Conn.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Al Franken (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Frank  Lautenberg (N.J.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.),
Roland Burris (Ill.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), John Kerry (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Edward Kaufman (Del.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Tom Udall (N.M.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.), as well as Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.)... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Independent>

This will probably receive broad support on final vote, because the GOP will be afraid not to pass it in an election year, as mush as they hate assisting those that their policies have devastated.  However, it will be educational to watch Repuglicans fight tooth and nail to hold this up in order to consume as much floor time as possible and thus prevent Democrats from spending that time on America’s other needs.

I feel proud that my Senators are part of this worthwhile effort.

Public Transportation Creates More Jobs

While I agree that highway construction and maintenance is a valuable outlet for stimulus funds, there is a better way.

Smart Growth America has taken a look at the stimulus and discovered something that might not seem so obvious: dollars spent on public transportation generate twice as many jobs as the same amount of money spent on highways and bridges.

The data tell us that every billion dollars in public transportation investments made as of October 31 2009 produced roughly an additional 8,000 job-months compared to highway projects. ARRA transportation funds have so far gone disproportionately to highways. If the total road + public transportation funding in the just-passed House jobs bill were invested equally in public transportation and highways, the same outlay would produce 71,415 additional job-months, equivalent to year-round employment for 5,951 additional people.

Public transportation helps preserve urban areas and raise property values along their travel corridors. It brings much less pollution than individual vehicles and saves riders over $9000 a year compared to driving. And public transportation dollars create twice as many jobs as highway dollars…

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

Here in Portland, we have one of the best public transit systems in the nation, as I know well, because I do not drive.  I spend hours every week on buses and MAX (pictured above) trains.  Nevertheless, there is still plenty of room for improvement and expansion of that system.  For all the reasons listed above, I strongly support expenditures of more federal stimulus funds on public transit.

Pass Measures 66 & 67 in Oregon

The only reason I will not vote for these is that I already have.

A new poll indicates that Oregon voters strongly favor two ballot measures that would raise taxes on corporations, as well as on individuals making over $125,000 and households with an income over $250,000.

Measure 66, which would raise taxes on higher-earning taxpayers, is favored by 52% to 39%. Measure 67, which would increase both the corporate minimum tax and certain corporate tax rates, is favored by 50% to 40%.

The increased revenue would go to maintain public services, schools, health care, and public safety. Over $1 billion is at stake -- $733 million in direct revenue and the rest in matching funds from federal programs. The bulk of the increases would be temporary.

Both measures were passed last year by the Oregon state legislature, but a group called Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes quickly raised over a million dollars and collected enough signatures to force the proposals to be decided by a special election this month.

Ironically, this has now had the effect of moving the voting, which concludes next Tuesday, to a period when anti-corporate feeling is on the increase.

A diarist at Daily Kos reported in July that Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes was "led by veteran conservative lobbyist Mark Nelson (who has represented a number of conservative clients, most notably the tobacco industry). This PAC has raised $189,000 so far, with $100,000 coming from four major conservative PACs (the Restaurant Association, the Housing Lobby, Automobile Dealers and Grocery Stores) and the rest coming from a collection of businesses including oil companies among others."

A story in Thursday's Oregonian concluded that the outcome was likely to depend on turnout, since "both campaigns are using cutting-edge database and phone technology that factor in everything from consumer habits to reading preferences to select voters who could be the deciding factor in an election that both sides acknowledge has grown very tight." That story, however, appears to have been written before the release of the latest poll...

Inserted from <Raw Story>

Here in Oregon, the rich have it pretty easy.  The top tax bracket is a marginal rate of 9% and covers everyone making over $16,000 per year.  Many giant corporations pay just the minimum corporate tax, a flat tax of $10.  I have not seen a ad in favor yet, but the I have seen a highly deceptive ad in opposition dozens of times.  It depicts a small bakery owner firing beloved employees because he cannot afford them after the tax.  The bakery actually exists.  It’s a California bakery, and a single proprietorship, not a corporation, so it would not even be effected by the tax.  If it actually were an Oregon corporation, their total income tax would be $42 per month, hardly enough to cause the layoff of two employees.  The Oregonian, to their shame, opposes the measures.

Assuming that we pass this, Oregon will be setting an example for the rest of the nation, especially the spineless representatives in DC.

In other Oregon political news, the Senator I helped elect, Jeff Merkley, blasted Murkowski’s reactionary proposal to muzzle the EPA.  To read what he wrote, Click Here.

F-15s Escort Airliner Back to Portland

Yesterday I heard the distinctive sound of military jets, thought that they were flying lower than usual, and dismissed it.

Two F-15 fighter jets escorted a passenger jet that had been headed for Hawaii back to Portland International Airport in Oregon after a passenger in coach became "uncooperative," an airline official said Wednesday.

Hawaiian Airlines Flight 39 took off from Portland at 10:10 a.m. with 231 passengers and a crew of 10 when -- 90 minutes into the flight -- its captain decided to turn around the Boeing 767, said Keoni Wagner, the airline's vice president of public affairs.

The fighter jets intercepted the plane at 1 p.m., North American Aerospace Defense Command said in a written statement.

It landed at 1:16 p.m. without further incident, the TSA said.

Upon the plane's return, the passenger -- a 56-year-old Salem, Oregon, man -- was escorted from the plane with his female companion without incident, the FBI and the Port of Portland said in a joint statement.

The FBI said it was not releasing his name because he had not been charged.

FBI agents and Port officers interviewed the passenger and his companion, the flight crew and others, then released the two and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney's Office for review.

Local and federal officers searched the plane, then allowed it to depart again for Hawaii, absent the pair.

Oregon Air National Guard spokesman Sgt. John Hughel said command post officials told him they did not know who had placed the call for the escort.

In a statement, the Transportation Security Administration said the captain decided to return the plane to Portland "due to a suspicious passenger who made threatening remarks and refused to store his carry-on bag."

Port of Portland Public Information Officer Martha Richmond told CNN that the plane was turned around "due to concerns the crew had."…

Inserted from <CNN>

If nothing else, this incident demonstrates that the Obama administration is taking the threat of terrorism seriously.  Let’s compare it to how Bush and the GOP handled a more serious threat.  Since the early 1970s, it has been the standard operating procedure of the military to provide an armed fighter escort to all hijacked airliners over or near US territory, to shoot them down if they appeared to be about to crash into a city.  Although Bush had personally received a specific warning that AQ intended to attack the US using airplanes, less than a month before, and although there were four hijacked airplanes over US territory, no fighters were scrambled to intercept them until after the second tower had been struck.  The fighters had been ordered to stand down.  Who issued that order, and why, remains classified.

Considering the above, who do you think is better prepared to defend the US against such threats: Obama or the GOP?

Oregon: The Walmart Rip-off

On this story, big thanks to RJ of The Global Glass Onion for emailing this story to me.  Visit him when you have a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time to read. ;-)

Oregon is quite progressive in many ways, especially where green energy is concerned.  It is quite disappointing when corporate pigs find loopholes to profit at the taxpayers’, not to mention the planet’s, expense.

When Oregon started handing out jumbo tax subsidies for renewable energy projects two years ago, one of the biggest beneficiaries was also one of the world's richest corporations -- Walmart.

No, the retail giant hasn't branched to solar panels or wind turbines.

Instead, Walmart took advantage of a provision in Oregon's Business Energy Tax Credit that allows third parties with no ties to the green power industry to buy the credits at a discount and reduce their state income tax bills.

State records show Walmart paid $22.6 million in cash last year for the right to claim $33.6 million in energy tax credits. The cash went to seven projects, including two eastern Oregon wind farms and SolarWorld's manufacturing plant in Hillsboro. In return, Walmart profits $11 million on the deal because that's the difference between what it paid for the tax credit and the amount of its tax reduction.

The loser in the transaction is Oregon's general fund -- which pays for public schools, prisons and health care programs -- because the state is out the full $33.6 million in tax revenues.

Walmart isn't alone. An analysis by The Oregonian shows Costco and U.S. Bank, which also rank among the nation's top 200 wealthiest businesses, have made millions by buying up energy tax credits to cut their Oregon tax bills. Dozens of other companies and hundreds of individual Oregon taxpayers also have cut their tax bills by buying up the tax credits

The practice, known as "pass-through," has become a popular, nearly risk-free way for profitable corporations and high wage-earners to avoid paying taxes in Oregon. But it also has become one more target for critics of the green energy subsidies, which spend state tax dollars to attract low-carbon industry and jobs to Oregon.

"It's so convoluted," says Eric Fruits, an adjunct economics professor at Portland State University who has studied Oregon's energy incentives. "You've got all these dollars swirling around. Everyone is trying to grab them as fast as they can."

The pass-through option "turns what would otherwise be an incentive to make energy investments into a windfall that may not have anything to do with energy," Fruits says.

Program under fire

For years, Oregon has subsidized renewable energy and energy conservation projects by granting tax credits, which can be used as a dollar-for-dollar reduction on state income tax bills. The pass-through practice was put in place in 2001 as a way to allow government agencies and nonprofit organizations to take advantage of the subsidies. Since those groups don't pay state taxes, the credits are worthless unless they can be sold to a third party.

The ability to sell the credits also allowed start-up companies with no Oregon tax liability to leverage upfront cash for their green energy projects.

The tax credits, known as BETC, or "Betsy," have come under increasing fire this year because the cost to taxpayers skyrocketed. It went from about $10 million in 2007 to an estimated $167 million in the 2009-11 biennium at the same time the economic recession hammered other areas of the state budget.

A previous investigation by the newspaper showed state officials intentionally downplayed the estimated cost of the program before the 2007 Legislature voted for substantial increases to the maximum subsidies. The newspaper's latest analysis also found:

Walmart, Costco and U.S. Bank, which top the list of energy credit buyers, shelled out a combined $67 million to avoid paying $97 million in Oregon income taxes.

Walmart and others are making money on projects that were closed, went belly up or never produced the energy or energy savings they initially claimed.

Out-of-state corporations and others looking for tax breaks are claiming an increasing share of the money that is supposed to pay for clean energy and conservation…

Inserted from <The Oregonian>

I wish I could claim to be planning to boycott WalFart over this, but I have already been boycotting them for over ten years, because of the way my tax dollars pay for food stamps for their underpaid employees and because they have done more to drive US manufacturing overseas than any other entity.

I hope that Oregon will continue  BETC, with added safeguards to prevent exploitation by corporate profit-mongers so unethical that they would fleece their own grandmothers for a nickel.

Oregon’s Jeff Merkley Will Vote No on Bernanke!!

You know how i feel about the reappointment of this GOP Bankster to head the Fed, so I’m delighted to report this.

This is some very big news from the Senate Banking Committee, which will be voting on Ben Bernanke's renomination tomorrow [today] at 9:30am ET:

WASHINGTON, DC - Oregon's Senator Jeff Merkley, a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Development, issued the following statement on his intention to vote against Ben Bernanke's nomination to a second term as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System:

"Tomorrow, I will vote against confirming Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  The reason, in short, is that as Chairman, Dr. Bernanke failed to recognize or remedy the factors that paved the road to this dark and difficult recession. Following our economic collapse, it is also apparent that he has not changed his overall approach to prioritizing Wall Street over American families.

"My decision is based on my fundamental belief that our economy cannot recover if we do not put Main Street first."

This is excellent news from Merkley - a genuinely courageous stand against the Washington establishment that is asking us with a straight face to thank the man who helped create the conditions for the recession and then gave trillions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street. And Merkley's announcement is proof positive that the progressive campaign to stop Bernanke's renomination (which OpenLeft has been a part of) is working. And with a new national poll out showing that Bernanke is wildly unpopular among the American public, there's a very real chance his nomination will be voted down in the committee tomorrow [today]… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Open Left>

I would love to see Bernanke fail to get out of Banking.  Jeff Merkley conytinues to impress me, and I’m glad i did volunteer work for his campaign.

Oregon's DeFazio Calls for Tax on Wall Street Speculators

Oregon has some great Representatives.  Here’s the latest from Peter DeFazio.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., put his prickly relationship with Wall Street into legislative language Thursday, proposing a tax on financial transactions that he said would deter high volume speculators while raising $150 billion a year that the government can use to "invest in our future, our infrastructure and our middle class.''

The proposal is nearly identical to one DeFazio introduced in the past only to see it founder. This time he believes prospects are better in the wake of government bailouts for big investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and amid rising public anger over the government's treatment of those firms

''The American taxpayers bailed out Wall Street during a crisis brought on by reckless speculation in the financial markets,'' DeFazio said. "This legislation will force Wall Street to do their part and put people displaced by that crisis back to work.''

According to DeFazio, half of the money raised by the tax would go to reduce the deficit while the remainder would be used finance jobs. Most of those those jobs would be connected to building and repairing infrastructure across the nation.

And for the first time, DeFazio is getting some support in the Senate. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has agreed to offer an identical measure in that chamber next week.

''There is no question that Wall Street can easily bear this tax,'' said Harkin, who joined DeFazio at a news conference announcing the legislation.

"Last year, the U.S. taxpayer bailed out Goldman Sachs to the tune of $10 billion. This year, Goldman Sachs has set aside nearly $17 billion for bonuses. We need a shift in priorities in this country to ask not what America can do for Wall Street, but ask what Wall Street can do for America,'' he said.

"Main Street bailed out Wall Street so it's time for Wall Street to return the favor,'' DeFazio said at a news conference where he was joined by Harkin and seven House co-sponsors.

DeFazio and his allies said the tax would only to apply to high volume traders and not average investors or people who have retirement accounts such as 401(k)s. Nor would it affect education or health savings accounts.

Under his proposal:

* Stock transactions would be assessed a tax of one-quarter-of-one percent (0.25 percent);

* The tax on futures contracts to buy or sell a specified commodity of standardized quality at a certain date in the future, at a market determined price would be 0.02 percent;

* Swaps between two firms on certain benefits of one party's financial instrument for those of the other party's financial instrument would pay a 0.02 percent tax;

* Credit default swaps where a contract is swapped through a series of payments in exchange for a payoff if a credit instrument (typically a bond or loan) goes into default would also pay a 0.02 percent levy.

* The tax would not directly strike the average or small investor, DeFazio said. Tax-preferred retirement accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s would be exempt as would the first $100,000 in trades.

Despite those safeguards, prospects for passage are not good. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the Obama administration is opposed to the idea as is Wall Street's influential banks and investment houses. Moreover, DeFazio has problems within his own party.

"The imposition of such a tax would place a huge new tax burden on our fragile economy and could drive up an already high 10.2 percent unemployment rate,'' the letter said. "It also may have serious unintended consequences on our financial markets by raising the cost of credit and private investment for businesses and governments alike."

It continued: "Proponents of a transaction tax argue that a small 0.25 percent tax on stocks would be paid for by the highly paid financial traders and would not affect most Americans. This is simply not true. A tax on stock transactions would affect every single person who owns and invests in stocks from small business owners to senior citizens," the letter said.

Channeling his best, sarcastic voice, DeFazio rejected those suggestions. He pointed out that the United States imposed a transaction tax between 1914 and 1966. Moreover, the tax was doubled during the Great Depression yet the Stock Market and the economy thrived… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

Since Geithner is the Obama administration, where Wall Street is concerned, his statement means only that he does not want his cronies to have to pay.  His objection that  common people who own and invest in stocks will be hurt by this is a lie.  DeFazio’s exemptions exclude virtually all but professional investors.  I support DeFazio’s bill.  It’s time that these Wall Street beneficiaries of Bush/GOP/Geithner socialism for the rich be made to pay so dearly, that they’ll be calling Larry Craig for stance-widening lessons.  It’s also time for Obama to fire Geithner.

Oregon’s Bill Sizemore Busted!!!

Woooo Hoooo!!  Most locations have a single Repuglican, who is so offensive in every thing he does, that the mere mention of his name brings bile to the back of our throats!  Here in Oregon, it’s Bill Sizemore.  Bill is a champion for redistribution of the wealth to the very rich through ballot measures that sound deceptively populist.  Through heavy spending by billionaire backers, he has actually managed to pass several of them.

Conservative initiative activist and Oregon gubernatorial candidate Bill Sizemore has been indicted for tax evasion, the state Department of Justice announced Monday

The grand jury indictment, unsealed last week and made public Monday, resulted from charges filed against Sizemore, 58, and his wife, Cindy Sizemore, 49, both residents of Eagle Crest in Central Oregon. Lawyers for the state allege the Sizemores failed to file tax returns for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008. Bill Sizemore on Monday admitted he had not filed the returns, but said he intends eventually to file them.

The Sizemores are scheduled for a Dec. 7 arraignment in Marion County Circuit Court. Personal income tax evasion is a class C felony. For each of the three counts, the Sizemores, if found guilty, face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $125,000, not counting the obligation to pay past due taxes plus interest and penalties.

The criminal allegations are the latest in a series of legal woes for Sizemore dating back to 2002, when two Oregon-based teachers unions sued the initiative activist. A jury that year found him in violation of Oregon’s racketeering law, awarding $2.5 million to the unions for what the judge termed a “sham charity” that Sizemore used “for his own personal gain.”

Bill Sizemore said in a telephone interview that he and his wife would both plea not guilty to the tax-evasion charges. He said the couple had estimated their taxes and paid them to the state and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for 2006 and 2007 and intended to do so later this year for 2008. He said they did not file federal or state income tax returns out of concern that the teachers unions that had sued him would access the documents through court order, and possibly use them to bring additional litigation against him and his wife.

“I don’t want to give a copy of my personal tax return to my worst political enemy,” Sizemore said. “They have no right to see them.”

Sizemore said that he intends eventually, when his legal conflicts with the unions are settled, to file tax returns for the years in question. On Monday he did not provide details about how many estimated tax payments he had made, or when he made them.

Sizemore was ordered by a court in early 2009 to make his tax returns available to the unions that won the $2.5 million judgment against him.

Sizemore made his biggest political marks with initiatives in the 1990s aimed at reducing taxes and curbing public employee benefits. He was nominated by Republicans as their candidate to challenge Democratic incumbent Gov. John Kitz­haber, who won by a 2-to-1 ratio.

Court rulings against him have sought to curb Sizemore’s ability to raise and spend money for political purposes. A judge has barred him from political fundraising for five years. Still, that didn’t stop Sizemore last week from declaring he’s running for governor. He has said he will challenge the fundraising ban as a violation of his rights. When he joined the gubernatorial race, he said, “I may have to run my campaign from inside a jail cell,” given his legal woes.

While Sizemore acknowledged Monday that he did not file federal tax returns for three years, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service would not say whether it was pursuing legal action.

“The IRS does not confirm or deny an ongoing investigation or audit,” spokesman Bill Brunson said.

Sean Riddell, chief of Oregon’s Criminal Justice Division, said the investigation into the Sizemore’s alleged tax evasion began in April, which was before the Legislature passed the law creating the amnesty program for people and businesses who have past-due taxes. Those who filed by Nov. 19 could qualify for a waiver of penalties and part of the interest owed.

Riddell said it was possible the Sizemores would have qualified for amnesty on their past-due tax returns. Because of this, the grand jury’s Oct. 27 indictments remained under seal until after the tax amnesty period ended. The Sizemores did not apply for amnesty, leaving them without that possible protection against tax-evasion charges… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Eugene Register Guard>

Tomorrow I’ll be heading down to the prison to do volunteer work there.  I know Bill won’t be there yet, but hopefully, I’ll get to see him there before too long!

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden Wins Big

The Senate will have an opportunity to fix one of the worst features of Reid health care bill.  In it’s present form, people with employer based health care will have no choice but to accept whatever their employer provides.  Wyden would expand the insurance exchange to include all those people.

...Throughout this year's healthcare debate, Wyden has remained a steadfast and very vocal proponent of his own reform legislation. One of the signature aims of Wyden's bill, which is co-sponsored by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah), is to transition people away from employer-sponsored insurance and into a competitive marketplace that offers them more choices of health plan than most people get at work.

With Reid needing all 60 members of his caucus unified as the healthcare reform debate moves forward, answering Wyden's criticisms is a crucial step. “Sen. Wyden has worked tirelessly to reform our health system, and I am pleased to have his support," Reid said.

The Wyden-Reid-Baucus amendment does not go that far, but it would open up the health insurance exchanges to considerably more people than the bill as currently written. Under Reid's version of the Senate bill and under the House-passed bill, the vast majority of people who receive health benefits from their jobs would be ineligible to shop for insurance on the exchanges, which instead would primarily be accessed by individuals and workers at small businesses.

The agreement between Wyden, Reid and Baucus would change that."The agreed to amendment will make it possible for these individuals to convert their tax-free employer health subsidies into vouchers that they can use to choose a health insurance plan in the new health insurance exchanges. The Congressional Budget Office estimates a previous version of this provision will expand coverage to more than a million Americans," according to a statement from Wyden's office.

Wyden tried to bring a similar amendment to a vote during the Finance Committee's consideration of an earlier version of the healthcare reform but Baucus blocked him… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Hill>

Assuming that the new insurance exchanges includes a Medicare-like public plan, this will open the public option to millions more, giving it the teeth it needs to provide real competition to Big Insurance.  Kudos to Wyden for getting this through, and especially for wrangling support from BARF Baucus.

Oregon's Ron Wyden: The Choice Should Be Yours

Oregonians are more fortunate than most states due to their representation in Congress.  Ron Wyden is one of the principal reasons for that.

Polls show that Americans are really happy with the health insurance that they are getting from their employers; therefore health reform must protect these benefits by making it impossible for Americans to choose anything else.

I am mystified by this argument.

The logic is that, given the choice, millions of Americans would drop their employer provided benefits thus triggering some sort of employer-based system "death spiral." As scary as that sounds, how does it make sense? If Americans are really happy with the health insurance that they are getting from their employers, why would they choose something else? Moreover, if one of health reform's goals is to ensure that Americans are happy with their health insurance, why NOT let them choose something else if it would make them happier?

Americans are free to choose everything from what they eat, drive and watch on TV to the President of the United States. Yet, when it comes to allowing Americans to choose the health insurance that works best for them and their family, the freedom to choose suddenly becomes un-American. What is "uniquely American," some argue, is not the freedom to choose, but the employer-based health care system, which they say needs to be protected so that Americans won't lose the health benefits that they have today.

I agree with just about everyone in the reform debate when they say "If you like what you have, you should be able to keep it." But the truth is that none of the health reform bills making their way through Congress actually delivers on that promise. What the legislation guarantees is that your employer will continue to choose your health insurance plan for you. Just like today, your employer will still be able to drop coverage or change health insurance plans at ANY time and if for some reason you lose your job or change jobs, you are still going to lose the health benefits that you had with your employer. So, if you like the health insurance plan that you have, you will be able to keep it, as long as your employer chooses to keep it and/or you don't lose your job.

While it's likely that reform will expand health care choices for more employers by giving them access to the new health insurance exchanges, your company's human resource department will still be the one choosing whether or not to take your company to the exchange just as your human resource department will be the one picking your plan in the exchange. You may want the public option, but as the bills are currently written, if your company's benefits manager picks something else, you get something else.

Now, what does this mean? It means that under a new system, you will have the same inability to hold your insurance company accountable that you do today. Let's say that your health insurance company is denying your claims, raising your rates or just being rude to you on the phone, what can you do about it? If your car insurance company was doing any of those things, you could threaten to change plans. Make that same threat to your health insurance company and you're likely to get laughed at because most Americans don't have the ability to take their business elsewhere because most Americans are stuck with the plan that their company's benefits manager chooses for them.

Denying Americans the ability to make their own health care choices will also limit the impact that innovative new approaches like the public option will have on the system as a whole. For example, under the House Bill, the public option will only be available to the less than 30 million Americans who will be allowed to choose insurance in the exchange. CBO estimates that out of that 30 million in the exchange only 6 million Americans would enroll in the public option. How will competing for a fraction of the customers in this market have a significant impact on an insurer like UnitedHealth Group which will be guaranteed to keep the majority of the 73 million customers that it already has outside of the exchange? (And, as the CBO estimates, limiting the public option and the exchanges to what may ultimately be a less healthy population could result in a public option that charges "higher premiums than private plans.")

Now imagine if YOU, rather than your company's benefits manager, was in a position to choose the health insurance plan that works best for you. As a member of Congress, I get to do this every year. I log onto a website where I can easily compare a variety of health insurance plans on the basis of how much they cost and what benefits they cover. I can find out which plans will cover visits to the doctor/s I want to see. I can even see what percentage of customers are satisfied with a given plan.

How does this hold insurance companies accountable? Well, under today's system, if an insurance company wants to attract new business or keep their customers, all they have to do is win over a company's benefits manager. (Dinner, golf, maybe tickets to a sporting event are all acceptable strategies.) But if all Americans are empowered to choose the health insurance plan that works best for them, insurance companies suddenly have to win over Americans not just to attract new business, but to keep the business that they have. Insurance companies will need to start competing with other insurance companies to offer more affordable rates. They will have to start worrying about their customer satisfaction ratings. Knowing that you can take your business elsewhere, these companies will have to think twice about raising your rates or denying your claims or even being rude to you on the phone. They might even have to innovate new ways to keep you -- not your company's benefits manager - happy and healthy.

One analysis found that even just giving Americans a choice in where they get their health insurance could save Americans and their employers (because more choices and competition is good for business too) as much as $360 billion over ten years. This can be done within the employer-based health insurance system by making it possible for employers to convert the tax-free money that they used to subsidize employee health plans into vouchers that their employees can use to choose their own health benefits. Employers can still attract employees by offering good health benefits, but now they could also attract employees by offering more health care choices.

Who would oppose such a plan? Well, benefits managers were the first to complain. They argue that giving every American even just one choice would "have a major adverse impact on employer-sponsored health coverage." But again, I don't see it. There are risk-adjustment and reinsurance provisions in the bills designed to protect employer plans in the unlikely event that all of a company's healthy or sick employees decide to choose something else. Countries like the Netherlands have been successfully adjusting for risk for years, so I am confident that the U.S. can make it work too. But I don't see why Americans if they really are so happy with the health benefits that they have today are suddenly going to rush to choose something else. I also don't understand why we would want to create a system that would force people to keep health insurance that they don't like... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

It is painfully clear that whatever health care reform finally emerges from Congress, it will be only a small step in the right direction.  Nonetheless, we need to take that step, and immediately start pressuring our legislators to reform and improve it.  As we do, we should listen to Ron Wyden.  In a sea of politicians who are bought and paid for, he is one of the few who is not afraid to steak the truth.

Editorial: Health Care Reform - Not Perfect, But…

The bill that passed the House of Representatives yesterday was not the bill I wanted.  I’m for single payer.  I have no doubt that some of my more radical friends will oppose this bill.  I can respect their reasons for doing so and probably agree with most.  But, in my opinion, it offers enough positive change to be a viable first step in the direction of reform.

I expected a long, contentious day in the House, but the behavior of the Republican Representatives when the Women’s Caucus took the floor was so reprehensible that it disgusted me.  I found video of what I watched on C-SPAN at Think Progress.

 

I’ve never seen anything like that on the House floor.  Shame!

Before the main bill came to the floor, the House voted on the Stupak-Pitts amendment.  It passed.  It is, in my opinion, the biggest flaw in the bill.  In a nut shell, it forces any woman who purchases insurance through the exchange the bill provides to pay for an abortion out of her own pocket, even if she purchases her coverage with no government subsidy.  To set the record straight, I think abortion is wrong.  However, I recognize that situations exist under which the available options do not include any right choices, and sometimes abortion is the least wrong of the options.  I also recognize that my personal view of right and wrong gives me the right to choose not to have an abortion.  I suspect that I shall never do so.  It does not, however, give me the right to impose my belief into a decision between a woman and her doctor.   I expect that Stupak-Pitts will not survive the conference committee and fully support its removal there.

The following Democrats joined the GOP in supporting Stupak-Pitts.

Jason Altmire, Joe Baca, John Barrow, Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, John Boccieri, Dan Boren, Bobby Bright, Dennis Cardoza, Chris Carney, Ben Chandler, Travis Childers, Jim Cooper, Jim Costa, Jerry Costello, Henry Cuellar, Kathy Dahlkemper, Lincoln Davis, Artur Davis, Joe Donnelly, Mike Doyle, Steve Driehaus, Brad Ellsworth, Bob Etheridge, Bart Gordon, Parker Griffith, Baron Hill, Tim Holden, Paul Kanjorski, Marcy Kaptur, Dale Kildee, James Langevin, Daniel Lipinski, Stephen Lynch, Jim Marshall, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Charles Melancon, Michael Michaud, Alan Mollohan, John Murtha, Richard Neal, James Oberstar, David Obey, Solomon Ortiz, Tom Perriello, Collin Peterson, Earl Pomeroy, Nick Rahall, Silvestre Reyes, Ciro Rodriguez, Mike Ross, Tim Ryan, John Salazar, Heath Shuler, Ike Skelton, Vic Snyder, Zachary Space, John Spratt, Bart Stupak, John Tanner, Gene Taylor, Harry Teague, Charles Wilson

If one of these belongs to you, you know what to do.

Next on the agenda came the GOP substitution, which I have dubbed the Boner Bill.  Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio debunked it beautifully, and I found video of him doing so at Crooks and Liars.

 

I’m pleased to report that not a single Democrat voted for this GOP fraud.

Finally the final vote came in 220-215 in favor.

In an historic vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, a health-care reform bill containing a public health-insurance plan passed the chamber by a vote of 220-215. One Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted with the Democrats, while 39 Democrats, including Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, voted against H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Both of the Democrats who won special elections last week, Bill Owens of New York's 23rd district, and John Garamendi of California's 10th voted for the bill.

As the time allotted for voting drew to a close, Democrats, shouting in unison, counted down the final seconds like it was New Year's Eve. Speaker Nancy Pelosi smiled broadly as she pounded the gavel and announced the result.

At a meeting with reporters following the bill's passage, Pelosi called up Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the upper chamber's long-time champion of health-care reform. "My dad was a senator," Kennedy said, "but tonight his spirit was in the House."

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., also played an historically symbolic role in today's vote, gaveling the start of the proceedings.  Like his father before him, who was also a congressman, Dingell has introduced a health-care reform bill every year of his 54-year career in the House, and gaveled to order the 1964 proceedings for the passage of Medicare.

The bill passed today in the House includes a public health-insurance plan that is one of a number of plans -- the rest offered by private and non-profit insurers -- that consumers will be able to purchase on an insurance exchange, which has been described as a sort of shopping mall of insurance policies. Lower-income citizens will be eligible for federally-financed subsidies of premiums. All Americans will be required to carry a minimum level of health insurance or face a tax penalty. Individuals earning more than $500,000 annually, and couples who earn more than $1 million per year, will face an additional tax to help finance the health-care plan.

Included in the legislation are protections against exclusion from coverage for pre-existing conditions and a prohibition on rescissions that have seen people suddenly dropped from coverage because they failed to disclose a minor condition such as acne. Women will be protected from elimination of coverage for gender-specific conditions. Young adults will be able to remain on the parents' policies until their 27th birthdays, and several discriminatory practices against LGBT people will be prohibited.

(For more on what's in the bill and likely battles to arise in a conference committee, see 5 Key Fights We Face Against the Insurance Industry by AlterNet's Joshua Holland.)... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

There is still a lot to like about this bill, despite its weaknesses.

In a surprise, one Republican actually refused to goose-step, Joseph Cao of LA.  Here is his statement:

Of his vote, Cao said:  “Tonight, I voted to keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortion and to deliver access to affordable health care to the people of Louisiana.

Cao said:  “I read the versions of the House [health reform] bill.  I listened to the countless stories of Orleans and Jefferson Parish citizens whose health care costs are exploding – if they are able to obtain health care at all.  Louisianans needs real options for primary care, for mental health care, and for expanded health care for seniors and children.  

The bill passed the House at a 220-215 vote.

Cao said:  “Today, I obtained a commitment from President Obama that he and I will work together to address the critical health care issues of Louisiana including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals.  And, I call on my constituents to support me as I work with him on these issues.

Cao said:  “I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people.  My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents...

Inserted from <Josephcao.house.gov>

I commend him for his courage and thank him for his integrity.

On the other hand, 39 Democrats, wastes of human skin, betrayed their constituents, their party and their nation by joining the GOP in voting no.

John Adler, Jason Altmire, Brian Baird, John Barrow, John Boccieri, Dan Boren, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, Bobby Bright, Ben Chandler, Travis Childers, Lincoln Davis, Artur Davis, Chet Edwards, Bart Gordon, Parker Griffith, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Tim Holden, Larry Kissell, Suzanne Kosmas, Frank Kratovil, Dennis Kucinich, Betsy Markey, Jim Marshall, Eric Massa, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Michael McMahon, Charles Melancon, Walt Minnick, Scott Murphy, Glenn Nye, Collin Peterson, Mike Ross, Heath Shuler, Ike Skelton, John Tanner, Gene Taylor, Harry Teague

They are without excuse.  Remember them.

The GOP response to the vote was expected.

Shortly after a Democrat-backed healthcare bill passed the House late Saturday night, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued a statement denouncing the "2,032-page" bill as a "$1.3 trillion government takeover of health care."

“I came here to renew the American Dream, so my kids and their kids have the same opportunities I had. I came here to fight big-government monstrosities like this bill that dim the light of freedom and diminish opportunity for future generations," Boehner said in a statement.

“Americans want a common-sense approach to health care reform, not Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover that increases costs, adds to our skyrocketing debt, destroys jobs with tax hikes and new mandates, and cuts seniors’ Medicare benefits," the statement added. "Americans asking ‘where are the jobs’ are getting more of the same from out-of-touch Washington Democrats: more spending, more debt, and more government...

Inserted from <Raw Story>

Isn’t he more like a broken record every day?

The extremists were out in force voicing their hatred on Faux Nation, the website of the official GOP Ministry of Propaganda, Faux Noise.  Here’s an example I found at Newshounds:

 

And another:

 

Is this disgusting or what?  These are comments that their moderators actually cleared.

Finally, I’m pleased to share Barack Obama’s statement:

Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare.  And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.

Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America.  Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation.  I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year.

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

From here it’s on to the Senate, and it’s time to go back to building a fire under our Senators.

Oregon Congressman Frustrated

Before I moved a little over three years ago, Earl used to be my Representative.  He’s a bit odd in his mannerisms, but he’s an authentic progressive who reflects the way a lot of us feel.

Representative Earl Blumenauer should be experiencing the most fulfilling days of his more than 35 years in public service.

The liberal Democrat from Portland, Ore. — known for his bowties, his Trek bicycle and a pragmatic brand of progressivism — embraced Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy early in 2008 and campaigned hard alongside him, steadily gaining confidence that the young senator from Illinois was the ideal liberal remedy to eight years of conservative dominance.

Now political reality has set in, testing Mr. Blumenauer’s faith that Mr. Obama’s election and big Democratic majorities in Congress would yield quick advances in the progressive agenda.

Instead of forging ahead, Mr. Blumenauer, 61, finds himself fighting to retain one of the touchstones for liberals this year, a public insurance option in the health care overhaul, and is watching his hopes of curbing global warming grow cold in the Senate. Mr. Blumenauer, a seven-term congressman, is bracing for a tough vote on sending more troops to Afghanistan while he frets about the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay remaining open.

“It has been a hard landing for a lot of the people that I represent,” Mr. Blumenauer, referring to his largely liberal constituency, said as he assessed the first months of the Obama administration.

As health care legislation moves to the floor with other major issues close behind, the question for Mr. Blumenauer and those who share his ideology will be whether they relent on some of their core beliefs to support less satisfying compromises, despite being in what, on the surface, is a commanding political position.

“It is still something that I am struggling with,” he said.

Mr. Blumenauer is just one example of what might be called the Frustrated Left, a substantial caucus of Congressional Democrats who dreamed that Mr. Obama would usher in a new era of liberal problem-solving only to see Congress and the new administration collide with the old problems of partisanship, internal disagreement and the challenge of mustering 60 votes to get just about anything done in the Senate… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

The rest of this article is worth reading, because it describes the conflict he feels between sticking with what he knows is right and settling for less for fear he will get nothing.  Personally, I have decided that I would rather see no health care reform at all than delivering millions of mandated customers into the greedy claws of the virtually unregulated insurance industry.

BARF Delayed – Olbermann Hosts Oregon Doctors

It looks like we won’t get a vote on BARF (Baucus Anti Real Fix bill) this week.

The Senate Finance Committee was supposed to convene for a vote on its controversial health care bill tomorrow [now today]. Now, that's looking doubtful.

Early in the amendment process, the panel agreed not to hold a vote until a preliminary analysis on the legislation's cost-saving potential was available, and it appears as if the CBO will not complete its work until later in the week. That would touch off yet another delay--one that's likely to frustrate Democrats and liberal activists, who've grown impatient over the glacial pace of reform efforts.

Assuming the panel successfully approves the bill by week's end, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will begin negotiations with Democratic health care leaders to marry it with a more liberal package that was advanced months ago by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee.

Most insiders expect the bill to pass on a heavily partisan basis. Depending on how Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) chooses to vote, Finance chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) will be able to lose one or two Democrats, but no more. Several Democrats, but most notably Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)--frustrated by the right-leaning nature of the bill, and upset about being shut out of the months-long negotiations process--have suggested they may not be prepared to support the legislation as is…

Inserted from <TPM>

Now what this means is that the GOP wants more time for the Insurance lobby to prepare their fight against reform, not that BARF represents any real reform at all.  Yesterday I was watching C-Span and saw Sen. Kyl speaking in opposition to BARF.  Most of it was GOP smoke and mirrors to be dismissed without further mention.  However, on a couple of points, if he was telling the truth, I actually agreed with him.  He said that BARF taxes insurance companies on policies valued at over $8,000 per family, and that insurance companies will pass the costs on to the insured.  He’s right.  Many union workers have negotiated for top drawer health care in lieu of pay raises.  Firefighters and police need more costly policies due to the danger implicit in their jobs.  I consider it wrong to penalize these people.  Kyl also said that BARF increases the level above which medical expenses are deductible from federal income tax from 7% to 10%.  I don’t think it right to penalize people who need catastrophic or chronic care.  In an attempt to be revenue neutral, what BARF does is to penalize common people like us to finance corporate welfare for big insurance.

Let me tell you, when a piece of legislation is so bad that honesty compels me to agree with the likes of John Kyl about anything at all, it really STINKS!

On 9/22, I posted this article about Oregon doctors campaigning for health care reform.  I was pleased to see Dr. Paul Hochfeld interviewed by Keith Olbermann on Countdown last night.  Here’s the clip.

 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

They made a really good point that we won’t have complete reform until we get single-payer.

Can BARF Become Beautiful?

Yesterday was the first day that the entire Senate Finance Committee got to start making changes to BARF (the Baucus Anti-Reforming Fixes Act).  The following is the tail end of an article that summarizes some of what they said.

...Enter, Senator Tom Carper (D-Del). He began carping about the 'unfairness' to the pharma industry that had 'negotiated' an $80B deal--although not, Senators Kerry and Schumer pointed out, with Congress, but rather (supposedly) with people in the White House. He suggested that, since drug costs were only 10% of health care expenses, whereas hospital costs were 35%, that hospitals should be contributing 3.5X the amount the drug companies did "in order to be fair." His position was carefully filleted by Senators Kerry and Schumer, who noted that many hospitals are non-profits, some are losing money, and others have very thin profit margins.

While Carper carped, the grumpy old men on the Republican side began to remember their talking points. Only 12% of medicare patients, Grassley harrumphed, were in the donut hole. [neglecting to say is that that is more than 5 million people(!), and how many are not in it because they cannot afford it, and are thus just not taking those medications?]. Probably the most ridiculous argument was that if the pharma companies did not make their $86B over 10 years fleecing poor seniors, they would raise the prices of the drugs for children, as if children were on such drugs as Lipitor®, Rituxan® or Forteo®, or even that most drugs for children are still patent-protected and thus not subject to generic competition.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) denounced the original bill for not providing choice, and pointed out that most versions of the public option are only for those who do not have or lose their insurance. He challenged the committee to open the health care plan available to all Members of Congress and all federal employees, and that thus already operates in every state (because they have federal employees) to the public. This would fulfill, he said, the President's argument that "if it is good enough for Members of Congress, it should be good enough for the American people".

Overall, it was a good opening day. One could measure how good it was by the sour faces and wounded-appearing body language of the Republicans. After their opening statements--spouting the same poppycock that they too were for reform, that malpractice reform would reduce costs substantially (a position refuted by the Congressional Budget Office, in 2004, under a Republican Congress), and that opening competition to insurance across state lines would reduce costs--they were unable to mount any cogent responses to the Democrats' modifications or amendments. As noted in an earlier article, if the Democrats pass a good universal health care bill, Republicans will become politically irrelevant for 2+ generations. ("Permanent Irrelevance: Outcome for Republicans if Dems Pass Universal Health Care Reform", September 9, 2009). Their body language, their harrumphing, and their lack of anything cogent to offer is a harbinger of that status.

Although much of the comments were directed to costs, in fact many of the proposals lowered costs because they improved health outcomes. That is the key to success, and ought to be the focus of the President's messages on health care.

There is a long way to go before the Baucus bill is transformed into real reform that benefits real people. Day 1 was a good start. [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

I picked this part of the article, because it contrasts a Bush Dog DINOcrat with an authentic Democrat, my own Senator.  The rest of the article contains several examples of the good Democratic Senators are trying to accomplish.  I strongly recommend that you click the link and read the rest of it.  It will open in a new window, so you you can do so without being pulled away from here.

Tom Delay, still under indictment, is strutting his stuff with all the grace of a constipated elephant on Dancing with the Stars.  It almost seems that his presence there serves to remind Republicans of their third favorite tactic: DELAY.  Lying and fear mongering are one and two.   They want to hold up the committee for three days.  You won’t believe the reason.  Watch.

 

Hello?  You want three days to give your owners, the providers, three days co consider more tactics to deprive the American people of reform.  Not this week!!

So can BARF become beautiful?  It hasn’t yet, but if Democrats replace all the Republican/DINO garbage it still contains with the best things from the Kennedy bill and the House bill, there may be hope for it yet.

Oregon Doctors Are Mad As Hell!

Sometimes living in a relatively progressive state is a reason for pride, and this is one of those times.

In a way, Dr. Eugene Uphoff, a 67-year-old Portland family physician, has come full circle.

He rode a Freedom Riders bus in 1961 into the South during the civil rights movement and spent six weeks behind bars in Mississippi for civil disobedience. On Tuesday, he climbed into a motor home with five other doctors rallying a noon crowd at Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square and set out on a cross-country campaign for what he considers a civil rights issue: health care.

Borrowing a familiar line from the 1976 movie "Network," the doctors have made their rallying cry: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."

They're taking that message to 27 cities from Seattle, where they stopped Tuesday, to Washington, D.C. They aim to pick up a caravan of support as they cruise east, and hope to roll up to the White House on Sept. 30 with thousands of backers. The doctors, who collectively have 220 years of practical experience, are angry, but for different reasons than those who flocked to political town hall meetings in recent weeks to denounce President Obama and congressional leaders for going too far with health care reform.

"I'm angry about it because it doesn't go far enough," says Dr. Paul Hochfeld, 58, an emergency physician in Corvallis.

He and Uphoff are joined by Dr. Samuel Metz, 59, a Portland anesthesiologist; Dr. Michael Huntington, 66, a Corvallis radiation oncologist; Dr. Joseph Eusterman, 79, a primary physician retired in Wilsonville; and Dr. Bob Seward, 69, an internist retired in Forest Grove.

The doctors know they are moving late on a campaign that faces steep odds.

They hope to tap what they say is pent-up support for a single-payer health care reform strategy. A single-payer plan would create one organization, a nonprofit or, more likely, the federal government, to run one health insurance program for the nation, something like Medicare for everyone.

"We want to get single-payer people to come out of the closet," said Adam Klugman, a West Linn creative director who helped organize the tour.

About 200 people gathered Tuesday at Pioneer Courthouse Square downtown to send off a group of Oregon physicians who call themselves the "mad-as-hell doctors" because they favor a single-payer health system that is opposed by many in Congress; President Obama likes the idea but argues it is too radical…

…President Obama says he likes the single-payer idea but argues that it is too radical. So do congressional leaders. They are dismissing it, the doctors argue, because they are beholden to drug and insurance companies for campaign contributions.

"Our decisions are dictated to us not by government bureaucrats, but by insurance company bureaucrats," Uphoff said.

Though some polls show a slight majority of Americans supporting a single-payer model, they also show most want to keep the insurance they have. Most political leaders say a single-payer plan is politically impossible in part because it would shut down the nation's health insurance industry.

Still, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., agrees the single-payer option should have received far more discussion in Congress, said Josh Kardon, his chief of staff.

Uphoff said he's angry because insurance companies take advantage of his patients by scaring them, denying them coverage and paying their executives big salaries. He's angry at elected officials for closing the door on a single-payer plan, which he thinks offers the only affordable path to reform.

Twenty percent of the money spent on health care "is being wasted servicing the insurance industry," Hochfeld said. "They don't do anything for health. They suck money out of the system."… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Oregonian>

Now I don’t entertain any allusions that we will get single-payer anytime soon.  But I’m damn proud of these Oregon doctors with the courage and commitment to tell the truth to power, when power does not want to hear it.  As doctors, I’m sure they would make a little less under single-payer, but unlike the right-wing doctors who parrot insurance company lies, these doctors want what’s best for their patients and care enough to take action.  For their web site, Click Here.