Pima Democrats Oppose Prop 200 -- A Growth Lobby Gimmick

Pima County Democratic Party
Jeff Rogers, Chair
September 17, 2009


The Pima County Democratic Party opposes Proposition 200 -- a fiscally irresponsible quarter-billion-dollar unfunded mandate that would raise taxes and slash money for kids, families, seniors and neighborhoods.

Prop 200 would cost the city $150 million over five years and Pima County $110 million at a time when revenues are collapsing. It's a spending spree and the Republicans behind it have two ways to pay for it: Force a tax hike on families; and gut every program that helps kids, cuts families a break and improves the quality of life of seniors.

When the growth lobby began crafting this initiative, the city spent just over half the city general fund on public safety. After deep cuts to other programs, public safety now accounts for nearly two thirds of general fund spending. Simply to protect current staffing levels next year, public safety would swallow nearly three quarters of available money.

And Prop 200 backers still say the city has not made public safety a priority. Despite the fact that cuts to TPD and TFD have been dramatically less than the cuts made to all other departments within the city. And the cuts that they have had to make have not been to personnel. Simply put: this council puts public safety first.

If Prop 200 is approved, the City Council would have to raise regressive sales taxes to continue paying for parks, after-school programs, transit and help for non-profits giving a hand to struggling families. The Pima County Board of Supervisors would have to raise property taxes to pay for more prosecut ors and expand a jail already teaming with petty drug offenders.

Prop 200 threatens to:

1.  Wipe out after school programs that keep kids safe and off the streets;
   
2. Lay off more than 300 city employees;
   
3. Strand the disabled in their homes with the elimination of Van Tran;
   
4. Make permanent a temporary city moratorium on fixing neighborhood streets;
   
5. Raise taxes on people who can least afford it.

"This is a wild spending spree we can't afford in this economy," said Pima County Democratic Party Chairman Jeff Rogers. "Tucson families understand this as they try to balance their checkbooks. The last thing they are doing is spending money they don't have."

Crime rates have fallen over the last 14 years, while class sizes have risen, the poverty rate is climbing and our neighborhood streets continue to suffer wear and tear. The Tucson City Council has made public safety the top priority but there's more work to be done.

"A city as diverse as Tucson should be able to afford more than one priority," Rogers said. "We can responsibly keep Tucson safe without slashing help for Tucson kids, families and seniors."

Speaking at a public forum earlier in the week, City Manager Mike Letcher described the impact of Prop 200 on our community as “very catastrophic.” We agree and urge voters to oppose this growth lobby gimmick.

How corporate P.R. works to kill healthcare reform

Health insurers have become expert at using P.R. to get what they want. I got out before the latest

Salon Editor's note: Wendell Potter, formerly a communications officer for the private health insurer Cigna, is now the Senior Fellow on Health Care for the Center for Media and Democracy. He delivered the remarks below at the Center for American Progress.

By Wendell Potter
Salon.com
Sept. 15, 2009

It is easy to think of efforts to influence lawmakers as the exclusive domain of K Street lobbyists. Much has been said and written about the millions of dollars the special interests are spending on lobbying activities and the hundreds of lobbyists who are at work as we speak trying to shape healthcare reform legislation. Very little by comparison has been written about the millions of dollars that special interests are spending on P.R. activities to accomplish the same goal and that are vital to successful lobbying efforts.

One of the reasons I left my job at CIGNA, where I headed corporate communications and was part of the Legal & Public Affairs division, was because I did not want to be involved in yet another P.R. and lobbying campaign to kill or gut reform. I finally came to question the ethics of what I had done and been a part of for nearly two decades to influence decision making and bill writing on Capitol Hill.

When I testified before the Senate Commerce Committee in late June, I told the senators how the industry has conducted duplicitous and well-financed P.R. and lobbying campaigns every time Congress has tried to reform our healthcare system, and how its current behind-the-scenes efforts may well shape reform in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans. I noted that, just as they did 15 years ago when the insurance industry led the effort to kill the Clinton reform plan, it is using shills and front groups to spread lies and disinformation to scare Americans away from the very reform that would benefit them most. The industry, despite its public assurances to be good-faith partners with the president and Congress, has been at work for years laying the groundwork for devious and often sinister campaigns to manipulate public opinion.


The industry goes to great lengths to keep its involvement in these campaigns hidden from public view. I know from having served on numerous trade group committees and industry-funded front groups, however, that industry leaders are always full partners in developing strategies to derail any reform that might interfere with insurers' ability to increase profits. My involvement in these groups goes back to the early '90s when insurers joined with other special interests to finance the activities of the Healthcare Leadership Council, which led a coordinated effort to scare Americans and members of Congress away from the Clinton plan.

A few years after that victory, the insurers formed a front group called the Health Benefits Coalition to kill efforts to pass a Patients Bill of Rights. While it was billed as a broad-based business coalition that was led by the National Federation of Independent Business and included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Health Benefits Coalition in reality got the lion’s share of its funding and guidance from the big insurance companies and their trade associations.

Like most front groups, the Health Benefits Coalition was set up and run out of one of Washington’s biggest P.R. firms. The P.R. firm provided all the staff work for the Coalition while an executive with the NFIB, which has long been a close ally of the insurance industry, served as a frontman.

Continue reading here.

America Can't Wait

by Gov Howard Dean MD
Daily Kos
Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:57:02 AM PDT

We're in the final stretch in our campaign for healthcare reform including a public option.

The good news is we're winning.

I know that sometimes it is hard to tell. After all August was a brutal month filled with right-wing fear mongering and misinformation. Whether led by Glenn Beck, FOX news or Rep. Joe Wilson, too many Americans were told to disrupt Town Halls rather than participate in them. And of course the media covered every moment of it.

But the real story of August is that these scare tactics didn't work. Support for President Obama's Healthcare Reform Plan which includes the choice of a public health insurance option has increased since the beginning of August.

This is a testament to the fact that you never gave up. All summer we worked together to make sure Congress got the message that inclusion of a public option in any healthcare reform bill passed this year is non-negotiable. And every time Republicans tried to kill it or the insurance industry claimed it's already dead, you stood up and proved them wrong.

Now what we keep hearing is that Congress doesn't have the votes to pass a public option.

Once again, thanks to your help, we have proven them wrong...

Gov Howard Dean MD's diary :: ::

We've asked everyone in Congress where they stand. At least 218 House and 51 Senate Democrats have said they would vote for the final healthcare bill if it included the choice of a public option rather than vote against the bill and kill reform. That's means Congress has the majority votes needed to pass a public option -- TODAY. You can check out Chris Bower's post on OpenLeft.com from last night if you want more specifics on the Senate count.

Now is the season for action. The majority of Americans want it. Majority votes in Congress will pass it. Join President Obama in calling on Congress to get the job done this year.

ADD YOUR NAME NOW

As I said in my message to the members of Democracy for America earlier today, it's a myth that it takes 60 votes to pass any bill in the U.S. Senate.

It's a myth because while any Senator can attempt to block most Senate bills with a procedural tactic called the filibuster there are exceptions. Senate rules don't allow filibusters of certain bills that affect the budget. That's means the healthcare reform plan including the choice of a public option can be passed in a budget bill by a majority vote in the U.S. Senate.

Don't take my word for it. Numerous budget scholars and experts on Senate procedure have staked their reputations on it. Stan Collender, a contributing editor at the National Journal, contributing writer for Roll Call, and author of "The Guide to the Federal Budget" is an expert on the subject. Here's how he's explains it:

"Reconciliation, which was part of the Congressional Budget Act when it was adopted in 1974, wasn't used until the start of the Reagan administration. Although it hasn't been used every year since then, reconciliation has become such a regular part of the budget process that it's now generally considered a staple. It has been used by Republican- and Democratic-controlled Congresses alike for both spending and revenues.

The most important and obviously controversial part is that reconciliation bills can't be filibustered because the debate is limited by law."

"The House-passed version of the 2010 budget resolution allows health care reform to be included in a reconciliation bill and, therefore, adopted in the Senate with 51 votes..."

"First, contrary to what some have been saying, reconciliation has become such a standard part of the budget process that using it for health care would be neither surprising nor precedent-setting. When they were in the majority, Republicans insisted that reconciliation was allowed by Senate rules and used it in 2001, 2003 and 2005. Back then, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who has been one of the biggest opponents of using reconciliation this year, made what in retrospect is an almost infamous floor speech about the appropriateness and legality of using reconciliation.

Second, health care reform will have a substantial impact on federal finances and so can't be said to be unrelated to the budget, which is one of the critical criteria for using reconciliation. In fact, given that at least two of the largest mandatory federal spending programs — Medicare and Medicaid — are health care programs, health care reform and reconciliation would seem to be a perfect fit."

Over 25 times in history the Senate has passed major reforms this way, including the Bush tax cuts and funding for the Iraq War. Whether the Senate passes reform through a budget bill or in a different bill that has overcome a filibuster, the truth of the matter is it only takes a majority vote to get the job done.

JOIN ME IN CALLING ON CONGRESS TO PASS REAL REFORM WITH MAJORITY VOTES

We have only a short period of time to reach the critical mass we'll need to pressure Congress into passing healthcare reform including a public option this year. We can reach 250,000 signers by Oct. 15th if we work together to gather support.

But gathering signatures isn't the only action we should take to make it happen. We need to thank those in Congress who have confirmed their support. Please visit ‘The Yes Vote' page at AmericaCantWait.com and see if your member of Congress is there -- then contact them and thank them for committing to stand up for you.

You can also contribute through Actblue and support those who will stand up for a public option. I suggest starting with the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who have been on the front lines working to pass real reform. Blue America PAC has already raised over $400,000. Help them take that amount even higher here.

President Obama can sign a healthcare reform including a public option into law this year if we make sure Congress passes real reform.

When we work together, we're unstoppable. Thank you for everything you do.

-Howard

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
AmericaCantWait.com
A project of Democracy for America

Top global investors appeal for action on climate change: UN

China View
2009-09-18 00:30:11


UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 17 (Xinhua) -- The world's largest investors -- collectively managing over 13 trillion U.S. dollars in assets -- have issued a United Nations-backed call for concrete action in the fight against climate change, UN officials said here Thursday.

The statement signed by 181 investors on Wednesday in New York called for a strong binding treaty to reduce pollution and catalyze global funding for low-carbon technologies, the officials said.

They signed the statement just less than one week before UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon convenes the UN Summit on Climate Change on Tuesday to generate momentum for a deal at the UN talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, where nations are expected to "seal the deal" on a new pact to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

"Climate change has quite rightly been framed as the greatest market failure ever," said Rob Tacon, chair of the UN Environment Program's Financial Initiative (UNEP FI), a partnership between the agency and more than 170 financial institutions around the world.

"The magnitude of the negative economic impacts and the potential of climate change to bankrupt our global financial system, as well as to threaten the planet's life-supporting natural ecosystems, are calling," he added.

UNEP FI was one of the four top investor groups on climate change which coordinated Wednesday's statement.

The document calls for a new global climate treaty to include a target for emissions reductions of between 50 and 85 percent of 1990 levels by 2050, as well as for government support for energy-efficient and low carbon technology.

It also appeals for action to reduce deforestation and support, as well as for support for adaptation measures. www.chinaview.cn

Victims of 'Health Insurance Bureaucracy' Speak Out/Lawmakers See Need to Reform Health Insurance Claim Delays, Denials

By DEVIN DWYER
ABC News
Sept. 16, 2009

"These guys are just playing with my life."

Witness makes plea during hearing: "I need you people to let me be a daddy."

Erinn Ackley still remembers her father's words as he struggled with an aggressive form of cancer in 2006. Bill Ackley had health insurance through his job as a public school teacher. But as his life hung in the balance, his insurance company questioned the necessity of a potentially life-saving treatment doctors prescribed and, for a time, refused to pay.

After months of appeals to overcome the "bureaucratic roadblocks," Ackley finally received approval for the treatment he sought. But to his daughter Erinn, the delay just might have cost her father his life.

"Dad was finally transplanted 126 days after the first transplant request [but] he never returned home," said Ackley. "He passed away at the age of 57, leaving a grieving widow and daughter, and only one grandchild born 17 months later, that he will never play with."

"When a loved one is going through a life or death struggle, you can hear the clock ticking every minute," she said.

Ackley's story was one of several accounts shared with members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Wednesday of the often heart-wrenching struggles some Americans face in dealing with the "private health insurance bureaucracy."

Click on picture to watch ABC News Video
















Continue reading here.

“The Most Dangerous Man in America” New Documentary Chronicles Story of Daniel Ellsberg, Whose Leak of the Pentagon Papers Helped End Vietnam War

From Amy Goodman, Democracy Now
September 16, 2009

"Daniel Ellsberg once faced espionage charges and possibly life in prison after leaking what became known as the Pentagon Papers, a 7,000-page classified history outlining the true extent of US involvement in Vietnam. Daniel Ellsberg’s actions directly contributed to the end of Nixon presidency and the Vietnam War. His story is chronicled in the new documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. We speak to Ellsberg, his wife Patricia, and the film’s co-director, Judith Ehrlich."

Watch Video



26Dems Editorial Note: Daniel Ellsberg and John Dean were guest speakers at a recent New York forum. Read more about the exchange between these two Nixon whistle blowers about how telling the truth brought down the Nixon administration. Their whistleblowing experience can tell why it is important that Americans must relearn the same lessons today in Danny Schecter's article "Dan Ellsberg. John Dean and the Power of Telling the Truth."

A film trailer and more information is available on the film's web site Most Dangerous Man.

Many Employers to Raise Cost of Health Benefits, Survey Finds

By David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post
Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Though Americans who already have medical coverage may be wary of change, a new survey indicates that they may be hard-pressed to escape it -- even in the absence of health-care reform.

As businesses contend with rising costs, many workers face an erosion of health benefits next year, according to an annual survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust.

Forty percent of employers surveyed said they are likely to increase the amount their workers pay out of pocket for doctor visits. Almost as many said they are likely to raise annual deductibles and the amount workers pay for prescription drugs.

Nine percent said they plan to tighten eligibility for health benefits; 8 percent said they plan to drop coverage entirely. Forty-one percent of employers said they are "somewhat" or "very" likely to increase the amount employees pay in premiums -- though that would not necessarily mean employees would pay a higher percentage of the premiums. Employers could simply be passing along the same share of the overall increase that they are doing this year. Continue reading here.

'Save Talk Radio!' Really? Republicans amass an army to retain corporate control of the public airwaves...

Guest blogged By Sue Wilson
On 15th September 2009 @ 14:53
The Bradblog

I was strolling through my local county fair this summer, a small fair, a friendly fair, where cows, sheep and pigs outnumber food vendors.

The Republican booth caught my eye, but not because of the red white and blue decorations. What caught my eye was the sign they'd posted, the sign that summed up the one key issue of importance to local Republicans.

What would it be, in this raucous political summer of 2009? Anger over bailouts, fear over death panels? No. The number one issue for Amador County Republicans: "Save Talk Radio."

I hadn't realized that the industry that just signed a $400 million contract with Rush Limbaugh needed saving, but they thought so; they even had a petition to save it...

Sponsored by a group called "First Amendment Now," [1] the petition read:

We hold dearly our right to freedom of speech and the right for others to express their views. We believe that Government should stand aside rather than stand in the way of the discussion of ideas. We believe that because the First Amendment should be about freedom of choice.

Therefore, we the undersigned oppose all efforts of any Government to limit, censor, or restrict in any way our unfettered right to free speech on our radios, televisions, the Internet or any other medium.

Wow, I thought, a Republican petition that I can really get behind! Then I read on:

We reject any effort to institute (1) the "Fairness Doctrine" or (2) "localism", which in its various forms seeks to establish local committees of "community leaders" to determine if talk radio is "reflecting" the views of the community, or (3) a quota system for ownership of radio stations - or any variance of any of those.

In other words, they advocate free speech for giant corporations, but not for local people. Hmmn.

I wondered how pervasive petitions like this might be. It turns out there are many such petitions on line, promoted by groups much more familiar than "First Amendment Now." So many, in fact, that they have amassed an army of more than a half a million to silence local views.

The Christian Coalition [2]:

They want to pass what is known as the "Fairness Doctrine", which is nothing more than a way for the federal government to demand that all broadcasters must give "equal time" to all points of view.

Equal time to all points of view? What a radical concept.

The Family Research Council [3]:

We need to be aware, however, that liberals may achieve their ends without passing legislation, or even without a new FCC "fairness" rule. They could do it by requiring a fixed amount of local content for radio.

Local content on local airwaves? It must be a Communist plot.

It is easy to dismiss these petitions as fringe. But postings from the Free Speech Alliance [4] reveal something greater:

1. Obama's FCC will use "localism," "diversity of media ownership" and serving the "public interest" as a backdoor "Fairness" Doctrine.
2. We must make any attempt by Obama's FCC to silence talk radio a political third rail, one that the Administration or Congress dare not touch.
3. We will defend talk radio from these governmental assaults on their industry, and build further the case for free speech in all things.

The Left dominates every medium of news delivery, save for talk radio. And they can't stand it, so they want to wipe it off the media map.

The Free Speech Alliance is an arm of Brent Bozell's rightwing Media Research Center (MRC), which for years has been claiming liberal bias in the media with little evidence to back up the claim. This group has been quietly building an army to "go to war" in support of corporate-owned media and to squelch local voices. From another MRC/Free Speech Alliance petition [5] [emphasis added]:

MRC's Free Speech Alliance --- with 69 organizations now involved --- seeks to build the largest possible grassroots Alliance army. So far, we have over 550,000 members, but we need the maximum number possible to go to war when free speech is threatened.

Among the 69 groups in support are: Accuracy in Media, American Conservative Union, National Taxpayers Union, National Religious Broadcasters, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, World Net Daily, Salem Communications, and Clear Channel.

The creator [6] of the Free Speech Alliance is Seton Motley, the same Seton Motley who appeared on Glenn Beck's show on Fox [7] to target FCC Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd with fabrications about his suggestions in the Center for American Progress/Free Press study "The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio" [8] [PDF] to give local audiences more control over what they get on their radio stations over their public airwaves. (To see an interview with Mark Lloyd about that report, see the documentary Broadcast Blues [9], or see a clip of the conversation with Lloyd at right.)

It is clear that the "right" has been quietly assembling troops and is now mounting their attack, an attack largely unanticipated by media reformers, an attack now staged on "Conservative" talk radio and TV (not that there is anything conservative about opposing localism.) Their dominance over radio, where "conservatives" voices outnumber "liberals" by nine to one, means their army is growing every single day, while the other side didn't even know there was going to be a fight.

An army of 550,000 from County Fairs and the internet. How many more will there be as recruitment shifts to the public airwaves, currently under the private control of those who wish to keep it that way?

And who will stand ready to fight back?

Shortly after Barack Obama was sworn in as President last January, as Brad Friedman reported [10] at the time, the new White House website "Technology" page [11] signaled a hopeful change, and a call to re-examine the oversight of our public airwaves:

Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.

A few months later, after the campaign from the right had kicked into full gear, charging that liberals were trying to prevent free speech on the radio, the paragraph was quietly removed from the White House website.

So I ask again...who will stand ready to fight back and in favor of real free speech on our public airwaves?

===

Sue Wilson is the Emmy Winning Director of the media reform documentary "Broadcast Blues" [12]. View Trailer here.

Ed Schultz Show: Huffpost Editor Blasts Baucus Bill; Paid for by $3M in Campaign Donations

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

Greenwald: The Health Insurance Racket

Health Insurance Insider Slams Baucus Bill: ‘An Absolute Gift To The Insurance Industry’

By Igor Volsky
Thinkprogress.org
09/15/09

On the eve of the Senate Finance Committee’s release of its much anticipated health care plan, Wendell Potter — the insurance industry whistle blower and former communications director of health insurance giant Cigna — called the Baucus framework “an absolute gift to the industry.” “And if that is what we see in the legislation, [America’s Health Insurance Plans chief] Karen Ignagni will surely get a huge bonus,” Potter said at a briefing for reporters.

The bill establishes a new regulated health insurance exchange and compels every American to purchase qualified health insurance coverage by 2013. Americans with employer-sponsored insurance can stay in their existing plans, while the uninsured would have to enroll in an expanded Medicaid program, a new plan in the Exchange or the now-regulated individual health insurance market. According to a report released by the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would cover 94% of Americans and cost $880 billion over 10 years.

Potter argued that the lax employer requirements would shift the cost and risk of coverage onto the individual and maintained that the bill’s “network of cooperatives” would be unable to compete in today’s concentrated health insurance markets. “The co-ops won’t stand a chance,” he concluded.

Reform must also do more to regulate insurers, who have agreed to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions but are insisting on benefit and rate flexibility. Potter argued that the benefit package standards in the Exchange and the high deductible option for younger beneficiaries would allow insurers to design almost anything that they can sell in the health market place and push the country towards consumer driven health care.

Under the Baucus legislation, private insurers could also charge older individuals up to five times more for coverage. “You’re just using age as a proxy for health status,” Uwe Reinhardt, an economics professor at Princeton University told the New York Times.

Reinhardt estimates that “Senator Baucus’s age-rating plan would allow insurers to cover roughly 70 percent of the additional risk they’d take on by being required to accept all comers, regardless of health.”

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Claim: Baucus health proposal written by former health insurance VP

BY DANIEL TENCER
RAWSTORY
Published: September 9, 2009

The compromise health care reform proposal introduced by Sen. Max Baucus on Monday appears to have been literally written by a former health insurance company vice president, several bloggers asserted Wednesday.

The proposal, which does not provide a public option but compels individuals to purchase health insurance, was written by Liz Fowler, a former vice president of WellPoint and currently the senior counsel to Baucus, writes blogger Marcy Wheeler at the Firedoglake Web site.

Wheeler points out that the name “Liz Fowler” appears as the author in the document properties of the PDF file circulated by Baucus’ staff earlier this week. (The PDF can be found here. To see the author, save it to your hard drive, right-click on the icon, and select “Properties.”)

However, it’s unclear to what extent Fowler wrote the document herself. As Jane Hamsher pointed out Wednesday morning at her Campaign Silo blog, parts of the document match, almost word for word, a health bill amendment put forward by House Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas, a Blue Dog Democrat, in July.

Hamsher cites blogger Jon Walker’s comparison of the two texts:

Ross’ amendment:

• The governing documents of the cooperatives incorporate ethical and conflict of interest standards designed to protect against insurance industry involvement and interference in the governance of the cooperative.
• Baucus’ framework:
• Its governing documents must incorporate ethics and conflict of interest standards protecting against insurance industry involvement and interference.

The health reform proposal was put forward by Montana Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat who is part of the “gang of six” Republican and Democratic senators who are working on a compromise health plan that could pass the Senate.

Amanda Terkel reported at ThinkProgress on Tuesday that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs admitted the document had been sent to special-interest groups before it reached the White House.

The plan has taken criticism from all sides, not least because of its requirement that all individuals under the age of 65 must purchase health care coverage, under a penalty of $3,800, as Jed Lewison states at Daily Kos.

By comparison, under the plan, the penalty for companies employing 50 or more people that do not purchase health insurance for their employees would be $400 per employee — a fraction of what it would cost to cover those employees, and therefore unlikely to serve as incentive to purchase employer-provided health care.

Even without a public health option, the Baucus plan is estimated to cost $850 billion to $900 billion over 10 years, according to the New York Times.

NBC’s Ken Strickland reports that the “gang of six” have not decided yet whether to accept Baucus’ proposal.