Same old Republicans in a new world

The website TomPaine.com has a new look, and one of the features I always make a point to check out is in the lower right-hand corner: The Case, Straight Talk For The Common Good. It presents a conservative talking point (spin) with a progressive response. I thought this was a particularly good one:

CONservative spin: “Governments can't choose winners. Competition lets consumers choose, and efficient companies win. The last thing we need is more taxes to support big government programs.”

PROgressive response: Ironically, under President Bush, we've been hemorrhaging private manufacturing jobs. The largest source of new jobs under the Bush administration has been publicly-funded jobs—created by the military buildup, homeland security and state and local governments. Too many companies have used the tax cuts to merge, purge workers and outsource jobs abroad. And on some issues government can’t wait for "market solutions.” For example, our urgent need to move to a clean-energy economy means ending subsidies to big oil and mobilizing science and technology to develop alternative energy sources and improve energy efficiency. That will generate jobs and new industries.

Republicans are the dinosaurs of politics. They care more about protecting the interests of oil companies, privateers and cronies than they do generating jobs and new industries. This is a new century and a new world. If the Republicans continue to follow the same old path, they may soon find themselves extinct.

(Click here to read more Pro vs. Con.)

Judge the candidates by their enemies

When the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce promised to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business (Edwards, Obama and Huckabee), I told myself those candidates must pose a real threat to the status quo to draw that kind of attention.

When Fortune Magazine recently made the claim they believe John Edwards is the only candidate who will stand up to corporate America, I sat up and took notice. Corporate America is the media and their message was clear (at least to me) - Edwards is the enemy.

I don't know if my method of choosing who I believe to be the best candidate is scientific or not, but I felt reassured when I read this from David Sirota.

With so much campaign rhetoric and propaganda swirling around, how do you really find out where any of these candidates are coming from on the issues? Over the years, I've figured out a decent method: Judge them - at least in part - by their enemies. Enmity cuts right through all the B.S. Who is afraid of a given candidates indicates whose interests that candidate truly threatens.

By this standard, this week has given us two pretty exemplary signals. First, Reuters reported a story under the headline "Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards." The piece details how Wall Street moneymen and K Street lobbyists are frightened about Edwards populist, power-challenging message against greed and corruption.

Now today, the Club for Growth - a notorious corporate front group in Washington - has issued this press release bemoaning "Mike Huckabee's Liberal Record." It provides the details of an event in which the major players in Washington's conservative Establishment will berate Huckabee for having the nerve to stop health care cuts and invest in public infrastructure during his tenure as governor of Arkansas.

Sirota isn't endorsing either of these candidates, but he's making the point, "When the forces of money, power and corruption attack, it means candidates are probably doing at least something right."

Edwards is still my choice, and while I'm no fan of Huckabee, it does make me laugh to just think about a "Republican populist" being targeted by a corporate front group. I never thought I'd live to see the day.

Should the Iowa Caucus Influence Us?

Today is caucus day in Iowa. Real people will have the first say in who they think should become our next president. Should what they say influence our decision when it comes time for us to vote? Because Iowans are first, does that mean they're smarter than us and know better?

Political analyst Larry Sabato believes we need to stay focused in reality.

[...] the more immediate need is for all of us to keep in mind legitimate questions about Iowa's system as we watch the results stream in this evening. The press' breathless pronouncements about the "winners" and "losers" should be tempered somewhat by another reality--the deep flaws inherent in Iowa's over-hyped caucuses.

Sabato feels the (1) the caucuses this year are way too early; (2) the caucuses and the state are unrepresentative of the broader electorate; and (3) the rules of the caucuses raise real questions about fairness.

This is what he says about the timing:

Have you met anyone who thinks it's a good idea to start the process two days after New Year's, with campaigning having peaked over the Christmas holidays? Let's remember why this has happened: Iowa and New Hampshire absolutely insisted upon going first, as always. Isn't that a little bit greedy? Aren't there 48 other equal states?

The lack of representativeness:

Iowa, like New Hampshire, is overwhelmingly white and disproportionately rural. African-Americans and Hispanics in the Hawkeye State, for example, number just 2 percent and 3 percent of the population, respectively, and 38 percent of Iowans are located in rural areas. In the nation as a whole, nearly 25 percent of the population is African-American or Hispanic, and a mere 21 percent of U.S. citizens are found in rural localities. New Hampshire is even worse than Iowa, with a population that is 0.7 percent black, 1.7 percent Hispanic, and 41 percent rural. In the Democratic Party--the home of 90 percent of African-Americans and about two-thirds of Hispanics--the disparity is especially significant. The two first states to vote often determine one or both party nominees, yet racial and ethnic minorities will have played a tiny role.

And the unfair caucus rules:

Let's keep in mind that the Iowa caucus requires a great deal from all participants, not least a full evening devoted to travel and meeting. The time commitment discourages many from joining in. Iowa's population is about 3 million, of which approximately 2 million are registered voters. The news media are full of stories about an expected "record" turnout tonight. And what will that record amount to? In both parties combined, there may be as many as 250,000 people showing up for the caucuses, or 12 percent of the registered voters. Therefore 88 percent of Iowa's registered population won't be seen or heard from on caucus night.

Iowa gains monetarily from being first (this has been the most expensive campaign in Iowa history), but beyond that their influence in shaping the presidential campaign shouldn't be taken too seriously. Besides, the winners of caucuses in Iowa have gone on to win the presidency only twice since the caucuses started in 1972: Jimmy Carter in 1976 and George W. Bush in 2000. And neither of those choices turned out to be so good for the country.

Insurance industry to Hillary: Thanks

Yesterday, I had some serious reservations about Hillary's health care plan because it seemed to embrace the private insurance industry a little too much for my liking, but I was willing to give it a chance until I read what other people had to say. My first impression turned out to be right though, especially after reading this blurb at First Read:

But forget the poll, this positive review from the New York Times’ David Brooks is probably the campaign's favorite clip today. "Hillary Clinton’s health care plan is a huge step forward from 1993. It’s better than the G.O.P. candidates’ plans (which don’t exist)."

If GOP mouthpiece Brooks likes the plan, that means it serves the interests of the insurance industry and not the public. FireDogLake had the same opinion and calls it Hillary's Health Care Sham.

For you to proclaim that your plan provides, “Universal Health Care” is a decided misnomer. “Universal Health Insurance” might be more like it. [...]

Senator, your plan is basically a national version of Republican Mitt Romney’s “Universal Health Care” plan for Massachusetts, which has still left thousands in that state uninsured and even more struggling to make the payments on their new policies, which they are now required to have by law, but which may not pay them one thin dime should they actually become sick or hurt. [...]

Is there anybody here who believes that this plan wasn’t conceived and dictated to Senator Clinton by passels of high-end lobbyists for the insurance industry?

John Nichols believes the plan was defined exactly according to the needs of the insurance industry.

The Clinton plan maintains the current system of for-profit, insurance-industry defined health care delivery. The only real change is that, in return for minimal requirements regarding coverage of those with preexisting conditions, the government would pump hundreds of billions in federal dollars into the accounts of some of the country’s wealthiest corporations. The plan’s tax credit scheme would buy some more coverage for low-income families, which is good, but it would do so at a cost so immense that, ultimately, Clinton’s plan will be as tough a sell as the failed 1993 “Hillarycare” proposal.

And Physician's for a National Health Program have this to say about Hillary's tax credits:

Further, the administrative complexities of refundable tax credits and means-tested premium caps would still leave many without coverage. Coverage will never be universal unless it is truly automatic for everyone.

If we are going to use the tax system to pay for health care anyway then why should we waste funds on the profoundly inefficient system of segregated private health plans? A universal risk pool that is equitably funded through the tax system is the most efficient and least expensive method of ensuring comprehensive coverage for everyone.

Nichols echoes PNHP too:

Despite what Mitt Romney says, Clinton and the Democrats would have a far easier time selling “European-style socialized medicine” that what the senator from New York is peddling. And that does not even take into account the potential appeal of a uniquely American single-payer system that might intelligently combine the necessary efficiency of a publicly-funded and defined payment program for covering costs with the appealing prospect of allowing Americans to choose their own basic plans and doctors.

Sorry, Hillary, but I also prefer a single-payer plan, along with a majority of other Americans based on this latest poll from CBS:

Americans were also asked to choose between keeping the current health care system, with insurance provided by private employers and some people uninsured, and a government-run system that provided universal coverage. Fifty-five percent said they preferred the government-run system, while 29 percent said they preferred the current system. This is an increase in support for the government-run system, which was favored by 47 percent of Americans in February. [emphasis added]

Fifty-five percent favor a government-run system, yet Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate promoting a single-payer health plan. That tells us the others care more about appeasing the insurance industry and lobbyists than they do the uninsured.

Poll: Voters Say Reauthorize, Expand SCHIP

A new poll by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which provides states with federal funds to design health insurance programs for vulnerable children.

Nearly nine in 10 voters (86%) say they support reauthorizing SCHIP, and a clear majority (63%) say they support expanding SCHIP's budget by an additional $35 billion over five years.

Poll results show:

An overwhelming majority of voters support reauthorizing SCHIP for another five years (86% support).

Voters support reauthorization regardless of political party, with 77 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Independents and 93 percent of Democrats supporting reauthorization.

More than three out of four voters support reauthorization, even when told that the Congressional Budget Office says it will cost $39 billion over five years to maintain the program in its current state (77% support).

Even when these costs are explained, support for reauthorization remains strong across voters from different political parties (Republicans -- 64% support; Independents -- 78% support; Democrats -- 86% support).

Nearly two out of three voters say they support expanding SCHIP to cover an additional 4 million uninsured children at an additional cost of $35 billion over five years (63% support).

This expansion of SCHIP is even supported by a majority of self-identified 'conservatives.' (Conservatives -- 53% support; Moderates -- 67% support; Liberals -- 73% support)

Nearly two out of three voters say they disagree with President Bush's decision to veto legislation passed by Congress to expand SCHIP (64% disagree).

Unlike Bush and most Republicans, a majority of Americans have their priorities straight. The health of our children is priceless.

Michigan connections in the news

As Rodney Dangerfield might say, I got nothing. I'm not inspired to write, but I've been doing a lot of reading, so let me share some links that all have ties to Michigan.

First, from Schools Matter, comes this little tidbit about All Children Matter, founded by Michigan's losing gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos:

What happens when someone like charter school kingin, David Brennan, wants to buy more influence in Ohio elections than state law will allow? You do what Tom Delay did--you simply launder the money through an out-of-state outfit like All Children Matter that turns your cash into campaign contributions for your preferred stable of candidates.

Wisconsin also filed a complaint, contending the group laundered money and failed to register, but the state elections board there refused to authorize an investigation.

Also related to the DeVos family name is this news regarding Alticor (formerly known as Amway):

Alticor Inc. has fired 15 long-term and highly influential Quixtar distributors who filed a class-action lawsuit against the direct sales giant last week.

The ramifications of the dust-up for the Ada-based parent company of Amway could be huge -- especially as the company faces increased regulatory pressure in India and the United Kingdom.

Seventeen distributors are named as plaintiffs in a scathing suit that says Quixtar operates as a pyramid scheme selling merchandise at prices so inflated it cannot be sold to anyone other than distributors.

Did the company really fire them or did some of them resign? Webraw reports that eight distributors posted their letter of resignation online the day before the Quixtar announcement.

The big news this week was Karl Rove's resignation, but did you know there might be a Michigan connection?

What Really Brought Rove Down?

When the Bush administration angered one of its most hard-right officials, he launched an investigation into Karl Rove's politicization of the federal government -- which may be what led to Rove's resignation.

Scott Bloch, director of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), may have been Rove's ultimate undoing. As you might recall, Bloch embarrassed the Bush administration in 2004 when he removed from his agency's website a notice of long-standing protections for gays and lesbians. Bush officials were forced to contradict Bloch's stance and Rove reportedly referred to Bush's religious-right supporters as "out of control." Shortly after this, Bloch demanded that most career attorneys in his office accept involuntary transfers or lose their jobs. Nearly all of these attorneys had challenged Bloch's decision to remove the nondiscrimination policy statement about gays and lesbians from the Web site and two were openly gay.

So, where's the Michigan connection, and how does this relate to Karl Rove? Read on:

One of the agency locations to which transfers were being made was a new office Bloch was opening in Michigan, even though the agency was dealing with very few cases in that region. However, the region was home to Ave Maria Law School, an institution founded by Thomas S. Monaghan, the Daddy Warbucks of new-right Catholics... Bloch ended the standard competition for law internships in his office and began hiring straight out of Ave Maria. [...]

Bloch may have thought that his brand of anti-union, homophobic loyalty to the Bush-Rove cause of misappropriating the taxpayer-funded apparatus of the federal government for partisan political purposes would win him some major kudos. But it was not to be. Apparently Bloch's Ave Maria-boostering and overtly anti-gay (hating both the sin and the sinner) antics were a bit over the top, as it were, so in 2005, Clay Johnson, the No. 2 at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) called on Bloch to resign, according to columnist Robert Novak. Then, wrote Novak, some mysterious, unnamed, Bush-loving Catholic was dispatched to Bloch to gently suggest the same.

When Bloch refused to tender his resignation, Johnson, according to Novak, set off an investigation of Bloch via a referral to the inspector general of the Office of Personnel Management. Bloch responded in kind, launching an OSC investigation into the administration's politicization of government agencies -- an investigation that landed at Rove's door.

Bloch's investigation led to the discovery of Rove's infamous PowerPoint presentation that "listed Democrats the White House has targeted for defeat in 2008" and to the discovery that Rove deployed officials from various government departments to appear with Republican members of Congress engaged in tough 2006 re-election fights (paid for by taxpayers). How ironic that a Bush appointee, one who was stereotypically loyal, hard-right and religious, might be responsible for Rove's resignation. It's too bad it took so long.

Finally, Romney says he could win Michigan if nominated. I don't think so. Romney is the wealthiest candidate in the race and isn't afraid to spend his own cash to get elected, but that didn't influence Michigan's voters when DeVos spent $35 million of his own kitty. He lost to Jennifer Granholm by a 14 point margin.

I don't think voters will be influenced by the fact his father, George Romney, was once our governor either. The voters bought that line of logic when they elected George Bush the son and look where that got us. Sorry, Mitt, but the Mitten says NO!

Results from Consumer Reports health care survey

Consumer Reports recently conducted a survey of the health care experiences of 2,905 U.S. residents between the ages of 18 to 64, focusing on their experiences over the past 12 months. The respondents were not covered by Medicare or Medicaid. Here's a summary of their findings [emphasis added]:

Our findings indicate that there are three tiers of health care consumers in the United States: the adequately-insured, who account for 59% of all Americans in the population sampled; the underinsured, who represent 24% of all Americans sampled; and the uninsured, who comprise 16% of our sample. [...]

Our principal finding is that the underinsured represent a large segment of the American population between the ages of 18 to 64: 29% of all persons with health plans, and 24% of the population as a whole. Although the travails of the uninsured have been widely-documented, our observation is that the uninsured represent only one segment of those lacking adequate health insurance. When we add together the uninsured (16%) with the underinsured (24%), we find two-fifths of a nation burdened by health care jitters.

Here is a sample of the experiences of the underinsured in the past 12 months:

56% postponed needed medical care because of costs

33% had to dig deep into their savings to pay medical expenses

34% of those 50+ said decisions about retirement were adversely affected by health care expenses

21% made job-related decisions based _mainly _on health care needs.

27% had outstanding medical debts still owed doctors or hospitals, and 17% were carrying medical debts of $5,000 +

38% postponed home or car maintenance or repairs due to medical expenses

71% indicated they were dissatisfied with their household’s share of out-of-pocket medical expenses

37% said they were at all prepared to financially handle unexpected major medical expenses they might face in the next 12 months.

No wonder polls indicate health care is the number one domestic issue among voters. Two-fifths (40%) of the country is "burdened by health care jitters!" It's also pretty obvious that tax deductions and/or credits won't do much to help solve the problem. Whether underinsured or uninsured, people just don't have the money to pay for good medical care. This is just one more reason to push for national health insurance.

Censorship doesn't belong in Michigan

Censorship doesn't belong anywhere in this country either, but it's alive and well in Michigan thanks to a certain state Republican. Here are the pertinent facts from Conservative Media:

Senate Majority Leader and chief obstructionist Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, took the unusual step and for the first time in Senate history illegally censored a liberal blog for daring to call him out on his foot-dragging and attempt to hold the state budget hostage for his political gain.

Subscription only Gognwer News Service reported Bishop ordered "Blogging for Michigan" blocked from being accessed from Senate computers, using the false claim that the blog was “created by a Senate employee using Senate equipment.” The blog was created and operated by Shiawassee County resident Christine Barry, a systems engineer, from her home. All the material posted comes from public sources, such as newspapers, newsletters, the Senate websites, the Senate Journal and the Senate session and most of the committees are broadcast live on the Senate web site. Not only that, the info is properly sourced with links, something you don’t see in the mainstream media. [...]

Ironically, this is the only blog that was blocked; leaving all three of the conservative blogs in the state, as well as that thing ran by the chair of the state GOP, even Michiganliberal was not blocked. [emphasis added]

I don't see the irony. I think this was a blatant attempt to censor BFM because they said things about our state Republicans that made them look bad (excuses like work productivity were also given). In fact, Matt Miner, Bishop's chief of staff, said other sites like Michigan Liberal weren't banned because they didn't say bad things about them. Boo-hoo, gentlemen. Get a grip on your manhood. We're talking about constitutional rights, not bruised egos.

Sadly, Michigan doesn't need anymore Republican-generated bad publicity, but that's just what's happening. The story has already been picked up by the AP, Detroit Free Press, Lansing State Journal, and DailyKos.

More important than the black eye this gives our state, is the fact that Bishop is violating the free speech of one blog and, as BFM points out, he's following in the footsteps of scandal-ridden Gov. Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky and (closer to home) Flint's Mayor Don Williamson. In Fletcher's case, he's being sued and the case is still in court, and in Williamson's case, the City of Flint ended up paying $150,000 for violating a person's civil rights. Detroit News blogger, Libby Spencer, sums up Bishop's actions best:

Bishop who is dancing faster than the hapless drunk in an old western trying to justify his boneheaded move, is surprised by the reaction. Maybe he should bone up on his constitutional knowledge. If he wants to ban blogs in the hallowed chambers of Lansing on account of work productivity, fine. But then he has to block all of them -- or none. In America, freedom of speech means everyone gets to talk. Not just the people who agree with him.

That's right, Mr. Bishop. Everyone gets to talk, not just Republicans.

Thankfully, knowledgeable, rational people like Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer have stepped up and spoken out against censorship, and Michigan Liberal (the "not banned because they don't say bad things" blog) stepped up too:

We at Michigan Liberal, committed to free speech and expression, have just posted a petition calling for an end to blocked access to Blogging for Michigan to show our solidarity. All of you are encouraged to pop in and sign it as a sign of solidarity, and to recommend it to everyone you know who lives in, or cares about Michigan, to do likewise.

We commit to bumping this to the bottom on a regular basis and leaving it in a prominently displayed place until such time as Mike Bishop's staff has reconsidered its actions. We also encourage all of you who run your own blog to post a link to this pledge and encourage your readers to come and sign our petition, because we know that Michigan Liberal continues to be monitored and read by Senate Republicans.

I've signed it. If you believe in the concept of free expression laid down in the U.S. Bill of Rights, then I encourage you to sign it too by clicking here.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." ~ Noam Chomsky

Update: Mike Bishop yielded to the First Amendment and restored access to Blogging for Michigan. Chalk one up for democracy!

Giuliani's (Non) Health Care Plan

Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani released details of his health care plan this week, which really fails to help the uninsured and more or less parrots the ideas of the Bush administration. Ezra Klein discusses it over at American Prospect - A Man With a (Non-)Plan - and says, "Rudy Giuliani's health care "plan" is less a good-faith reform proposal than a cudgel with which to bash liberals."

Klein bases that opinion on the following:

In the speech introducing and detailing his new health care proposal, Giuliani refers to the "Democrats" six times. "Single-payer" is said eight times. "Socialized medicine," or some variant thereof, makes nine appearances. "Uninsured" is never uttered -- not once.

So, what does Giuliani's plan actually offer?

A tax exclusion of up to $15,000 for families, and $7,500 for individuals, to help pay for health care. What Giuliani is relying on is people reading those numbers -- $15,000 and $7,500 -- without noticing that they don't denote the amount of money he's offering them, but the amount of money he's not taxing them on. And when we plug it into my magical Rudy Translation Machine (constructed with the help of friendly neighborhood economist, Dean Baker), we can watch how $15,000 can easily become … zero.

Let's stipulate a family of four -- a mom, a dad, and two children. The type of family Republicans like. And let's say your household income is $30,000 a year. Giuliani's tax exclusion will save you … nothing. Your income isn't taxable anyway. Bring it up to $40,000 … and it's still nothing. Your child tax credits are crossing out your taxable income. Indeed, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 55 percent of the uninsured don't earn enough money to have any taxable income. This proposal -- unless changed from a straight exclusion to a refundable tax credit -- will do literally nothing for them.

Don't get me wrong, some families will save a few bucks. If you make $50,000, Giuliani's exclusion will save you $1,220. And if you make $70,000, you'll get a whopping $2,250. And the higher up the income ladder you go, the more our hypothetical family unit will save. Meanwhile, here's the kicker: According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2006, premiums for family coverage amounted to, on average, $11,480. Giuliani's giveaway barely makes a dent.

So it's no surprise that Alan Cohen, head of Boston University's Health Policy Institute, looked at Giuliani's "vision" and said, "I don't think it's likely to increase coverage of people to any great extent, and I don't think it's going to get a handle on health care cost inflation in this country."

Schemes based around tax subsidies just don't work according to Klein, and he backs that opinion up with research from the RAND Corporation who recently examined whether government subsidies could solve the problem of the uninsured.

They researched the health care decisions of nearly 25,000 new health care subscribers in California. Their conclusion? "Government subsidies that cut health insurance premium prices in half for people without insurance would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by just 3 percent."

Three percent? That's no solution, Rudy.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also examined whether tax incentives would be an effective way to expand health coverage and came up with a similar conclusion:

[...] proposed tax subsidies for the purchase of health insurance would likely be of little help to most low-income families, given the high premiums and out-of-pocket costs associated with individual-group coverage.

So, Giuliani's plan isn't much of a plan, but maybe that wasn't his point according to Dr. McCanne at Physicians for a National Health Program. He looked at Rudy's health care proposal and offered this comment:

Rudy Giuliani’s choice of health care advisors is all you need to know to understand his positions on reform. His decision to trump rational health policy with extremist libertarian ideology does tend to make you question his political skills. He obviously isn’t poll driven.

Rudy, polls show that a majority of the voters want a national health care plan and they're willing to pay more in taxes to get it. If you won't react to the will of the majority now, then you're not worthy enough to be president. The people deserve to have the ear of the next person in office.

A question for Rep. Vern Ehlers

Lew Scannon wrote his representative, Vern Ehlers (R) MI, and asked him to get behind Rep. Kucinich's call for impeachment. In his letter, Lew asks Ehlers a question that deserves serious consideration.

Our political system has a series of checks and balances to prevent the types of abuses that the current administration is involved in. So I ask of you: Which is more important, the constitution and the country it protects, or the party for which you belong?
If you say the former, than I urge you to contact Rep Conyers and agree to start impeachment proceedings. Then, if there is just cause for impeachment, I ask you to vote for it, just as I would expect you to vote against it if there is no cause.
If you say the latter, then I hope you remember this missive when in the future, another president continues the arrogant abuses first conceived by the current administration, and your children, or perhaps your grandchildren ask you why our country has strayed so far from it's original intentions, that you had an oppurtunity to stop this now, but chose instead to be loyal to your party moreso than to the constitution you swore to uphold. Thank you. [emphasis added]

I hope Lew shares Ehler's response, although I'm not optimistic that Ehlers will do what's right for the country and our constitution. Can you say rubber-stamp?

2008 Democratic candidates on health care

I know where the 2008 Republican presidential candidates stand on the issue of health care (they put it at the bottom of the list), but what about the Democrats? Do they concur with voters who see it as our number one domestic issue? After checking their various campaign websites, I can say they've definitely put a lot of thought into the issue and given it priority status.

First up is Bill Richardson and his plan as described at a recent health care forum:

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said the "cornerstone" of his plan is to allow all Americans and business to be able to purchase the same coverage that members of Congress have, while offering "help" for those will low incomes. He also argued for an expansion of Medicare to cover those 55 and older, and a "cooperative relationship" between individuals, businesses and states "catalyzed by the government." Without naming Edwards, he argued that additional sources of revenue are not necessary, saying increased efficiency, preventative care and an exit from Iraq will provide enough revenue to expand coverage. But it wasn't clear if Richardson was pledging to achieve universal coverage.

Additionally, from Joseph Paduda's blog, "Richardson appears to be pushing for the elimination of Medicare Advantage and other private-insurer based Medicare programs." That's a plus since these plans cost on average 19% more than traditional Medicare, but he's also promoting tax breaks for lower-income Americans to help them buy health insurance. Several Republican candidates mentioned tax breaks too, but I don't see how that will help poor people buy health coverage unless the government advances them the money up front.

Mike Gravel solves that problem with vouchers.

Former Alaska senator Mike Gravel proposed a single-payer system of sorts, but under his system each American would get a health care voucher that they would use to purchase their choice of five or six private insurance plans. “Everyone gets the same product. If you want more than the product you’ve got, you pay for it,” he said. Gravel said he would not expand Medicare or Medicaid unless “we don’t see the private insurance companies shape up.”

Gravel's voucher idea is interesting, but I don't see the private insurance companies shaping up, and I don't see Gravel winning the primary either.

On to the next candidate, Hillary Clinton, best remembered for championing universal health care long before anyone else would even touch the subject. Here's a brief description of her plan from a recent speech:

There are three parts to my approach. First, lowering costs for everyone. Second, improving quality for everyone. Third, insuring everyone. [...]

My plan will offer individuals and small businesses market access to larger insurance pools that will lower costs and end insurance company discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. As part of a plan for universal coverage, which I will discuss in detail in the coming months, we would create large insurance pools that lower administrative costs for small businesses and individuals by spreading the risk. In a system of universal coverage insurance companies cannot as easily shift costs through cherry picking and other means.

Clinton would also push legislation to provide respite care for caregivers of elderly and disabled Americans, something I approve of and believe is desperately needed. However, from a recent health care debate, she said "it would take her two terms to get a universal health care system in place." That's unacceptable to me. The number of uninsured is at crisis levels and Americans can't wait that long.

I'm not totally sold on her plan to create large insurance pools either. I no longer trust corporate America to put people before profits, and the fact that Clinton received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from insurance companies for her 2006 re-election in the Senate disturbs me too.

John Edwards has also been pushing universal coverage for sometime now, and he has the most comprehensive and detailed position on health care to date. Here's a brief description from The Nation:

Edwards' plan, first unveiled earlier this year, calls for an expansion of both public and private health plans, forces employers to either provide health care or pay into a fund that does, mandates individuals to buy insurance and offers government subsidies for families with incomes of up to $80k who can't afford it.

He also has plans [pdf] to expand the infrastructure for long-term care, offer respite care and support to families caring for loved ones, and improve the wages, training and working conditions for aides, which definitely scores brownie points with me.

Edwards also gets more points for his honesty and candidness. When asked at a recent health care debate about the transitional costs to a new system, he said "it would cost $90 to $120 billion a year, which he would pay for by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for those making more than $200,000." This honesty won't hurt Edwards since polling shows that voters are willing to pay higher taxes in order to solve our health care crisis.

Moving along to Barack Obama, you can read about his plan on his website, but here's a short synopsis from CommonSense:

If you don't have health insurance through your employer, you will be enrolled into a new, comprehensive public health insurance plan that emphasizes prevention, chronic care management and quality care. The benefits will be similar to those available today to every federal employee.

This plan will enjoy the great efficiencies we see in public plans like Medicare but, if you still cannot afford it, you will receive a subsidy to pay for it. Of course, you can choose private insurance if you prefer but the private plans will have to compete on a level playing field with the public plan—without the extra payments that tip the scales in favor of private Medicare Advantage plans today.

Employers who do not offer meaningful coverage or a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to pay a percentage of payroll to the plan and their employees will be enrolled. Any employer can decide it no longer wishes to administer insurance and can offer insurance through the exchange. Self-employed Americans will find it easy to enroll as well at no disadvantage. Children will be covered and no one can be denied health insurance because of a preexisting condition or illness. [...]

Much of that tracks what Edwards has offered, and in fact, Obama offered that Edwards' plan is "very credible."When asked if additional tax revenue is needed, Obama did not dismiss the possibility, saying we need to "do whatever it takes" but noted there is much savings to be reaped with a more efficient system. He also said he would need to "put some money on the front end in creating a new system" and then "get those savings on the back end," emphasizing that "those savings [should] go into the pockets of families, and not just insurance companies or drug companies."

Obama only recently posted his plan on his website and it does sound very similar to Edwards'. He does get points from me though for mentioning there would be no extra payments to private Medicare Advantage type plans. (Taxpayers have been fleeced enough by the private sector under the Bush administration.)

Chris Dodd also has a plan to fix health care on his campaign website, although it doesn't appear as though he'll be a contender. Here's a brief synopsis of his plan from CommonSense:

Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd said his plan was based on four principles: universality (“everyone participates, everyone benefits,” prevention, extend Medicaid to more families, and improving the use of technology. He referenced his leadership in getting the Family Medical Leave Act written into the law as proof of his commitment to working families and to the health care issue. [...]

As did some of the other candidates, Dodd said that all Americans should be able to get the same type of health care plan as members of Congress.

That type of plan has already been introduced. The Kennedy-Dingell Medicare-For-All plan offers the uninsured a choice to use Medicare or the federal employees health plan, the same plan members of Congress and the president currently enjoy, but I agree with Dodd that all Americans should be able to get it.

That brings me to Dennis Kucinich. He's the only presidential candidate with a plan for a universal single payer, not for profit health care system. The National Health Insurance Bill (HR 676) is being sponsored by Congressman John Conyers and Kucinich, along with the backing of Physician's for a National Health Program. Click the links to read more, but here's a brief description from CommonSense:

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich used the forum to continue his vigorous pitch for a single-payer health care system, arguing that the plans of the other major candidates were too dependent on insurance companies and others with a profit motive that was antithetical to the notion of universal, nondiscriminatory care. To critics who raise the fear that a totally government-run system would end up rationing care to control costs, Kucinich said that insurance companies already ration care. He also scoffed at the argument that private-sector competition would reduce costs, saying that the opposite has been the case in health care.

I like HR 676 (and the Medicare-For-All plan) and I agree with all of Kucinich's points, but I don't think he has a chance of winning the nomination either, so that leaves me undecided about who I'm backing in the primary. I want to vote for the person I think has the best chance of winning the White House AND delivering on health care, but I also want that person to be someone who is interested in delivering every dime possible toward providing care, not delivering for the investors. Who would you vote for?

If you want my vote, fix the health care problem

Pollster John Zogby thinks the Iraq war will be the top issue in the 2008 presidential campaign and he's probably right, but my vote will go to the candidate with the best plan to fix health care. Next to the war, it is also the one issue I find my baby boomer friends and I discussing when we get together. We're caught in the middle between our adult children and parents. We worry about our children who don't have employee provided health insurance and the ones who have it and struggle to pay increasingly expensive deductibles and co-pays, not to mention our children who simply don't have insurance at all.

On the other side, we have our elderly parents who find it difficult to pay for prescriptions, home health care or - God forbid - long-term care. One serious medical emergency can wipe out a lifetime of savings and leave our parents destitute. The fortunate ones will have children they can turn to for help. The others will be at the mercy of the overburdened and underfunded Medicaid system they'll be forced to turn to when they become penniless.

I'm speaking from experience here. Several months ago, I told you about my mother who was then in a skilled-care nursing home covered by Medicare and her supplemental insurance plan. She regained her health and was discharged to go back home to live with my sister and brother-in-law. Mom is almost 90-years-old and has had Alzheimer's for nearly a decade, but she moved in with my sister years ago simply because she outlived her money and couldn't afford to live on her own. Her only source of income is social security, and mom was too proud to live in a rent subsidized senior apartment.

Moving in with my sister turned out to be a godsend. We noticed the early symptoms of Alzheimer's sooner than we might have and got mom the help she needed, which included the extremely expensive medication Aricept (one month's supply was more than $350). Over time, however, the disease progressed and it became clear that mom needed someone with her 24 hours a day, so my brother-in-law retired a few years earlier than planned and stayed home to care for my mom.

Out of respect for my mother's modesty, we hired an aide to come in to help her bathe, wash her hair, etc., and that worked out well until my mother became totally incontinent and we needed the aide 5 days a week. My sister and I were splitting the cost of the aide and mom's medications and the expenses were becoming a burden. We eventually turned to Medicaid for help and mom was instantly approved. She is now considered dual-enrolled since she has Medicare and Medicaid, in addition to the prescription program.

How does all of this relate to what I said at the top about voting for the candidate with the best plan to fix health care? Simple, I think Medicare and Medicaid have provided my mother with a level of care that all people should have access to - regardless of age.

That being said, Medicare and Medicaid don't do enough to help families caring for loved ones in their homes. Medicare only covers a home health aide for a short period of time after hospitalization or transition from a rehab facility. Medicaid provides home care assistance, but there's a long waiting list in our area (my mom's been on the list for 18 months). Respite care isn't available either, unless the person is terminal and a doctor certifies the patient has less than 6 months to live.

The government is penny wise and pound foolish when it comes to helping loved ones care for family at home, as we found out firsthand. Overwhelmed by the level of care my mother has needed for years, and the out-of-pocket expense of having to hire aides to deal with her daily hygiene, my sister and I decided last week it was time to put mom in a long-term care facility. It was the hardest thing we ever had to do. We cried and we prayed. We wanted to honor mom's wishes to die at home someday, but we just don't have the strength or the financial means to do so anymore. Instead, mom will soon be going to live in a nursing home that accepts Medicaid.

This is where the government is being foolish. They limit the funds available to provide home health care support, but they'll spend thousands of dollars a year to keep someone in a nursing home. In my mother's case, my sister saved the government thousands of dollars over the years by caring for my mother at home, and we waited for years after my mom exhausted all her resources to apply for help...help that just wasn't enough and didn't come in time. How many other people can't manage to hold on as long as we did?

So, my vote, my sister's vote, my husband's vote, and I'm sure the votes of millions of others will go to the candidate that has a plan to insure all Americans and expand the level of home care available to families taking care of loved ones.

Iraq may be the top issue, but among my friends there's a lot of anger about health care in this country. Our thinking goes something like this: If there are tax dollars available to keep an American presence in Iraq for up to 50 years, then there darn well better be tax dollars to take care of people here at home.

(I've started researching where the candidates stand on this issue and I'll be posting something on it real soon. In the meantime, here's a link that gives more information on Michigan's Medicaid Program.)

Suck it up, Scooter, and take your medicine like a woman man

Scooter Libby could learn a thing or two from Martha Stewart. A federal judge ordered him to report to prison within weeks to begin serving a 30-month sentence after jurors found him guilty on two counts of perjury, one count of obstructing justice in a grand jury investigation, and one of making false statements to federal investigators.

The AP reports that Libby’s lawyers “will seek an emergency order delaying the sentence.”

Oh, for pity sakes. Martha Stewart was convicted in 2004 on four counts of lying to investigators and obstruction of justice and she started serving a five month prison term while her appeal was still pending.

Are there any real "men" in the Bush administration or just a bunch of Mommy's boys? Geesh.

DeVos speaks, MIGOP listens

Why are state Republicans still listening to DeVos?

Republicans who control the state Senate got a pep talk Tuesday from GOP businessman and 2006 gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos.

DeVos, who lost to Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm in the November election and is rumored to be eyeing another bid, spoke for 20 to 30 minutes during a Senate GOP caucus meeting at the start of session. [...]

DeVos said Republicans outside Lansing support the GOP's stance that significant structural changes in government must be made before there is any consideration of a tax increase.

I guess the party feels obligated because the man spent millions of dollars of his own money trying to unseat Gov. Granholm, but the fact that he was trounced should be a clue that the public finds him as irrelevant as George Bush.

Seriously. DeVos based his election on somewhat dubious, if not downright untruthful claims. He ran around crowing that, "49 other states are doing great. 49 other states are moving forward. 49 other states are adding jobs. And yet, Michigan is the only one lagging behind," and he placed the blame squarely on Gov. Granholm.

That's not how several papers saw it. As the Ludington News Daily said, "The near collapse of the Big Three is not the fault of the Legislature nor the governor. It’s in part the fault of the Big Three for failing to adapt to a global economy, work together with their unions to comply with that increased competition and changing consumer desires."

It wasn't how the voters saw it either. CNN reported that the economy nearly tied Iraq as the reason voters across the country came out to vote last November.

DeVos also ran a series of ads about our depressed housing market and the glut of homes on the market. The implication was that housing was doing great in 49 other states. Yeah, right. Foreclosures rates have been growing across the country since last spring, right about the time DeVos started running his first campaign ads.

From ABC News:

New data released this afternoon indicates that one in every 656 homes in the United States went into foreclosure during May. [...]

"The principal source of the slowdown in economic growth that began last spring has been the substantial correction in the housing market," said Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in a speech in late March. [emphasis added]

Michigan currently ranks eighth among states, with one in every 448 homes in foreclosure, but we're certainly not alone in our misery like DeVos wanted us to believe.

Aside from the misleading and disingenuous twisting of facts, why are state Republicans listening to DeVos on taxes? He supports the GOP's stance that structural changes in government must be made before there is any consideration of a tax increase, yet he and his family are willing to let taxpayers help build a new stadium for their basketball team in Orlando. If they don't see this as a double standard, shame on them.

And what about the millions of taxpayer dollars that benefit his brother-in-law, Eric Prince, owner of Blackwater Security? I've never heard DeVos raise objections about that money, not even when it came to light that Rep. Henry Waxman wrote Sec. Donald Rumsfeld requesting answers as to why taxpayers paid exorbitant prices for Blackwater's services. Waxman is still waiting for those answers (and so is the public).

And why are state Republicans listening to DeVos when they should be questioning him and his family about Blackwater's lack of transparency and accountability: Blackwater Heavies Sue Families of Slain [Fallujah] Employees for $10 Million in Brutal Attempt to Suppress Their Story.

If taxpayer money provides funding for Blackwater Security, then taxpayers deserve to know if the company cut corners in order to maximize profit - and in the process jeopardized those mens' lives. Surely, Michigan's GOP believes in accountability and transparency, right?

Whatever their reason for listening to DeVos, there's an old adage they might want to consider: When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. They need to ask themselves if that's a risk they're willing to take. It hasn't worked out so well for many Bush loyalists and it just might not work out so well for them either.

Dave Camp on universal health care: Woof-woof

It looks like the 72 percent of Americans who want universal health coverage - and the 63 percent who support universal health coverage even if it requires tax increases - will be ignored again (just like they were about Iraq) if Michigan Congressman Dave Camp (R) is any indication.

According to a link at MI Liberal, Camp believes the solutions to our health care problems lie in the private sector and not in more government programs. From The Hill:

I firmly believe we can and should solve America’s healthcare crisis in an American way. History is a great teacher, and if we choose to go down the path that Western Europe or Canada has, it will be no surprise when we come to the same destination — a universal healthcare system that leaves your family dog with better coverage and care than you get. As the Canadian Supreme Court once opined, “access to a waiting list is not access to care.” [emphasis added]

Really? Then how does Camp explain this recent study:

Health outcomes for patients in Canada are as good as or better than in the United States, even though per capita spending is higher south of the border, suggest Canadian and U.S. researchers who crunched data from 38 studies. [...] [emphasis added]

"In looking at patients in Canada with a specific diagnosis compared to Americans with the same diagnosis, in Canada patients had at least as good an outcome as their American counterparts – and in many situations, a better health outcome," said one of the 17 authors, Dr. P.J. Devereaux, a cardiologist and clinical epidemiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton.

"And that is important because in the United States, they're currently spending a little over $7,100 per individual on health care annually, whereas in Canada we're spending a little over $2,900 per individual annually," he said in a telephone interview from Brantford, Ont.[...]

Researchers began by asking the question: Are there differences in health outcomes (mortality or morbidity) in patients suffering from similar medical conditions treated in Canada versus those treated in the United States?

"Overall, Canada did better, and in fact we found a statistically significant five per cent mortality advantage to people with diagnoses in Canada compared to their counterparts in the United States," Devereaux said.

Or how about these statistics from the Fort Wayne News Sentinel?

France, Germany, Japan and Switzerland have less centralized systems, which provide much better results. They combine universal coverage with easy access to medical care. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, none of these countries have waiting-list problems. Access to medical care tends to be easier in those countries than it is in the United States. [...] [emphasis added]

It is inaccurate to assume that we have the best high-tech care. Japan, which has universal care, has more CT scanners and MRIs per person than the United States. Germany and Switzerland are on a par with us. [...]

Victor Rodwin of New York University finds that on a per-capita basis, the French get more physician office visits and more drugs than their counterparts here.

Heck, even Cuba (gasp!) delivers good health care according to AlterNet:

They [Cubans] live longer than almost anyone in Latin America. Far fewer babies die. Almost everyone has been vaccinated, and such scourges of the poor as parasites, TB, malaria, even HIV/AIDS are rare or non-existent. Anyone can see a doctor, at low cost, right in the neighborhood.

The Cuban health care system is producing a population that is as healthy as those of the world's wealthiest countries at a fraction of the cost. And now Cuba has begun exporting its system to under-served communities around the world -- including the United States. [...]

Many elements of the health care system Cuba is exporting around the world are common-sense practices. Everyone has access to doctors, nurses, specialists, and medications. There is a doctor and nurse team in every neighborhood... If someone doesn't like their neighborhood doctor, they can choose another one.

House calls are routine, in part because it's the responsibility of the doctor and nurse team to understand you and your health issues in the context of your family, home, and neighborhood. This is key to the system. By catching diseases and health hazards before they get big, the Cuban medical system can spend a little on prevention rather than a lot later on to cure diseases, stop outbreaks, or cope with long-term disabilities. [...]

For health issues beyond the capacity of the neighborhood doctor, polyclinics provide specialists, outpatient operations, physical therapy, rehabilitation, and labs. Those who need inpatient treatment can go to hospitals; at the end of their stay, their neighborhood medical team helps make the transition home.[...]

I don't know how dogs fare in Cuba, but the article did say Castro provided scholarships to 90 poor Americans with the understanding that they have to agree to go back and serve their poor communities after graduation. Why the big investment in health?

Even more revolutionary than the right to health care for all is the idea that an investment in health -- or in clean water, adequate food or housing -- could be more powerful, more effective at building security than bombers and aircraft carriers.

That concept is lost on lawmakers like Camp who continue to support the war and their corporate buddies. Building bombs and aircraft carriers is a lucrative business for private contractors in Washington. According to Jim Hightower, government contracting has grown 86% under Bush's Republican administration and now totals nearly $400 BILLION dollars a year. It's no wonder Camp believes the private sector should play a role in health care reform (and get a piece of the pie):

"Too much government-provided healthcare limits private sector opportunities. We should be expanding access in the private sector, not crowding it out."

Never mind the fact that the public gets screwed (think donut holes, Katrina, Walter Reed): Medicare Is Defrauding Seniors

In 2005 alone, taxpayers lost $2.7 billion in overpayments [while i]nsurance companies that sell Medicare Advantage plans are substantially overpaid to market their plans...

And never mind the fact that corporate America is leaning in the same direction as most Americans:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., AT&T Inc., Intel Corp. and Kelly Services Inc. joined forces with two labor unions in calling for an overhaul of the U.S. health-care system that would guarantee universal coverage by 2012.

I suspect Wal-Mart understands the economics behind universal health care because their business approach is similar. By pooling all Americans (vendors) together in the same pool, the government (Wal-Mart) can use its massive market share to bargain down prices and advocate for their interests.

On the other hand, I suspect Congressman Camp only advocates for the interests of the insurance industries and lobbyists who stand to benefit from expanding private health care.

MIGOP: Tax cuts come before people

Michigan's Flint Journal gets the prize for best Sunday editorial:

Michigan lawmakers give lip service to all kinds of programs and causes, but what they spend the public's money on tells their true priorities. And based on the latest budget finagling, the state's public colleges and universities don't rate very high with them. [emphasis mine]

By cutting or delaying about $180 million to these institutions as part of a recent budget-balancing maneuver, Lansing puts the lie to its sermons about education being Michigan's salvation.

Instead, they've likely made college more expensive for students - continuing a trend over many years - and undermined these schools' abilities to pursue the research and innovation a knowledge economy requires.

Lansing cut funding to higher education a total of $275 million between 2002-2006. Combine that funding cut with escalating health insurance expenses, and our colleges and universities are in even deeper water. And while it's true that tuition has been rising across the country for all students, so has state support for universities. According to the FJ, there's been "a 14 percent increase in state support for universities nationally over the past two years."

The FJ also points out how hypocritical it is for lawmakers to talk up a futuristic agenda that requires the "best and brightest" workforce, yet they turn around and cut funding to higher education. That's some message they're sending. They want highly educated workers, but they don't want to pay for them. Of course, they claim there's a reason for that.

Naturally, lawmakers would argue that declining revenues made cuts to colleges unavoidable. Yet they never stopped tax rollbacks that would have supplied more funding.

Whether it's a household or the statehouse, people usually find money for what they deem important. Therefore, Michigan's stinting on higher ed over the years leaves little else to be said. [emphasis mine]

The scales should be falling from voters eyes: The Flint Journal earlier reported that Republicans were most responsible for these cuts.

It appears the "family values party" isn't very family friendly.

Still waiting on the moral majority to do the right thing

Here's where we stand on raising the minimum wage in case you're keeping score:

In January, the House passed a clean, no-strings-attached bill to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. Then, in late January, the Senate Republican minority killed the clean bill and filibustered for a week until Democrats agreed to include $8.3 billion in business tax breaks as part of the package.

In spite of getting what they wanted, the bill still hasn't passed. Republicans refused to let the bill go to conference because they were afraid the tax giveaways wouldn't survive. Meanwhile, 13 million workers continue to work at poverty level wages, left behind by the so-called "moral majority."

There's a glimmer of hope that all is not lost though. From the AFL-CIO Blog:

There may have been a small step forward last week. Before leaving town for a two-week spring vacation, the Senate passed a supplemental spending bill for the war in Iraq that includes the $2.10 raise in the minimum wage. But the trade off for that $2.10 is more than $12 billion in tax breaks for business. That’s right, they tacked on another $3.9 billion in tax giveaways.

Minimum wage supporters hope the action might jump-start House and Senate negotiations on the tax break part of the minimum wage bill. The House has offered $1.3 billion in targeted tax breaks but that leaves a $10 billion gap to overcome.

I guess Republicans conveniently forgot that companies already received $300 billion in tax breaks since the last minimum wage increase. They should just pass the bill without any tax breaks. This is just a greedy grab for more.

In the end though, none of this will probably matter. President Bush said he will veto the overall bill because it calls for the beginning of a troop withdrawal from Iraq, and I have no doubt he'll follow through with his threat. As Cheney reminded us over the weekend, "the U.S. military answers to the president, not Congress."

That's correct, but I'd like to remind Cheney and Bush that they answer to the voters, and the voters have overwhelmingly said they want our troops home within a year.

The same goes for members of both houses. You answer to the voters, and the voters overwhelmingly favor increasing the minimum wage. What are you waiting for?

Microsoft workers feel the pain

Workers in the textile, steel, and manufacturing industries have been losing jobs, wages and benefits for years, but most of America turned a blind eye to the situation. That may be changing according to David Sirota, because the upper-middle professional class is starting to feel some pain - and they're starting to make some noise.

From Windows Into Populism’s Rise, here's a snippet of Sirota's recent visit to Microsoft's headquarters:

Pundits today seem puzzled by the Lou Dobbs-ification of politics — the sudden political emergence of economic issues such as trade, jobs, wages and even immigration, and the meteoric ascendance of populist red-state politicians such as Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, also a Democrat, demanding immediate change. But on a recent trip to the iconic capital of the upper- middle class professional, it all made perfect sense.

With buzzing twentysomething worker bees and beige low-rise buildings dotting a bucolic setting, the Microsoft campus in Redmond, Wash., looks like a cross between a university and a suburban office park. The comfortably tranquil image is carefully massaged by company icon Bill Gates, who cheerily testified to Congress this month that “anyone here in the United States who has [computer engineering] skills is going to have a super-high-paying jobs.” Yet a darker reality emerges when talking to workers.

They pointed me to company documents published by the worker advocacy group WashTech, proving Microsoft salaries for mid-level full-time employees have been stagnating, even as company revenues rise. They fumed over how the company employs thousands of “permatemps” — full-time employees technically designated “temporary” so the company does not have to pay them as well or provide them benefits.

Showing how the immigration backlash extends beyond odious xenophobia and into legitimate economic worries, they lamented that wages are forced ever lower by Microsoft’s use of the H-1B visa program — a program that forces permatemps to compete with temporary, nonresident workers from other countries who are imported here by companies because they will accept low pay (government data shows tech companies pay H-1B workers $13,000 per year less than American workers in the same jobs). “They say they need H-1B’s because they can’t find a qualified American,” whispered one permatemp in the hall outside his office. “What they really mean is they can’t find a cheap American.”

Pay grades are only part of the ferment — it is also anxiety over job security at a time when 1.1 million American information-sector jobs have been eliminated in the past five years. While Gates told Congress that the demand for highly skilled computer workers “is going to guarantee them all jobs,” one 10-year Microsoft “permatemp” making $25-per-hour with no benefits told me everyone knows better.

“You can knock yourself out here and do your best and fix a thousand bugs,” he said. “But at the end of that, they can — and often do — just say goodbye. And everyone here knows that.”

Another permatemp said that while he helped build the new Vista operating system, he found not one Microsoft division that doesn’t fear showing up and having their keycards not work because all their jobs were sent to India. That concern is justified: A Microsoft slide presentation, also uncovered by WashTech, shows the company encourages foreign outsourcing in most major decisions.

WashTech has tried to convert workers’ anger into union drives. But those grinning, business-casual Microsoft executives have learned a thing or two about how to bust unions. One example: When a handful of Microsoft workers developing fledgling tax software took an initial step to unionize, the entire project was terminated by management. [emphasis mine]

As Sirota's article pointed out, when rich people's kids had to serve in Vietnam after the draft lottery was created, pressure to end the war changed policy; when companies like Enron started undermining the savings of rich people, Washington passed corporate accountability legislation; and when recent subprime mortgage defaults started hurting the stock market, Congress called it a crisis.

It's a shame that the pain has to trickle up to the rich before Washington takes notice and starts challenging wages, trade and outsourcing. We're all Americans. Getting Washington's attention shouldn't depend on the balance in our checkbook.

Senate Limits Gonzales' Authority

Republicans must really be worried about their chances in 2008:

Senate votes to limit Bush’s power on U.S. attorneys.

In a 94-2 vote, the Senate today voted to “end the Bush administration’s ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ firing of eight federal prosecutors.” The bill will cancel “a Justice Department-authored provision in the Patriot Act that had allowed the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation.”

Chris Bond (R-MO) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) voted no.

Wealthy Suburbanites Speak, The GOP Listens

Wealthy suburbanites have managed to get the ear of more than 50 GOP members of the House and Senate regarding Bush's No Child Left Behind according to the WaPo, and they'll be introducing legislation today to allow states to opt out of testing mandates.

Some Republicans said yesterday that a backlash against the law was inevitable. Many voters in affluent suburban and exurban districts -- GOP strongholds -- think their schools have been adversely affected by the law. Once-innovative public schools have increasingly become captive to federal testing mandates, jettisoning education programs not covered by those tests, siphoning funds from programs for the talented and gifted, and discouraging creativity, critics say.

Michigan's Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R) is author of the new House bill and he claims to already have enough backing to get the measure passed.

Under Hoekstra's bill, any state could essentially opt out of No Child Left Behind after one of two actions. A state could hold a referendum, or two of three elected entities -- the governor, the legislature and the state's highest elected education official -- could decide that the state would no longer abide by the strict rules on testing and the curriculum.

The Senate bill is slightly less permissive, but it would allow a state to negotiate a "charter" with the federal government to get away from the law's mandates.

In both cases, the states that opt out would still be eligible for federal funding, but those states could exempt any education program but special education from No Child Left Behind strictures.

Republican lawmakers involved in the new legislation claim Education Secretary Margaret Spellings and other administration officials have moved to tamp down dissent within the GOP, but so far their efforts don't seem to be paying off.

"Republicans voted for No Child Left Behind holding their noses," said Michael J. Petrilli, an Education Department official during Bush's first term who is now a critic of the law. "But now with the president so politically weak, conservatives can vote their conscience."

Voting their conscious may be what they're telling the public, but concern for themselves appears to be part of the equation.

Parent unrest in places such as Scarsdale, N.Y., and parts of suburban Michigan could affect members of Congress. Connecticut has sued the government over the law, while legislatures in Virginia, Colorado and heavily Republican Utah have moved to supersede it.

I'd like to assume that parents in poor neighborhoods could move members of the GOP to "vote their conscience" too, but considering the fact we still have millions of Americans without health care I find it hard to believe they would.

Update: The Impolitic has a good post about NCLB that's worth reading. I agree with her bottom line assessment that "NCLB has nothing to do with kids and everything to do with money." (And it certainly has been good for private tutoring companies. )