Peter Orszag, Obama's director of The Office of Management and Budget on Charlie Rose discussing the link between balancing the budget, improving overall health outcomes, and extending coverage to as many Americans as possible with Obama's health reform package, (Full video).



More...

Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee

Mike Ross (AR-4) (SPOKEPERSON)
DC Phone: 202-225-3772
DC Fax: 202-225-1314

Barrow, John (GA-12)
p: (202) 225-2823
f: (202) 225-3377

Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Phone: (202) 225-4231
Fax: (202) 225-6887

Harman, Jane (CA-36)
Phone: (202) 225 8220
Fax: (202) 226 7290

Hill, Baron (IN-09)
phone is (202) 225-5315
fax is (202) 226-6866

Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
Phone - (202) 225-3011
Fax - (202) 225-5638

Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)
Phone: (202) 225-4031
Fax: (202) 226-3944

Space, Zack (OH-18)
ph: (202) 225-6265
fax: (202) 225-3394
LikeReport

Joe Conason: Blue Dogs: The Special Interest Pets

"Fiscal conservative" is one of those terms used by politicians of all sorts to describe themselves, without any real justification. Parroted mindlessly from one news cycle to the next by major media outlets, that phrase is often used to mislead the public about the priorities and policies favored by those who claim to embody budgetary prudence.

Consider the Democrats in the Blue Dog caucus, who constantly trumpet their fiscal conservatism and enjoy hearing that claim echoed in the media, especially now, when they are threatening to block health care reform. The Blue Dogs don't like the public option for national health insurance; they bemoan the estimated trillion-dollar cost of covering everyone; and they zealously defend the prerogatives of the private insurance industry and the pharmaceutical manufacturers (who coincidentally give them millions of dollars in contributions). When it comes to spending money on the health of uninsured or underinsured constituents, the Blue Dogs worry about every penny.

But when the budget debate turns to military spending, the voices of the Blue Dogs suddenly turn sweetly indulgent. Confronted with the gross waste of taxpayer dollars on Pentagon boondoggles, including weapons programs that are outdated or simply don't work, these fierce budget watchdogs lose their bark and bite. They never lose their appetite for useless contracting that brings money to their own districts, however.

The F-22 fighter plane, touted as the most advanced military aircraft in the world, offers a fine example of this syndrome. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is trying to cut the F-22 program because the planes don't function very well, aren't needed in the foreseeable future and cost nearly $400 million each. In a speech he delivered on July 17 about the need to reform the defense budget, the exasperated defense chief said: "Every defense dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity -- whether for more F-22s or anything else -- is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable."

His pleas for fiscal sanity have been consistently ignored by Blue Dog Democrats as well as Republicans, who have joined forces to save the F-22. Among the proud ringleaders of this campaign is Georgia Democrat Jim Marshall, whose House district happens to include contractors with deep interests in the jet program. Unconcerned with ever-increasing cost overruns or questions about the aircraft's safety and usefulness, Marshall recently corralled enough votes of his fellow Blue Dogs to save the F-22 program in a committee showdown.

Indeed, Marshall is typical of the Blue Dog mentality in his enthusiasm for useless military spending. He is an outspoken advocate of the missile defense program -- perhaps the biggest waste of money ever undertaken by government, because it doesn't work as advertised and almost certainly never will -- at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars so far. As far as the Blue Dogs and their Republican allies are concerned, there is hardly ever such a thing as a wasteful military contract -- and certainly never in their own districts. The United States now spends on defense roughly the total amount spent by all the other countries in the world combined, yet the fiscal conservatives rarely ever find programs worth cutting. We also spend more per capita on health care than most developed nations, yet our politicians cannot figure out how to make that huge expenditure pay for universal care, although every other wealthy nation does it.

Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee

Mike Ross (AR-4) (SPOKEPERSON)
DC Phone: 202-225-3772
DC Fax: 202-225-1314

Barrow, John (GA-12)
p: (202) 225-2823
f: (202) 225-3377

Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Phone: (202) 225-4231
Fax: (202) 225-6887

Harman, Jane (CA-36)
Phone: (202) 225 8220
Fax: (202) 226 7290

Hill, Baron (IN-09)
phone is (202) 225-5315
fax is (202) 226-6866

Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
Phone - (202) 225-3011
Fax - (202) 225-5638

Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)
Phone: (202) 225-4031
Fax: (202) 226-3944

Space, Zack (OH-18)
ph: (202) 225-6265
fax: (202) 225-3394

The Democrats have to keep their coalition intact for at least thirty days as the end-zone has been moved to September. This allows legislators to go back to their constituents and explain their position, it also allows the GOP to unleash the dogs of advertising, but it's not all upside for the GOP,

"Republicans, seeking to regain political ground in the health-care debate, have launched a series of attacks on Democrats' overhaul plan. But some GOP strategists worry an aggressive approach could backfire, if voters decide the party is obstructing efforts to address an issue they care about," the Wall Street Journal reports.

Polling analysis by Resurgent Republic shows that worry about rising health care costs outstrips every other economic concern today.

"That is forcing Republicans to try to strike a tricky balance. Even as they hammer at President Barack Obama's plan, in a bid to reduce its size and delay its passage, they are trying to convince voters the GOP also wants to achieve changes that would reduce health costs and expand access to care."

and,

"GOP leaders urged Democrats to start over on their health bill Thursday without saying when they will release a bill of their own," Roll Call reports.

"House Republicans released a four-page outline of their ideas five weeks ago, promising to release details and a bill."

"But Republicans have yet to do so. They still haven't said how much their plan will cost, how they will pay for it or how many people their plan will cover, although they have said it will be cheaper than the $1.6 trillion House Democratic plan and build on a private health insurance system without a government-run insurance option."

So, careful with that Axe, Eugene.

Progressive change is inevitable the only question is the rate of change and the degree to which reactionary forces slow said rate.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

The "birthers" are annoying because they exploit the ignorance of people of good will. That will always piss me off. I know they're playing to stoke the few remaining embers at the end of the GOP fire, but in a day and age when any ridiculous theory can be debunked in about ten minutes, that this is still ruminating shows willing manipulation and willful ignorance. The people who are propagating this myth know they're wrong. Shocker, I know. I hope we see the end of this age of pride in anti-intellectualism and know-nothingism in the face of all the information technology at out fingertips.

So much for the Blue Dog/GOP notion that Health Reform is a job killer.

PW,

Business Week: "In a first-of-its-kind study, the non-profit Rand Corp linked the rapid growth in U.S. health care costs to job losses and lower output. The study, published online by the journal Health Services Research, gives weight to President Barack Obama's dire warnings about the impact of rising costs if Congress does not enact health care reform."

The GOP is now officially the Frivolous Incompetent Planet Weirdo Party. Just splinter into factions already. I have seen the future for the Republicans as they are currently caucesed and it is deservidly grim. It doesn't matter what their ideology, voters want to be associated with competence and excellence when possible. The GOP name has become sullied by their record at a bad junctiure in history for them, because,

A new Census report estimates that "there were 9.745 million Hispanic voters in 2008, compared to 7.587 million in 2004 -- an increase of 28.4%," Josh Goodman reports.

"Overall, an estimated 131.114 million Americans voted in 2008, compared to 125.736 million in 2004, an increase of just 4.3%. Another way of looking at it: there were 5.4 million additional votes cast in 2008 compared to 2004 and about 2.2 million of them were cast by Hispanics."

"Obama took 67% of the vote from Latinos according to exit polling. That's a problem for Republicans, especially because the Hispanic voter growth is not limited to just a few states."

OK? You can't fight the reality of demographic trends, GOP. The political future is as locked in as it can get for The Democrats, if and only if they maintain their reputation through actions that produce fruit in reasonably due course. As it should be.

I thought Obama clearly illustrated his mastery of the subject of health reform in his press conference last night, and depending on the number of viewers, (the net will help make up for this), his press conference should earn him some trust. A President who was elected with such definitive acclaim should look at all polling skeptically, and consider the margin of error to be in his favor, two economic quarters into his administration, the only poll that matters is in November every four years unless you pull a W., and Obama was issued a clear mandate to pursue the agenda he laid out hundreds of times over the course of two years, with the greatest amount of press coverage from every perspective in the history of mankind, so for the time being he and the Democrats should consider that they have the benefit of the doubt.

The key to the current health reform legislative agenda is the work of the Senate Finance Committee, due to their job of determine along with their counterparts in the House how to fund the bill such that it's deficit neutral, or in other words we don't frivolously borrow the money like Bush and the GOP did for the Iraq War, Medicare Part D, and Tax cut for the wealthiest Americans in a time when we required revenues to avert the predicament we're in now. There is actually classic Senate courtly behavior happening in the Senate Finance Commitee as opposed to this action,

In an interview on CNBC, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) admits that at least half the opposition to health care reform is about scoring political points against President Obama rather than substantive policy disagreements.

Said Voinovich: "I think it's probably 50/50."

Despite half the lame-o's, I think they will strike a deal in this, the most difficult, Senate Finance Commitee that will make this much needed health reform package happen.

http://www.repaircalifornia.org/

From The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/21/AR2009072102712.html

The Can't-Do Blue Dogs

The Republican opposition to President Obama's push for health-care reform, on the other hand, makes clear political sense. If they can stop Obama on health care, as South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint recently noted, it "will be his Waterloo." Why Democrats of any ideology want to cripple their own president in his first year in office, and for seeking an objective that has been a stated goal of their party since the Truman administration, is a more mysterious matter.

Is the additional tax burden on small businesses their concern? If so, good news: TheCenter on Budget and Policy Priorities has found that only the top 4 percent of those businesses would be affected by the surcharge that House Democratic leaders proposed, and that's based on the original proposal, before Speaker Nancy Pelosi altered it to include just the wealthiest fraction of the top 1 percent of Americans. Would such a tax impede an economic recovery? In downturns this severe, it's been broad-based consumer spending and public-sector investment that have revived the economy. Private investment doesn't jump-start a revival of purchasing; it follows it.

But the big picture here, of which the resistance to reforming health care is just one element, is our growing inability to meet our national challenges. Almost all of the major nations with which we trade, for instance, have quasi-mercantilist policies that lead them to champion their own higher-wage growth industries, often in manufacturing. In America alone are such policies considered anathema. In consequence, as the Alliance for American Manufacturing reports in a new book, we shuttered 40,000 factories from 2001 through 2007 -- the years, ostensibly of prosperity, between the past two downturns. The diminution of manufacturing, which employs just 11 percent of the U.S. workforce, may please Wall Street, which looks with disfavor on decent-wage domestic production, and Wal-Mart, which tripled its purchases from China (from $9 billion to $27 billion annually) during roughly the same years those American factories closed, but it poses a clear threat to the nation's economic, and even military, power.

But act on behalf of the nation as a whole, even if it means goring Wall Street's or Wal-Mart's oxen? Perish the thought. Pass a health-reform bill that will cover 45 million uninsured Americans and slow the ruinous growth of health-care spending? Not if somebody, somewhere, actually has to pay higher taxes. Hey, we're America -- the can't-do nation.

As our former president might put it, Heckuva job, Brownies.

meyersonh@washpost.com

This article is accurate in it's intent, but the key to understanding The Blue Dog Caucus is understanding the districts that they have to win in, and the special interests they have to satiate in order to raise campaign cash to retain power. Yet another reason to replace our current system of campaign finance with a system that allows all voting citizens the same amount of credits, tied to public funds and FCC lease agreements such that the corporations that run the media have to allow equal time to candidates during the 60 days prior to an election in exchange for usage of our airwaves. If someone has more money then you, they shouldn't have more free speech then you. A well regulated system of election would allow Candidates to serve the interests of the working poor-family, middle-income family as well as the wealthy family with extra money to give away to politicians that most people today, don't. We could shorten the election cycle, so it's not a non-stop cycle as it is currently. No one would be able to become rich working in politics, it would weed out the sharps to the highest degree possible. The people who care about quality public policy legislation, implementation, and execution would better represent the interests of the majority of the people, currently the interests of the wealthiest minority are the only interests being served because money increases the volume and intensity of their "fee speech" and interests, drowning out your "free speech", and just as valid, concerns and/or interests. When a sliver of the society hold all the leverage, it's a tyranny of the minority, that not only damages the majority but eventual damages said minority due to corruption, inefficiencies, sinking the whole ship because we let people "captain" who care more about money,power, and their own personal concerns instead of leaving America better then they found it.

We also need to break up the duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans, and campaign finance reform can do that, the natural ecology of democratic republic should be broader then two parties, but what happens is that there are many invisible, smaller caucuses like the Blue Dogs, Knownothings, and Progressives that group together under one of the two party banners, obfuscating the true chemistry of their positions freeriding on the party you're in, in order to form a majority if possible and increase their power through working together, problem is many Democratic factions aren't living up to their end of the bargain. They want to be associated with Obama and The Democratic Party, but they won't practice what they preach, because there are so many gerrymandered districts and little primary challenges against incumbents in this bicameral legislative construction. In the Congress, the majority makes the rules, because it's a system based on who can manage the most votes. Other then providing themselves committee assignments their loyalty to their elected leaders is too thin for us to afford them hanging on, but we have little choice if we want to maintain the power to set the agenda.

Failure for Obama and The Democrats will mean failure for the Blue Dogs because voters in their districts often have more of a choice then in other districts, and they sent up Democrats for a specific reason, if the Freshman and incumbent Blue Dogs want to maintain their seats and their majority position they have to pull together with us, otherwise they might keep their seat, but have little power as their total numbers and therefor power will be diminished. Nobody expects members to vote the party line 100% of the time, or ignore conflicts of interests with their district, but too often they're incorrect in the will of their constituents, and they underestimate what they've been sent up to do, the Democratic Platform is no secret, Barack Obama performed it live for two years, it's very important that the Blue Dogs not be the integral force that denies Health Care reform, unnecessarily, for yet another generation. It's time to put up, or expect a serious, but productive primary challenge.

You are the government. If the government and the country aren't effective it's because you're not holding your representatives accountable nor are you going to your party's monthly meeting so you can concentrate your power, you're voting and you're expecting to set the nation on autopilot, when there are actionable things you can achieve to make your country a better place and improve the capacity of our most valuable national resource, our human capital. Every poorly educated student is a severe mismanagement of opportunity. Every unnecessarily uninsured underinsured American is not only unethical, inefficient and unnecessary, it's a waste of potential production that may improve your life through the future efforts of a healthy person. People teach, invent, create businesses, cure disease, and perform heroic deeds. Health and education are central to quality of life and quality of life it the only effective deterrent to violent crime and war and the only way to maximize our American potential. Our Democratic Republic means you succeed or fail on the educated efforts of your population. That means every citizen must take their duties as seriously as any elected official. You were elected when you were born or were naturalized as an American citizen. If enough people take their patriotic duty seriously most of our modern problems could be made short work of. We lack initiative not knowledge. If "the government" fails, we failed. The government is not a "them" it's us, by design and intention. The US Government, at every level, machine that must be operated in concert by us all if your want to produce the most robust product. We plant our seeds in investment or non-investment in a free public education system and we reap the benefits at a rate proportional to education technology just as produce yields are dependent on agricultural technology. If we don't teach student how to be effectively accountable for their participation in their government, you're going to get what you see.

PW,

This video clip of Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) responding to allegations that President Obama is not a natural born citizen -- and therefore an illegitimate president -- is astounding.

Importantly, this doesn't appear to be an isolated incident. The Washington Independent says the so-called "birther movement" challenging Obama's citizenship is actually gaining momentum and increasingly dogging the Republican party.

The Daily Beast: "The movement is evidence that Obama Derangement Syndrome is going viral from the far right, proliferating beyond fringe-festival Internet sites. It's in danger of a quiet mainstreaming along partisan lines -- reaching into talk radio, cable news, the armed services, and even the halls of Congress."

For the record, The Supreme Court through out this frivolous lawsuit during the election.

They tried to attack Barry Goldwater who was born in Arizona before it was a State and John McCain who was born in The Panama Canal Zone for not being natural-born American citizens.

When forceful ignorance and sour grapes collide the results are some stinky wine. I am delighted that the core, active Republicans are wasting time and money pursuing this seemingly magical grail that will just make President Obama go away. He's not going away, but who am I to ruin someone's hobby?

An oldie but a goodie, (W.'s "accomplishments."

Action Alert: Call or Write Congress NOW!

Political Wire,

Last week, on a conference call with conservative activists dealing with health care reform, Ben Smith reported that Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

According to ABC News, you will be hearing that quote this week from the White House as they use it to rally their troops. Officials will says that "those who want to use this issue to break the president are doing nothing but working for insurance companies and insurance executives."

Expect the administration to use Bill Kristol's quote today, as well.

It's on like Donkey Kong in the battle to make meaningful reforms to Health Care in our lifetime. If you don't think the Republicans are licking their chops in an effort to embarrass The President, then you haven't been paying attention. Exhibit A, from an old, smelly, political pirate, whore:

MONDAY, JULY 20, 2009

Action Alert: Call or Write Congress NOW!

Time to stop complaining about Obama and DO SOMETHING to stop this Obamination!

In March I responded to a Flopping Aces commenter who suggested we spend too much time complaining about Obama's reckless policies and not enough time actually DOING something to stop him before he permanently damages the U.S.A. I wrote "Basic Training for the Conservative Comeback! The steps YOU can take that make a difference TODAY!" It's a wide ranging discussion of steps each of us can take.

But today, I want to call you to action on one point. Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are reaching critical points in legislation that if passed will do great harm to our country. Both Cap and Trade and the Dem's Health Care plans will take this country further down the road of dangerous and reckless big spending and socialism. If you don't speak up now, by contacting your Representative and Senator, then it may be too late.

Obama is already weakening in the polls and voters are recoiling against the "change" that he is bringing. Stopping these two pieces of legislation would mark the beginning of the end of Obama's plan to remake America as a socialist fiefdom. It would be, as my Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said,"Obama's Waterloo."

Your Reps DO Listen!

Years ago, I worked in Senator Alphone D'Amato's New York office. My job was to answer some of the mail from constituents. I learned that letters, phone calls and emails DO matter. But letters have the greatest impact. If you care enough to put a stamp on it, it carries more weight than if you email it. But whichever method you choose, your letter will be read and your opinion tallied up along with all the others.

• Contact your congressman by following this link to the House Directory.
• Contact your Senator.

And after you do that, make sure to send your letter or email to the editor of your local newspaper and recommend he or she run it as a letter to the editor. Use the link for your local paper or try this site.

Talking Points

While your letter should be an original expression of your thoughts, here are a few points you may wish to consider:

• Congress seems hell bent on rushing through huge bills, which few if any members have read, that have profound implications for our country. They must stop this reckless practice. Ask that theysign the Pledge to Read card.
• Massive big spending in these bills is fiscally irresponsible. Warnings from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office that current spending is "unsustainable" should be heeded.
• Cap and Trade is a massive tax increase on EVERY American masquerading as energy and environmental legislation. And it won't solve the problem of global warming, even if that was a real problem.
• The American people are increasingly fed up with the attitude that Congress and the President seem more interested in representing the wants of campaign contributors like big unions, big business and liberal special interest groups than they do average voters.

You might also let your Senators know that you believe Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, and her persistent reference to a "wise latina" making a better judge than a white male makes her unqualified to be a juror, let alone a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Just as you would with a letter to the editor of your newspaper, keep letters to your Representatives and Senators short and to the point. Make sure to state right up front that you want them to:

• Vote NO on cap and trade legislation.
• Vote NO on phony health care reform.
• Senators should vote NO on Sonia Sotomayor.

If you need some help researching a particular point, or you just want to bounce some thoughts off the readers here, please feel free to ask for assistance in the comment's section below. Or, you might put a draft of your letter here and get some feedback before you send it.

Time is of the essence and we can't afford to stay silent anymore. But the only way your voice will be heard is if you act.... NOW!

My advice to you is, do what the Corporate Oil Lobbyist and former Republican Office of Political Affairs and EPA official Michael Miller suggests, write letters don't send e-mail, make a few calls not one, but leave out the "talking points" and you want the exact opposite of what this old political hooker wants. Speak from your heart but make sure you discuss the issue from a point of knowledge on the actual subjects at hand. Talk about what's in the bill being proposed, not what you feel should be in the bill should be in the magical Congress of your mind. Details matter, and it adds a great amount of power to your message, in that you know what the hell your talking about. Practiacal, non-partisan coverage is available from Congressional Quarterly, daily.

Call: (202) 224- 3121

Democrats - Majority (13)

**Max Baucus, Chairman, Montana**
*Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia
**Kent Conrad, North Dakota**
*Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico
John Kerry, Massachusetts
**Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas**
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Charles Schumer, New York
Debbie Stabenow, Michigan
Maria Cantwell, Washington
**Bill Nelson, Florida**
Robert Menendez, New Jersey
Thomas Carper, Delaware


GOP -Minority (10)

*Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member, Iowa
*Orrin Hatch, Utah
*Olympia Snowe, Maine
*Jon Kyl, Arizona
J*im Bunning, Kentucky
*Mike Crapo, Idaho
*Pat Roberts, Kansas
**John Ensign, Nevada**
*Mike Enzi, Wyoming
*John Cornyn, Texas

Call: (202) 224- 3121

Know that the election never ended, and if you don't fight alongside with Obama for the platform that you voted for, we will all fail, as we succeeded in concert and totally. Concentrate your efforts on the Senate Finance Committee and your own legislators, this week.

UC San Diego's Vote view is a killer site for ideological analysis of candidates. This is a great study, Political Polarization in the 110th Congress is the Highest in a 120 Years. The Congress that is supposed to reflect and represent the American People is much more concentratedly divided then any time in the last 120 years. The design of our democratic republic naturally slows down the process, but the requirement to fall in line with certain disparate, monied groups in order to raise money to keep and retain power makes the Congress a funhouse refraction of reality. This causes inaction on the great perils of our time even when the people provide tremendous consent for the recently elected as in 2008 where Obama won states like North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and California. Obama won every region except the Confederate states, but he even out performed Kerry and Gore in Dixie. The Democrats increased all of their margins in the House and they have 60 votes in the Senate, a super majority. Still, the political will of the people is assuaged and by concentrated interests that don't have the best intentions nor the Constitutional authority to govern. No where in the Constitution does it say the people shall give over as proxy to oligarchical plutocrats the creation, maintenance, and/or execution of the law. Even though people are voting in record numbers, it's still, seemingly, not enough yet for the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress to believe that they have permission to lead. You have permission. If the Blue Dogs major concern is seat retention, non-delivery on the Democrat's central campaign pledge of Health Care reform is a great way for a freshman legislator to be a one termer, no matter how stylized the candidates platform, if you run as a Democrat, you're going to be judged and identified on the achievements or failures of the Democratic Party and Obama.

This is part of the reason you're unhappy with government and/or politics, Current American politics give field-test validity to theories of quantum physics that pertain to alternate reality theory, (not really but in a way), I wonder that we live in two parallel universes where one group only takes in only echo chamber media, tabloids, nothing aka Fox-News or MSNBC and the rest of us. When the two major power holders can't agree on the facts, government can't work and the society suffers.

You can't legislate that people watch C-Span in the morning, Congressional mark-up sessions, The Newshour and Frontline, but we'd be a lot better off if people read The Economist and all the sane publications that are available for free on the net and at least one decent news show like BBC world or The Newshour on PBS every day. Most commercial media just tells you what you want to hear because they want you to buy their advertiser's products. TV is on for the commercials, the programs are just bait. You are really better off if you trust the non-profits with your news for practical reasons. Information is power, and the correct information in a world of BS is very powerful. You can't be a competent advocate for your personal policy option and candidate selections if your intelligence product is tainted with bias or cherry's picked to appease your ego and not you the news-gather who has to make decisions every other November, (hopefully a lot more often then that). One of the ultimate expressions of patriotism, or love of country, is caring enough to not only vote but understand the issues and the world by partaking in the most premium intelligence available. That intelligence must be as free of obfuscation and bias as possible, regardless of your ideology. Today we have the benefits of the internet, such that if you know where to look, that information is at your fingertips. But, like fishing, it's all about knowing where to look.

The new FEMA Chief, Craig Fugate, is widely regarded by Republicans and Democrats as the best disaster response manager in the world. Obama's cabinet has many unknown stars that the Administration would be wise to highlight.

Not just competence but excellence in execution must be the hallmark of the Obama Administration. The people have to trust their government to get the basics, like disaster relief, right again.

Senator Ted Kennedy in Newsweek,

‘The Cause of My Life’
Inside the fight for universal health care.

Edward M. Kennedy
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Jul 27, 2009

In 1964, I was flying with several companions to the Massachusetts Democratic Convention when our small plane crashed and burned short of the runway. My friend and colleague in the Senate, Birch Bayh, risked his life to pull me from the wreckage. Our pilot, Edwin Zimny, and my administrative assistant, Ed Moss, didn't survive. With crushed vertebrae, broken ribs, and a collapsed lung, I spent months in New England Baptist Hospital in Boston. To prevent paralysis, I was strapped into a special bed that immobilizes a patient between two canvas slings. Nurses would regularly turn me over so my lungs didn't fill with fluid. I knew the care was expensive, but I didn't have to worry about that. I needed the care and I got it.

Now I face another medical challenge. Last year, I was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Surgeons at Duke University Medical Center removed part of the tumor, and I had proton-beam radiation at Massachusetts General Hospital. I've undergone many rounds of chemotherapy and continue to receive treatment. Again, I have enjoyed the best medical care money (and a good insurance policy) can buy.

But quality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face. Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to.

This is the cause of my life. It is a key reason that I defied my illness last summer to speak at the Democratic convention in Denver—to support Barack Obama, but also to make sure, as I said, "that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American…will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not just a privilege." For four decades I have carried this cause—from the floor of the United States Senate to every part of this country. It has never been merely a question of policy; it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society. Now the issue has more meaning for me—and more urgency—than ever before. But it's always been deeply personal, because the importance of health care has been a recurrent lesson throughout most of my 77 years.

Nothing I'm enduring now can compare to hearing that my children were seriously ill. In 1973, when I was first fighting in the Senate for universal coverage, we learned that my 12-year-old son Teddy had bone cancer. He had to have his right leg amputated above the knee. Even then, the pathology report showed that some of the cancer cells were very aggressive. There were only a few long-shot options to stop it from spreading further. I decided his best chance for survival was a clinical trial involving massive doses of chemotherapy. Every three weeks, at Children's Hospital Boston, he had to lie still for six hours while the fluid dripped into his arm. I remember watching and praying for him, all the while knowing how sick he would be for days afterward.

During those many hours at the hospital, I came to know other parents whose children had been stricken with the same deadly disease. We all hoped that our child's life would be saved by this experimental treatment. Because we were part of a clinical trial, none of us paid for it. Then the trial was declared a success and terminated before some patients had completed their treatments. That meant families had to have insurance to cover the rest or pay for them out of pocket. Our family had the necessary resources as well as excellent insurance coverage. But other heartbroken parents pleaded with the doctors: What chance does my child have if I can only afford half of the prescribed treatments? Or two thirds? I've sold everything. I've mortgaged as much as possible. No parent should suffer that torment. Not in this country. Not in the richest country in the world.

That experience with Teddy made it clear to me, as never before, that health care must be affordable and available for every mother or father who hears a sick child cry in the night and worries about the deductibles and copays if they go to the doctor. But that was just one medical crisis. My family, like every other, has faced many—at every stage of life. I think of my parents and the medical care they needed after their strokes. I think of my son Patrick, who suffered serious asthma as a child and sometimes had to be rushed to the hospital for treatment. (For this reason, we had no dogs in the house when Patrick was young.) I think of my daughter, Kara, diagnosed with lung cancer in 2002. Few doctors were willing to try an operation. One did—and after that surgery and arduous rounds of chemotherapy and radiation, she's alive and healthy today. My family has had the care it needed. Other families have not, simply because they could not afford it.

I have seen letters and e-mails from many of these less fortunate Americans. In their pleas, there's always dignity, but too often desperation. "Our school is closing in June of 2010, which means that I will be losing my job and my health insurance," writes Mary Dunn, a 58-year-old schoolteacher in Eden, S.D. "I am a Type I diabetic, and I had heart bypass surgery in 2005. My husband is also a teacher [here], so we will both be losing insurance. I am exploring options and have been told that I cannot stay on our group policy or transfer to another policy after our jobs cease because of my medical condition. What am I to do after 39 years of teaching to acquire adequate health coverage?" Dunn also serves as mayor of Eden, for which she is paid $45 a month with no health benefits.

How will we, as a nation, answer her? I've heard countless such stories, including one from the family of Cassandra Wilson, a 14-year-old who once was a competitive ice skater. She's uninsured because she has petit mal seizures, often 200 times a day. Her parents have run up $30,000 on their credit cards. They've sold her skating equipment on eBay to pay for her care.

These two cases represent only those patients who lack coverage. We also need to find answers for the increasing number of Americans whose insurance costs too much, covers too little, and can be too easily revoked when they face the most serious illnesses.

Our response to these challenges will define our character as a country. But the challenges themselves—and the demands for reform—are not new. In 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt ran for a third term as president, the platform of his newly created Progressive Party called for national health insurance. Harry Truman proposed it again more than 30 years after Roosevelt was defeated. The plan was attacked, not for the last time, as "socialized medicine," and members of Truman's White House staff were branded "followers of the Moscow party line."

For the next generation, no one ventured to tread where T.R. and Truman fell short. But in the early 1960s, a new young president was determined to take a first step—to free the elderly from the threat of medical poverty. John Kennedy called Medicare "one of the most important measures I have advocated." He understood the pain of injury and illness: as a senator, he had almost died after surgery to repair a back injury sustained during World War II, an injury that would plague him all of his life. I was in college as he recuperated and learned to walk without crutches at my parents' winter home in Florida. I visited often, and we spent afternoons painting landscapes and seascapes. (It was a competition: at dinner after we finished, we would ask family members to decide whose painting was better.) I saw how the pain would periodically hit him as we were painting; he'd have to put down his brush for a while. And I saw, too, how hard he fought as president to pass Medicare. It was a battle he didn't have the opportunity to finish. But I was in the Senate to vote for the Medicare bill before Lyndon Johnson signed it into law—with Harry Truman at his side. In the Senate, I viewed Medicare as a great achievement, but only a beginning. In 1966, I visited the Columbia Point Neighborhood Health Center in Boston; it was a pilot project providing health services to low-income families in the two-floor office of an apartment building. I saw mothers in rocking chairs, tending their children in a warm and welcoming setting. They told me this was the first time they could get basic care without spending hours on public transportation and in hospital waiting rooms. I authored legislation, which passed a few months later, establishing the network of community health centers that are all around America today.

Some years later, I decided the time was right to renew the quest for universal and affordable coverage. When I first introduced the bill in 1970, I didn't expect an easy victory (although I never suspected that it would take this long). I eventually came to believe that we'd have to give up on the ideal of a government-run, single-payer system if we wanted to get universal care. Some of my allies called me a sellout because I was willing to compromise. Even so, we almost had a plan that President Richard Nixon was willing to sign in 1974—but that chance was lost as the Watergate storm swept Washington and the country, and swept Nixon out of the White House. I tried to negotiate an agreement with President Carter but became frustrated when he decided that he'd rather take a piecemeal approach. I ran against Carter, a sitting president from my own party, in large part because of this disagreement. Health reform became central to my 1980 presidential campaign: I argued then that the issue wasn't just coverage but also out-of-control costs that would ultimately break both family and federal budgets, and increasingly burden the national economy. I even predicted, optimistically, that the business community, largely opposed to reform, would come around to supporting it.

That didn't happen as soon as I thought it would. When Bill Clinton returned to the issue in the first years of his presidency, I fought the battle in Congress. We lost to a virtually united front of corporations, insurance companies, and other interest groups. The Clinton proposal never even came to a vote. But we didn't just walk away and do nothing—even though Republicans were again in control of Congress. We returned to a step-by-step approach. With Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas, the daughter of the 1936 Republican presidential nominee, I crafted a law to make health insurance more portable for those who change or lose jobs. It didn't do enough to fully guarantee that, but we made progress. I worked with my friend Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Republican chair of our committee, to enact CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program; today it covers more than 7 million children from low-income families, although too many of them could soon lose coverage as impoverished state governments cut their contributions.

Incremental measures won't suffice anymore. We need to succeed where Teddy Roosevelt and all others since have failed. The conditions now are better than ever. In Barack Obama, we have a president who's announced that he's determined to sign a bill into law this fall. And much of the business community, which has suffered the economic cost of inaction, is helping to shape change, not lobbying against it. I know this because I've spent the past year, along with my staff, negotiating with business leaders, hospital administrators, and doctors. As soon as I left the hospital last summer, I was on the phone, and I've kept at it. Since the inauguration, the administration has been deeply involved in the process. So have my Senate colleagues—in particular Max Baucus, the chair of the Finance Committee, and my friend and partner in this mission, Chris Dodd. Even those most ardently opposed to reform in the past have been willing to make constructive gestures now.

To help finance a bill, the pharmaceutical industry has agreed to lower prices for seniors, not only saving them money for prescriptions but also saving the government tens of billions in Medicare payments over the next decade. Senator Baucus has agreed with hospitals on more than $100 billion in savings. We're working with Republicans to make this a bipartisan effort. Everyone won't be satisfied—and no one will get everything they want. But we need to come together, just as we've done in other great struggles—in World War II and the Cold War, in passing the great civil-rights laws of the 1960s, and in daring to send a man to the moon. If we don't get every provision right, we can adjust and improve the program next year or in the years to come. What we can't afford is to wait another generation.

I long ago learned that you have to be a realist as you pursue your ideals. But whatever the compromises, there are several elements that are essential to any health-reform plan worthy of the name.

First, we have to cover the uninsured. When President Clinton proposed his plan, 33 million Americans had no health insurance. Today the official number has reached 47 million, but the economic crisis will certainly push the total higher. Unless we act now, within a few years, 55 million Americans could be left without coverage even as the economy recovers.

All Americans should be required to have insurance. For those who can't afford the premiums, we can provide subsidies. We'll make it illegal to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions. We'll also prohibit the practice of charging women higher premiums than men, and the elderly far higher premiums than anyone else. The bill drafted by the Senate health committee will let children be covered by their parents' policy until the age of 26, since first jobs after high school or college often don't offer health benefits.

To accomplish all of this, we have to cut the costs of health care. For families who've seen health-insurance premiums more than double—from an average of less than $6,000 a year to nearly $13,000 since 1999—one of the most controversial features of reform is one of the most vital. It's been called the "public plan." Despite what its detractors allege, it's not "socialism." It could take a number of different forms. Our bill favors a "community health-insurance option." In short, this means that the federal government would negotiate rates—in keeping with local economic conditions—for a plan that would be offered alongside private insurance options. This will foster competition in pricing and services. It will be a safety net, giving Americans a place to go when they can't find or afford private insurance, and it's critical to holding costs down for everyone.

We also need to move from a system that rewards doctors for the sheer volume of tests and treatments they prescribe to one that rewards quality and positive outcomes. For example, in Medicare today, 18 percent of patients discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30 days—at a cost of more than $15 billion in 2005. Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don't reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we'll save billions of dollars while improving the quality of care for patients.

Social justice is often the best economics. We can help disabled Americans who want to live in their homes instead of a nursing home. Simple things can make all the difference, like having the money to install handrails or have someone stop by and help every day. It's more humane and less costly—for the government and for families—than paying for institutionalized care. That's why we should give all Americans a tax deduction to set aside a small portion of their earnings each month to provide for long-term care.

Another cardinal principle of reform: we have to make certain that people can keep the coverage they already have. Millions of employers already provide health insurance for their employees. We shouldn't do anything to disturb this. On the contrary, we need to mandate employer responsibility: except for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees, every company should have to cover its workers or pay into a system that will.

We need to prevent disease and not just cure it. (Today 80 percent of health spending pays for care for the 20 percent of Americans with chronic illnesses like diabetes, cancer, or heart disease.) Too many people get to the doctor too seldom or too late—or know too little about how to stay healthy. No one knows better than I do that when it comes to advanced, highly specialized treatments, America can boast the best health care in the world—at least for those who can afford it. But we still have to modernize a system that doesn't always provide the basics.

I've heard the critics complain about the costs of change. I'm confident that at the end of the process, the change will be paid for—fairly, responsibly, and without adding to the federal deficit. It doesn't make sense to negotiate in the pages of NEWSWEEK, but I will say that I'm open to many options, including a surtax on the wealthy, as long as it meets the principle laid down by President Obama: that there will be no tax increases on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. What I haven't heard the critics discuss is the cost of inaction. If we don't reform the system, if we leave things as they are, health-care inflation will cost far more over the next decade than health-care reform. We will pay far more for far less—with millions more Americans uninsured or underinsured.

This would threaten not just the health of Americans but also the strength of the American economy. Health-care spending already accounts for 17 percent of our entire domestic product. In other advanced nations, where the figure is around 10 percent, everyone has insurance and health outcomes that are equal or better than ours. This disparity undermines our ability to compete and succeed in the global economy. General Motors spends more per vehicle on health care than on steel.

We will bring health-care reform to the Senate and House floors soon, and there will be a vote. A century-long struggle will reach its climax. We're almost there. In the meantime, I will continue what I've been doing—making calls, urging progress. I've had dinner twice recently at my home in Hyannis Port with Senator Dodd, and when President Obama called me during his Rome trip after meeting with the Pope, much of our discussion was about health care. I believe the bill will pass, and we will end the disgrace of America as the only major industrialized nation in the world that doesn't guarantee health care for all of its people.

At another Democratic convention, in arguing for this cause, I spoke of the insurance coverage senators and members of Congress provide for themselves. That was 1980. In the last year, I've often relied on that Congressional insurance. My wife, Vicki, and I have worried about many things, but not whether we could afford my care and treatment. Each time I've made a phone call or held a meeting about the health bill—or even when I've had the opportunity to get out for a sail along the Massachusetts coast—I've thought in an even more powerful way than before about what this will mean to others. And I am resolved to see to it this year that we create a system to ensure that someday, when there is a cure for the disease I now have, no American who needs it will be denied it.

This is a crucial week in the battle for Health Reform. Blue Dog Democrats need to understand that if our agenda is not acted upon they're will be no where to hide when their constituents ask them what they did to reform our inefficient system. It's now or never. Passing Health Reform is crucial to the rest of the President's agenda.