Obama Evening News & Roundup -- March 26th edition
The White House offers a grim outlook for Medicare.
The Bush administration issued a grim report on the financial outlook for Medicare and Social Security on Tuesday, but said that, by two important measures, the condition of the programs had not deteriorated since last spring.
The new reports, like those issued last April, said that Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund would be exhausted in 2019, while Social Security’s reserves would be depleted in 2041.
"Medicare poses a far greater financial challenge," said Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., the managing trustee of Medicare and Social Security.
And why is that? One of the reasons is Medicare Advantage, as explained by Obama:
The nation must stop health insurance companies from defrauding senior citizens, presidential candidate Barack Obama told residents in Des Moines on Friday.
The Illinois senator’s remarks came in response to a recent study and a government report that conclude Medicare’s private plan alternative - called Medicare Advantage - costs taxpayers more money, can increase premiums paid by seniors and, in some cases, has left people to find they do not have a doctor who accepts the coverage in their area.
The study, done by George Washington University professor Brian Biles, estimates that the average Medicare Advantage client will cost taxpayers $1,074 more in 2007.
The program was designed to reduced costs, largely through increased competition.
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent group that advises Congress, recently reported that the government pays 12 percent more on average to private Medicare plans than to treat comparable beneficiaries through traditional Medicare.
Elimination of excessive subsidies to the program would save nearly $150 billion in 10 years, which could improve total Medicare coverage and lower prescription drug costs, Obama said.
"The reason we don’t do something like that is because we are not setting the agenda in Washington - the insurance companies and the drug companies are," Obama said. "And that’s what people want to turn the page on. They want a system that’s sensible and fair to everybody."
The NYT article above is inaccurate when it says that the Presidential candidates do not have a plan for this; Obama already has a plan in place.
The final 10 minutes brought in a last smattering of people to the York County Elections and Voter Registration Office on Monday afternoon. That included a guy from the local Barack Obama campaign office dropping off a stack of about 200 voter registration forms -- the last of several such trips he'd made in the course of the day.
Then 4:30 came, the doors closed, the phone stopped ringing and the office was as close to quiet as it had been all day. Monday was the final day for people who wanted to vote in the April 22 primary to register.
"I knew it would be busy, but I didn't expect this," county elections director Nikki Suchanic said.
All day, a steady stream of people filed in and out of the office on East Market Street, and the phones rang incessantly. Most wanted to register as Democrats, Suchanic said, although many wanted to make sure their registrations were still valid.
Aid to Afghanistan turns into corporate welfare program:
Afghanistan is being deprived of $10bn (£5bn) of promised aid, and 40% of the money that has been delivered was spent on corporate profits and consultancy fees, according to a hard-hitting report by aid agencies released today.
The failure of western donors to keep their promises, compounded by corruption and inefficiency, is undermining the prospects for peace in Afghanistan, it warns.
Civil aid programmes are a fraction of what is spent by America, Britain and other countries on military operations there. Much of the money earmarked for aid is diverted to political or military purposes.
The report by Acbar, an alliance of international aid agencies working in the country, including Oxfam, Christian Aid, Islamic Relief and Save the Children, says the international community has pledged $25bn to Afghanistan since 2001 but only $15bn has been delivered.
This is why it is time for a change. While Hillary Clinton stood up for corporate lobbyists at the Yearly Kos Convention, Barack Obama has pledged to change the way things are done, starting with his refusal to take any money from lobbyists. John McCain would continue turning this country into a corporate welfare state. Hillary Clinton, given her past ties to Wal-Mart and her embrace of lobbyists as "ordinary Americans," would not be much better.
Statement by Bill Clinton's former minister on Jeremiah Wright:
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth.
Dean J. Snyder, Senior Minister
Foundry United Methodist Church
March 19, 2008
Daily Kos user lovingj has put together a whole series of video smackdowns of Obama critics. Here is his latest smackdown of Pat Buchanan:
David Shuster on Hillary's support of NAFTA in 1993:
Regarding Obama:
All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama. We descend from the proud tradition of independent social movements that have made America a more just and democratic country. We believe that the movement today supporting Barack Obama continues this great tradition of grassroots participation, drawing millions of people out of apathy and into participation in the decisions that affect all our lives. We believe that Barack Obama's very biography reflects the positive potential of the globalization process that also contains such grave threats to our democracy when shaped only by the narrow interests of private corporations in an unregulated global marketplace. We should instead be globalizing the values of equality, a living wage and environmental sustainability in the new world order, not hoping our deepest concerns will be protected by trickle-down economics or charitable billionaires. By its very existence, the Obama campaign will stimulate a vision of globalization from below.
As progressives, we believe this sudden and unexpected new movement is just what America needs. The future has arrived. The alternative would mean a return to the dismal status quo party politics that has failed so far to deliver peace, healthcare, full employment and effective answers to crises like global warming.
During past progressive peaks in our political history--the late thirties, the early sixties--social movements have provided the relentless pressure and innovative ideas that allowed centrist leaders to embrace visionary solutions. We find ourselves in just such a situation today.
Progressives everywhere are learning that with Obama, what you see is what you get.
Hillary hobnobbing with right-wing activist Richard Mellon Scaife:
News Corpse tells the tale:
It would have been bad enough for Hillary Clinton to sit down with the Tribune-Review staff given the facts set forth above. But this meeting was more than an editorial gathering. Amongst the participants was head honcho himself - Richard Mellon Scaife.
How Clinton could sit across the table from the man who has made the most vile accusations against her and her family, I simply cannot fathom. To allow herself to be questioned by him after his smear campaign against her requires a measure of cognitive disconnect that seems superhuman. And what makes this even more bizarrely unthinkable is that she cavorted with her abuser in order to cast abuse at her Democratic rival.
Clinton has previously shown poor judgment in this campaign with regard to the media. She accepts donations from Rupert Murdoch and recently agreed to participate in a Fox News-sponsored debate (which did not take place because Obama declined the invitation). But this transcends any mere deficiency of judgment. What justification is there for submitting yourself to questioning from a man who falsely accused you of murder and other atrocities? Is the need to exploit every media availability so overwhelming that nothing is too repulsive?
If there wasn't a photograph of it, I wouldn't have believed it.
The Conservative case for Obama; Nicholas Blincoe:
The Atlantic article is written by the ever-perceptive commentator Andrew Sullivan. He argues that US politics is plagued by polarising issues designed to fracture the common ground. Sullivan is a conservative, yet argues that controversies like Roe v Wade are manufactured to drown out debate and make negotiation impossible. The key issue, he claims, is Vietnam: did you fight? Did you question? Were you patriotic? The battle-lines around these issues have led to a wounded belligerence on the right, of the kind evinced by Rush Limbaugh and, on the left, an equally psychologically damaged wariness. The kind of cagy, Janus-faced positioning that distinguishes the Clintonian Democrat. The result is that the conservative Andrew Sullivan supports the left-leaning Obama. Sullivan believes only Obama's candidacy represents a fresh start, and without a fresh start American politics will die.
One of Sullivan's asides made me wonder if the Obama effect could work in the UK. Sullivan, who is gay, says: "There are times, I confess, when Obama's account of understanding his own racial experience seemed more like that of a gay teen discovering that he lives in two worlds simultaneously than that of a young African American confronting racism for the first time."
This is what energises Sullivan, he sees the Obama story as one that takes the best from identity politics, yet also transcends them.
The $9 trillion elephant in the closet:
Today the national debt is $9.2 trillion. And hardly anyone is talking about this. We’ve had rabbinical debates about healthcare and moronic charges and counter-charges about who’s ready "on day one" to be president. But the poor bastard who walks into the Oval Office next January will confront the $9 trillion-plus pound gorilla sitting in the room.
That gorilla has become obscenely engorged because of George W. Bush and his cronies. His stupefying $3.1 trillion budget proposed for 2009, with an 8 percent increase for the Pentagon and more than $400 billion in deficit spending, got minimal coverage, unveiled as it was on the eve of Super Tuesday, when 60 percent of the network news coverage focused on the campaign.
Almost immediately under Bush’s watch, the annual deficit—which each year gets piled onto our overall, accumulated debt—started soaring. A major contributor to this, of course, has been the occupation of Iraq. Remember when Donald Rumsfeld suggested the war would cost $50 billion to $60 billion? Remember when White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay projected the cost at more like $200 billion, and got canned? A recent estimate by Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes place the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at $3 trillion. They actually count everything, not just the immediate day-to-day costs, but all of the indirect and deferred costs like healthcare and disability payments for veterans.
See the Obama plan to reduce the national debt:
Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington
Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.
Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.
Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.
End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.
Chris Matthews says one thing and does another:
On the March 24 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews asserted: "I think we make a big mistake trying to see things through the eyes of the Clintons, in a kind of a Clinton-centric world." Later in the segment, Matthews said that "we should [not] be putting our focus... on the feelings of the Clintons," adding, "It's not important what the politics of the Clinton family is now; it's what['s] important to the country. And I really think we got to stop talking about this as if this were a sitcom. We had eight years of this sitcom: What are the Clintons up to? How do they relate to each other? What do they feel today?" Matthews then addressed co-host Mika Brzezinski and said: "Mika, it's a sitcom ... and it's gotta end. We gotta focus on America. We're stuck in Iraq; 4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons." However, despite his criticism that morning of coverage that "focus[ed]" on "the feelings of the Clintons," during that evening's edition of Hardball, Matthews devoted a six-minute segment to speculation about Sen. Hillary Clinton's motivations and preferred outcomes in the event that she loses the Democratic nomination for president, including wondering whether the "worst-case scenario" for Clinton is "[t]hat [Sen.] Barack Obama becomes the greatest Democratic president in modern times, and everybody forgets her husband and forgets she ever ran."
The article goes onto show what kind of endless speculations about the calculations that the Clintons are supposedly engaging in. Matthews has some points, but he can't have it both ways -- either the Clintons are off limits and they should have to earn any kind of coverage that they get, or he put his foot in his mouth. But there is one nugget of gold that we can take out of this -- we need to give the Clintons their due. We have to engage in the carrot and stick approach; we have to recognize the accomplishments that they hav had while they were in office. But we also have to make the case that we need to turn the page as well.
We have to remember that in 1992, Barack Obama was instrumental in delivering Illinois to the Clintons, giving them a crucial victory in that election; keep in mind that Illinois was a battleground state that year instead of the safe blue state that it is now. We have to have a healthy respect for what they have done for this country while calling out their misdeeds, such as hobnobbing with Scaife and Wrightgate and Bosnia. If they had run on their record, like Bill Clinton did in 1996, then they would have won in a walk. Obama would not have done what he did in 1992 without having a healthy respect for what Bill Clinton was capable of doing as our President.
FEMA knew about toxic trailers as early as October, 2005:
If you drive around Louisiana these days and scan the AM/FM offerings, you'll hear one recurring radio spot: In the wake of the latest tests showing high levels of formaldehyde emissions in federally issued trailers, FEMA wants to talk to all remaining post-Katrina evacuee trailer residents about how to get their living quarters tested for formaldehyde. What you won't find as easily on the dial, at least not yet, is Texas attorney Anthony Buzbee's allegation that FEMA knew about the formaldehyde problem even before the mass distribution of emergency homes began.
Buzbee is one of several lawyers representing over 10,000 trailer residents in a class action lawsuit against FEMA and more than 60 trailer manufacturers. He told Mother Jones that newly obtained Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) documents show the Occupational and Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had been testing formaldehyde exposure around the trailers as early as October 2005—almost a year before tests were made public. Indeed, when OSHA placed monitors on employees at various trailer distribution sites across Mississippi that fall, it discovered alarmingly high levels of formaldehyde emanating from the very same trailers the FEMA workers were distributing to evacuees. OSHA is required to inform employers, in this case FEMA, of excessive levels of formaldehyde; the 2005 test results revealed levels up to 6.7 times higher than what is deemed safe in a workplace. Says Buzbee, "The documents clearly show that FEMA was aware of the formaldehyde problem before it even distributed the trailers to the Katrina victims."
Disturbed by the brazenness of FEMA in beginning mass distribution of trailers it knew were toxic, Buzbee is pushing for a congressional investigation against the agency. While FEMA has not returned calls for comment on whether they had been informed of the OSHA results, Buzbee says it's standard policy for OSHA to notify employers immediately if they detect levels of formaldehyde that are higher than the permissible limits, and their procedure gives these employers 60 days to remedy the situation." Why, then, "would OSHA have broken this protocol and not told FEMA? After all, it was FEMA employees who were being directly affected by the formaldehyde exposure."
Restore Housing: The lack of affordable housing in New Orleans has prevented many Katrina victims from
returning to the city. And the city’s homeless population is approximately double what it was before the
hurricane. The Road Home Program is the largest housing recovery program in the nation’s history, designed
to help homeowners with up to $150,000 in assistance and provide rental property owners with incentives to
build affordable housing. However, the program has provided grants to fewer than a quarter of all applicants,
and Louisiana officials warn as many as 50,000 homeowners could end up without aid because of funding
shortfalls. In the Senate, Obama recognized the right of Gulf Coast residents to return to their homes, supported
increased funding for the Road Home Program, supported rental assistance so that families still living in FEMA
trailers could move into decent and affordable housing, and increased funding for the Housing Authority of
New Orleans. As president, Obama will work with the state to establish a goal for approving all Road Home
applications within two months. He will also work to increase the supply of rental property, which is
particularly important in New Orleans where 57 percent of pre-Katrina residents were renters.
Millions of people are breaking away from the old ways of fear and bigotry:
Barack Obama is campaigning on the basis of change. In this campaign, his ideas may not be totally formed in relation to the fundamental questions facing the
society, but what is clear is that his movement has
tapped into a force, energy force that at this moment
is unstoppable. The same youths who have grown up in
the era of the information revolution and the platforms
such as Face book/ My Space are using new social
networking techniques that baffle the political pundits
reared in the universities that taught the physics of
Isaac Newton and the derivative mechanical concepts of
Adam Smith and John Locke. Polling and the laws of
predictability that emanate from this mechanical era
has fallen short of grasping the new energy as
thousands of new actors and actresses surge on to the
stage of politics to identify with the break from the
old politics of fear and so called War on Terror.Millions are no longer deterred by the fear mongering
of the Bush/Cheney leadership or the imagery of Islamic
peoples as terrorists. Decent Christians are now
seeking the gospel of peace and love instead of hate
and religious fundamentalism.Barack Obama is opposed to the hierarchies of the
whites over blacks and browns and uses his own life as
a metaphor for calling on citizens to come together to
save the planet earth. Obama has gone on record to
register his opposition to the structured existence
that places humans as atomized individuals without
responsibility to family or society. Atomized
individuals are open to manipulation by the media and
are open to the Hobbesian thinking that society must be
based on conflict and confrontation or 'war of every
man against every man.' This manipulation is one form
of psychological warfare against the citizens of the
United States...The idea of change that echoes from the Obama campaign
has been calling for citizens to place themselves at
the center and to empower themselves, firstly with
their positive thinking, "Yes we can," and more
importantly by organizing to intervene in the political
process. In response to this call, a cross section of
the citizens of the United States from Iowa to
Nebraska, from Idaho to Georgia and from Washington to
Louisiana have come forward to seek the new ideas of
twenty first century change. In the process there are
new constituencies that have found their voice. This
has led to a level of spontaneity that one could see in
the much watched video- Yes we can.
New footage shows Hillary really did land under fire: