In the past few months since historic health care reform became law, there has been a lot of beating up on this administration from both sides of the political spectrum.  If the right is always true to its laissez faire, anti-regulation views, some on the left is busy slamming the reform for not setting enough cost controls - in their view nothing suffices except legally mandated price caps.  But the real question is not an ideological one.  It is a real one.  The real question is: are accountability measures working to rein in insurance companies?  There are plenty of implications they are.

The Editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and Republican operatives have gone after the HHS for cracking down on insurance companies and not letting them get away with blaming health care reform by threatening to disqualify them from the upcoming health insurance exchanges.  Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius, in an op-ed piece written for the Wall Street Journal, slams down the right wing nutjobs.

In the last two weeks, my department has been accused of "thuggery" (this editorial page) and "Soviet tyranny" (Newt Gingrich). What prompted these accusations? The fact that we told health-insurance companies that, as required by law, we will review large premium increases and identify those that are unreasonable.[...]

[W]hat is really objectionable about these comments is not who they're attacking, but what they're defending. These critics seem to believe that any oversight of the insurance industry is too much, and that consumers would be better off in a system where they have few rights or protections.

If you haven't seen this rally with the President in Wisconsin from Tuesday yet, please do.



(Full transcript here.)

Listen to that crowd roar as the President explains the choice for America's future. Yup, that's the real base. They are not whining. They are showing up, getting fired up, and are proud of the accomplishments of this President and Democrats. People like them is exactly the reason we will win this November! Let's go!

Politico reports that Vice President Joe Biden has told the Democratic base to "stop whining."  Here's what he said:

Biden, speaking at a frozen yogurt plant in New Hampshire, said he wanted to “remind our base constituency to stop whining and get out there and look at the alternatives. This President has done an incredible job. He’s kept his promises."

The only nitpick I have with the Vice President is that he, by implication, is saying the people screaming the loudest on the left and dumping on the president is the base, which I don't think is completely true.  The whiners are certainly part of the base, but while super-loud, they do not represent the base by and large.

With that caveat in place, however, I understand what Biden was saying, and he is spot on.  The left ideologues and the leftier-than-thou types in the blogosphere and the media has been assaulting President Obama for over a year.  For them, every accomplishment of this president is tarred and feathered with condemnation because nothing is ever good enough.  There is a propensity to belittle the huge amount of progress being made by asserting that the president is not waving a magic wand and making everything perfect.

(Excerpt of my article in TheGrio)

The Republican party's 'Pledge to America', which was released yesterday, isn't adding up -- at least not for African-Americans.

It's not that the pledge has bad ideas on combating poverty, stemming foreclosures, reducing urban unemployment and strengthening education reform -- it's far worse than that. There are zero ideas, no mention of the issues whatsoever.

I guess the GOP took the old saying 'If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything at all' to heart. Yet if there was ever a time to talk about poverty, now would be it.

The U.S. Census released figures last week showing the percentage of families below the poverty line is the highest in a decade. And the percentage of uninsured Americans is the highest since 1987, the year they began keeping track. Sadly, it isn't surprising that black and Latino families in particular are bearing the heaviest burden.

Read full article here: http://m.thegrio.com/politics/black-issues-mia-in-gops-pledge-to-america.php

That's right.  I said it.  Let the taxes go up, on everybody.  The ideal political situation for Democrats, it seems is to simply increase let the tax rates for incomes above $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers) return to the Clinton era rates while giving an Obama tax cut to the rest of us by extending the current tax rates for incomes below that amount.  That's a fine idea.  The Republican idea is to hold the Obama middle class tax cuts hostage to tax giveaways for the super-rich, to the tune of over $100,000 per millionaire.  If the Republicans plan to continue holding the Obama tax cuts hostage to the Bush tax giveaways, fine.  And at this moment, it appears that Democrats are unwilling to force a vote on this issue.

There is a third option that no one dare speak of in the current political climate: Leaving current law as is.  That would let all of George Bush's tax cuts expire, and return all of the tax rates, as the Republicans designed when the passed the 2001 and 2003 irresponsible tax policies.  We have to first be honest about what we're proposing.  The Democratic proposal and the Obama tax cut -- while I support it because it focuses the cuts on the middle class - would still cost the federal budget $3.2 trillion over the next decade (the Republican plan to give millionaires an additional $100,000 a year would add yet another $700 billion over the same period.).  And to what end?  The Tax Policy Center has the following estimates of just how much relief would be delivered by extending the current tax rates for those making $200,000 or below:

John Boehner might want to be Speaker of the House, but his party is proposing a budget that would eliminate the Congress altogether.  That is, if the Republicans have any intention to honestly follow their own "Pledge to America."  The Republicans are trying to garner the votes of fiscal conservatives by promising to cut taxes, protect spending on defense and entitlements,  and balance the budget.  Sure, that math doesn't add up.  But Karl Rove has "the math," as we all know.

But back on topic.  Paul Krugman explains just how much teh stupid in the Republican plan burns.

[A]s far as I can see, there’s only one specific cut proposed — canceling the rest of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would save $16 billion. That’s less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not specified — “except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops.” In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget are off-limits.

So how do you balance the budget by 2020 if you are going to protect the massive defense spending, not raise a single penny in taxes, and not touch entitlement spending?  Krugman clarifies, citing the Tax Policy Center:

In case anyone doesn't know, the Log Cabin Republicans are the LGBT contingent within the Republican party.  Why anyone gay would want to be a Republican is beyond me - I'm not saying they have to be Democrats, but to be a Republican, a party which in its platform advocates for discrimination and even jailing of gay Americans in some instances - but I digress.  The Log Cabin Republicans have done some good of late - their six-year long Constitutional challenge challenging Don't Ask, Don't Tell has recently met with success as a federal judge in California has ruled the discriminatory law unconstitutional, the first such ruling.  So, of course, Congratulations are in order.

But then, the Log Cabins turned right around and stomped all over their own victory for equality by awarding their "Barry Goldwater Award" to two homophobes from Texas: Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Pete Sessions, the respective heads of the Republican Senatorial and Congressional campaign committees.  As recently as Tuesday, Sen. Cornyn joined a Republican filibuster against a Senate defense authorization bill that would have striken Don't Ask Don't Tell from the books.  Rep. Sessions voted against the same measure in the House -- he voted both against the amendment striking DADT, as well as the full defense authorization bill that contained it.

A legal analysis released in 2009 by the Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara makes it clear that the President has the power to suspend Don't Ask, Don't Tell as long as our reserve troops are involuntarily serving on active duty.  Whether this is due to the President looking to avoid a controversy or a fight with the military, or whether this is due to the President believing that a temporary executive order blocking  implementation (which would last only as long as reserve troops are serving in active duty) would diminish the importance of a permanent repeal of the policy, I cannot help but believe that this nation's gay defenders have waited long enough for their chance to serve openly.  I not only strongly urge the President to issue such an executive order, but I also want to add my voice to a letter by 69 members of Congress urging the President and the Justice Department to not appeal a decision by a federal judge that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is unconstitutional.

That having been said, I think that in the face of some very legitimate disappointments from the LGBT community, of which I am a part, the President's strategy warrants a more thoughtful analysis than simple scorn.  Before that, however, one thing needs to be made clear here.  President Obama and the Democrats are not the impediment to a full repeal of DADT.  Republicans are.  As I pointed out, on Tuesday's vote, we had the support of 57 out of 59 Senate Democrats to move ahead on repealing DADT as part of the defense appropriations bill.  The Republicans - even those ostensibly in favor of a repeal - unanimously filibustered the bill.  In May, the House passed repeal with the support of 220 Democrats and only 9 Republicans.

I found a piece yesterday on the Daily Kos "recommended" community diaries list mildly amusing.  Titled "Will Morale Improve With Continued Beatings?" the piece is basically an attempt to claim victimhood when progressives who are supportive of President Obama hit back at those on the ideological left hard pressed to give the President and the Democratic Congress any credit.  I find that claim to victimhood oddly funny, if not sadly disturbing.  The claimant of the victimhood has been one of the most whithering critics of the President and Democrats ostensibly from the left -- one might even say she has been beating up on them.  Hell, some of it is included in that very piece.  Apparently, continued beatings of Obama and his supporters do improve morale, but the supporters beating the attacks back are horrible for morale.

The piece also raises a point about people being able to vote for the Democrats and not just against the Republicans.  That is a fair point, and I will address it in a bit.  But first, back to the "beatings and morale" theme.

As far as I'm concerned, if there is a problem with morale on the progressive left, it has been caused by the very people who are now whining about "hippie punching" and "beatings."  Constantly beating up on the President, constantly dumping on Democratic accomplishments, constantly screaming at the top of their lungs that everything being done is a betrayal, a sellout or a capitulation, and ruthlessly assailing anyone who dared to stand up and defend this President and this Democratic Congress, it is those very ones now complaining about "beatings" that have constantly been performing the beatings.

Crossposted at DailyKos These notion that if you happen to think in a pragmatic way and defend your ideals makes you to be less of a democrat has been quite over played here at dailykos. What is even more amazing is that these notion if you think like a pragmatic and support all Democrats (not just the better ones who stood by public option, or signed up to kill the bill) in the midterms in November, you are considered to have not taken concerns of voters and Democratic activists. I believe in the message -- "Don't want things to turn worse? Vote Democratic because the Republican alternative is worse!". I also believe that a blue dog democrat like Senator Lincoln is better for the next six year until we get a better and viable alternative to primary her again than have her be replaced by a teabagger Republican't. So, there was a question in this diary from yesterday that asked:

Is that the sort of message that gets activists and voters out to vote? Is it the one that gets these people on your side for the midterm campaigns?

My answer is...

We have heard Republicans scream and moan about how health care reform will "explode" the cost of health care and bust the budget.  Well, as usual, the GOP leadership is entirely disconnected from any notion of reality. Health reform is lowering premiums right now, this year, in 2010, at least in one instance.  Blue Cross is refunding to its North Carolina customers $156 million, thanks to the new law.  And this may only be the beginning.

Health insurance regulators in North Carolina have identified nearly $156 million in refunds owed to Blue Cross policyholders because of changes coming under the nation's new health law.

Consumers with policies at other companies across the nation also may deserve refunds, says North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin. He plans to urge other states to probe potential overcharging for a type of reserve fund.

Crossposted at DailyKos We have been had by the right wing media and a forceful misinformation campaign by Insurance companies, Teabagger Republican't and the minority leadership of both House and Senate that keep on saying no, no, no to every progressive measures on this President's agenda. Six months after the signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, a lot of people find themselves still confused about what is actually in the law. According to the AP poll conducted by Stanford University, 1) 52% of Americans mistakenly believe the HCR overhaul will raise taxes for most people this year. 2) 65% believe the new law will increase the federal government’s debt and another 16% believe it will not have any effect on the federal government’s debt for a whopping 81% disconnect. 3) 25% of the participant still think that the bill contains 'death Panels' where decisions on patient care is made by bureaucrats.

(An excerpt of my weekly article in theloop21.com)

For years health insurance premiums have risen and states have done little to nothing to stop it. Insurance commissioners have signed off on these increases with little more than a cursory glance at the latest actuarial tables shoved under their noses by the dominant insurers in their regions. I get it. For one, commissioners don’t have enough resources to adequately ascertain whether health insurers’ estimates actually match up. Second, their power is mostly muted so they’re really just armed with a recycled rubber stamp. Seemingly, they have tortured President T. Roosevelt’s well known words and have sadly subscribed to their own: Walk softly and carry an even softer stick.

For instance, recent stories out of California have shown what can go wrong when commissioners are asleep at the switch. The California Department of Insurance has filed suit against Pacificare for violating state law 1 million times in a two year period. Violations ran the gamut from late processing of doctor’s reimbursements to rate changes to slow approval of new providers. This has led to higher, out-of-network charges for patients and missed treatments. The fines sought add up to nearly $9.9 billion. And worse yet, these offenses allegedly took place after United Health Care, one of the largest insurers in the country, purchased them. So it begs the question: As health insurers get bigger do they get worse?

Please read full article here: http://www.theloop21.com/politics/health-care-reform-holding-states-and-insurers-accountable

President Obama held an hour-long townhall meeting on Monday, moderated by CNBC's John Harwood, discussing a wide range of economic issues and concerns. The press has been reporting on how the President, in a townhall meeting in the heart of Wall Street, "toned down" his rhetoric railing against the fat cats, but my impression is that he did not change his message. The President's focus has constantly been ordinary Americans, and the most emblematic of that message was the President's response to a hedge fund manager. In response to Mr. Hedge Fund Manager whining about Wall Street's feelings being hurt because the President says harsh things about their excesses, Obama made it crystal clear where his priorities lie (transcript):

I had been amused over the last couple years -- this sense of somehow me beating up on Wall Street -- I think most folks on Main Street feel like they got beat up on -- (applause) -- and I’ll be honest with you, there’s probably a big chunk of the country ... there’s a big chunk of the country that thinks that I have been too soft on Wall Street. That’s probably the majority, not the minority.

If you haven't caught President Obama's townhall meeting on CNBC Monday, the whole event is worth a watch.

There is rightly going to be a lot of consternation all over the Internet and the media world about how efforts to advance the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell as part of the Defense authorization bill failed to advance by a 56-43 vote in the Senate.  First of all, wrap your head around that one.  It failed by a 56-43 vote.  56 in favor.  43 against.  According to the US Senate rules, that translates to: the nays have it.

But what I'm afraid will get lost in the media narrative and the justified disappointment and outrage from many is that number.  57.  Why 57?  Because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had to vote 'No' just so he would be able to revive the measure later on, i.e. for procedural reasons.  57 Senators, all members of the Democratic caucus, went on the record today, in a vote, said it's time to stop procedural roadblocks and let the majority of Congress speak on this policy.

So yes, we may not have gotten all the way there today - mainly because the Senate thinks 57 out of 100 is not a majority.  But we have come really close.  And this isn't the end of the this fight.  It's a setback.  But we will persevere.  The arc of history is bending towards justice.

We hear plenty of whining in the media and in the blogosphere about how the historic health care reform law passed earlier this year is a political loser because it did not front-load enough benefits.  But we hear precious little from so-called experts and talking heads on television about the actual benefits of health reform that are going into effect as we speak.  I believe that as advocates of health care reform, it is our job to get the truth out there about what is happening now, and how that is impacting the lives of real Americans right now.

One such early benefit of the health reform law is the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP). In the Affordable Care Act, Congress authorized $5 billion to help employers and unions keep early retirees (retirees 55 or older but not yet eligible for Medicare) covered with health insurance until additional regulations on insurance companies go into effect and the health insurance exchanges open in January of 2014. Over 2,000 plan sponsors have already been approved for this plan.

Crossposted at DailyKos

Often times, it seems like we do little thinking about the creation of our disastrous recession except pointing fingers to authorities and passing the buck on who should be blamed for the making of this economy.

The truth is there is no single right answer but if there is some fraction of responsibility that has to be taken into account, the responsibility about who to blame for this recession should equally be on all of us.

Maybe not you or that other person but those of us who lived beyond our means-- those of us whose lavish lifestyle was beyond what we could afford, those of us who thought racking up debt on credit card was like spending fake money --little we thought it will come to bit us in the ass, those of us who never thought ones to hit the breaks from buying shit load of stuff we can't afford to pay for in real money if we lose one paycheck, those of us who never felt the need to plan to save but over spent ourselves like the Federal Government.

Do you want to know why healthcare reform makes me proud to be a Democrat? This is why: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago":

If progressives are looking for a Senate race in which they can be proud of fighting for probably the liberal conscience of the Senate, I have got it in my home state of California - the race between progressive champion and devoted California public servant Sen. Barbara Boxer, and the privileged, jobs-offshoring, golden-parachuted, fired former HP CEO Carly Fiorina.  I reported on the debate they had in which Boxer cleaned Fiorina's clock big time.

Fiorina has thus far sunk $5.5 million of her own money into her Senate campaign, more than half of her total raised.  In between loaning her golden parachute cash to her own campaign and whining about Barbara Boxer's hair, Carly Fiorina has found plenty of time to blame all the ill effects of the Bush administration policy on our state on Sen. Boxer.  Well, Sen. Boxer has hit back, and she has hit back hard.  Here's her new ad, "Outsourcing:"

Crossposted at DailyKos.

I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.

~Barack Obama

On February 18, 2010, the President made it clear when he established via an executive order the Bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, why it is going to be important to tackle in a bi-partisan way the ever growing Deficits (budget deficit of the federal government) which are expected to total $9.8 trillion over the next 10 years (5.2 percent of GDP during that period) and the national debt (total amount of money owed by the US Federal Government to creditors)which stands at nearly $13.4 trillion and is growing.

"That never happens!" exclaimed Rachel Maddow after in last year's budget, the Obama administration canceled the F-22 raptor program (video here), a bloated Defense spending that is irrelevant to today's wars.  The move saved $4 billion last year alone.  What Rachel Maddow was talking about was that Defense spending seems to be considered sacrosanct, untouchable, and nothing in Defense ever seems to get cut regardless of the usefulness of any Defense spending - be they on weapons systems or contracting.  That never happens.

Well, it's happening again.  An unprecedented $100 billion dollars' worth.  This time, the target is private Defense contracting.  With President Obama's blessing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has initiated an aggressive "Efficiencies Initiative" designed to get more bang for the buck, clean up defense contracting, and save the Department $100 billion over the next five years.  The Washington Post reported this morning that Secretary Gates took a swing at the bloated Defense contracting budget:

"We've not seen productivity growth in defense," Gates said. He noted that consumers buy "more powerful computers and mobile phones every year, but the taxpayer has had to spend significantly more in order to get more. We need to reverse this."

Watching the Republicans chew at their own entrails this year as a wave supposedly continues to build that will supposedly sweep them back to power, I find myself wanting to reach to mythology and fable for apt comparisons.

It's like if Cerberus had one or more of its heads go crazy and start attacking the other heads.

The scene in the Brave Little Tailor where the tailor pelts two sleeping giants with stones, provoking a fight in which they kill each other also jumps to mind.

But, as I was researching for this piece, I found a hilariously appropriate piece of projective analysis at Townhall that I felt really summed it up nicely.

Ok, I do it with love.  Ezra Klein is perhaps my favorite policy blogger, and he covers domestic and economic policy (and lots of it) at the Washington Post.  His Wonkbook is a must-read for me.  I look forward to it every day.  I learn so much from it.  In today's Wonkbook, Ezra has this to say about the success of a Tea Partier Christine O'Donnell over moderate Mike Castle in last night's Delaware primary, arguing that the Tea Party wins in moderate states will serve to scare Republican incumbents who survive:

It was hard for incumbent Republicans to see Sens. Bob Bennett and Lisa Murkowski unexpectedly toppled in their primaries. But Alaska and Utah are conservative, quirky states. They were likely targets for an angry conservative electorate. The same cannot be said for Delaware, a moderate state that often goes blue. Rep. Mike Castle's defeat was proof that no heterodox Republican is safe from a primary defeat -- it doesn't matter how popular you've been, or how clearly purple your electorate was. You're not safe. You're never safe.

[...] The Tea Party, for all its unexpected successes, cannot topple every incumbent Republican in the country. But by toppling the right ones, it can make every incumbent Republican vote and speak and act with the Tea Party in mind. So though the Te[a] Party isn't likely to send all that many of its own Republicans to Washington, the likely outcome of last night's primaries is that the Tea Party takes over the Republicans who are already in Washington, and don't want to be sent home.

I think this is certainly one of the likely possibilities.  But I want to consider another one.

There is a prevailing opinion on the Left to appoint Elizabeth Warren immediately and temporarily, bypassing the need for a Senate confirmation process, as head of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection established by the recent financial reform law enacted by Congress and the President.  Writers at Huffington Post and FDL have backed this view, as has diarist "slinkerwink" (Noelle Bell) on Daily Kos.  The argument is that the Secretary of Treasury is given temporary authority to perform the functions of the Bureau until the Senate has confirmed its director, and to provide administrative support until the designated transfer date (more on that later).  Therefore, the argument goes, he can administratively appoint a head indefinitely.

I have been a strong backer of Elizabeth Warren to get the appointment.  I think she is the best person for the job.  But there are several reasons not to bypass the Senate on this first appointment.  First of all, the power of the appointment does, and should belong to the President subject to confirmation by the Senate.  Second, the real indefinite appointment is one confirmed by the Senate.  Third, so long as the powers of the Bureau is vested in the Secretary (i.e. up until the moment the Senate confirms the first Director), the Bureau is not truly independent.  And last but not least, an interim appointment without Senate confirmation would weaken Elizabeth Warren's authority and the Bureau's independence and credibility in the public's eye.  Let's explore both the policy and the politics of this below.

This is the second in my series to examine and highlight the achievements President Obama and the Democratic Congress have made together for Americans who are considered the core base of the Democratic party.  Friday, I wrote about the perspective of the labor community.  Today, I want to cover another vital part of the Democratic base: pro-choice voters and women's rights advocates.  When it comes to women's medical privacy and reproductive freedom, this quote from the President seems apropos:

We got so many things done so quick, people forgot.

Indeed.  Let's consider the battle royal in favor of a women's right to control her own pregnancy, and the right of parents to family-planning:

President Obama and the Democratic Congress eliminated funding for ineffective abstinence-only programs (Obama had proposed eliminating it completely), provided $114 million for evidence based sex education programs, expanded funding for family planning under Medicaid and provided an additional $10 million for Title X family planning, boosting total funding for it to $317 million.  USAID's international family planning budget was increased by $30 million.  As part of the same budget, Congress lifted the DC ban on abortions that had been in place for 20 years.  Since 1988, Congress had prevented Washington, DC from using its own funds to provide abortion services for women.

We have long known about the anti-intellectual fervor on the political right.  Dumb it down.  Make the question not "which candidate would more likely help people like me?" but "which candidate would I like to have a beer with?"  Or, if you prefer, its latest incarnation: "is she sexy and does she wink at me?"  More seriously, the rabid anti-intellectual stream on the right creates hatred for science, public education, and civil rights.  But all of this is due to a recognizable phenomenon: ideological rigidity, the setting of a frame of arguments, and accept only the facts that fit that frame, discarding or maligning the facts that do not.  In other words, the adherence to an argument irrespective of factual situations.

A form of dangerous anti-intellectualism that follows this pattern has been emerging, frighteningly, on the left from many media figures, influential bloggers and even organizations.  Although there can be no moral equivalence of the actions that the rabid anti-intellectual right supports (openly advocating violence) and those supported by their leftist counterparts, the basic tenet of anti-intellectualism stands.

The President delivered his weekly address today - not as a partisan but as the President of the whole of the United States.  As Americans united in our common humanity we remember those who perished on 9/11 and we salute those who gave their lives so that others may live.

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.



In other news, the President, the Vice President, the First Lady and Dr. Biden marked this somber anniversary in remembrances separately.

The President was joined by Defense Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon Memorial. Vice President Biden and Dr. Jill Biden were at Zuccotti Park in New York City. And the First Lady was with Mrs. Laura Bush at the memorial ceremony in honor of the passengers and crew of United Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

As the President said, let this be a day we remember not for the human capacity for evil, but for the human capacity for good.

Lately, there has been a lot of people claiming to speak for the Democratic base - the progressive base.  Cenk Uygur, whom I took to task last week for his condescending attitude towards President Obama's political acumen, has penned another column now beating up on Rahm Emanuel.  There's been plenty of others beating up on the Obama administration for "abandoning" their base.

I will remind all of us one thing once: It is President Obama that is the leader of our party, and of our country.  Not Mr. Emanuel, and not Mr. Uygur.  So today, for once, let's find out what the base is actually saying about President Obama.  I think it's fair to say that the labor movement is about as close to the Democratic base as it gets.  Not only are they the reason for things we take for granted today - like the 40-hour workweek - if there is one value that unites Democrats east to west, north to south, it is the abiding belief that working Americans deserve a fair shot.

65% of the 7.3 million children without health insurance in this country - and that was data from 2008, which is the latest data available - or 4.7 million of them, are eligible for coverage through either SCHIP or Medicaid.  88% of uninsured kids from low income families are eligible.  But they are not covered, because the resources and efforts have are lacking in outreach.

In 2009, President Obama signed into law a massive expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).  In February, Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius announced the Connect Kids to Coverage challenge, aimed at covering 5 million children who are currently eligible for Medicaid or CHIP but are not enrolled.  And now, that effort is in high gear with a diverse coalition of the federal government, states, and community groups working together.

The President, as you all know, is in campaign mode.  This is the Barack Obama that scares the pants off of Republicans.  An all-American president that connects with people, tells the truth, and has fun doing it.  So President Obama spoke in Ohio yesterday, and you've probably already seen clips.  But you need to see the whole speech: it is simply brilliant from beginning to end.  So without further ado, here it is:



If you'd rather read the full remarks, it is available here.

That is how the Tea Party Republican astroturfers describe unemployment benefits.  So today, I want to find out just who wants to pay people not to work.  I intend to prove that it's the conservatives and right wingers that want to pay people not to work, but as you might guess, it's not the unemployed they want to help.

They document their contempt for the American worker in pieces like this one by FreedomWorks, the astroturf group founded by former Republican House leader Dick Armey:

Following Nancy Pelosi’s logic, she should be thrilled to hear that the number of first-time filers for unemployment insurance rose to 500,000 last week—the highest in nine months. However, paying more people not to work will not stimulate the economy or create any jobs.

They are talking about this clip from Speaker Pelosi's news conference on July 1, where she defends American workers and this social contract by pointing out that unemployment benefits are one of the most stimulative actions that can be undertaken in a shaky economy.

(Author's Note: excerpt of my weekly column in theloop21.com)

Do you like paying more for less? When it comes to health insurance get used to it. According to the 2010 Employer Health Benefits Survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust, “Workers paid nearly $3,997 this year toward the cost of family healthcare coverage -- up $482 from the average employee share in 2009 and a jump of 47 percent from the average employee share for family coverage in 2005.”

With those kind of increases you would naturally assume that workers are getting more for their money -- but they aren’t -- “30 percent of companies surveyed said they reduced the scope of benefits at the same time that they increased the amount their employees must pay for health insurance in the past year, according to a Medpage Today article on the report...

Read the full article here: http://theloop21.com/money/easy-money-health-insurers-charge-more-for-less

I think that by now you all caught yesterday's Labor Fest speech by President Obama.  The President was fired up (if you haven't watched the speech yet, by the way, follow the link and you can see the video), and so was the crowd.  But the President didn't go there just to rally the troops.  He proposed an important new investment in the nation's infrastructure: $50 billion in new federal infrastructure spending.

Alongside it, the Obama administration is proposing two more economic investment measures: a $100 billion incentive for research and development by increasing extending the R&D tax credit permanently, and a $200 billion plan to let businesses write off all capital investments.  Of course, Democrats and the President are still pushing for the small business jobs bill that the Republicans have been blocking in the Senate, with $30 billion in loan guarantees and $12 billion in tax cuts for small business.

Put them all together, and the Obama administration is front-loading a near-$400 billion investment in America's economy and jobs.  Let's go through these investments one by one.

Today, President Obama spoke at the Labor Fest in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He was on fire and on point. He made it clear that Democrats are not going to give up trying to help ordinary Americans through blistering Republican obstructionism. He recognized the contributions of organized labor in building America's middle class, and proposed a $50 billion infrastructure plan to rebuild this country's roads, highways, rail and broadband connections. Watch:



Republicans are already opposed to America's infrastructure building. Expect a more detailed analysis from me on the President's plan later on. But the fight for the mid-terms is on, with working people, Democrats and President Obama on one side and multinationals and the GOP on the other. Obama has drawn the battle lines, and if the GOP thinks it's over, we've got a surprise for them. We will fight for this country to keep moving forward. Because we love this country.

In the fledgling economy, Friday's jobs data showed some signs of new life.  Private sector employers added 67,000 jobs in August, better than expected, while the private sector data for the rest of this summer was revised up (see chart on right, credit: New York Times).  Overall, however, public sector job losses -- mostly the loss of temporary census jobs, but also about 6,000 other public sectors jobs were lost -- doubled up for a net loss of 54,000 jobs, ticking the unemployment rate up to 9.6%.

There are other signs of life in the economy, too.  Prices for single family homes have stabilized, business capital spending (on equipment and software) is up an impressive 22%, and manufacturing is gaining for the first time in a long time.  Half of the Federal Reserve's 12 districts have noted signs that the economy is starting to rebound.  The Rockefeller Foundation finds that state tax revenues are up by 1.4%, compared to a devastating decline of 17% last year (hat tip to Daily Kos commenter "Beet").

Yesterday, Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks (and an oft-called for guest host on MSNBC) wrote a condescending piece on Daily Kos purporting to teach President Obama how to fight.  Cenk Uygur, a political commentator -- a former Republican no less -- who has never run a campaign is talking down to Barack Obama, America's first black president, on how to wage a campaign.

Barack Obama, the man who went from being a State Senator to President of the United States in four years.  Barack Obama, who beat back the venerable Clinton political machine to gain the Democratic nomination and then went on to unite the party and the country to a thumping victory to the presidency.  Barack Obama, who despite facing unprecedented challenges from the uniform, vitriolic, violent right in the presidency has accomplished more in 20 months than most presidents can put together in two terms.  That is the man Cenk Uygur is directing his arrogant, disrespectful diatribe to.

(Author's Note: This is an excerpt of my weekly column in theloop21.com)

A charter school opens, does well, wins praise, and becomes a model of reform for many others. Does this sound familiar? It should. It’s practically the charter school movement’s slogan. And it’s a somewhat similar happenstance when a public school or district is successful as well.

But that’s where the similarities end. Because when both the charter school and the public school are underperforming, they are each treated quite differently. The charter school typically gets the ‘one bad apple shouldn’t ruin the whole bunch’ treatment while the public school is deemed emblematic of a dysfunctional national public school system. Why is this the case? Largely, it is a matter of perception and not reality...

Read the full article here: http://www.theloop21.com/society/fear-and-loathing-education

This also just in: Rahm Emanuel has got a foul mouth.  Stop the presses!  Ed Schultz had it on his show on MSNBC today as one of his "hot buttons" - ZOMG, Rahm said "fuck the UAW!"  The story broke on Huffington Post, which reported that the former Obama administration Car Czar is writing a... book.  And in that book, he says that Rahm says bad words.

Poutrage!  Obama White House insults workers, check that, they hate labor unions!!  Of course, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek set Ed straight on this nonsense.  Here, watch the exchange:

Last night, Sen. Barbara Boxer debated her Republican challenger, disgraced former HP CEO with a golden foot in her mouth, Carly Fiorina.  Not only did Fiorina have no shame about cutting 30,000 jobs at HP and shipping them overseas while taking $100 million in compensation for herself, and that's just in cash compensation, including a $21.4 million golden parachute.  If you want to find out the Fiorina story of self-enrichment at the expense of HP employees, see this Perks and Pinkslips timeline at Fiorina Facts.

The debate included a range of topics (full video available on C-Span), and skipped some I thought were critically important (especially Citizens United and campaign financing), but Sen. Boxer's opening statement really summed up who has been fighting for California all her life and which candidate has looked out for nothing but naked self interest.

I am beginning to find Glenn Greenwald's logic seriously twisted and angry with near-zero intellectual prowess.  In a column he penned on Salon.com, Greenwald starts by taking on the Charles Krauthammers of the far right, but then in his usual fashion, turns right around and shovels a load of garbage on the Democrats.  Richly, Greenwald thinks that Republican racism and xenophobia is "added to" by Democrats who remind minority voters who our friends are.

When the execrable, desperate Harry Reid isn't feeding this majoritarian paranoia by demanding that the Park51 community center move, he's seeking to capitalize on it through explicit advocacy of ethnic-based voting in order to salvage his worthless political career.

There is of course no defending Reid's pandering on the Park 51 Islamic Community Center.  But one wonders how a passing comment is taken to be the equal of active day-and-night protestations and vitriolic demonstrations by the right.

Sen. Barbara Boxer is rightly a progressive hero, and I am proud to call her my Senator.  A magnificent and tireless champion of social justice, economic prosperity, women's reproductive choice and a steadfast steward of our environment, she is being challenged by golden-parachute holding fired HP CEO Carly Fiorina whose only claim to the Senate seat against the people of California is to try to buy it with her money.

Sen. Boxer will be debating disgraced CEO Fiorina tonight live from 7-8 pm Pacific.  Be sure to tune in and watch Boxer fight for California and take on the silver spoon corporate CEO.  Find your TV listings here.  As Sen. Boxer says, the choice couldn't be clearer.



Oh, and don't forget to help Sen. Boxer out.  Fiorina may have her golden parachute, but Boxer has us -- if you can at all, go contribute to Boxer's money bomb today!  Then go to BarbaraBoxer.com and sign up to help.