Recommended reading on manufacturing in America

Given what's going on with manufacturing in central PA, the following Reuters article about the American auto and other manufacturing industries seems highly relevant reading:


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BF28720101216?pageNumber=1

Polis Sci 101 and 102

Someone sent me the link to David Brook's latest column in which he confirms his status as columnist most likely to shallowly borrow from social science theory. This time it is network theory, something I know about. He uses the terms "cluster" and "network" to describe two worldviews. Clusters are only linked to each other and do not have the links nor inclination to forge coalitions. "Networks" are the opposite. The clumsiness of his borrowing aside, what really got me revved up was my correspondent's suggestion that this was an incisive analysis with the subject line: "Poli Sci 101."

Link to Column: "Obama's Very Good Week."

My response:

First, this is typical commentariat (which Brooks is a clear part of). You look at the event sof thsi week and then proclaim the world is as it is NOW is ho wit must have always been and will always be. Obama CAMPAIGNED in 2008 on not extending tax breaks for the wealthiest. He and congressional Dems dithered for two years and then put this off until the lame duck session. So poor political strategy and not delivering on one of his signature campiagn issues led to a situation where he had a poor hand and weak leverage. And I am supposed to congratulate obama for that?

As far as I know, on most core issue for progressives, a label I will wear less reluctantly than others, Obama and his team not only did the leas t they could do, but often went out of their way to piss on us for asking for more. Health reform, foreclsoure moritorium, Afghanistan, Iraq, DADT, taxes, a bigger stimulus and so on. So, I'll tell you poli sci 102: you do not win elections without a BASE and a COALITION. While some part of 2010's schellacking may have been due to normal historical shifts, part of it was lack of enthusiasm in his base. The shut up and get in line attitude towards one's base does not work well unless you deliver more.

Brooks says:
"You don’t have to abandon your principles to cut a deal. You just have to acknowledge that there are other people in the world and even a president doesn’t get to stamp his foot and have his way. "

Well, that seems like exactly the strategy of the Republicans. Stamp their foot and demand no START treaty, no unemployment insurance, no DADT until they get the estate tax. Boehner or McConnell said their primary goal is to unseat him. So, stamping their foot until they get their way seems to be what they are doing. Obama coddles them. And, the media and the commentariat coddle them. It is supposed to be Obama who needs to build bridges and be a network liberal instead of a cluster liberal. Fine. Where are the network Republicans he is supposed to do this with? So, I'll stomach no lectures from sanctimonious wankers about how Obama or the Democrats are the source of hyper partisanship. It is the Republicans and the way the media thought framework enables this (which I think the Conservative movement created by making the media jump at the thought of being called liberal). And see, somehow, for me to suggest this as valid fact gets chalked up in Brooks and the commentariat's world view to me being a "far leftie" or "cluster leftie" because they don't have the stomach to take a stand or to have any accountability to history.

No one in the chattering classes suggest the Republicans should moderate, should be network conservatives.

Blue Dogs Whine Instead of Bark

Way more detail about the process than I found elsewhere. I am particularly irked by Blue Dogs who a) run by demonizing the left; b) took way more DCCC money than they raised even though they cow tail to rich business interests and then; c) lost while running AWAY form the accomplishments of the last 2 years calling the thoroughly centrist policies "excessive" and then finally d) blaming Pelosi for their problems.

Just-defeated Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) rose in Tuesday’s caucus meeting to declare that Pelosi is “the face of our defeat.” He told his soon-to-be-former colleagues that “we need new leadership.” ...

Democrats who side with Pelosi are upset with the moderate Blue Dog Democrats, many of whom were the beneficiaries of big spending by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Some of them could hardly have been competitive without the party’s money.


The DCCC spent nearly $60 million on Blue Dogs and centrist New Democrats during the 2010 election cycle, according to federal election reports. Meanwhile, Blue Dogs contributed only $1.9 million of their $9.6 million in dues goals, according to the latest DCCC dues report.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45215.html#ixzz15X6WdYil

Support the DISCLOSE Act

MoveOn.org is pushing a petition for Congress to pass the DISCLOSE Act. If corporations are going to be able to pour money into elections and ballot initiatives, they shouldn't be able to do so anonymously. Now is the time to act, before the 2012 election cycle kicks in.

http://pol.moveon.org/discloseact/

Yesterday's tax cut game

Here's Austan Goolsbee's explanation of the difference between President Obama's and the Republicans' ideas for how to deal with the expiring tax cuts (2 minutes). Republicans are trying to frame it as "raising taxes." President Obama is focused on maintaining all the cuts for lower 95% and going back to something closer to the Clinton-era rates for the top 5% (making over $250,000 per year). Goolsbee's appearance on the Colbert Report helped get this chart to a bigger audience.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/29/white-house-white-board-cea-chair-austan-goolsbee-explains-tax-cut-fight

What's the message?

The message from Election 2010 seems to be "it's still the economy, stupid." Even with the DOW over 11,000 and the threat of a great depression averted, everyone knows that the economy is in trouble and jobs are hard to find. In the exit polls, 9 of 10 cited the economy as the top issue. The argument that the unemployment rate would have been even worse without the Recovery Act never gained any traction. Democrats played defense and never went on the offense with a message about the largest tax cut in history, the end of health insurers being able to dump you when you get sick, targeted tax cuts to small business, etc.

Locally, I thought Trey Casimir had the best summation in today's Daily Item:

“If Chris Carney, who is pro-gun, anti-abortion, a military man, has a positive rating from the NRA, if he can’t get elected around here, nobody with a ‘D’ after their name can get elected around here,” Casimir said.

I would add that Carney did not run a great campaign this time, but the polling averages (see FiveThirtyEight.com) suggested a 6 point Marino win, and it was about a 10 point Marino win. Even if he had run a pitch perfect campaign, he might well have fallen short this time. It was appropriate to raise questions about Marino's past conduct, but the voters wanted to see a focus on the economy and the future, especially in the last couple weeks of the campaign. That never happened, and the charge that Marino was somehow unfit to serve did not sway the voters.

In the "I was wrong" category, it turned out that Joe Sestak made his race with Pat Toomey very close (did those ads showing Toomey with the Chinese flag actually work?), whereas Russ Feingold lost badly to millionaire and political neophyte Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. No one seems to have a good explanation why Feingold slipped so badly after three terms. My only theory was that he did not have the "likeability" factor that can sometimes be the difference. He always seemed a little bit too sure that he was right. Of course, he was also badly outspent and was targeted with unrelenting negative ads. He was favored for reelection until the negative ads drove down his poll numbers.

One other comment: It's going to be difficult to get anything done about a severance tax on natural gas extraction since governor-elect Corbett has dug in against it. But that will be a topic for another day. I read this week that wind turbine companies are laying off people and shutting down production: low natural gas prices have made clean energy too expensive in relative terms. Why am I pretty sure that we are not pricing the real costs of natural gas into the product?

Carney's Votes by the Numbers

One of Tom Marino's very first press releases claimed that Chris Carney "voted with Nancy Pelosi 91% of the time," and I've seen the same claim repeated in NRCC ads on TV. (Of course, this implies that everything Nancy Pelosi votes for is "liberal," but we'll set that aside for a moment.) I said to myself, "That can't be right." Carney has stood up and done the right thing many times (voting for healthcare reform, the DISCLOSE Act, etc.) but I think many liberals and progressives would be a lot happier with him if he really did vote "91% liberally." So I did a little digging.

The first thing I found was this Factcheck.org article which addresses 6 ads being run by the NRCC with basically the same accusation ("voting with Pelosi") against 6 different Democrats. Factcheck points out two reasons the "91%" is wrong and misleading. First of all, it doesn't actually use Pelosi's votes. "Traditionally" (and this was news to me), the Speaker doesn't participate in most of the votes in the House, so for instance out of the 991 votes taken in 2009, Pelosi only cast a vote on 46 of them. So, the NRCC opted instead to assume that any time Carney voted with "the majority of Democrats," he was voting with Pelosi.

The trouble with that (reason #2 why the "91%" is misleading) is that Congress takes many, many votes where a majority of both parties agree. These include quorum calls, votes to name post offices, votes to "honor the 50th anniversary of Miami Dade College" (House Vote #520 in 2010), stuff like that. So if we're really trying to get at a measure of "how consistently does Carney side with the Democrats" (as opposed to siding with everyone), we've got to take that into account.

Factcheck makes the assumption that anything Pelosi actually bothered to vote on must have been a contentious issue, and therefore reports in their article how often (in 2010 only) Carney and Pelosi actually did vote the same (including only the measures that they both actually voted for). They report this number as 84%, which is still pretty high, but the NRCC obviously preferred their (not-quite-accurate) "91%" soundbite.

While Factcheck's assumption is probably true most of the time, it's not necessarily true all the time. In other words, Pelosi may have voted on "non-controversial" things, too. Since we have access to raw Roll Call Vote data from Thomas.loc.gov (or in a more easily usable format at Govtrack.us), I wanted to go a step further than this and see how often Carney really agreed with the Democratic vs. Republican leadership on "controversial" (i.e., non-unanimous) votes over his whole career, not just in 2010. I used two measures to determine which were the "contentious votes":
(1) Any votes that weren't unanimous (the winning side had less than 90% of the vote); or
(2) Any votes where the highest-ranking voting member of each party voted differently.

For (2), since Pelosi doesn't usually vote but her deputy Steny Hoyer (of MD) does, I compared Hoyer's votes with those of John Boehner (the Republican minority leader). Their votes "should" reflect the way that Democrats and Republicans were "supposed to vote" on each measure (I realize this isn't a perfect assumption, but I think it's more objective than Factcheck's).

With all that in mind, I compiled the following table showing how Carney has agreed or disagreed with both parties since he started in Congress in 2007. (Click to enlarge -- I apologize for inserting it as an image, but I was having trouble converting from Excel to HTML.)

Basically, this suggests a few conclusions:
(1) Carney has been pretty consistent under both Bush and Obama;
(2) Carney consistently sides with the Republicans (and breaks with Democrats) between 16-21% of the time. While that's not a huge number, it translates to somewhere between 300 and 400 "controversial" votes with the Republicans (depending on how you define "controversial") or roughly 1 out of every 5 votes. So he's definitely voting with the Democrats more often than not, but he's no mindless drone.

(Final disclaimer: Obviously, none of this addresses which of these votes were "important" bills, or how Carney breaks with the Democrats on certain issues, but it is meant to give an overall picture of his voting tendency.)

I have drafted a letter to the editor that I plan to send to the Daily Item, but if others would like to use this information and send letters on a similar theme, I hope that we could get this information out to combat the "91% voting with Pelosi" myth.

Is there a clean energy future for the US?

Two bits of recommended reading:

First, this piece from Tom Friedman about how we are failing to invest in Energy Secretary Steven Chu's vision of energy innovation--mini-Manhattan projects:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/opinion/13friedman.html

Second, this piece from the Breakthrough Institute that holds up a vision of a post-partisan path forward (which is, of course, already under partisan attack):

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/10/postpartisan_power.shtml

We've seen federal action on 2 of CSCC's top 3 issues (Ending the Iraq War and Health Care) in the last couple years. We know we need to do something about energy/environment, but when? How?

Trey Casimir and Erik Viker, 85th District

Trey Casimir did an interview with SQVNEWS recently (less than 10 minutes).

He has stuck to his promise not to solicit donations, and he's only spent about $500 so far.

Here are his top three agenda items:

1. The Thruway
2. Severance tax on natural gas development
3. Close the digital divide (provide more access to high speed internet for those who want it but can't get it).

Trey is running an unorthodox campaign, to say the least. It will be interesting to see how many Republicans vote for someone other than the Republican this time around.

I suspect that Fred Keller will get fewer votes than Russ Fairchild did last time around and that Erik Viker will get some of those. See his SQVNEWS interview here. Like Trey, he says he's using no Harrisburg consultants and running a grassroots campaign and that he wants to get beyond the broken political party system. Seems like there's a consensus about getting rid of the "walking around money" too.

As far as I know, Fred Keller hasn't done a similar interview. Feel free to post information in the comments if you are aware of any.

Free film screening: "CRUDE: A Documentary" next Tuesday, Sept. 7

As our monthly meetup in September, CSCC will host a special film screening of the 2009 documentary, "CRUDE" on Tuesday, September 7 at 6:30pm at the Union County Public Library, 255 Reitz Blvd., Lewisburg. This event is FREE and open to the public. Please join us! For more information, contact us here.

CRUDE (2009, 100 minutes), directed by Joe Berlinger, follows a two-year portion of a $27 billion class action suit brought against the Chevron Corporation following the drilling of the Lago Agrio oil field in Ecuador, a case also known as the "Amazon Chernobyl." The plaintiffs of the lawsuit are 30,000 Ecuadorians living in the Amazonian rainforest, which they claim has been polluted by the oil industry. CRUDE shows interviews from both sides, and explores the influence of media support, celebrity activism, the power of multinational corporations, the shifting power in Ecuadorian politics, and rapidly-disappearing indigenous cultures.

"Dynamic, tightly arranged, and deliberately provocative, Joe Berlinger's CRUDE is a sobering, enraging wake-up call," according to the film website RottenTomatoes.com which gives it a 95% positive rating.

Reading the signs

Another Daily Item story today indicates that Rep. Carney has deep support across the district, in spite of some rumblings about his support for the Health Care bill:

http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x1047881716/Show-of-support

Recent stories in the DI have noted the tremendous cash advantage that Carney holds: 70-1 (though there is a much smaller gap in money raised from within the district).

Here comes Rick

If you haven't seen this video of Rick Santorum's comments to the state GOP, it's worth a look. He really does say that President Obama doesn't understand what it means to be an American.

Fivethirtyeight.com now gives Toomey a 53% chance of winning in November. That's down from a 70% chance of winning before the primary. Joe Sestak is looking better every day. I'm hoping that Rick Santorum gets out and campaigns for Toomey. That should be interesting.

Thruway update

The July 3 (2010) Daily Item contains an extended story about more small steps in the Thruway saga. One new piece of information involves the fabled "swap" that would have to take place in order to get the Thruway onto the radar for the Appalachian Regional Commission. The proposed stretch for a swap is not on the 50 year plan, and runs parallel to a now existing stretch of I-99. The argument is that this other proposed corridor is not needed and never will be. At a bare minimum, it isn't needed in anything like the way the CSVT is needed.

Ryan Unger reported in June that it's all or nothing right now. If this breakthrough doesn't happen in the next year, we'll be looking at splitting up the project, leading to another long delay.

Here's my thought: an on-line petition aimed at residents and also at non-residents who pass through. If we don't have enough people power to pass out hand bills to trucks stopped in traffic on the golden strip, how about a billboard and a website? An on-line petition of some sort?

The message should be simple and direct--something that people can deliver clearly to elected (and unelected) officials throughout this whole tangled process: BUILD IT. (The Thruway.)

The Thruway is the weak link in a chain of highway from Canada to Baltimore. Something like 24 traffic lights--stop and go traffic at random times throughout the day. And that doesn't even mention the abuse the Northumberland has to endure with all those trucks--90% of which are just trying to get somewhere else.

Anybody have experience with on-line petitions? It seems like a Facebook Group might work, but a direct e-mail campaign might send the message farther. I like the billboard idea because I think the papers would cover the story, especially if we could put together a few thousand signatures. If I hear some support I'll start looking into what it would cost and what kind of technical know-how is involved.

The one advantage here is that it's hard to find anyone who's against it. It comes down to money. So maybe we also have to propose some ways to pay for it. I would support tolling the new bridge if it comes to that, even though in general I don't like tolls (and Ryan Unger indicated that there are a bunch of legal problems with the idea). If the bridge were tolled, the trucking companies who would be benefiting greatly from the enhanced infrastructure would be helping to pay for it.

Carney votes for the DISCLOSE act

House leadership had to lean on the Blue Dogs to get enough votes to pass the DISCLOSE act, which is a response to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Carney voted for it in the winning effort (219-206, vote count) with 36 Democrats voting against.

It's worth noting when he makes the right call. Good for Chris Carney, and good for us.

Daily Item coverage of CSCC meetup about the Thruway

Thanks to the Daily Item for covering CSCC's session on the Thruway. The Standard-Journal also sent a reporter, so an article will likely appear soon.

Thanks also to Ryan Unger of SEDA-COG, who did an excellent job of explaining where we are in the process and why the process is so messy. There are several different agencies and units of government involved, all of which are dealing with their own challenges.

For at least the rest of 2010, we seem to be in an "all or nothing" phase. Why not split up the project? Because then new impact statements would have to be prepared for each part, and then we're looking at another long delay. If the project can clear two big hurdles--one at the level of the Appalachian Development Highway System, the other at the level of the Federal Highway Reauthorization Act--the whole project could move forward sooner rather than later. Those are two bigs IFs. If those things don't happen this year, then we are probably back to the drawing board.

Before this presentation, I didn't know that 90% of the truck traffic (and 50% of the car traffic) on the Golden Strip is just passing through. There's no question that this project is worth doing--it's "just" a matter of finding about $525 million--and the 20% of that coming from the state is probably going to be the hardest to find. Pennsylvania has maintenance needs that aren't paid for, so it's hard to come up with money for new construction to relieve congestion. Gas tax money isn't paying for all that needs to be done, in part because the tax is per gallon, and fewer gallons are sold when the price is high.

Is it going to get done? I don't know--probably not any time soon. We have one big advantage: everybody seems to agree that this thing ought to be built--it's the last piece of a puzzle that extends from Canada down to Maryland. Given the current budget climate though, it's going to take some creativity to figure out how the financing happens.

Lessons of Yesterday

A few thoughts about yesterday's primary results:

1. The Arlen Specter era is over. In the end, the endorsements from the president and vice president and others were not enough. Going negative against Joe Sestak was probably a tactical mistake. It raised Sestak's name recognition and made him look sympathetic--almost like someone who would like to talk about issues rather than spend millions on sleazy TV ads. Kudos to Rick Thomas and others who called out Specter for going negative against a "fellow" Democrat. At least Specter didn't try to argue that he'd forgotten which side he was on again (as he did after his comments about the Norm Coleman/Al Franken dispute).

2. Fred Smith defeats Maurice Brubaker. It's hard to know how the opinions of voters shift since there is no reliable polling, but the Union County Republicans' decision to censure Brubaker for calling himself a public accountant instead of a senior accountant (and the local newspaper headlines about it) couldn't have helped Brubaker's cause. I guess that neutralized his claim that we could use someone in Harrisburg who could read a balance sheet. And it's good to see that the Union County Republican committee is all about maintaining integrity whatever the cost, not about playing politics (ahem). It will be interesting to see if the Brubaker voters will vote for Smith in the fall.

3. Malcolm Derk won at this end of PA-10, but too many of the voters live at the other end. Tom Marino seems to have the Republicans united (unlike Chris Hackett who split the party in his primary race against Dan Muesser last time around). Still, Chris Carney has made a consistent argument that he represents the district and not party. My sense is that Carney has bonded with this district and with its military families and that it will be very hard to defeat him. Having Sestak on the ticket--another centrist Democrat with a military background--should help Carney's chances in the fall.

4. The most important race we're not talking about is the one for governor. Budget crisis, gas drilling, environmental issues, education issues. . . we have huge problems at the state level, and the intangibles favor the Republicans after two terms of a Democrat (Ed Rendell). Dan Onorato has support in the Pittsburgh area but has to build organization across the state, and especially in Philadelphia. Philadelphia's Jonathan Saidel's weak showing in the lt. governor's race (Conklin of Centre County seems to have a slight lead) suggests that even if Saidel wins there will be a lot of work for the Democrats to do in Philadelphia. And how did Conklin win so many votes without money or establishment support? I know his answer in the LWV guide impressed me, but those short answers can't possibly move enough votes to swing the election, can they?

Responding to DNC email about Specter

I'm guessing that many of us received an email last week from "Barack Obama" (via the DNC) urging support for Arlen Specter, with a link you could follow to Specter's website to donate or volunteer.

Don't get me wrong, I "understand" the administration must have made a quid-pro-quo deal with Arlen Specter to support him when he switched parties. (But, as Nate Silver suggests, we probably have Sestak, not Obama, to thank for Specter's recent voting record.) But I still think the Democratic "National" Committee ought to stay out of the way, let us have our state primaries, and then help support the Democratic candidate. This part of "Obama's" email bugged me in particular:

But now, he needs your help. He's in a tight race for the Democratic nomination for Senate, and the primary is coming up soon on May 18th.

Vice President Biden and I need him in Washington, fighting alongside us....

Really, DNC? Could you be more passive-voice? "He's in a tight race...." Not even a mention of who the other candidate is, or any reasons why we wouldn't want him instead? I know it probably won't do any good, but I thought the DNC needed to hear that this kind of email from them really doesn't inspire me to donate to them or do anything they ask. Maybe if enough people do the same, they might think twice next time (or not). Here's what I sent them:

Dear DNC,
I do not appreciate the DNC getting involved in our Pennsylvania primary in this way. I know Specter has supported the president's agenda. But some of that support was probably because he felt pressured by his primary challenger, Joe Sestak, to do so. Congressman Sestak has also supported the president's agenda and would make a fine senator.

When you send emails like this, you make people like myself LESS likely to support the DNC. You should be supporting all Democrats in elections against Republicans. I wish you would please stay out of our primary.
Sincerely,
J-

What are the top issues for 2010 and beyond?

It's been a couple years since CSCC used a survey to identify top issues both at the national level and at the state/local level. Both lists at that time had HEALTH CARE and ENERGY close to the top. The idea was that the list would help to guide our efforts and define winning issues for progressive candidates. For the full list, see this page:

http://csccnow.com/about.html

Kudos to the Steering Committee for bringing us the Health Care panel last May and the Energy Forum this June. CSCC is playing a part in shaping the focus of the political conversation in the Valley--and using input from all of you to do it.

What are the issues that most need grassroots attention for 2010 and beyond?

My list would include:

Federal level:
Financial reform
Clean energy/Environment
Economy/Jobs

State/local:
Health care
State budget reform
Economic development and planning (including Energy development)

Other priorities: We probably need some kind of campaign reform, especially if the new court ruling plays out as expected. Large corporations are now free to spend at will to influence the outcome of elections. That does not bode well for grassroots democracy. (See Barb Sundin's Campaign Reform Wish List .)


We definitely have a corrupt political culture at the state level. That's clear to anyone who reads the headlines. But is that an issue that can unite a winning progressive coalition? I don't know.

What would be on your list?

Special CSCC Event THURSDAY: Energy And How We Pay For It

Apologies in advance if you get bombarded by multiple emails about this in the next few days, but we are trying to get the word out about this special CSCC event on Thursday:

The Central Susquehanna Citizens Coalition will present a public forum titled “Energy and How We Pay For It in PA: The Next Five Years and Beyond” on Thursday, April 1 at 7:30pm at the Union County Government Center located at 155 N 15th St., Lewisburg. The panel will feature four distinguished energy professionals from across our region and the U.S.

• Stacy Richards is Director of the SEDA-COG Energy Resource Center, and her topic will be "Energizing Our Region."
• Steve Connolley is the owner of Hometown Energy Systems, LLC, a renewable energy startup company, and his topic will be "Renewable Energy Technologies for Homes and Businesses."
• Preston Boop is the owner of Briar Patch Organic Farm where he produces bio-diesel fuel, and his topic will be "Alternative Energy from Recycled Organics."
• William Steinhurst is Senior Consultant for Synapse Energy Economics, an energy consulting firm, and his topic will be "The Future of Electricity Regulation."

The format of the panel discussion will be 15-minute presentations by each of the panelists, followed by 30 minutes of interactive discussion where audience members are encouraged to ask questions.

For more information, please see our full press release here.

You can also download our event flyer here. Please print one out to share or use as a reminder! Hope to see you there.

Final Countdown to HCR

Looks like the House of Representatives is headed toward a final vote on the healthcare reform (reconciliation) bill at 10am on Sunday morning. Carney voted "yes" on the previous House bill, and he has said some very encouraging things in the press lately, but the Daily Item characterized him as an "undecided" vote just yesterday. We know that he (and his staff) are literally counting the number of calls he gets for vs. against reform. So now is the time to make your voices heard. If you've got more than one voter in your household, everyone should call.

Here are his office numbers:
Williamsport: 570-327-1902
Shamokin: 570-644-1682
Clarks Summit: 866-846-8124
Washington DC: 202-225-3731
More contact information can be found at his website here.

If you've never called him before, it's so easy! A friendly staff member will answer your call, listen to your request ("Please tell Mr. Carney to vote for the healthcare reform bill"), take down your name, and you are done! It takes less than a minute.

And for those of you (like me) who are both excited about the prospect of this bill passing, but also dejected about how it falls short of achieving true "universal healthcare," it might make you feel a little better to read this House committee summary of what's actually in the reconciliation bill. It's very far from perfect, but there's some truly good stuff in there. I wish I could say more than "it's a step in the right direction," but... hey, it's a step in the right direction.

Private and Public Tragedy

Organizing for America- the organizing branch of the Obama campiagn that stuck around afterwards, has a great example of using technology to rally people.

I wrote the following to Chris Carney and as I got into it I wanted to give it a broader audience.


Dear Rep. Carney,

I am here for Betsy and Lisa [Names changed]-

We must pass health insurance reform now. Too many people and businesses face warped incentives or grim and miserable health due to the burdens of our perverse and broken system.

Betsyworks full tie in a private child care facility. She is a single mom. She often baby sits infants for many families and is always willing to help people with sick children or other events. Her selflessness allows others to pursue their careers as professors, doctors, and business leaders. Her employer, a day care center subsidized by a local employer, does not provide coverage. She had such severe back problems she could not sleep. Friends pooled $300 to help her see a chiropractor. She limited coverage now, but is still an injury away from financial crisis.

Lisa has leukemia. She works cleaning people’s homes. She cleans and cooks for her husband every day, even when he has been furloughed or been between jobs. She stays married to a disinterested, neglectful and nearly abusive husband because she could never afford individual coverage, or even get it with her leukemia. Where is her freedom to live her life? The combination of patriarchy and our health care system is deeply unfair and sexist. I think only the strength of her personality and her adult son keeps her husband from raising his hand against her.

Millions are uninsured. In 2009, one study found 45,000 Americans died due to lack of coverage. [1] They used a rigorous method used by researchers in 1993 who found around half that number then. Among those 45,000 are more than 2,000 uninsured veterans.[2] On 9/11, 3,000 of our citizens were innocent victims and became iconic heroes. We endure 15 9/11s every year through 45,000 private tragedies of martyrs to a broken healthcare system midwife by a corrupt political system. We have marshaled billions of dollars and 100,000s of soldiers to avenge the fallen of 9/11. Meanwhile, we engage in trivial “death panel” and “reconciliation” food fights at home while our fellow citizens are chewed up and spit out as corpses by the broken health care system. Why should the public tragedy of 9/11 count for so much more all these years than the sum of 45,000 private tragedies year in and year out?

Where is the justice in that? How is that fair?


[1] Heavey, Susan. Sept 2009. “Study Links 45,000 Deaths to Lack of Health Insurance.” Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

[2] Physicians for A National Health Program. Nov 10, 2009. “Over 2,200 veterans died in 2008 due to lack of health insurance.” http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/november/over_2200_veterans_.php

Campaign Reform Wish List

Many of you have probably heard Barb Sundin talk about ideas for campaign reform. She's been handing a list of ideas to candidates for office and I thought you might like to read them too. (My favorite is #5.)

Campaign Reform Wish List
by Barbara Sundin

In light of the recent Supreme Court decision it becomes clearer that what we need is serious campaign finance reform. Last year alone 2.7 billion dollars were spent on state and local elections and 6.3 billion were spent on federal elections.That’s BILLION. Can you imagine what we could do with that money? Fix our schools, provide healthcare for everyone, fix our roads, invest in green energy are a few I can think of.

Following is a list of the things I would like to see in Campaign reform legislation. I know it’s a stretch, but if only some of these things get passed into law our elections might become sane again and legislators might just be able to legislate for the good of the country, instead of fundraise. Furthermore, they would be responsible to the voters not the big money people and special interest groups. Please carefully consider these suggestions. They would make your life a lot easier and bring government back to the people.

1. Campaigns limited to 2 months before primary and then start up again on Sept 1

2. National Primary day in May

3. No money can be raised until the campaign season starts 2 months before the primary.

4.No contributions from corporations or lobbyists or unions or special interest groups

5. No contributions from anyone who can’t vote for you. (Makes legislators more responsive to their constituents.)

6. All TV time free to candidates for the month of October and until the election in November.

7. All money left in the war chest at the end of the campaign goes into a general fund that can be evenly distributed to candidates who are running the next time.

The idea in all of this is to limit the time and money spent on campaigning. It should never be that the election goes to the highest bidder.Furthermore, legislators shouldn’t have to spend all of their time in office trying to raise money to run the next time. They should be legislating.

Dem State Committee endorses single payer

According to a report from Jerry Policoff on OpEdNews.com, the Democratic State Committee has endorsed the idea of enacting a single-payer health care system in Pennsylvania. Three of the five Democratic candidates for governor have said they would sign such a bill and the other two are open to the idea.

Why isn't this generating coverage in the mainstream media? Because it's doesn't rise to the level of news until something actually happens. Gov. Rendell promised to sign a single-payer bill if it reached his desk. It hasn't. Perhaps some believe nothing will happen until the federal level action (or inaction) is resolved, so promising to do something once all the political inertia is overcome is an easy thing to do. Here's hoping the legislature calls their bluff--and soon.

For the link to the full article, click on the headline above.

CSCC Meetup Feb. 4th - Rails to Trails Project

Please mark your calendars for next week! CSCC will be holding its first regular monthly meetup on Thursday, Feb. 4th at 7:30 pm, at the First Baptist Church in Lewisburg (51 S. 3rd St.)

Our kickoff meeting will be a Q&A information session and discussion about the Buffalo Valley Rail Trail project, with special guest Trey Casimir, Board Chairman from LARA.

We have been discussing on this blog lately about how the local paper has been reporting people's opinions on this project without really providing many facts about the expected costs, impact, and other details. We hope this in-person meeting will give everyone a chance to sit down and learn more about what is going on, and (potentially) what can be done to help.

Please spread the word-- remember, CSCC meetups are always open to anyone who is interested!