Federal Student Aid Reform

Dear Readers,
In response to some comments by readers, I am devoting this post to something great that President Obama has done.  As part of the reconciliation bill that completed the health care reform, the student loan give away to the banks was eliminated.  Senator Franken, the junior senator from Minnesota, sent out the following email message which says it all:

Passing health reform was an amazing accomplishment. The reconciliation bill President Obama just signed made a good bill even better, but today I want to talk about another new law that's been overshadowed a bit by health reform.
Today Franni and I were honored to be there in person to watch the President sign sweeping federal student aid reform into law. We just cut out the big bank middlemen for federal student loans. Now aid to help kids afford college will come directly from the government.
This is a very, very good thing for students across the country. For the past 40 years under the old system, the federal government paid banks massive subsidies to get them to lend to students. On top of that, the government guaranteed the loans -- so there was no risk for banks, just loads of taxpayer-subsidized profits.
This was corporate welfare masquerading as private enterprise, and we just put a stop to it. For Minnesota students who already have direct lending from the U of M, we shored up Pell Grants for those at risk of having them cut by as much as 60%, or of losing them altogether.
For Franni and me, this issue is personal. She and her three sisters were all able to attend college on a combination of scholarships and Pell Grants after their mother was widowed when Franni was just a baby. So we know the power of America's middle class comes from being able to provide a bright future for kids, and that means a college education.
I came to Washington to fight for those who haven't had a voice on issues just like this one. Health reform is a great thing, but it's not the only bill that was signed into law today that will markedly improve the lives of our constituents and strengthen our middle class.
Thank you so much for reading. Today, America's students got a leg up - that's something we can all take a moment to celebrate. We've got more to do on this issue, and thanks to your steadfast support we're off to a running start.

I appreciate my readers comments.  It is important that we take the time to celebrate all the good things that the Obama Administration is doing as well as holding President Obama accountable for his campaign promises.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Bravo for the Rule of Law

Dear Friends,
I want to thank Judge Vaughn R. Walker for his recent decision that the illegal wiretaps done by the Bush Administration were in fact illegal and that there are limits on the state-secrets privilege.  You can read more about the decision in The New York Times article here.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration Justice Department was taking the same position as the Bush Administration did in this case in support of an unfettered state-secrets privilege.  The Obama Administration claims to have a more restricted view of the state-secrets privilege.  The New York Times article states:

A Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, noted that the Obama administration had overhauled the department’s procedures for invoking the state-secrets privilege, requiring senior officials to personally approve any assertion before lawyers could make it in court. She said that approach would ensure that the privilege was invoked only when “absolutely necessary to protect national security.”

I am not convinced that the Obama Administration is willing to back off a claim that the Executive Branch has the right to claim the state-secrets privilege without judicial review.  The New York Times article contains the following very disappointing fact,

The Justice Department said it was reviewing the decision and had made no decision about whether to appeal.

There is no reason that the Executive Branch should be able to claim the state-secrets privilege without judicial review.  I hope that the Obama Justice Department decides not to appeal the case.  We will see.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama is like President Bush to Big Oil

Dear Friends,
Here I am enjoying my vacation, starting the day with The New York Times and my espresso.  I glance at the headlines and become completely dejected "Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling" with the subtitle "Seeks Major Expansion".  The headline for the web version is even worse "Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Drilling for the First Time" (here).  President Obama is apparently hoping that by adopting some of President Bush's proposal that were dropped by President Bush later, that he will get some Republican support for a climate bill.  But as The New York Times concludes,

it is no sure thing that it will win support for a climate bill from undecided senators close to the oil industry, like Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, or Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.

The New York Times article continues:

The Senate is expected to take up a climate bill in the next few weeks — the last chance to enact such legislation before midterm election concerns take over. Mr. Obama and his allies in the Senate have already made significant concessions on coal and nuclear power to try to win votes from Republicans and moderate Democrats. The new plan now grants one of the biggest items on the oil industry’s wish list — access to vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling.

I see a pattern here.  President Obama wants to get something passed Congress and instead of going to the American people to force Congress to act, he makes concession after concession so that the bill that emerges is really watered down and guess what still has no support from Republicans.  This pattern is a slap in the face to those of us that supported him from the start.  We need to let him know that we are not happy and that he should not continue to give things to the Republicans who will never support what he suggests even if it is what they said they wanted.

We need to make ourselves heard.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Recess Appointments

Dear Friends,
I was pleased to see that President Obama took advantage of the Congressional recess to make some recess appointments.  Since the Senate seems to be completely dysfunctional, I applaud President Obama's move.  Unfortunately, he only made 15 recess appointments and at least one of them is a complete disaster and completely refutes any idea that change and hope will carry the day in Washington.  A friend sent me a post from buzzflash.com entitled, "Monsanto in the White House Garden: One Recess Appointment That's Toxic" by Meg White (here).  I will not cut and paste the entire post, but you should read it.  Here is a small portion of the article:

One of the 15 installed was Islam Siddiqui, who just left his post as vice president of science and regulatory affairs for CropLife America, the lobby group representing pesticide and biotech crop producers and distributors.
As far as PR goes, CropLife's basic goal is to replace the term "pesticide" with "crop protection" and "genetically-modified crops" with "science." CropLife's clients include Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and DuPont.
Siddiqui managed to pass through his hearing with the Senate Finance Committee back in December, despite his being a lobbyist for some of the most feared and reviled companies in the world. But as the Center for Biological Diversity (one of more than 100 organizations that actively opposed his nomination) points out, it's not just the word "lobby" that tarnishes Siddiqui's image (emphasis mine):

As undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Siddiqui oversaw the development of the first national organic labeling standards, which allowed sewage sludge-fertilized, genetically modified, and irradiated food to be labeled as organic before public outcry forced more stringent standards. Siddiqui has derided the European Union’s ban on hormone-treated beef and has vowed to pressure the European Union to accept more genetically modified crops.

CropLife America, formerly known as the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, lobbies to weaken the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, claiming that pesticides are not pollutants because of their intended beneficial effect and that pesticides positively impact endangered species. The group has lobbied to allow pesticides to be tested on children and to allow the continued use of persistent organic pollutants and ozone-depleting chemicals.

This appointment is wrong on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start.  He is a lobbyist and this was suppose to be the Administration devoid of lobbyists.  He was a lobbyist for some of the worst world wide corporate conglomerates that have been shown to value profits over everything including human life and the future of our planet.  Does President Obama think that we won't notice?  Well we should be sure that he knows that we do notice.

One other point made by the post is that President Obama did not include Dawn Johnsen, a great nominee for the Office of Legal Council, in his recess appointments.  The New York Times speculates that she was not included because President Obama "did not want to go too far in inflaming partisan passions" (see).  When will President Obama learn that any thing that he does will inflame partisan passions?  Maybe we need to tell him.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

American Exceptionalism and Health Care

Dear Friends,
I have received several comments from Liberal Demise about health care.  Many of his comments reflect the narrative of  American exceptionalism which generally holds that America is the greatest in all respects and can do no wrong.  The United States of America is truly a great nation, but it is not perfect.  There is much that we can learn from other countries, and we would be foolish not to.
With respect to health care, the United States has many truly excellent physicians, nurses, other health care providers as well as great hospitals and clinic.  Unfortunately, these excellent health care professionals and resources are not available to a large number of people.  Consequently, our health outcomes are a disgrace for such a wealthy and great country.  The latest World Health Organization study "Measuring Overall Health System Performance for 191 Countries" ranks the United States 37th right between Costa Rica and Slovenia. (here).
There are people who criticize the methodology used by the World Health Organization, but even so we should be ashamed that we are not at the top.  It is also possible to consider other specific outcomes to demonstrate that our health care system is not the best in the world in terms of outcomes.  Here are a few examples.
The United States ranks 116th in terms of maternal mortality with 8 per 100,000.  That rank puts us behind #130 Kuwait with 5 out of 100,000; #134 United Arab Emirates with 3 per 100,000 and #135 Greece with 1 per 100,000. (See)
The United States ranks 185th in terms of infant mortality with 6.3 per 1,000.  That rank puts us behind #186 Cuba with 5.93 per 1,000 and #208 Solvenia with 4.3 per 1,000. (See)
In terms of life expectancy at birth the United States ranks 47th at 78.14 which puts us just ahead of #52 Albania at 77.78 and behind #43 Bosnia at 78.33, #41 South Korea at 78.64 and #6 Hong Kong at 81.72. (See)
It is impossible to claim that the United States has the best health care system in the world with infant and maternal mortality rates such as these and with a life expectancy rank of 47.  We can claim that we have lots of great doctors and hospitals and clinics and drugs, but we can not claim that our system produces good outcomes. 
I should note that I have not listed the ranks of some of the health care systems that people opposed to health care reform say are terrible like France and the United Kingdom.  So just to set things straight here are their results:
WHO study France is #1, United Kingdom is #18 and the United States is #37.
Infant Mortality - France is 220th with 3.36 per 1,000; United Kingdom is 197th with 4.93 per 1,000 and United States is 185th with 6.3 per 1,000.
Maternal Mortality - United Kingdom is 121st with 7 per 100,000; United States is 116th with 8 per 100,000;  and France is 111th with 10 per 100,000.
Life Expectancy at Birth - France is 9th with 80.87; United Kingdom is 37th with 78.85; and United States is 47th with 78.14.
As if these outcomes aren't enough to embarrass the United States, in terms of health care spending per person the United States ranks first at $4,271 compared with France ranking #7 at $2,288 and United Kingdom ranking #18 at $1,675.  So not only are the United States outcomes a disaster, we pay 1.9 times as much as France and 2.5 times as much as United Kingdom.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Its All about Jobs

Dear Friends,
Bob Herbert has an excellent column in the New York Times this morning entitled "The Magic Potion".  (here) He discusses the need to put Americans back to work as the only way that we can have a sustained and reasonable recovery.  Of course, this is not a "magic potion", it is basic economics.  Mr. Herbert focuses on President Franklin Roosevelt's programs which were successful in bringing us out of the Great Depression.  We would have come out better, stronger and sooner, if President Roosevelt had not backed off the jobs programs too early. 
In this recession, we did not have a big enough stimulus and too much of it was in the form of tax breaks to try to buy some Republican support.  What we need is government spending in two areas.  First, the Federal government needs to dramatically increase aid to the state and local government who are laying off people and cutting needed services and maintenance.  The lack of spending by state and local governments hurts the recovery and will be a disaster for the future.  Second, the Federal government needs to fund infrastructure both to make up for huge amounts of deferred maintenance and to be sure that America is not left behind as the green economy grows.
All the inside politicians will say that it can not be done because we can't get anything through the Congress.  Well now is the time for leadership, and we need to force President Obama and the Democrats in Congress to make sure that we have new and robust Federal government spending to get us out of this recession and keep us competitive in the global economy.  So write and call the President and your elected officials.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Health Care Reform

Dear Friends,
Sometimes I forget about the good things that are in the recently passed health care reform bill.  Fortunately, I get reminded from time to time.  I am reprinting below part of an email I got from Minnesota Citizens for the Arts.  It is self explanatory and certainly is a good reminder of the great things that people will find in health care reform as it begins to be implemented.

MCA
Minnesota Citizens for the Arts
2233 University Ave. W. #355
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-251-0868 fax 651-917-3561
staff at mncitizensforthearts.org
www.mncitizensforthearts.org
Arts Action Center
March 26, 2010
1. Health Care Reform Will Help Artists, and Help Small Arts Nonprofits Offer Health Care
We found out in our study Artists Count (done in collaboration with Springboard for the Arts, 2007) that artists are twice as likely as the rest of the population to be without health insurance. So, how will Health Care Reform help artists and arts organizations afford health care? Many great minds are trying to figure that out right now, but we already know a few things about reform that should be very helpful indeed, at least to some:
YOUNG ARTISTS: Can, starting now, be covered on their parent's health insurance policy until age 26.
SMALL ARTS NON-PROFITS: With the signing of the health insurance reform bill this morning, one of the very first provisions to be immediately enacted is a tax credit to small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable. Tax credits of up to 35% of premiums will be immediately available to firms (including nonprofit organizations) that choose to offer coverage. Then, beginning in 2014, these small business tax credits will cover 50 percent of premiums. Our national partner Americans for the Arts staff participated in many lobbying visits along with staff from Independent Sector relating to this provision and we are very pleased that it remained in the final legislation.

"Small employer incentive"

The final health care package would provide a tax credit beginning in 2010 through 2013 for businesses and 501(c) organizations with less than 25 employees and average wages below $50,000. During those three years, the bill permits a credit for all eligible small employers that provide insurance for their employees, and beginning in 2014, credits are available to employers purchasing employee coverage through health insurance exchanges. Nonprofits could take a credit in the initial period of 25 percent of the employer contribution and 35 percent in subsequent years, and apply the credit to taxes they withhold from payroll. Employees would still receive full credit for taxes withheld from their pay. For businesses, the credit is 35 percent initially and 50 percent in the proceeding years. The different values of the credit reportedly relate to efforts at cost containment (the nonprofit provision costs $2.1 billion over 10 years) and to reflect the differences in the frequency and likelihood of paying taxes between for-profit and nonprofit employers. [Source: Independent Sector]

Most of the larger provisions won't take effect for four years, so most of us won't see immediate changes. More details can be found on Laura Zabel's blog at Springboard for the Arts: http://www.springboardforthearts.org/blog/blog.asp.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal