Central Susquehanna Citizens Coalition

Independet Voting

2011-12-08T11:29:00.002-05:00

OK, I NEVER give money on the phone now. Although I do enjoy chatting with the NRA,RNC, Tea Party Express and so on when they call. Anyway, this group, http://independentvoting.org/, actually kept me on the phone long enough to wring out an online donation. I would like to see a whole set of electoral reforms, but open primaries is at least one good start.

She was a very informed called. The emphasis on structural reform sounded smart and good. She said there is a PA chapter. I thought this kind of electoral reform is something CSCC can get behind. Maybe fold into a set of issues for the 2012 cycle about improving the workings of democracy. Also get after bad redistricting, camp finance, and so on.

CSCC on WKOK "On the Mark"

2011-10-04T21:23:00.002-04:00

This morning, I was invited to appear on the WKOK 1070AM talk show "On the Mark" on behalf of CSCC to talk about our group and the Redistricting event we are hosting this Thursday. (For more info on that, see our Events page here.) If you missed the show this morning but wanted to listen, the audio will be available for the next week at:
http://www.wkok.com/1070_WKOK/OTM.htm (Click Tuesday's "On the Mark")

After that, I have put a clip (just the CSCC portion of the show) in our archives here:
http://www.csccnow.org/audio/CSCC_On_WKOK_100411.mp3

The best part was that I had a chance to talk about CSCC, and also to share the recent quote from Elizabeth Warren (which I think is very relevant in today's climate) about why suggesting that restoring previous tax rates to wealthiest Americans isn't "class warfare" because those that succeed in the American system have used resources that we all pay for, and they have an obligation to see that the next person coming along has the same opportunities they did.

The worst part was that I completely forgot to mention the CSCC's webpage or email address. Oh well, maybe people will try to Google us and find us.

Rt. 15 Corridor Improvement Recap

2011-09-16T09:29:00.004-04:00

Last night at the Union County Government Center, there was a 2nd public meeting to discuss plans for the "Rt. 15 Corridor Improvement Plan." For those of you who wanted to go but were not able to, I took some notes. Most importantly, remember this: none of this is a final plan! These are all preliminary recommendations at this point. If you have comments or feedback (in favor or opposed), they want to hear from you! Visit http://www.unioncountypa.org/residents/government/county/route15_corridor/

The format of the meeting was a Powerpoint presentation narrated by 2 of the principal engineers from McCormack Taylor, followed by an "open mixer" session in another conference room where many of the maps, plans, and artist renderings of the possible improvements were on display. The speakers emphasized that we are currently in Month #8 of a 12-month planning process, which would then be followed by the "legwork" of zoning, seeking easements, actual engineering analysis, and other steps that have not been done yet. It was implied that the improvements would not be completed until at least 2013.

Here are my notes from the 2 engineers' presentations:

Bert Cassaboon, McCormack Taylor.
1. Scope: The 'corridor' being improved consists of the segment of U.S. 15 from just south of Beagle Club Rd/River Rd to just north of Wm. Penn Drive (a.k.a. the light at BZ Motors/Weis), to include both those intersections. "Corridor Planning" includes consideration of transportation issues, land use issues, and other integrated activities.

2. Feedback thus far. The most common themes they have received strong comments on thus far have been about: safety; bike/pedestrian access; the Buffalo Valley Rail Trail and how it will cross US-15; aesthetics; congestion, noise and quality-of-life. From the 'aesthetics' point of view, they have conducted structured focus groups where participants were shown photographs of roads or roadside businesses in other parts of the country and asked to rate what they liked vs. didn't like about various photos. This feedback has guided the planners' thinking on how to design aesthetically-pleasing features.

Rob Watts, McCormack Taylor.
Mr. Watts 'stepped through' different zones of the corridor to discuss the main improvements that were being recommended in the current plan:

1. Transition zones. The look and signage would be changed in multiple transition zones at the north and south ends of the corridor to cue highway drivers (particularly trucks) that they were entering a more suburban area and needed to reduce speed.

2. Median and Sidewalks. In general, the plan is to add a median strip ("refuge" for pedestrians) and sidewalks (separated from the roadway by a narrow strip of grass/trees) on either side of US-15 from at least Rt.45/Market St. up to Wm. Penn Drive. The addition of the median will eliminate most of the existing left-turn lanes at minor intersections, but their analysis suggests that this will not have a significant negative impact on access to businesses. Three major intersections (see below) will also be improved to allow U-turns.

3. At the intersection of Beagle Club Rd/River Rd, right turn lanes will be added and/or the east end of Beagle Club may be moved north to reduce accidents from people trying to drive straight across from Beagle Club to River Rd.

4. At the "Bucknell light" (intersection of Smoketown Rd/Moore Ave.), Smoketown Rd. will be moved north so that all 4 roads enter at a 90-degree angle, 4 wide crosswalks with pedestrian countdown signals will be added to make this more of a prominent "gateway" into Bucknell.

5. Just south of the Rt.45/Market St. intersection, the north end of Stein Lane will be moved south and a right-turn lane will be added to improve safety and reduce congestion from people currently veering right onto Stein at that intersection. Also, the crosswalks here will be improved (straightened, shortened, add pedestrian countdown timers).

6. At the intersection of St. Mary St., the east side of St. Mary St. will be moved south so that all 4 roads are at 90-degree angles, and the intersection will be improved for pedestrians (wider, straight crosswalks, timers).

7. At the intersections of 4th St. and 7th St., add left turn lanes on the southbound direction to reduce accidents but block left turns from the northbound direction to eliminate the "shared bidirectional left turn lanes" that are there now and often cause head-on collisions.

8. Improve the intersection at Wm. Penn Drive for pedestrians (wider, straighter crosswalks, timers).

9. Finally, note that the engineers have not recommended adding or subtracting any existing traffic signals. However, they do recommend replacing the current signals with a 'smarter' system that has been used in Carlisle and elsewhere that includes video cameras to adjust the timing of lights and allows the signals to transmit information to each other to improve the flow of traffic through the corridor. This improvement was touted as a worthwhile investment whether or not the Central Susquehanna Valley Thruway ever gets built.

Random thoughts for September 2011

2011-09-14T15:51:00.002-04:00

One of the first rules of blogging is "stick to one topic." When several weeks go by without an entry, it gets hard to live by that rule. So, let's take a chance and wander into a few different topics on my mind that might be on your mind too, either right now or in the near political future.

Most exciting moment of the political day: Elizabeth Warren's announcement that she's running for Senate in Massachusetts.

http://www.elizabethwarren.com/announcement?sc=nat_s_ad2_b&gclid=CJ75gKjCnasCFYbD7Qod7iitfQ

Am I with her? You bet. Why wouldn't we want a fighter like Elizabeth Warren in the Senate? Unlike some others we might name, she knows how to communicate with average people about difficult topics. It's not a matter of whether I'll contribute to her campaign, but how much. Think about it!

Best recent political reading (if you have a strong stomach): Confessions of a GOP Operative who Left the Cult (preserved on AlterNet). The question becomes Yes, I'm cynical, but am I cynical enough? (with apologies to David Foster Wallace). Mike Lofgren comes across as a Republican of the Eisenhower mold and suggests that Democrats should make Eisenhower's birthday a national holiday, to remind the voters how far from Eisenhower the Republicans have drifted. (I remember Susan Eisenhower, a granddaughter I believe, speaking at the Democratic Convention in 2008.) I'm not going to get an "I LIKED IKE" button, but I do think people are starting to notice the consistent craziness coming from the Republican ranks. Which brings me to commenting on the Republican debates:

Favorite Republican debate moment: It was really two moments: Jon Huntsman saying in the Reagan Library debate that it hurts their cause when candidates ignore facts and don't pay attention to science (he's not getting nominated, obviously). Then Rick Perry compared himself to Galileo (if I understood what he was saying), because Galileo was right when the Catholic Church insisted that he was wrong, just as he (Perry) is right in siding with those scientists who argue that there is no Global Warming/Climate Change against all of those people (scientists and others) who claim it exists. (Now, if Rick Santorum had just jumped in to defend the Catholic Church on this point, that would have been even better.) Governor Galileo then argued against doing anything about climate change because of what "some people" say because it would destroy the economy and cost jobs. No mention of what it might cost "if" say, that 90% chance the IPCC talks about turns out to be right! The moderator followed up by asking what scientists who dissent from the mainstream view he respects (on the assumption that if you stand against what trained scientists--perhaps 95%--of them accept, you must be able to point to other trained scientists who think they are wrong and have carefully reasoned arguments for why they are wrong). Surprise! He couldn't name any climate scientists at all, let alone some that agreed with him that we ought to do nothing until we are "certain." This was NOT as bad as Sarah Palin not being able to name a single newspaper while claiming she read "all of them" in the infamous Katie Couric interview, but it did make him look like he was in George Bush's league--not really concerning himself with what those eggheads think.

Local issues:Obviously, the biggest local story is the flooding associated with T.S. Lee and its effects. Thankfully, the forecast that the river would reach 30 feet at Lewisburg (and corresponding heights elsewhere on the West Branch) turned out to be wrong. I haven't heard an explanation for why the forecast was raised so abruptly (perhaps because of more rain anticipated?). That would be for the specialists to look into (perhaps using science). The actual crest of less than 27 feet was far less devastating, but still devastating enough for those who got water into their living quarters.

In my mind, the issue that needs attention is communication. I heard many many people say that they had no idea what the siren meant. Where are we supposed to get information when the sirens go off? Is it a storm? A nuclear disaster? A flood? Should we just guess? The school district pushes out phone calls to everyone in less than half an hour--perhaps the emergency system needs to look at ringing phones for people known to live in flood prone areas. Facebook also proved to be a method for fast communication during the flood, but not everyone is connected to that system.

If you weren't affected by the flood, consider giving some help to someone who could still use it. Many people are still dislocated from their homes, and many will not be able to return to them. Others could just use some help getting waterlogged carpets and other items out of their basements.

From what I hear, the opening of the Buffalo Valley Rail Trail is still on track to open in early November. It will be interesting to see how fast it becomes a popular attraction, as I believe it will. I know I'll be using it!

I just saw that the League of Women Voters isn't planning an open candidates forum for the fall--not enough contested elections. Think about that whenever you interact with our local officials. They get very little reward (of any kind) for the work they put in on our behalf. We should appreciate them and help them when we can.

What stories are you thinking about?

Bottom of List- Jove's Letter

2011-08-04T21:52:00.000-04:00

Way to go Jove!

Bottom of list

Thank you for taking Congress to task over the “debt debate debacle” in your recent editorials, and particularly for “jeering” Rep. Tom Marino, who shares just as much responsibility for the fiasco as any of our lawmakers.

I hope that everyone noticed in Monday’s article that Mr. Marino’s spokesperson said he would first consult with “financial experts,” then “business leaders” and finally “district residents” before deciding how to vote.

This should tell you all you need to know about Mr. Marino’s priorities: He follows orders well, but we are not the ones giving the orders.

We are at the bottom of the list.

Jove Graham,

Lewisburg

What jsut happened- analysis of the debt ceiling vote

2011-08-03T22:07:00.002-04:00

So, the whole deal was that Obama and the Senate Dems _had_ to compromise with Boehner and he was hemmed in by the "young turks" and other uber conservative members of the house? Right?

But the final debt bill passed with many of them voting against it anyway. Many dems voted for it, I guess, out of a fear of what happened in 2008 when the house rejected the TARP and the markets fell like 700 points in a day. They did not want to get painted as irresponsible.

This helpful tool shows that even if ALL the tea party endorsed reps voted for it, it still would not have passed.
The total R yes votes was 174. The Tea Party no votes is 34. 174+34=208. Not enough.

The bill could not have passed without house dems voting for it in large numbers. And they only did that to save the economy. Meanwhile, Obama, master negotiator, gave away almost everything in a fool's quest to get those very tea party votes that DID NOT MATTER.

So, a debt deal that reeks of Tea Party priorities was passed without their total support. But, really, the core of the debt deal is about the super-conservative, Norquistian mania to destroy government. Seems like that won more than any populist anger. And it did so by letting the Tea Party extremists drive the debate despite their tepid support for the final bill.

Obama should have been trying to negotiate with the non-Tea Party Republicans.

Pat Toomey on the Debt Ceiling

2011-07-26T21:45:00.003-04:00

Like many other people today (I hope), I contacted Pat Toomey's office to basically tell him to stop messing around and raise the debt ceiling already (without trying to kill Social Security/Medicare in the process). Here is the fulltext of "his" response. I put "his" in quotes because I think it could have been generated by a Republican Party Automated Robot. The RepubliCan 2000, if you will. But at least he responded more quickly than Tom Marino.

Dear Mr. ____,

Thank you for contacting me about the debt limit. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you know, the debt limit is an important issue before Congress right now. The current limit, which was last raised in February 2010, is $14.3 trillion. Although $14.3 trillion sounds like an awfully big figure to most Americans, we have reached the limit quickly due to the record high deficits that this Administration has been running.

While Congress debates an increase in the debt limit, I believe it is important to look at what got us here. Total federal spending has doubled since 2000. In addition, recent deficits have grossly exceeded those that we were running only a few years ago. In 2007, for instance, our deficit was only 1.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This year, it will be over 9 percent of GDP. The debt already has doubled in only four years, and it is expected to triple in 11 years. The consequences of such fiscal mismanagement will be devastating to our economy and job growth, not to mention to future generations who will be saddled with debt and a government they can no longer afford.

It is clear that Washington has a serious spending problem, and both sides of the aisle are not without blame. But that said, the American people want us to finally make the tough choices necessary to get our fiscal house in order, and the debt limit debate presents a good opportunity, if not the only opportunity this Congress, to do it. I therefore value your input on this important issue.

In my view, I recognize that the debt limit will ultimately need to be raised and I have supported legislation to do so. For instance, I have cosponsored the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which the House of Representatives passed with bipartisan support on July 19, 2011. This bill, as you may know, would raise the debt ceiling by the amount the President requested in exchange for putting our nation on a path to a balanced budget. Unfortunately, on July 22, 2011, the Senate voted to defeat a motion to proceed to the House-passed version of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act (H.R. 2560). As someone who voted in favor of H.R. 2560, I am disappointed that the Senate refused to further consider legislation that would both address the debt limit issue and put our nation on sound fiscal footing.

In addition, you may be interested to know that I have introduced legislation that would protect Social Security beneficiaries, active duty military, and the full faith and credit of the United States should the President and Congress fail to raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner. It is my hope that this legislation is not necessary, but I also believe that Congress should not simply raise the debt ceiling without taking meaningful action on tackling the overspending here in Washington.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,
Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania

WGRC Interview Wrap-Up

2011-06-21T15:41:00.002-04:00

This morning, CSCC was pleased to be invited to appear on WGRC's "The Matter at Hand" radio talk show with host Larry Weidman. As chair of CSCC, I was a guest on the show along with a policy analyst from the conservative Commonwealth Foundation in Harrisburg. Audio of the show is available here, and I thought I would try and publish some of the information that CSCC prepared for the show but I didn't have time to cover.

Fact Check on Commonwealth Foundation Talking Points
Commonwealth Foundation: “This is a mobile industry that can pick up and leave.” This general argument—that higher taxes will drive companies away--sounds good at first glance, but it doesn’t actually make sense. The gas is physically located underneath the ground, and the gas companies want it. If they want our gas, they can’t go anywhere else. This is not a situation where a big store like Walmart is trying to decide whether to open a location here, or across the state border. Natural gas production is based on the physical location and size of reserves, and the price of gas which is set at a national market level. Furthermore, 29 other states have severance taxes, including our neighbor West Virginia (5.79%). In fact, West Virginia has always produced more gas than us, despite the fact they have a severance tax and we don’t. Of the five gas-producing states in the Rocky Mountains, Wyoming had the highest tax rate over the last 30 years, and it also saw the fastest growth in gas production. [Source: http://pennbpc.org/sites/pennbpc.org/files/Reality_Check_on_Emerging_Giant_Report_1.pdf]

Commonwealth Foundation: “…Pennsylvania’s high corporate tax rate….”: Over 70% of wells in PA are owned by companies registered as LLC’s which means they primarily pay the personal income tax rate of 3.07% not the corporate rate of 9.99%. In fact the 3 biggest companies, Atlas, Chesapeake and Range Resources are ALL LLC’s. In 2008, only 120 drilling companies paid corporate net income tax while 818 companies paid personal income tax. This is a statewide issue, not just for the gas industry: overall, only about 20% of corporate tax filers paid any corporate income tax in 2010. [Source: http://www.pennbpc.org/gas-drillers-escape-taxes]

Commonwealth Foundation: “the $1.1 Billion in taxes paid by the industry….”: First of all, this is a horribly-inflated number from Governor Corbett’s Department of Revenue. This is not an independently-calculated number. It includes every possible thing they could think of related to drilling, not just the taxes paid by those who would pay a severance tax. It includes the income taxes paid by their employees, it includes sales tax collected from their customers, and it includes taxes paid by pipeline operators and sand suppliers that would be paying taxes anyway even if the industry weren’t here. The point is that drillers themselves pay few taxes in PA. [Source: http://www.pennbpc.org/department-revenue-analysis-goes-well-beyond-taxes-paid-drillers]

Second of all, just because someone pays one tax doesn’t normally mean they get a free pass on other taxes. If I go buy a CD and pay sales tax on it, does that mean I get out of paying my gasoline taxes? So the fact that they pay “some” taxes isn’t an argument against a severance tax.

Finally, $1 billion sounds like a huge impressive number, sure. But let’s say, hypothetically, that I paid $1000 in state income tax last year. Can you tell me if I paid my fair share or not? No, you would have to know what my income was, what that’s a percentage of. So what is $1 billion compared to the total income of the industry over that time period? That number is unknown.

Commonwealth Foundation: “A severance tax hurts Pennsylvania citizens directly, because a lease splits tax obligations between drilling companies and landowners.” This is an intentionally vague statement that I believe is intended to scare people into thinking we want to “hurt” landowners by advocating for a severance tax. For better or worse, there is no “standard” lease in Pennsylvania. You cannot make any blanket statements about what a lease does or does not do: it depends completely on the lease agreement signed between a landowner and a gas company. At very worst, the landowner would see their royalty payments reduced by a proportionate share of the drilling tax. If the tax were 5%, then their royalties would be cut by 5%. If you are willing to sign a lease, with the expectation that you might get $1 million in royalty payments, are you not going to sign if you will only get $950,000? Most leases already often allow things like treatment and production costs and transportation costs to be deducted, all of which take a MUCH bigger bite out of royalty checks.

Commonwealth Foundation: “The state oversight for drilling is entirely funded through natural gas permits.” We can find no evidence to support the claim that it’s “entirely” funded. A natural gas well permit costs something like $3600, and that money goes toward the cost of inspections. However, the DEP is responsible for many other activities (air quality monitoring, erosion control, groundwater protection) that are not funded at all by drilling permits. Even simpler than that, though, there’s the fact that the number of inspectors aren’t keeping up with the number of wells being drilled. If you have more wells, and the same number of inspectors, that means you have less oversight.

Whenever anyone brings up the issue of regulation, those who oppose a severance tax act as if we are insulting the DEP or saying they are bad at their jobs. We are not saying that. They are doing their best, but to handle an industry that has grown exponentially, they need additional staff, they need additional support and resources and the severance tax would ensure they have those resources.

The Commonwealth Foundation also said, “Pennsylvania has very strict environmental laws.” That may be true, but laws do not magically enforce themselves. If we had the strictest criminal laws in PA, could we fire all of the police and judges? The departments that are supposed to be monitoring the industry and protecting us need resources to operate at increased capacity, and they are facing a larger workload than ever before, directly as a result of the natural gas industry. It is having an impact that permits and other current taxes do not “cover.”

Commonwealth Foundation: “The industry has paid $200 million for road repair... one landowner had his road repaired by the gas company on Easter morning.” First, $200 million is a large impressive number, but how does it compare to the actual cost of road repair? The fact is that local governments can require drillers to post bonds of up to $12,000 per road mile to help pay for damage. But this amount hasn’t been adjusted in 30 years, and township supervisors have been quoted as saying that it can cost over $100,000 per road mile to replace some of these roadways. Second of all, it is great to hear anecdotes about gas companies fixing particular roads, even “on Easter morning.” However, there are many other local officials who say the roads are being destroyed by the water truck trips and the bonds the drillers must take out are insufficient for real repair. They weren’t designed for such heavy traffic. The people living in these communities--and anyone living near a road that the trucks use to get in and out of Pennsylvania—have to deal with increased traffic congestion, and more traffic means more accidents, plain and simple. Also, the trucks don’t magically appear and disappear when they get to the end of those bonded roads near the well sites. We’ve got more heavy trucks on the state and interstate roads as well.

More importantly, isolated stories do not reassure us that that all gas companies are always going to do the right thing, or that they’ll be around to do the right thing when it counts, even if they wanted to. Compare our situation now with the coal industry. Coal mining activity peaked in Pennsylvania in 1918 and some communities are still paying the costs of companies that are long gone. Millions have been spent to address abandoned mine problems, and there are problems with polluted streams and unreclaimed mine land that would cost billions of dollars to fix. Having a severance tax is about supporting the long-term interests of Pennsylvania residents. The drillers’ goal is to quickly make as much money as possible. Fine, that is just the nature of their business. But as soon as the gas is gone, the drillers will be gone, too. Our business (citizens and lawmakers) should be to see that the people of Pennsylvania are not stuck with footing a huge bill as the industry heads out the exit doors.

Final thought:
The Corbett administration, some of our lawmakers, and the Commonwealth Foundation are out-of-step with both the people of Pennsylvania AND even with the industry itself. The Director of Corporate Communications for Chesapeake Energy Corporation, the largest drilling company in our state, has been quoted as saying, "We gladly pay a severance tax in every state where we’re active, except New York and Pennsylvania." Gladly. Why shouldn't they? They are used to paying this tax in 29 other states. A public poll released one week ago by Quinnipiac University found that 69% of Pennsylvania voters, including 69% of Republicans polled, support this tax. Our lawmakers need to step up, and institute a real severance tax (not the 1% tax in the current version of the Scarnati bill) that creates a fair playing field and pays for the impacts of this industry.

WGRC Radio Interview Tomorrow

2011-06-20T21:40:00.003-04:00

Also, we wanted to let everyone know that CSCC was invited to appear on WGRC's "The Matter at Hand" radio talk show tomorrow, June 21, at 11:00 a.m. I will be talking about the Tax Fracking Now! petition, and someone from the conservative Commonwealth Foundation will be appearing as well. We hope you can tune in (91.3FM in Lewisburg, or live streaming via the web at wgrc.com).

"TFN!" Petition: Final Tally & Delivery Report

2011-06-20T21:37:00.003-04:00

714! In just two weeks, we collected a total of 714 signatures from Pennsylvania citizens (plus a few out-of-staters) demanding that our elected representatives enact a severance tax on the natural gas industry in PA. That includes approximately 500 signatures in our local state house district and state senate district.

We can't thank everyone enough--for signing, for volunteering your time, and for helping us to spread the word. We met a lot of new faces in downtown Lewisburg, people who "read about it in the paper and just had to make a special trip." This was truly a 'bipartisan' effort, too--the message we heard over and over was that, regardless of your age or political party, it just doesn't make any sense not to tax an industry that will have such a large impact on our state, our air & water, and our roads. We also heard a lot of outrage over the fact that the school budgets were being slashed while the state refuses to tax gas companies.

Here is just a sample of the comments made:

"Long overdue!"
"Let's keep & protect Pennsylvania as we know it."
"I want my kids to be able to enjoy all of PA's natural resources."
"I'm not in favor of fracking, but if it is going to be allowed, we should tax the companies who are profiting from it."
"This is the very least you can do."
"For once, can we engage in a little long-range thinking?"

CSCC has now delivered the petition to 2 out of its 3 intended targets. We wanted to give you a short update on how those meetings went.

PA Sen. Gene Yaw (R-23)

On Tuesday June 7, we met with Curtis Fay, legislative assistant to Senator Yaw, at the UC Government Center in Lewisburg for approximately 40 minutes. (The Daily Item was there and covered the story here.) The good news was that Sen. Yaw claims to be in favor of what he calls an "impact fee" of some sort and "not opposed" to a severance tax. The bad news is that he would like to see a bill (like one he introduced himself) where almost all of the revenue stays at the local government level which would not allow funds to be used for statewide environmental protection or infrastructure. He refers to Harrisburg as a "black hole" where money would disappear. We did our best to emphasize the point with Mr. Fay that we're not opposed to some of the money going to help local governments, but the money should be divided up with at least a third going towards environmental protection as many other states have done.

PA House Rep. Fred Keller (R-85)

On Friday June 10, we met with Rep. Keller himself in his Mifflinburg office for approximately 90 minutes. The good news (besides the fact that he gave us that much time) is that he said he "agrees with the general principle that those who profit from the common good owe it to compensate those who are hurt, damaged or abused in the process." The bad news is that he basically would not commit to anything beyond that. He said he didn't agree with a moratorium, that we needed better regulation enforcement, and that he would "consider all options before supporting anything."

Governor Tom Corbett (R)

On May 31, we called the governor's office to schedule an appointment, and were told that he only accepted written or faxed requests. On June 1, we faxed a meeting request. On Wednesday June 15, we emailed because we'd received no reply. On Thursday June 16, we received a message saying, "Your request has been forwarded to the Governor's Office of Scheduling and Advancement for their review and consideration. You should expect to receive a response from a staff member in that office in the near future." We will keep trying until we get through!

UPDATE: "Tax Fracking Now" Petition Hits 464

2011-05-25T21:36:00.002-04:00

464! In just over a week, 464 citizens have signed our petition to enact a "fracking" severance tax on the natural gas drilling companies. We know how urgent it is to let our representatives hear that message, so we will be collecting signatures for just one more weekend. Then, we'll deliver those signatures to our state legislators and the governor so that they hear the message loud and clear.

If you haven't signed already, please do it now! Or if you know someone who needs to sign, please let them know! Our online petition is here:

http://signon.org/sign/tax-fracking-now-1

Or, we'll also be collecting signatures in person one more time, this Saturday in front of the Lewisburg Post Office from 10am-12pm. Last Saturday was a great success--we had several people who read about the petition in the paper and made a special trip just to sign! Special thanks also to wonderful volunteers who took sheets home to their businesses, or went door-to-door in their communities this week.

We can't thank everyone enough for the support--we're almost done and ready to make your voice heard!

CSCC Announces "Tax Fracking Now!" Petition

2011-05-16T10:45:00.000-04:00

CSCC needs your help.

Almost all gas-producing states impose a severance tax of some kind on natural gas drilling to help pay for oversight and cleanup, because once the resource is gone, it's gone--and hydrofracturing can leave behind serious damage just as the coal industry did. A "frack tax" will make sure that Pennsylvania has the resources to respond to these challenges.

So CSCC has created a petition in support of levying this tax on the gas drilling companies. This is not a typical online petition. We, the CSCC Steering Committee, will collect as many signatures as we can--both online and in-person in Lewisburg--and then personally deliver copies to State Rep. Keller, State Senator Yaw, and Governor Corbett in Harrisburg.

The petition says:
"We call on Pennsylvania's legislature and governor to enact a severance tax on gas extracted from the Marcellus Shale to help pay for effective regulatory oversight of hydrofracturing operations, proper cleanup of any environmental damage, and repair of roads and other infrastructure affected by drilling operations. This tax should be paid by the natural gas drilling companies, and portions of these funds must go to local and county governments and to environmental protection and remediation."

Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://signon.org/sign/tax-fracking-now-1?source=c.em.mt&r_by=159814

As of today, the PA Budget & Policy Center estimates that Pennsylvania has lost $186 million by not enacting a severance tax. Please help us spread the word! Feel free to forward, post or tweet this link to anyone in Pennsylvania who is concerned about the effects of drilling.

Tax on Natural Gas - Who Pays the Taxes?

2011-04-28T16:33:00.004-04:00

Who pays the taxes on natural gas production in PA? Mostly, the answer seems to be: the landowners and not the gas companies. Unless something is done.

As reported in a recent CSCC email, several state legislators (mostly from the GOP) have touted the idea of taxing the gross value of gas at the wellhead "to pay for the economic impact of the shale drilling." Their proposal is an alternative suggestion to a severance tax that would be paid by the gas companies (as it is in 38 other states). Their idea has even been advertised in headlines such as "GOP legislators back bill to tax gas drilling." However, it is important for people to realize that this kind of tax would be on the landowners, not the gas companies. State Sen. Chuck McIlhenny (R-10) has said, "It comes out of the royalties."

Our own state senator (Gene Yaw) has discussed a similar tax. His argument is that gas companies would just pass on the cost of a severance tax by paying smaller royalties anyway, but the math just doesn't add up, does it? Let's just imagine that right now, companies were paying landowners a royalty equal to 20% of their (after-tax) profits. For every $1000 of profit, the gas companies would pay the landowner $200. Now what would happen if we instituted a 10% severance tax? (The current State House proposal is actually more like 7.3%.) Gas companies would pay $100 to the state and... $180 to the landowners. So yes, the landowner has gotten 18% of (pre-tax) profits instead of 20%, and lost $20. But the state now has $100, and the gas company has paid $280 instead of $200. They can't possibly "pass on the [full] cost of a severance tax to the landowner" so that argument just doesn't make sense. Does it make sense to anyone else?

What about corporate income taxes? The PA Budget and Policy Center (PBPC) has published an excellent summary titled, "Fact Check on Marcellus Shale and Severance Taxes." It points out that over 70% of wells are owned by companies that incorporate as partnerships or limited liability companies (LLCs), so they pay the 3.07% personal income tax rate on profits, rather than the 9.99% corporate net income tax rate. Most other states impose both corporate taxes and severance taxes.

What about property taxes? The same article by the PBPC says that "companies don’t pay property taxes on gas reserves." I asked Michael Wood, Research Director of the PBPC for more information about this. He writes:

Property taxes for surface properties are paid by the owner. So if a farmer leases land to a driller, the surface area is taxed, and paid for by the farmer. If a drilling company owns a building, they pay the property taxes on the building and the land it sits on.

When you get to the gas reserves, it is a different story. These haven't been taxable since 2002, but when they were, the tax was paid by the drilling companies. The property taxes on reserves are based on the production that has come out of the reserve over the past 5 or so years...depends on how the "assessment" is done. So, if there were a property tax on reserves in PA (which only requires a law from the Legislature authorizing such taxation), the drillers would pay it.

If the lease with the landowner allows the driller to deduct certain costs (transportation of the gas to market, processing to get the gas in sellable condition, and taxes), a portion of the tax would be "passed on" to the landowners in the form of lower royalty payments. That entirely depends on how the leases are drawn up. Drillers like to include those clauses in their leases, as it cuts their royalty payments. We don't have a good figure on what percentage of leases in effect have such provisions, but it is likely most of them.

Why Republicans in the House are vulnerable in 2012

2011-04-19T13:13:00.002-04:00

Republican support in the House for the Ryan plan, which basically ends the current Medicare plan, is a huge gamble. Rep. Marino made some inroads in the last election by pointing out that Rep. Carney had supported a five hundred million dollar "cut" in Medicare. (Actually, it was a planned reduction in the future GROWTH of Medicare spending--a distinction even Ronald Reagan understood when he talked about budgets.) Now the House Republicans, with only Ron Paul (!) and a handful of others as exceptions, have voted for the Ryan plan (perhaps assuming that no one will ever look to see what's actually in the plan, since it is so unlikely to become law). Something tells me that we will be hearing a lot more about Medicare before November 2012.

To read more:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/15/6479275-the-gops-big-gamble

Do we need an AMT for corporations?

2011-04-18T11:00:00.005-04:00

Given what we've learned about how corporations (like GE) can make huge profits but pay no taxes (even getting rebates in some cases), how about an alternative minimum tax for corporations? That would take away some of the incentive to game the system to the point of absurdity.

Newest villain: Paul Ryan

2011-04-13T12:57:00.002-04:00

Paul Ryan is the John Roberts of the budget battle ahead. For those who pay attention only superficially, he's a serious, sincere, good-looking guy with proposal to solve our problems. He says nice things about freedom and making America as great a place for our grandchildren as it was for us. But, of course, there's more to the story. Give more tax cuts to the rich, slash spending on social programs, exempt the Defense Department (and the Defense industry) from any of the cost-cutting, give up on controlling health care costs and get the federal government out of the Medicare business. Oh, and repeal the Wall Street reforms of 2011. That's the deeper outlines of what he's proposing, which is why most Republicans are not eager to endorse it, exactly, lest the public discover what is really in it. E. J. Dionne believes that moderates will soon be moving toward the side of progressives, and he makes a strong case. Simpson and Bowles of the deficit commission are already moving subtly in that direction, and noted deficit hawk Kent Conrad has done the same. Now, if only the public can be convinced that Paul Ryan is not what he appears to be.

2011-03-24T09:33:00.002-04:00

Makes Me Mad... short comments on news, punditry or other nuggets of conventional wisdom make me mad enough to stop hollering at the radio/tv/newspaper/screen and write.

Cross-Posted at Spilling Ink.

I don't know if the military operations in Libya is a good idea or not. But in favor or against, I wish the conventional wisdom would give up on the mania over "mission objectives" or "end game." This is offered up as serious critique of Obama's decision to start a new war. We either see this as a concern or criticism from politicians, or embedded in news articles without any attribution which reinforces the sense that it is an unquestionably valid point.

Here is my objection: wars are messy, complex events. The mania over a defined mission is some sort of collective learned response to Viet Nam. That war is commonly seen as a mistake because it went on too long and their was mission drift from supporting the South Vietnamese government (which we either directly or indirectly installed. Sorry, no time to make myself a SE Asia expert this morning). Hence, since then, Presidents, congressional leaders, and paid pundits want every conflict or war defined in terms of "mission objectives" and "end games." As if this is a board game or a shopping list with discrete boxes we can tick off and then "go home."

Here are some US-led or US-involved military missions that I would like to know what the "mission objectives" are which, once we ding the bell and get the gold star, we can imagine withdrawing and no longer being involved.

The Korean peninsula

The "War on Drugs" in South and Central America

Afghanistan (did it start in 1979 or 2003?)

Iraq

The Global War on Terror

Patrolling the Red Sea against Pirates

Taiwan

Military/Intelligence Drone operations in Yemen, Pakistan and who knows where else?

My point? As Tolstoy described it in War and Peace, and I am paraphrasing, war is only clear when seen from the lofty armchair of those not involved. On the ground it is fog, murk, rattle, and crash. It is a foolish to act as if there are clean and discrete wars on the one hand and murky, protracted ones with unknowable, uncertain outcomes down the road. They are all murky, liable to be long, and chock full of uncertainty.

I wish our public conversation could start at that point instead of the public relations blitz that this war is going to be different. Maybe, maybe, we could then have a more honest conversation about what our gold and blood are paying for.

Young father to bike to Harrisburg to meet with Corbett

2011-03-08T14:11:00.002-05:00

“The Corbett administration's actions for the gas industry are out of control.”

Pine Grove Mills, PA. On Wednesday, March 9, Peter Buckland will ride his bike 110 miles from his home in Pine Grove Mills (Centre County) to Harrisburg to arrange a meeting with the Governor. Peter is a PhD candidate in the PSU College of Education and the father of a 3 year old son. He plans to arrive in Harrisburg by about 1 p.m., in time to participate in a protest being organized by Penn Environment, that will be held at the Capitol Forum.

Immediately afterward he will go to the Governor’s office to personally deliver his written request for a meeting. Peter says, “I will do this in person, with some insistence, instead of through the faceless email system or fax system. My point is to put another real face to this. Unlike the gas industry, we don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy access to the governor but he HAS to talk with us, he is OUR governor."

Up to this point Buckland has attended a few environmental protests, but is now compelled to activism on a higher level, saying “The Corbett administration's actions for the gas industry are out of control. Yanking the DCNR's ability to assess potential impacts on state land and gutting the DEP's ability to monitor air quality from drilling sites pushed me to this point.. For me this is very personal because I spend hundreds of hours in Rothrock, Bald Eagle, Moshannon, Sproul, and Tioga on my mountain bike, on hikes and camping.”

Buckland believes that the governor needs to reinstate the former DCNR policy that would limit new drilling and that he must impose a severance tax on the natural gas industry. He adds, “It is also about the quality of our water and air and my hopes and fears as a father. As a citizen of this commonwealth, the commonwealth's government should help me and my fellow common people to reach the common good. I will ride even if it rains or snows.”

Buckland invites those at the rally to join him afterward as he delivers his meeting request to the Governor. Other concerned citizens from around around the state have already agreed to join
him. He encourages others to submit their own meeting requests on Wednesday.

Peter Buckland can be reached at peter.evolves@gmail.com

Notes from Marcellus Shale/Severance Tax Panel

2011-03-04T00:40:00.003-05:00

Several CSCC members (myself included) attended tonight’s Bucknell Institute for Public Policy forum on the topic of the Marcellus Shale and severance taxes. The speakers were State House Representative Rick Marabito (D-83) and State Senator Gene Yaw (R-23). I took some notes, and wanted to share some of the highlights of what was said.

Overview
Mr. Marabito gave a prepared speech, drawing analogies with coal industry, emphasizing impacts & costs of drilling, emphasizing the fact that 38 other states have severance tax, and outlining policy vs. political concerns. Mr. Yaw gave a rebuttal to many of Mr. Marabito’s points, said industry was not getting a “free ride,” and claimed that PA already had “highest taxes” and “the strongest environmental regulations” of any state.

The crowd (large, but not filled to capacity) was generally vocal and showed much hostility towards Mr. Yaw. They listened politely to Mr. Marabito and applauded at the end, whereas audience members responded to several of Mr. Yaw’s statements as he made them. He made an unfortunate choice to begin his speech with a rhetorical question which may have prompted some of this response. Several times, he asked audience members to be quiet and complained to the moderator. (One particular example was when a questioner was, rather harshly, asking him to state how much he had received in campaign donations from the industry, and how much business his law firm did with industry clients.)

With all due respect to the senator, he did himself a particular disservice by: (a) claiming he had “no idea” how much the industry had contributed to him, and told people to “look it up” on a website; and (b) commented that the personal tax rate in PA was “something like 3.2%.” (This may be picky, but as someone who just filed his income taxes, I thought a state legislator ought to know the tax rate is 3.07% and has been since 2003.) Both gentlemen made statements without directly referencing sources (I’ve noted these below), but Mr. Yaw repeatedly stated beliefs that the gas industry was being unfairly singled out, and that we needed to entice companies to come to PA (as opposed to companies coming here because of the physical location of the gas), which was disappointing.

Below is a summary of the statements they made; most of these are not direct quotes, and I apologize for any errors or omissions. I did not take as good notes during the Q&A period, other than the ones mentioned above.

Rick Marabito:
Said the Marcellus Shale offered an “awesome opportunity,” but that we have an “awesome responsibility” as well.

Emphasized importance of distinguishing between policy issues and politics issues related to severance tax.

Prefers to call severance tax an “impact fee” because drilling will impact the community in three major ways:
1. Infrastructure (roads, bridges)
2. Environment (soil, water, air)
3. Social relations (population growth will require additional public services)

Because well sites are off the beaten path, we don’t think about them. All businesses and individuals should recognize that there are costs associated with drilling. Gas companies are responsible for these impacts, so they should contribute to costs. If we don’t have an impact fee, costs will be borne by other businesses and taxpayers. For 150 years, there was no tax on coal industry and we are still cleaning up from it.

38 other states impose a severance tax. When we buy gas from other states, we pay their severance tax. When we sell out of state, the cost of the severance tax will be passed onto the end-use where it belongs.

PA Budget and Policy Center estimates we have lost $145M so far by not acting and establishing a severance tax.

If we impose a severance tax, there is concern about where money goes. We would like revenue to stay in local area, but negotiations in legislature will be needed. Most legislators (in House) are from southeastern PA; they will argue that money should go to general fund for fairness.

Lobbying is also a problem in Harrisburg. PA is 1 of 11 states that don’t limit campaign contributions. Natural gas companies gave $2.85M to PA legislators from 2001-10. Emphasized that just because people accept a contribution doesn’t mean they act one certain way; he disclosed that he received donations from 2 gas companies for approximately $1000.

Closing thoughts: Polls [source?] show 60-70% of public is in favor of tax. Many people talk about adopting Arkansas tax model (a delayed tax), but ex-governor of Arkansas made statement last month that he believes Arkansas was hurt by that and should increase tax. Push legislators to do the right thing, and not let us fall into the same cycle as what happened with the coal industry. “If a severance fee is good enough for Texas, why isn’t it good enough for Pennsylvania?

Gene Yaw:
Opened with a rhetorical question, “Why do you think a severance tax would be paid by the gas industry?” which led to an uncomfortable silence, then some responses from audience which devolved into some back-and-forth and Mr. Yaw asking people to let him speak. Claimed that severance tax would just be a production cost, passed onto landowners.

Idea that gas industry was getting a “free ride” was "false." “Studies” [source?] say that severance tax would make us the highest taxed place in the world. Gas companies paid $1 billion in taxes in the past year [source?]. Texas is lowering their severance tax rate [source?] because they are afraid drillers will leave and move to PA.

Mr. Marabito’s analogy with coal was unfair, because during coal boom, we did not have the EPA, DEP, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act or other environmental protections.
If we enact a severance tax, money will go into a “black hole” in Harrisburg where legislators stand in line for handouts, and money will not come back to local community. In 2002, state supreme court ruled that gas wells were not subject to tax. Has introduced a bill that will correct that but allow localities, not the state, to tax wells.

Closing thoughts: We’ve enticed other businesses to come here; why not do the same with the gas industry?

Marcellus Shale/Severance Tax Panel

2011-03-02T22:44:00.003-05:00

Tomorrow night (Thurs, Mar 3, 7:30pm, LC Forum @ Bucknell), the Bucknell Institute for Public Policy is hosting a forum to discuss the issue of severance taxes (which currently don't exist in PA) and the Marcellus Shale with speakers PA State Senator Gene Yaw (R) and PA State House Rep. Rick Marabito (D).

The following information is set to be mailed out tomorrow a.m. to the CSCC list, but I thought I'd also post it here. It's a collection of key facts and suggested questions for the speakers (mostly Mr. Yaw, since he's our representative) that I hope will inspire more. For more in-depth research and analysis, I'd recommend the PA Budget & Policy Center's website at http://www.pennbpc.org/severance-tax

Key Facts:

The 14 states with greater natural gas production than PA have severance taxes, and they have booming industries that have grown at an average of 5% per year since 2004.
During the recent recession, the states with severance taxes fared better than those without because of high energy prices generating significant tax revenue.
Natural gas drilling generates predictable costs to the state (new roads, road reconstruction, bridge repair) and unpredictable costs (environmental hazard cleanup, emergency medical services, additional environmental inspection and testing). Severance tax revenue in other states is often shared with local governments to recoup these costs.
PA's proposed tax (in the House-passed bill) is an effective 7.3% tax rate, which is comparable to or lower than Montana (7.9%), New Mexico (8.4%), Wyoming (10.2%) and West Virginia (5.8%).
Studies in western states have shown that companies go where the gas is located, and that different tax rates in different states have little impact on their decisions.
PA gas is going to be more profitable because wells are cheaper to drill than in other shale formations, the reserves are larger, and PA is closer to the northeastern market.
PA already exempts the drilling industry from property taxes, taxes on drilling equipment, and most companies (LLCs) pay the lower Personal Income Tax rates instead of the corporate tax rates.
The drilling industry often cites a 2008 "Penn State Report" that claimed a severance tax would reduce drilling activity by 30%. This report was the work of two professors, one who has left Penn State, and was funded by the Marcellus Shale Coalition (an industry trade group), a fact that was never originally disclosed by the authors. Dean Easterling of Penn State has since said that there were "flaws in the way the report was written and presented to the public," and suggested "the authors may well have crossed the line between policy analysis and policy advocacy." The PA Budget and Policy Center, a Harrisburg-based nonpartisan group has said the report overstates the 30% figure, overstates industry tax impacts and economic impacts, and doesn't disclose its mathematical modeling assumptions so that they could be reviewed by other experts, so it basically serves the narrow financial interests of its funder, the gas industry.

Fracking puts PA drinking water at risk

2011-02-27T14:33:00.003-05:00

From the New York Times:

Other documents and interviews show that many E.P.A. scientists are alarmed, warning that the drilling waste is a threat to drinking water in Pennsylvania. Their concern is based partly on a 2009 study, never made public, written by an E.P.A. consultant who concluded that some sewage treatment plants were incapable of removing certain drilling waste contaminants and were probably violating the law.

Bottom line: we can't believe industry assurances that there is no threat to our drinking water.

The need for health insurance reform

2011-02-21T16:33:00.005-05:00

If we need a reminder about why health insurance reform was necessary, this is a good one. If a wealthy computer company owner with no chronic conditions has to struggle to get decent and affordable coverage, the system doesn't work. I like the suggestion that our representatives should have to go buy their own coverage. (Recall the new Republican rep who didn't think he should have to wait one month for his public coverage to kick in.)

Toomey is NOT De Mint's Lapdog?

2011-01-06T04:11:00.002-05:00

According to the NYT, Toomey is a new kind of Republican Freshman- a moderate?

The evidence- he supported repeal of DADT and he was neutral on the Obama-Republican tax deal/compromise/capitulation. And he had Susan Collins at a fund-raiser even though she is pro-choice. Overwhelming evidence.

On the side that he is a free market ideologue: he was president of Club for Growth whose idea of the best economy is somewhere around 1870 when the railroads owned the country and unions could be dealt with by Pinkerton's thugs. He does not "believe" in climate change. He wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He wants to privatize social security (which went GREAT for Chile for example). He mocks sensible gun legislation ("My idea of gun control is steady aim.").

He is clearly an experienced politician. He won 51% of PA's vote. He wants to get re-elected. I won't hold my breath that he will resuscitate the moderate wing of the Republican party which looks more like a few limp chicken feathers than a wing these days.

Polis Sci 101 and 102

2010-12-11T16:21:00.002-05:00

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

2010-11-17T05:07:00.000-05:00

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

2010-11-12T12:48:00.003-05:00

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

2010-11-05T09:39:00.004-04:00

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?

2010-11-03T08:48:00.002-04:00

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

2010-10-21T13:03:00.009-04:00

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?

2010-10-15T09:37:00.002-04:00

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

2010-09-23T13:36:00.003-04:00

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

2010-08-30T22:36:00.001-04:00

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

2010-08-18T17:15:00.002-04:00

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

2010-07-08T11:26:00.002-04:00

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

2010-07-03T23:22:00.002-04:00

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

2010-06-25T06:11:00.003-04:00

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

2010-06-04T09:41:00.003-04:00

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

2010-05-19T09:48:00.005-04:00

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

2010-05-06T22:45:00.004-04:00

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?

2010-04-15T14:24:00.004-04:00

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

2010-03-28T14:47:00.004-04:00

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

2010-03-19T10:08:00.003-04:00

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

2010-03-18T14:59:00.002-04:00

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

2010-03-17T12:24:00.002-04:00

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

2010-02-11T13:09:00.003-05:00

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

2010-01-29T11:11:00.003-05:00

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!

LARA, Rails to Trails, and the Daily Item

2009-12-18T03:35:00.002-05:00

I should be writing to the Daily Item, but they have already published a reply to their stories about the Union County Commissioners's most recent meeting. But here goes.

First, the Daily Item published a story reporting on comments from Preston Boop speculating on what might happen at the next meeting of the Union County Commissioners. But it was the coverage on December 16 that the DI really ought to reconsider. I have no problem with their publishing a picture of Yvonne Morgan wearing a pig hat to the meeting. Who wouldn't? It was obviously a good bit of political theater. I do have a problem with this passage:

But it was Morgan’s personal attacks against Showers and Republican Commissioner John Mathias that cast a pall over Tuesday’s meeting from the get-go.

“Commissioner Showers is the husband of a trust-fund child. He may not know what financial struggle is,” Morgan wrote as she called into question Showers’ and Mathias’ financial judgment in considering allowing the county to take over the Lewisburg Area Recreation Authority’s Rail Trail. “John Mathias has financial means to weather the economic storm. Most of us do not.”

That may not include Morgan, the wife of Evangelical Community Hospital general surgeon James Morgan, who also sits on the hospital’s board of directors.

Take a good look at that last sentence. It looks like The Daily Item simply turns Yvonne Morgan's tactic (of drawing inferences based on who someone is married to) back on her. It's not relevant to the story, and it diverts attention from the issues that journalists ought to be looking at. (Note: if this was said by someone at the meeting, it would be relevant, but that's not the way it's reported.) It's legitimate to report on the emotions of the meeting, but it's not okay to try to stoke them.

Ultimately, the story ought to be about the merit and wisdom of the project: what do the economic impact studies say, and what do economists who understand such things think about their accuracy? Is there public support for the project in the county as (I believe) there is in the Lewisburg area? What has been the experience of other communities and areas that have put in Rails to Trails system? Finally, is there a strong argument that the county should be interested in the project, or are the potential costs prohibitive? I understand that the DI can't send reporters around the country, but in the age of e-mail, is it that hard to get enough information to write a story about similar projects in other rural areas?

But even if the DI doesn't want to do any background reporting about the project itself, here's what might interest me: Has Yvonne Morgan ever been a public official? How long has she been chair of the Republican Committe in Union County? Does she seem to understand the issues, or is her opposition simply a matter of basic principle (no federal money for any projects)?

Further: What are the known costs associated with a rails to trails system and how much burden might they place on the county and taxpayers? What's the current plan for funding over the long haul? As far as I've seen, the DI has not taken on any of these questions. So here's an idea for the next issue of the Williamsport Guardian: where rails to trails paths have gone in, what has been the result? Have these projects been a net positive or a negative in various locations and why?

I realize that some citizens are opposed to the Rails to Trails project on principle because of the use of federal funds. I respect that and understand the point. Federal requirements mean that the trail will need a larger initial investment than it otherwise might (because of federal standards). I don't see anyone stepping forward with ideas about how to get a trail up and running without those funds, however. Because I think a trail here that is flat, scenic, and convenient would significantly enhance life in many ways, including economically through increased visitors to the valley, I'd like to see that trail built. But first we're going to have to focus on the merits, not on the sideshow.

No mandate without a public option

2009-12-16T11:44:00.004-05:00

FINALLY--somebody gets it. Below is today's e-mail from Jim Dean and Democracy for America, the grassroots group founded by his brother Howard in 2004. Candidate Obama said he didn't support a mandate, and Pres. Obama ought to veto any bill with a mandate that doesn't get serious about controlling costs. I keep coming to the same conclusion: get a bill that works, not a hollow (and short-lived) political victory. It's nice to see someone on my side. Here's my favorite part:

Without the choice of a public option, forcing Americans to buy health insurance isn't just bad policy, it's political disaster for Democrats -- a ticking time-bomb for years to come.

Way to go Jim. Now talk to your brother!

______
from DFA:

Loren -

I'll get straight to the point. If Democrats remove the choice of a public option, they can't force Americans to buy health insurance.

Here's the deal, Senate leaders are all over Washington claiming they finally have a healthcare reform bill they can pass, as long as they remove the public option. After all, they say, even without a public option, the bill still "covers 30 million more Americans." The problem is that's not really true.

What they are actually talking about is something called the "individual mandate." That's a section of the law that requires every single American buy health insurance or break the law and face penalties and fines. So, the bill doesn't actually "cover" 30 million more Americans -- instead it makes them criminals if they don't buy insurance from the same companies that got us into this mess.

A public option would have provided the competition needed to drive down costs and improve coverage. It would have kept insurance companies honest by providing an affordable alternative Americans can trust. That's why, without a public option, this bill is almost a trillion dollar taxpayer giveaway to insurance companies.

We must act fast. Both Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic Senators need to hear from you. Please stop whatever else you are doing and make the calls right now.

Senator Harry Reid
DC: (202) 224-3542
Carson City: (775) 882-7343
Las Vegas: (702) 388-5020
Reno: (775) 686-5750

Call your Democratic Senator too -- Senate Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

REPORT YOUR CALL AND TELL US HOW IT WENT

Without the choice of a public option, forcing Americans to buy health insurance isn't just bad policy, it's political disaster for Democrats -- a ticking time-bomb for years to come.

Does anyone think Republicans won't use this against Democrats in 2010?

What about in 2014 after the mandate goes into effect and the press reports all the horror stories of Americans forced to choose between paying their monthly health insurance bill to Aetna or paying rent?

The mandate is toxic and Democrats will own it. By the 2016 presidential election, is there any wonder how this will play out for Democrats?

CALL SENATOR HARRY REID NOW AT (202) 224-3542 THEN REPORT YOUR CALL HERE

The message is simple: No public option? No Mandate!

Thank you for everything you do,

-Jim

Jim Dean, Chair
Democracy for America

Which way now on health care?

2009-12-15T09:46:00.002-05:00

The health care debate (that's seems like too generous a term) has been tough to stomach. Now we seem to be left with no attractive options. E. J. Dionne argues one extreme: cut a deal asap.

MoveOn.org and others are still rallying their members to keep on the pressure to keep a strong public option alive in the Senate.

What's most galling is that Joe Lieberman and a couple others are able to derail what the public supports and what most senators support. With nearly 60 votes in the Senate, the Democrats should be able to do better. Howard Dean is out there fighting on, but it's getting harder and harder to believe that any final bill will involve have real cost controls if there's no real competition to private insurance.

We already spend far more than other countries and get worse results (based on the findings of Kaiser Family Foundation and many others). I'm for health care for all, but not for unregulated private insurance forced upon all. If Medicare expansion is on the table, perhaps Medicare reform and expansion down to age 55 could happen together. We could also pass the pre-existing condition reforms and some of the other insurance reforms. We should not accept a cynical compromise that will make insurance less affordable and therefore less available. (Then when it fails the conservatives can argue, See, it didn't work as promised.) And states must be allowed to experiment with other models, including single-payer.

I'm starting to wonder if Dems should let the Republicans vote down a reasonable proposal (with supporting votes from Lieberman and a handful of others) and then go to the voters in 2010 arguing that the party of NO means NO health care reform in spite of what the voters said in the 2008 election. In spite of all appearances, I think that's a fight Pres. Obama would like to have.

So, my question: what do you think the Dems should do now? Compromise and take what they can get in order to build momentum for the rest of Pres. Obama's agenda? Fight on, realizing that Republicans might be able to block progress indefinitely? Try to find a way around potential filibuster in the Senate?

Right now, I think taking a compromise bill that might lead to overall failure of the reforms would be a mistake. Fight for something that will work, not for something that has little chance of fixing the system (and that won't kick in for three or four years anyway).

House Bill passes--what next?

2009-11-08T21:11:00.002-05:00

The House bill for Health Care reform passed on Saturday 220-215, so the bill had two more votes than it needed to pass. Congressman Carney voted yes on the Stupak amendment (which went further than the long-standing Hyde amendment in prohibiting federal coverage of abortion services) and voted YES on the final bill. As far as I know, he had never announced a position on the bill until he cast his vote. Several of the Blue Dog Democrats voted no on the final bill, but just enough Democrats stayed on board to pass the bill. One of the ironies was that the Republican yes votes on the Stupak amendment probably locked up the final votes need to pass the overall bill.

Congressman Carney has always said that he will vote the district, and I think his delay in taking a position reflects how hard it is to read the 10th district on this issue. I'm not thrilled about the individual mandate in the bill--I recall candidate Obama explaining why he didn't support that approach. Make it affordable and people will want to buy it. Don't force them to do it. Perhaps that part of the bill will change in the reconciliation process with the Senate--assuming the Senate actually passes a bill. It's time to get something done so we can all get to work figuring out how to create a better system. The Democrats should forge ahead in the Senate--force the opponents to filibuster if necessary. That's not a record of accomplishment the Republicans will be able to run on in 2010. The argument would be this: we stopped them from doing the things you elected them to do in 2008.

Action Alert: Help House Progressives Get 218 on Robust Public Option

2009-10-23T11:17:00.002-04:00

(This is pretty much a direct quote of a post at DailyKos today, but as it applies to Carney, I wanted to get the word out. -JG)

Today (Friday, 10/23), the House Democratic Caucus will meet and determine what version of the public option goes into the House bill. Pelosi announced earlier today that there's probably the 218 for a good public option, but report are that they are only 12-15 votes away from the strongest version of the bill, the Medicare Plus 5 version that ties public option rates to Medicare reimbursement rates.

Having the strongest possible House bill going in to conference with the Senate is critical, and it's within reach. Chris Carney is one of the "leaning" Dems who are considering supporting the Medicare Plus 5 version according to Hill activists. Please call his office before 2:00 today and say that you support the "Medicare Plus 5" version of the public option.

Christopher Carney (PA-10): 202-225-3731, 570-585-9988, 570-327-1902

(I just called his D.C. office myself, and the woman who answered the phone knew exactly what I was talking about and thanked me for the call. It took about 1 minute, total, so please take a minute to call.)

Fake Grass Roots and Energy Policy

2009-10-17T07:51:00.002-04:00

Click on the title to read more revelations about the fake grass roots letters sent to Congressman Carney. I was most struck by this passage:

Bonner billed Hawthorn for $43,500 but has not been paid; the coal group told Hawthorn not to pay the bill, according to a letter from Hawthorn. A document from the coal group indicates it paid Hawthorn about $7 million last year for grass-roots lobbying services and about $3 million through the first six months of this year.

Hawthorn is described as the "primary grass-roots lobbying contractor" for this coal industry group. Perhaps these industry people need a bit of help understanding what grass roots means. If you have to pay $7 million per year for it, I'm pretty sure it's not grass roots.

Good video explaining Public Option

2009-10-07T09:03:00.002-04:00

This is a nice short video from master explainer, Robert Reich (Clinton Labor Secretary and Economist).

Issues and Eggs TOMORROW

2009-10-02T09:55:00.002-04:00

Issues & Eggs (SATURDAY)
Saturday, Oct 3, 9-11am
White Deer Twp Fire Company
366 Cemetery St, New Columbia

In place of our regular meetup this month, CSCC will be sponsoring a special event TOMORROW--a breakfast forum titled "Issues & Eggs: A Frank Conversation About Healthcare in America" at the White Deer Township Fire Company in New Columbia. For $5, get an all-you-can-eat breakfast hosted by the fire company, and talk to neighbors of all different political views about why you (and they) support or oppose various aspects of the healthcare reform proposals. We have advertised this event widely, not just among CSCC and Democrats, but to outside organizations as well.

The format of this event will begin with casual discussion over breakfast, then some brief remarks by CSCC (e.g., Steve & Jove) leading into an open, moderated, interactive discussion where participants will be invited to share their perspectives and ask back-and-forth questions of each other. This is not meant to be an overly "formal" program--everyone is welcome, even if you can only stay for part of the time.

Directions: The White Deer Fire Company is located at 366 Cemetery Street in New Columbia. Traveling north on Rt. 15, take the New Columbia Exit, turn left at the end of the ramp, then make an immediate right. Turn left on Cemetery St, and the fire hall is ahead on the left. All proceeds ($$) directly benefit the White Deer Fire Company. But we have financially guaranteed them a minimum number of attendees, so you will be indirectly supporting CSCC by attending. So please come, bring a friend, and spread the word!

For more information, you can download our full press release here.

Support for Public option in "swing" blue dog districts

2009-09-25T13:30:00.005-04:00

So, our Rep, Chris Carney is a member of blue dog coalition (I just checked).

I know that others have done the critical work of organizing and delivering the signatures to Rep Carney (thanks y'all).

Despite the baying on the megaphones, the radial right is not relevant to the debate on health care reform. Sam Tannenhaus discussed this idea with Bill Moyers last week. He said:

Either the Republicans or Democrats have ruled since the Civil War for periods of some 30-36 years. And in those periods, all the great debates have occurred within a single party. So, if you go back to the 1980s, which some would say was the peak of the modern conservative period, the fight's about how to end the Cold War, how to unleash market forces-- were really Republican issues.

Today, when we look at the great questions -- how to stimulate the economy, how to provide and expand and improve a sustainable health care system, the fight is taking place among Democrats.

The chance of a public option, which I think is more about whether a politician can imagine a more radical restructuring of our society versus a kind of apologist, window-dressing, don't-shake-the-table approach, will be fought out WITHIN the democratic party.

So, the health insurance industry is against a public option. Who is for it? The public in 91 swing districts.

The poll, by respected Dem pollster John Anzalone, finds that 54% of these swing district voters support the public option, and makes the case that these voters emphatically don’t want a “trigger,” the compromise of choice in some quarters:

Geeky stats note- that is 54% with a 2.5% margin of error at 95% confidence interval. In plain English- it is 95% likely that the real support is between 51.5 and 56.5%.

The polling memo does not indicate if they can break it out by distircit, but given they covered 91, I doubt it. So, we don't know or sure if our swing district is like the rest of these.

Some polling of specific swing districts found support for the public option (from a plurality to clear majorities) AND LESS for Obama by name. The message: campaign on the details in these types of districts.

Meanwhile, the DCCC raises money for vulnerable "frontline" dems, like the Blue Dogs who almost always get an allergic reaction to progressive ideas, with appeals to health care reform from Bill Clinton:

It’s up to us to prevent the Republican Party and their special interest backers from doing whatever they can to prevent this historic opportunity to make quality health care affordable and accessible to all.

On the bright side, the progressive hosue caucus is holding firm.

For the first time since they formed in 1995, the Blue Dogs have been out-organized by their liberal counterparts. The Congressional Progressive Caucus completed its first survey and began whipping back in the spring. They launched a final whip count last week that will be finished by Wednesday evening.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/dog-fight-dueling-whip-co_n_297207.html

Maybe they can do so until the Blue Dogs realize that at the end of the day, they want to be on the right side of history here.

Rally Sunday at 1pm by BZ Motors

2009-09-17T10:43:00.002-04:00

If you have seen the editorial in today's (Thursday) Daily Item, then you know that what we are doing is making a difference. Please come out on Sunday to spend some time with friends, and support real health care reform. We will be there from 1-3pm by BZ Motors with signs.

We are also going to start the next "phase" of our efforts by setting up "phone booths". Instead of collecting signatures on a declaration, we will have people make calls to their congress people on the spot. Should be fun! Imagine watching someone call their representative for the first time in their lives. Really participating in the democratic process. Our booths at the farmer's market and the post office will start to switch gears in the next week or so.

Come out Sun at 1pm and be a part of this with us.
Thanks-
Chip

Trip to DC Report

2009-09-16T22:46:00.003-04:00

[This was posted in the comments by Chip, but I wanted to bump it up. And if you missed it, there was a really good (I thought) article in today's Daily Item. -JG]

I write to give an update on the United Union CountyCentral Susquehanna Citizens Democratic Coalition.

A group of us went to DC today to drop off the signatures (1,597!) in support of health care reform that we have gathered since mid-July to Rep. Carney and Senator Casey.
It is my sincere belief that what we have already done has made a difference. The comments from both men indicated clearly to me that they understand there is a "silent majority" who support reform, and that this group needs to stop being silent. We have been a small and dedicated group of people. If you are reading this, please find a way to join us for an hour a week. Wed at the Farmers Market; Sat at the Post Office; or Sun at the rally on Rt. 15.

Thanks-Chip

Healthcare Talk TOMORROW

2009-09-14T21:41:00.003-04:00

I just heard about this today, but the League of Women Voters is hosting a "lunch forum to discuss health care reform" tomorrow (Tuesday, Sept. 15) from 11:30-1:00 at La Primavera on Route 45. Their speaker will be Professor Amy Wolaver from Bucknell University (who was one of our CSCC panelists at the healthcare forum in May) giving a presentation titled "Health Care Reform 2009--The Issues."

This event is open to the public and the cost for lunch is $12. Call 524-4439 for more info.

I won't be able to go because of work commitments, but if anyone can go, please let us know how it is!

The Dark Underside of Private Insurers

2009-09-10T09:13:00.002-04:00

If you'd like to remember why we need health insurance reform, take a look at some of the things we've been learning from Wendell Potter, who worked for insurance giant CIGNA for 15 years but couldn't take it any longer.

Interview with Bill Moyers

Commentary: How Insurance Firms Drive Debate (how your premiums pay for PR)

Is Obama Planning to Sign Congress' Health Care Reform Bill with Lipstick?

An Apology for Destroyed Lives (from Stand with Dr. Dean)

If you can take it, also listen (via Democracy Now) to the story of Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old who died waiting for her insurance company (CIGNA) to approve a liver transplant. Amy Goodman interviewed her mother on 9/9/09. (Kudos to whoever is getting Democracy Now on FM radio here in Lewisburg over the noon hour on Wednesday!)

If you missed the President's speech about health care, you can get full text and video here.

Response from Chris Carney

2009-08-27T21:15:00.003-04:00

[Several of us have gotten the following email response to letters we've sent to Chris Carney (PA-10) in support of healthcare reform. The response is somewhat encouraging in that, in the opening paragraphs, he acknowledges the current problems and the need for reform. It is somewhat discouraging, however, that he refers to the house bill (H.R. 3200) but never states whether he is for or against it, and he mentions some other bill (H.R. 2360) that I've never heard of but which sounds like a competitor to H.R. 3200. We need to keep the pressure on Mr. Carney to remind him how important it is that he support the bill that includes a public option.]

Dear ___,
Thank you for your message supporting health insurance reform. Hearing from the people of northeast and central Pennsylvania is an integral part of my job in Congress and I appreciate you taking the time to contact me.

People throughout Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District have contacted me to express their concern with insufficient and shrinking health care coverage and skyrocketing costs. Forty-six million Americans are completely without health insurance, including over one million people from Pennsylvania. At the same time, health care costs are increasing at an unsustainable rate. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research Educational Trust, premiums increased by 98 percent while wages only increased by 23 percent from 2000 to 2007. This puts a huge strain on our middle-class families.

Increasing health care costs also threaten our nation's ability to compete in the global economy. In the past ten years, the cost of health insurance to businesses has increased 140 percent. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that spending on health care and related activities will total $2.6 trillion in 2009 - 17 percent of our gross domestic product. Our current health care system is unsustainable. We need common sense health reform that will provide all Americans access to affordable, quality coverage, while reducing costs. Any reform effort must ensure that preexisting conditions are covered, must protect an individual's right to keep their own insurance and their own doctor, must provide security to people who lose or change jobs, and must not raise the federal deficit.

Recently, comprehensive health reform legislation, H.R. 3200, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation focuses on a few key factors. It ensures that every American has comprehensive health insurance even if they lose their job or get sick. It stops insurance companies from denying coverage to people based on preexisting conditions, requires insurance companies to renew coverage, and prevents them from rescinding coverage. For the millions of people who have insurance through their employer, nothing changes. Individuals and small businesses that do not have or cannot afford insurance could purchase affordable coverage through a "health insurance exchange." This exchange pools risk, lowering premiums for everyone. It also provides a wide array of insurance plans to choose from including, potentially, a public option. Finally, the bill provides individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance with limited subsidies to purchase coverage.

The Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor considered and passed versions of this legislation in late July. These versions must be reconciled before the full House of Representatives can consider the legislation. A vote on passage may take place this fall. Also, the Senate is working on comprehensive health reform legislation and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee already passed a bill. However, the Senate Finance Committee has yet to complete its version.

You may be interested to know that I supported H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. This bipartisan legislation reauthorized the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) through 2013, preserving coverage for 7 million children already covered by SCHIP, including over 227,000 children in Pennsylvania. It also expanded coverage to an additional 4.1 million uninsured children, who are currently eligible for, but not enrolled in, SCHIP and Medicaid. It passed the House of Representatives on February 4, 290 to 135, and was signed into law. I also cosponsored H.R. 1619, the Children's Health Protection Act of 2009, which prohibits insurers from imposing pre-existing condition limitations on children.

I am also a proud cosponsor of H.R. 2360, the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP), which would make health insurance more affordable, predictable, and accessible for small businesses and the self-employed. It offers tax incentives to encourage states to reform poorly functioning small group insurance markets and encourages the development of state exchanges backstopped by a voluntary, nationwide exchange.

This process still has a long way to go. It is vital that Congress show due diligence and get this reform effort right. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as Congress considers this issue.

Thank you again for contacting me and please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Carney
Member of Congress

Rt. 15 Rally Last Sunday

2009-08-25T23:32:00.006-04:00

Members of CSCC, UCDC and OFA gathered along Rt. 15 last weekend to show their support for healthcare reform. We got a lot of positive responses from passing motorists (more than we expected, I think). We're going to do it again soon, so come out and join us next time!

Open thread for Tuesday, 8/25

2009-08-25T07:00:00.000-04:00

What do you say?

Response from Sen. Specter

2009-08-24T22:06:00.002-04:00

[Joe received this response to a letter he had written to Arlen Specter about healthcare reform.]

Dear Mr. M___:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding health care reform. I appreciate hearing from you.

The increasing costs and growing number of uninsured individuals illustrate the need for Congressional action to reform the health care system. With a reported 47 million people without health insurance the status quo is not acceptable. Additionally, there are millions more Americans who are underinsured, with health insurance that is inadequate to cover their needs. Families are forced to make tough sacrifices in order to pay medical expenses or make the agonizing choice to go without health care coverage. There are far too many Americans whose financial and physical health is jeopardized by the rising costs of health care.

In the coming weeks and months Congress will consider health care reform which seeks to address the health care crisis, by addressing access to quality care, wellness programs and payment improvements. We need to agree on a balanced, common sense solution that reins in costs, protects the personal doctor-patient relationship and shifts our focus to initiatives in preventive medicine and research.

Health reform legislation should include health benefit standards that promote healthy lifestyles, wellness programs and provide preventive services and treatment needed by those with serious and chronic diseases. Health care coverage must be affordable with assistance to those who do not have the ability to pay for health care. We must work to ensure equity in health care access, treatment, and resources to all people and communities regardless of geography, race or preexisting conditions. The effort to improve health care should improve care in underserved communities in both urban and rural areas.

Health care reform should improve health care for those currently insured. Insurance companies should cover more preventive care costs. Reforms should eliminate lifetime and annual caps and limit out of pocket expenses. Insurers should be prohibited from refusing to renew coverage in the event of catastrophic illnesses, denying coverage, or charging higher rates based on gender, pre-existing conditions or health status.

I believe that ensuring all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care coverage is essential for the health and future of our Nation. The creation of an insurance pooling system could serve as a model to provide health insurance to all individuals. The pooling system allows individuals to group together to improve purchasing power to achieve affordable, quality coverage for the entire population and to equitably share risk. However, Congress must be mindful of the cost of providing this care and reforms should not affect those who want to maintain their current insurance through their employer.

On March 5, 2009, at the request of President Obama, I participated in the White House Forum on Health Reform. During this forum, my colleagues from the Senate and House of Representatives and other health care interest representatives shared priorities and concerns for health care reform. Since that time, regional forums have been held throughout the country so more voices can be heard on this important issue and President Obama has worked closely with those representing all health care sectors to find common ground on reform. I am open to discussing the best method in which to cover all Americans, including considering a public plan option and look forward to examining all of the options with my colleagues as the legislation progresses.

Again, I appreciate your taking the time to bring your views on this issue to my attention. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov.

Sincerely,
Arlen Specter

Open thread for Monday, 8/24

2009-08-24T07:00:00.000-04:00

Healthcare, healthcare, healthcare.

Open thread for Sunday, 8/23

2009-08-23T07:00:00.000-04:00

Remember, we'll be gathering to show our support for healthcare reform with banners and signs today, at the corner of Rt. 15 and William Penn Dr. (at the light near BZ Motors) in Lewisburg, from 1-3pm today.

What else is on your mind?

Open thread for Saturday, 8/22

2009-08-22T07:00:00.000-04:00

Remember, we'll be collecting signatures for a healthcare reform petition in front of the Lewisburg Post Office today, from 10am-2pm.

What else is going on?

Open thread for Friday, 8/21

2009-08-21T07:00:00.004-04:00

In an experiment to try using this blog as more of a central message board for those of us involved in healthcare reform activities this month, I'm going to try and start more "open threads" like this one. There won't necessarily be much content in the original post, but since anyone is allowed to add comments once a thread has started, hopefully this will enable and encourage people to post messages and keep the conversation going.

So... what's on your mind today?

Carney Townhall in LaPorte

2009-08-21T00:48:00.001-04:00

Who went to Congressman Carney's townhall in Sullivan County (in LaPorte) today?

How did it go? Can someone give us a summary?

Casey's Live Conference Call Tonight

2009-08-18T20:31:00.002-04:00

Was anyone able to participate in Senator Casey's "live teleconference" tonight discussing the Senate healthcare bill?

I received a message on our answering machine last night saying to expect a call between 6-7pm tonight, and that if I answered the phone, I'd be teleconferenced in. However, I got the call (around 6:20pm) and said "Hello?" but there was just a long pause on the other end followed by Casey's voice saying, "Hi! This is Bob Casey! Sorry we missed you..." and the rest of the message implied they thought I hadn't answered the phone and they were just leaving another message. So I guess: (a) they need to debug their voice-recognition software, or (b) I need to sound less like a machine when I talk. But in any case, I guess I missed out.

Did this happen to anyone else? Did anyone get in? What did he say about the Senate bill?

Good op-ed on NHS and US hlth cr debate

2009-08-17T11:39:00.001-04:00

In Defense of Britain's Health System

By Ara Darzi and Tom Kibasi

Monday, August 17, 2009

LONDON -- When Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created in 1948, its founder, the charismatic politician Aneurin Bevan, observed that it was "in place of fear." More than 60 years later, it is fear that dominates the discussion of the NHS in the U.S. debate about health-care reform.

Response from Senator Casey

2009-08-14T11:53:00.002-04:00

[I have written Casey, Carney and Specter several times about healthcare reform in the past month. So far, Casey is the only one whose office has responded. I thought I would share the response below. He seems to be very much on-board, and so I think it is Specter that we need to focus our energy on (because the Senate will be a tougher fight), and to a lesser extent, Carney. -JG]

Dear ___:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about health care reform. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.We cannot afford to wait any longer to reform America’s health care system.

As a member of the United States Senate and of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I am working with my colleagues and with President Obama to enact meaningful health care reform, with the goal of providing every American with access to high quality, affordable health care. Ensuring the unique health needs of children are met will be a specific priority of mine in health care reform. Many of my constituents have contacted me to share their opinions on a wide range of potential health care reform options. I welcome your comments and suggestions on this important issue.

On July 14, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) successfully reported out our bill, the Affordable Health Choices Act, to reform the Nation’s healthcare system. At its core, this landmark bill provides additional choices for Americans who need health insurance, while maintaining health insurance options that currently exist and that individuals may wish to keep.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Affordable Health Choices Act will cost $611 billion over the next ten years. Our current system is not sustainable and waiting to act or doing nothing will only make the problems worse. If we do not act, more people will lose coverage. As costs increase, the quality of care will diminish and the ballooning costs incurred by the government and business will endanger America’s fiscal health.

The Affordable Health Choices Act will reduce costs by emphasizing prevention, cutting waste and modernizing the health care system through quality information technology.The Affordable Health Choices Act also promotes prevention by giving Americans the information they need to take charge of their own health, such as information on early screening for heart disease, cancer and depression and information on healthy nutrition. The Affordable Health Choices Act takes strong steps to improve America’s healthcare workforce, making sound investments in training the doctors, nurses, and other health professionals who will serve the needs of patients in the years to come and ensuring that patients’ care is better coordinated so they see the right doctors, nurses and other health practitioners to address their individual health needs.

To address the need for more choices for Americans, The Affordable Health Choices Act includes a public health insurance option called the Community Health Insurance Plan. This plan will be one of many plans available to individuals through the Affordable Health Benefit Gateways that will be established in each state. These gateways build on the success of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which provides a range of different health plans from which to choose to federal employees including civilian employees, Members of Congress and their staffs, retirees and their families. The Community Health Insurance Plan will be required to comply with the same rules governing private plans offered through the health insurance gateways, and will comply with the same insurance regulations as private insurers.

The Committee on Finance, of which I am not a member, has jurisdiction over other areas of health care reform and is in the process of developing its own draft legislation. This jurisdiction includes many of the options being discussed to finance health care reform such as Medicare payment reforms and taxing health benefits, sugary drinks or alcohol. Some of the most significant provisions regarding children also fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance, such as the Medicaid and CHIP programs. After the Committee on Finance has finished developing and considering its health care reform legislation, the bill will be merged with the Affordable Health Choices Act for consideration by the full Senate later this year. I will be examining carefully both the bill that the Committee on Finance develops and the merged bill that the full Senate will consider for their impact on health care for children, particularly our most vulnerable children, as we engage in the continuation of this debate in the weeks ahead.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

Arlen Specter's Town Hall Meeting (full recap)

2009-08-11T23:07:00.007-04:00

Loren just posted an excellent (and concise) summary of today’s Town Hall Meeting with Arlen Specter in Lewisburg (see the next post below). For those who weren’t able to go (or couldn’t get a seat), I figured I would post a more detailed recap. I realize this is going to be a really long post, so in case you don’t want to read this whole recap, I would just read Loren’s previous post, or just these 7 key points:

Specter said he shared Obama’s view that we need to reform healthcare to control rising costs.
He said he would not sign a healthcare bill that would add to the deficit.
He said, in reference to single payer, that “nothing should be off the table.”
He said that he thought the public option was “a good option.”
He repeatedly talked about preventative care, and medical tests, and implied that having people get annual exams, etc. would help to reduce costs and keep people from getting sick.
He repeatedly ducked other questions about healthcare by saying “the House bill is not law yet, and there is no Senate bill yet.” I understand he’s a Senator and so he doesn’t have to vote on the House bill, but he still could have actually addressed people’s questions (and sometimes their completely mythical Sarah Palin-esque delusions) about the House bill instead of just sidestepping them.
On the topic of Employee Free Choice Act, he said that he believed we should “maintain the secret ballot” (i.e., he’s not supporting EFCA).

And now, let the full recapping begin!

The Crowd: As expected, it was a full house and there were a lot of Republicans who, as far as I could tell, really enjoy saying the word, “boo!” a lot. And shouting every time they hear something they don’t like. This happened a lot, because: (a) there were plenty of Democrats in attendance, (b) Specter said a lot of things they didn’t like, and (c) apparently, there are a LOT of things they don’t like.... What DO they like? Um, “tort reform!” But we’ll get to that later.

The Format: 30 people asked questions. There was no “lining up at the microphones”; instead, 30 people were issued numbers as they entered (like at a deli counter). Nobody I talked to (including the ones who got the numbers) seemed to know how they picked who got the numbers, but there was at least somewhat of a mix of people with different views, so I don’t think there was any conspiracy going on.

Specter’s Opening Statement: He said he’d been doing these townhalls for “decades,” that he knew we were going through difficult times with the economy, and that there was a lot of anger about “what’s going on in D.C.” He mentioned several important issues, ending with healthcare, reminding the audience that there is a House bill that’s been through 5 committees so far but no Senate bill yet. He talked about the need for more preventative medicine as a way to keeping people healthier and reducing medical costs, and made an awkward word choice when he said he’d like to see women “catch” breast cancer at an early age.” (I think he meant “detect.”)

The Questions: (The 17 Red questions were from conservatives, the 6 Blue questions were from liberals/progressives, and the 7 Black questions were from people who seemed basically neutral.)
Question #1: How does U.S. healthcare compare to other countries? And what is the prognosis for our system if we don’t reform?
Specter said we compare “very favorably” to other countries [whaaat--?], suggesting that we have lots of technology and have good cancer survival rates in a few cases. He said the “prognosis” is that costs will get out of control if we don’t reform. People need to change their lifestyles, and get earlier tests, etc., etc.

Question #2: A prospective medical student complained that she might not get into med school because schools were being encouraged (through federal funding incentives) to admit more underrepresented minorities. Also, the schools were being pressured to enroll doctors who would go work in underserved areas [implying that she was not a minority, and did not want to work in an underserved area]. She asked why government was allowed to control medical schools.
Specter basically said that these things shouldn’t be “controlled” by government, but they should certainly be considered and encouraged, particularly sending doctors to underserved areas (like Scranton!).

Question #3: A woman was concerned that healthcare bill was being “pushed through” too fast, and told Specter that the “two ways” to control costs were to enact tort reform and to “let the insurance companies offer different plans that cover different things.” (???)
He agreed with the first point and bragged that the Senate had “slowed things down.” He said that Obama wanted it passed in July, and didn’t get that, but that Obama understands how the Senate works since he used to be a Senator. [This got a really strange outburst of booing, which Specter actually commented on, because it wasn’t clear why he would get booed for saying Obama used to be a Senator. One person yelled, “We didn’t vote for him!” which seemed like a non-sequitir.] He said that torts have improved, but there hasn’t been a bill because there hasn’t been any big push for it. He repeated again that if everyone had an annual medical exam, costs would go down.

Question #4: A doctor who used to live in Canada told a long, rambling story and then asked where the money for healthcare reform would come from. Also, claimed that “page 16” of the House bill said it would “funnel everyone into a public system.”
Specter repeated his standard lines about how he would not vote for a bill that increased the deficit, and that no Senate bill had been decided on yet.

Question #5: A woman with a T-shirt showing a donkey kicking a map of the U.S., and with many pre-existing conditions including lupus, claimed that “section 123” of the House bill said that “a government bureaucrat with better insurance than what she has” would get to decide whether she lived or died, and her question was who would take care of her kids when she was dead.
[This was one of Specter’s better answers.] He jumped on her comment about “the bureaucrat with better health insurance” to say that the whole point of what they were trying to do was to get her “the same health insurance that I have.” He talked about how Senators get to choose from a slate of health plans and that everyone should have that choice.

Question #6: A woman said she was concerned that the administration had not yet “gone through and cut things out of the budget” [not strictly true, but ok] and they were spending too much new money, like in the “Cash For Clunkers” program, and that Obama had hired too many “czars” that we were paying for. Her question was, why doesn’t Congress do something about him?
Specter said that Congress did have some control, because he couldn’t spend any m money without them appropriating it. He promised to “count how many czars” Obama had and get back to her on that.

Question #7: A woman asked if he would support a renewable energy bill, and strengthen renewable energy.
He said he was all in favor of renewable energy, and that the stimulus bill he voted for included $80 billion to develop renewable energy sources.

Question #8: The owner of the Pineapple Inn opened with a quote from Goebbels (Hitler’s propaganda minister) as a way of comparing the current administration to Nazi Germany. Eventually, he asked when the government was going to cut their spending.
Specter said he supported the Balanced Budget Amendment, and that Obama has pledged that healthcare reform will pay for itself and not add to the deficit. He then rambled a little bit about other ways the government could save money.

Question #9: A student said that cancer ran in his family, and that he was worried about his family members “waiting in line” too long for cancer treatments, and that the government, not doctors, would decide who lived or died.
Specter said that doctors should decide if you need treatment and that NO ONE should decide whether you live or die. [I wish he would have pointed out that currently, insurance companies do make that decision for some people.] He then rambled a little bit about “what he wanted” was better treatments to save lives, and how the NIH (“the crown jewel of our government, maybe the only one”) was responsible for so many of our current treatments.

Question #10: A woman clutching a copy of a book on Jefferson said she was “scared” that we were “losing our freedoms” and that healthcare reform wasn’t about healthcare at all but just a way to lead us all down the path toward socialism.
Specter said his whole career, he has fought for constitutional freedoms: he fought to oppose warrantless wiretapping [which got booed with shouts of “warrants take too long!” which seemed hilarious to me at first, and then disturbing], and to protect the right to counsel.

Question #11: A woman who had obviously been watching a lot of Fox News said that the healthcare bill “scared her,” that it would let the government withdraw money from people’s bank accounts, and that there would be “end of life planning.”
Specter frustratingly declined to debunk any of this nonsense and instead just reiterated that “no one should make life or death decisions for you.”

Question #12: A man claimed to be reading from some section of the House healthcare bill, said it would increase debt, and asked where the money would come from.
Specter gave his standard answer about how the man was quoting the House bill, and that it wasn’t a law yet.

Question #13: A young man (with a backwards baseball cap) said that the government had “failed” at so many things, like the Cash For Clunkers program (???) and that he didn’t want to have to tell his children that he stood by and let the country go into debt.
Specter took issue with the assertion that the government “failed” at everything, there was some back-and-forth argument about Cash For Clunkers, and I got bored and stopped taking notes.

Question #14: A young woman said she appreciated that Specter (in Question #11) had said he was against “health panels” making decisions for people and against the government transferring money out of people’s bank accounts. She asked him to clarify whether he wanted to “require” people to have annual health exams, because she didn’t think Amish people should have to. [To be fair, this was actually a more reasonable question than I’m making it sound here.]
Specter said no, they shouldn’t be required, but we should encourage people to get annual exams. This got a lot of applause from the non-conservatives in the audience, which seemed to temporarily confuse the conservatives.

Question #15: A man asked whether Specter supported the Employee Free Choice Act.
Specter said he thought they should maintain the secret ballot (so, in other words, no). He said something wonky about a second provision on arbitration (and the “last best offer” approach) that I didn’t understand.

Question #16: A young man complained about the deficit, all the bailouts, TARP, and how Obama had promised not to hire lobbyists but the assistant treasury secretary was a former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs). [This is actually a good point that bugs me, too.] He asked why “[his] generation” should have to pay for what’s going on.
Specter pointed out that TARP and some of the other bailouts were under President Bush (which prompted a lot of confused, angry booing and the sound of heads exploding). He repeated his line about how he wouldn’t vote for a healthcare bill that added to the deficit.

Question #17: A young man with a libertarian T-shirt asked Specter if he supported Bernie Sanders (I-VT)’s bill to start auditing the Federal Reserve. [I completely agree with this.]
Specter said yes, that government agencies should always be accountable.

Question #18: A woman said she worried that the healthcare bill was being “pushed through” too quickly. She then made a bizarre logical claim that she had read the House bill, and that it didn’t say anything about abortion, and therefore it must be saying that abortions are “okay.”
Specter repeated his bragging that the Senate had “slowed the bill down.” To the second point, he said he realized that some people didn’t want their money going to fund abortions, and so there was a proposal to let people choose whether they wanted a health plan that paid for abortions vs. one that didn’t.

Question #19: A man claimed that the House bill said that illegal immigrants would get healthcare, and that they would be counted in the census (“to give them benefits!”).
Specter said, no, he wouldn’t support covering illegal immigrants.

Question #20: A man said he was “sick of you people in Washington” and wanted to know where our border fence was.
Specter said they had appropriated money for a 750(?)-mile border fence, and that it was under construction. [This prompted one shout from a man who said “it was supposed to be 92,008 miles long!” which made me question his grasp of geography.]

Question #21: A cardiologist from Geisinger told a story about a 47-year old man he’d just treated who had gotten insurance through his wife, until she lost her job, and then needed a catheterization and bypass surgery without insurance. [Unfortunately he went on a little long and got lots of people shouting out for him to get to the question.] He asked Specter to support universal health insurance, and also (referring to Question #2) sending more doctors to underserved areas.
Specter said unequivocally (!) that he supported universal health insurance, and that he also agreed we needed to send more doctors to underserved areas.

Question #22: A man said he was concerned about global warming [which brought lots of rude shouting, including people saying “no such thing!”], and asked Specter if he supported a cap on carbon emissions.
Specter said he will support a carbon cap bill, that they just needed to work on how it would be paid for.

Question #23: A man said that the deficit was a concern, but that the one place where we could afford to cut spending was the military, and that we had spent $3-5 trillion on an unjustified war in Iraq. [This prompted the worst cacophony of booing of the afternoon; at one point, some people started chanting, “Support our troops!” but luckily it didn’t really catch on.] He asked Specter when Congress would realize that we could stop wasting money by ending the Iraq War.
Specter gave a textbook answer about how “if we had known Saddam Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, we’d never have gone in,” that we were on our way out now, and that Iraqis were ready to stand up for themselves. [Gee, we’ve never heard that before.] He said we need to be “very cautious” about cutting military spending because “we still live in a dangerous world” with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc., etc. Overall, this was a very disappointing Republican answer.

Question #24: A woman said she was a nurse, and a Christian, and against abortion. She said she worried the healthcare bill “removed the conscience clause, and allowed partial birth abortion.” She challenged Specter to define the conscience clause, and partial birth abortion, and state his position on them.
Specter correctly defined both things, then said he had voted against partial birth abortion in the past.

Question #25: A man said he was all in favor of solar and wind energy, but where did Specter stand on nuclear energy? [This prompted lots of “yeahs” from conservatives who apparently love nuclear power now. I’m just guessing that they probably love it more when it’s in someone else’s backyard than theirs...]
He said he supported it, that “the days of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were over” and that it was safe. (This reminded me a lot of Alan Alda in the last season of The West Wing....)

Question #26: One of our CSCC members, LK, asked Specter whether he had heard any Christian groups expressing concern for the suffering of poor people who can’t get access to healthcare.
Specter said yes he had. [Unfortunately, I think this was intended to be a 2-part question, but the senator moved on before we got to hear the second part.]

Question #27: A man asked a confusing question about whether the public option would be “like Medicare and Medicaid.” [It wasn’t clear whether he wanted them to be alike, or not.]
Specter said he hoped they’d be “better” than Medicare. [Great Republican pandering there, Arlen.] There was some confusing back-and-forth with the questioner, but eventually he said the public option would be “like a private entity,” but public, and not run for profit.

Question #28: The executive director of the Susquehanna Valley Community Education Council (I think I have that right) asked Specter whether he supported the current initiatives to start more community colleges in Pennsylvania.
Specter didn’t answer directly, but said that he supported community colleges (in general) and had backed them in the past.

Question #29: One of our CSCC members, NC, told a story about a friend who had lost her job, applied for private insurance through Geisinger, went for the physical exam they required, and was told she was uninsurable because she was obese. [This was a great story, because it drew gasps and confused the conservatives who didn’t want “the government” telling them how to live, but suddenly were faced with an example of an insurance company telling someone they were too fat. I think I heard some heads exploding in the back...] She then asked Specter if he could name “the top 3 myths” about healthcare being perpetuated on the radio and TV, and tell us the truth about them.
Specter said that under healthcare reform, her friend would be able to get health insurance. He ignored (or forgot about) the question part of the question.

Question #30: A man said he was an army veteran [which got a standing ovation]. He wanted to know if Specter would “put in for” a bill that would basically give him free healthcare. He complained that he “went to the doctor the other day and had to pay $50 for a test.” He also asked Specter, “did you read the [healthcare] bill?”
Specter said he was a veteran too, told a story about WWI veterans, and said he’s always supported broader coverage for veterans. He talked about how he had meetings coming up in the next few weeks with Gen. Shinsheki and Secretary Sebelius [whose name prompted a lot of booing and shouting] to work on improving the VA hospitals.

And then, just like that, he was gone....

Closing Thoughts: While the conservatives probably outnumbered the non-conservatives in the audience, it was gratifying that, whenever one of them shouted something out (which happened a LOT), they got shushed by the people sitting around them (some of whom, I suspect were conservatives themselves). Although a lot of people were yelling, to any moderate person sitting in the audience, I can only hope that they came off as rude and not particularly sympathetic. I was also gratified to see Specter generally poking fun at the shouters, and he seemed genuinely pleased when the Democrats in the audience would applaud him for something.
I was just constantly amazed by the cognitive dissonance on display. I wanted to ask these people—who were suddenly SO concerned about the deficit—where they’d been for the last 8 years when Bush was cutting taxes and sending us to war at the same time. I wanted to tell the veteran who was asking for free healthcare for himself that we all just wanted what he wanted. I wanted to tell the people who kept yelling at Specter, “Read the Bill!” that maybe they should read the bill and not a Fox News blog’s summary of it. Most of all, I just wanted to tell people not to be so scared. Because I think that’s what people truly are—partly scared of the black man in the White House, but partly just scared by the horror stories pounded into their brains by the right-wing media (and sometimes the rest of the media, too). I really wish there was something CSCC could do, not just to reach out to each other, but to help these people to not be so scared of government, of Obama, and of us “liberal Democrats.” To help them see that we want many of the things they want. To help them realize that Fox News and talk radio are not “news,” that they have an agenda, and that they are basically hoodwinking them into yelling at other citizens in an attempt to protect the interests of the type of people who own Fox News and radio stations. I think it’s part of our mission not to give up on these people.

Sen. Specter Packs the Hall at Bucknell

2009-08-11T19:53:00.002-04:00

Not only did Sen. Specter pack Trout Auditorium, there was also standing room only for the simulcast in the Langone Center (where I was). The Williamsport Tea Baggers were out in force, but there were also plenty of pro-reform, pro-Obama people there as well. I heard that 25 of the 30 questions had a slant to the right (I didn't hear them all myself.) A typical question was What are you going to do to protect freedom and keep us from falling into total socialism?

In terms of policy clues from the senator's comments, he said that he wouldn't vote for any bill that adds to the deficit, and that he would like to see universal health coverage.

He didn't offer much insight into how to do both at once. He distanced himself from the House plan, and said that he wouldn't vote for any bill that included stuff like that. Given that the CBO estimates a cost of 1 trillion dollars over 10 years for the current House plan, it will have to change a great deal to get Sen. Specter's support, I gather.

When asked about whether doctors or bureaucrats should decide who lives or dies, he said that doctors should make the medical decisions, but that neither doctors nor bureacrats should get to decide who lives and dies. (I think he repeated that answer three times as the questioner repeated the question.)

I was surprised how a good part of the audience laughed derisively when a questioner stated that global warming is real and caused by human burning of fossil fuels. Clearly, these voters aren't having any of it, so there's no real ground to have a conversation about how to address the problem.

He suggested that there would be a health plan that covers abortions and one that doesn't--for those who don't want to pay into a plan that covers abortion. That didn't go over well, at least as I read the crowd response. Several questions came from young people asking why they should have to pay for the deficit that this generation is running up.

Any other impressions, comments, or ideas? Apparently, those first in line got first chance to ask a question. Overall, I was impressed by Arlen Specter's willingness to hold town halls and face the voters. There's obviously some good reasons why he's in politics.

RNC Survey (Part 2)

2009-07-22T00:51:00.003-04:00

[See my previous post for an explanation of where these survey questions came from.... -JG]

Question #4: Do you believe it is right for the federal government to use age and life expectancy as criteria for determining access to health care?
Yes
No
Undecided
Um, we do that now, by limiting Medicare access to only people over 65. And since access and affordability go hand-in-hand, those people have access. The rest of us are on our own. Is that right?

Question #5: Estimates show that the Democrats’ plan could cost more than $1.7 trillion dollars. Do you believe that America can afford this added debt when the deficit has already reached record levels?
Yes
No
Undecided
First of all, the CBO report just came out that the latest bill is $1 trillion, not $1.7. Second of all, just because something costs $X that doesn't mean that it automatically creates $X of "added debt." (Well, I guess unless you belong to a group who believes that the government should never raise revenue and should borrow money for everything. Hmm, that does sound kind of familiar. I think their group's name starts with an "R.") In fact, the bill is designed with revenue streams to pay for itself. Third of all, I wonder who we have to thank for the deficit having "already reached record levels." I think their group's name also starts with an "R."

Question #6: If you have private insurance, please rate your level of satisfaction with your coverage.
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
N/A
This is one of those genuinely complex issues. "If you have private insurance," then yes, you may be relatively happy with it. But as I pointed out in an earlier post on this blog, people with Medicare are happy with that, too (maybe happier than you). And if you're one of the people that has to answer "N/A" to this question, well, you're in trouble.

Some reading on health care reform options

2009-07-21T13:49:00.002-04:00

Here's a selection of commentary from Robert Reich, Dean Baker, and others from the NYT:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/should-the-rich-pay-for-the-uninsured/

And if you haven't seen it, here's Walter Brasch on Prescribing Cake for the Health Care Crisis:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Prescribing-Cake-to-Cure-t-by-Brasch-090720-273.html

My reading is that the final bill will "pay" for reform in one of two ways: either by taxing excessive health care benefits or by some kind of surtax on superearners (over $500,000 per year or so). The latter option seems to be preferred right now, but it's going to be a long process. Dean Baker's anaylsis--that the projected health care reform deficit amounts to .15% of GDP while the military operations in Iraq/Afghanistan is 1%--puts the issue in proper perspective. But, of course, we still haven't gotten at the problems with long-term Medicare and Medicaid (which are much more difficult than the long-term problems with Social Security). But let's tackle one mountain at a time, shall we?

RNC Survey (Part 1)

2009-07-15T18:25:00.001-04:00

I somehow ended up on a mailing list for the Republican National Committee (RNC) and so I get regular email updates from their chairman, Michael Steele. Usually, I don't read the emails, but this week they invited everyone to take a "Future of American Healthcare Survey." This poll is mostly an excuse to get you to click on a link where they can ask you to donate $$. (And to be fair, I've gotten plenty of the same type of surveys from the Democratic Party, and I find them kind of annoying as well.)

However, it bothers me (though I guess it doesn't surprise me) how each question is carefully phrased to deliver a talking point, and most questions don't actually give you the option of answering in a way that would oppose that talking point. I thought it might be a useful exercise to go through the poll and discuss each point. I hope that others will add their comments. Here are the first 3 questions (there were 12 total).

"Future of American Health Care Survey" by the RNC
Question #1: Do you believe that the state of America’s health care system is in crisis?
Yes
No
Undecided

There's some good, recent (June '09) Pew Research Polling data on this general issue here. My sense is that most people recognize there's a problem with the current system that affects them or someone they know. At the same time, people who can afford good coverage are probably afraid of what "change" might mean. Still, even among Republicans, I think everyone senses that healthcare is getting unsustainably expensive--for everybody--and something has to be done about that. I bet they'll get a lot of "Yes"'s on this question.

Question #2. What is your biggest concern regarding health care in America as it is today?
Cost
Quality
Availability
Other: ___
I expect this is an easy question for someone without insurance: they would choose "availability," while those with insurance will probably choose something else. I expect there will be a lot of people choosing "Cost" here. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

Question #3. Do you believe that your health care decisions should be made by you and your doctor, and not government bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.?
Yes
No
Undecided
Dear RNC: I would love for my health care decisions to be made by me and my doctor. And if I had unlimited cash to spend, then decisions would always be made by me & whatever doctor I wanted. But when a third party (of any kind) is paying our bill, they get a say, too. And that third party is either going to be a private insurance company or a public entity. (Or a very rich uncle.) So this question should really ask whether decisions should be made by a private or public entity. I think, at the very least, you would get different answers to your question.

Surprise! Medicare Ranks High in Consumer Satisfaction

2009-07-01T17:20:00.002-04:00

CSCC is considering partnering with a local university to co-sponsor a poll of the PA-10 District about healthcare reform and a "public option" for health insurance. The results, regardless of what they show, would be published for all to see and shared with our local lawmakers.

This article from the National Journal Online is definitely worth reading, and may be important in informing the type of poll we want to do. It shows two important things:

When asked if they support "having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans," 62% of Americans supported that. Describing the plan as "government administered" and "similar to Medicare" resulted in even more positive reactions: 67% and 72% support in two other polls.
Even more encouraging is the data from the Dept. of Health & Human Service's CAHPS survey which gauges consumer satisfaction with their current health insurance. 51-60% of people who have government insurance (Medicare or Medicaid) give their health plan a 9 or 10 rating (out of 10), whereas only 40% of people with private insurance do. What's driving this difference is that Medicare patients perceive they have better access to care, with 70% saying they "always" get access to needed care (vs. only 51% of those with private insurance).

I think the people arguing that "Americans are afraid of government-run health insurance" don't want us to look at this type of information. So take a look. And if you favor a public option, make sure your representatives know it.

PA Healthcare Statistics

2009-06-30T12:15:00.002-04:00

(This is taken from HealthReform.gov, with just a little editing by me, but I thought this was an appropriate forum for repeating the information. Hopefully, some of these facts may be useful to people when writing Carney, Casey and Specter to keep the pressure on them for meaningful healthcare reform.

The two items that I put in bold below highlight why having a public option is such a critical component. The issue is that the free market is not offering consumers a wide array of marketplace choices; two companies basically control the insurance market in PA. Instituting a public option that would be available everywhere would break that stranglehold and lead to real choice and competition.)

-JG)

PENNSYLVANIANS CAN’T AFFORD THE STATUS QUO

Roughly 7.9 million people in Pennsylvania get health insurance on the job[1], where family premiums average $13,646, about the annual earning of a full-time minimum wage job.[2]
Since 2000 alone, average family premiums have increased by 103 percent in Pennsylvania.[3]
Household budgets are strained by high costs: 19 percent of middle-income Pennsylvania families spend more than 10 percent of their income on health care.[4]
High costs block access to care: 10 percent of people in Pennsylvania report not visiting a doctor due to high costs.[5]
Pennsylvania businesses and families shoulder a hidden health tax of roughly $900 per year on premiums as a direct result of subsidizing the costs of the uninsured.[6]

AFFORDABLE HEALTH COVERAGE IS INCREASINGLY OUT OF REACH IN PENNSYLVANIA

10 percent of people in Pennsylvania are uninsured, and 65 percent of them are in families with at least one full-time worker.[7]
The percent of Pennsylvanians with employer coverage is declining: from 71 to 64 percent between 2000 and 2007.[8]
Much of the decline is among workers in small businesses. While small businesses make up 71 percent of Pennsylvania businesses[9], only 51 percent of them offered health coverage benefits in 2006 -- down 7 percent since 2000.[10]
Choice of health insurance is limited in Pennsylvania. Highmark and Independence Blue Cross alone constitute 72 percent of the health insurance market share in Pennsylvania.[11]
Choice is even more limited for people with pre-existing conditions. In Pennsylvania, premiums can vary based on demographic factors and health status, and coverage can exclude pre-existing conditions or even be denied completely.

PENNSYLVANIANS NEED HIGHER QUALITY, GREATER VALUE, AND MORE PREVENTATIVE CARE

The overall quality of care in Pennsylvania is rated as “Average.”[12]
Preventative measures that could keep Pennsylvanians healthier and out of the hospital are deficient, leading to problems across the age spectrum: 15 percent of children in Pennsylvania are obese[13], 21% of women over the age of 50 in Pennsylvania have not received a mammogram in the past two years, 37% of men over the age of 50 in Pennsylvania have never had a colorectal cancer screening.[14]

The need for reform in Pennsylvania and across the country is clear. Pennsylvania families simply can’t afford the status quo and deserve better.

References:

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. HIA-4 Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by State--All Persons: 1999 to 2007, 2007.
Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - Insurance Component, 2006, Table X.D.Projected 2009 premiums based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "National Health Expenditure Data," available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/nationalhealthexpenddata/.
Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - Insurance Component, 2000, Table II.D.1.Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - Insurance Component, 2006, Table X.D.Projected 2009 premiums based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "National Health Expenditure Data," available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/nationalhealthexpenddata/.
Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007.
Furnas, B., Harbage, P. (2009). "The Cost Shift from the Uninsured." Center for American Progress.
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. Annual Social and Economic Supplements, March 2007 and 2008.
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. HIA-4 Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by State--All Persons: 1999 to 2007, 2007.
Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - Insurance Component, 2006, Table II.A.1a.
Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - Insurance Component, 2001, 2006, Table II.A.2.
Health Care for America Now. (2009). "Premiums Soaring in Consolidated Health Insurance Market." Health Care for America Now.
Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. 2007 State Snapshots. Available http://statesnapshots.ahrq.gov/snaps07/index.jsp.
Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. 2007 National Survey of Children's Health, Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health.
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007.

Tell Carney "No" to Healthcare Trigger

2009-06-12T11:45:00.002-04:00

(This message originated from Moveon.Org, but Joe & I thought it was worth repeating here. I have edited it a tiny bit. -JG)

The Huffington Post is reporting that the Blue Dog Coaltion says it will "only support the public health care option as a fallback measure that would be triggered sometime down the road." If you're following the current healthcare reform debate, you know that a "trigger" means the creation of a public health insurance option would be delayed for years until certain criteria were met. This is a bad idea, and threatens to undermine any real "reform" by ensuring that it "may happen someday, but not now."

President Obama and 73% of Americans think every American should have a choice between keeping their insurance or opting into a quality public health insurance plan. But the concern is that the Blue Dog Coalition and Rep. Carney seem to be siding instead with Republicans and the insurance industry over the voters.

Please call Rep. Carney, and tell him: "We need a public health insurance option immediately. The 'trigger' plan is unacceptable."

The public health insurance option would allow you to keep your current insurance, if you like, or switch to a public health insurance plan. In the absence of "single-payor" reform, it's the key to lowering costs and making sure all of us have guaranteed access to health care. But some Blue Dogs, like Newt Gingrich said the other day, seem to be more concerned that "a public option stacks the deck" against insurance companies than actually being concerned about Americans' healthcare. Don't be fooled: The trigger proposal is an attempt to defeat the public health insurance option. It would delay a public health insurance option for years. But we know there's already a crisis: high costs, millions of uninsured, and a lack of choice for all of us. We cannot afford to wait. Please call right now.

Sources:
1. "Blue Dogs Backsliding on Health Care," Huffington Post, June 8, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51485&id=16350-8030410-ioKh3xx&t=4
2. Ibid.
3. "Fixing Health Care Does Not Require a 'Bi-Partisan' Bill—It Does Require a Public Health Insurance Option," Huffington Post, June 8, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51486&id=16350-8030410-ioKh3xx&t=5
4. "Blue Dogs Backsliding On Health Care," Huffington Post, June 8, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51485&id=16350-8030410-ioKh3xx&t=6

A Unifying Issue: Save PA's Parks

2009-06-02T12:16:00.003-04:00

I don't for a moment believe that the state will close R. B. Winter State Park. I do think it's a sign of dysfunctional politics in this state that DCNR put it on a list for possible closure and that the Daily Item put the story on the top of page 1. The park reportedly gets 140,000 visits per year and is a very important recreational destination for the entire region. If any issue could unify citizens across the political spectrum (with the possible exception of a certain branch of libertarians) it's this one.

Given the looming budget problems, we are sure to see more political posturing and testing. The knee-jerk response is to say, "Hey, don't touch my park." A more political savvy response is to ask our politicians why they are forcing DCNR to make such radical proposals that alarm the public. Where are the political leaders to talk to us about what options are available and to plan for the future?

For example, we might start talking about some of these ideas: instituting user fees, changing the way some of the less-used state parks are managed, cutting some park services, figuring out how to raise donations in support of the park system (is there a state park endowment?). We might also reprioritize some new spending to maintain what we have. But the idea that it's a good idea to close an important place for low-cost family entertainment in the midst of recession, a park that is our legacy from past generations--that's just asinine, and everybody knows it.

Arlen Specter is Really a Democrat!

2009-05-15T08:43:00.002-04:00

Nate Silver looks at Specter's voting record since nominally converting to the Democratic Party, and, surprise, he's not doing too bad. He's voted with the Democrats 10 out of 15 times, not up to Casey's rate (14 out of 15), but well above supposed Democrats Evan Bayh (8 out of 14) and Ben Nelson (7 out of 15).

I'm still in favor of a strong primary challenge, if for no other reason to keep some pressure on Specter to play nice with the Democrats.

Gillibrand supports public option

2009-05-13T08:59:00.003-04:00

Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed to the senate with a background of being a centerish Democrat. In principle, this was a shame, because the seat from NY would be pretty safe for a genuine progressive, so it was a lost opportunity. However, there was some speculation that maybe she'd tack to the left once she was representing the whole state rather than her centerish district.

It appears that she has. On Monday she came out forcefully in favor of a public option on the healthcare initiative, using the effective and accurate phrase "Medicare for all."

Good for her, and good for us.

CSCC Healthcare Event This Thursday

2009-05-04T11:15:00.000-04:00

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CSCC Healthcare Event This Thursday, May 7 @ 7:00pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Central Susquehanna Citizens Coalition will present a public forum titled "Re-Imagining Healthcare in PA: The Next Five Years and Beyond" on this Thursday, May 7 at 7:00pm at the Union County Government Center located at 155 N 15th St., Lewisburg. A panel of five healthcare professionals will present their perspectives on the current state of healthcare in Pennsylvania, its challenges, and proposed solutions for the future, to be followed by interactive discussion with the audience. No tickets are necessary; this event is free and open to the public.

The panel will feature five distinguished healthcare professionals from across Pennsylvania. Allison Clark is the Executive Director of ACTION Health, a collaborative partnership among six hospitals in the Central Susquehanna Valley that provides community health outreach and education. Jill Fecker is the Community Liaison for A Community Clinic, Inc., a non-profit agency that assists the uninsured population gain access to high quality healthcare through a network of volunteer physicians and services provided by area hospitals. Chuck Pennacchio is the Executive Director of Healthcare for All Pennsylvania, anorganization founded to educate the public and government officials in support of legislation that achieves comprehensive and fair healthcare coverage for everyone in Pennsylvania through a single-payer system. Andrew Sandusky is the Vice President of Governmental Affairs for the Pennsylvania Academy of Family Physicians, a group that supports family physicians through advocacy and education to ensure a patient-centered physician-coordinated medical home for residents of PA. Amy Wolaver, Assistant Professor of Economics at Bucknell University, is a leader in the field of employer-provided health insurance policy research and teaches courses in health policy and health economics.

The format of the panel discussion will be 10-minute presentations by each of the five panelists, followed by over 30 minutes of interactive discussion where audience members are encouraged to ask questions and participate in the conversation.

For more information, click here for our press release, or call 523-0659. Please spread the word, and we hope to see you there!

Thoughts on the 2010 Senate Primary

2009-05-04T08:34:00.004-04:00

I understand Pres. Obama's decision to welcome Arlen Specter into the Democratic Party. And I would have no problem with a promise from the president to support him in the Senate election if he is the nominee of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, that's not what the president said. He promised to support him and raise money for him in the primary, and all appearances indicate that Gov. Rendell will do so as well. What happened to small d democracy? Or is this just how politics works?

The whole argument of the Obama campaign was that the voters ought to make decisions--not some party machine. It's up to us to remind the voters to make up their own minds--no matter what the party leaders may say. In a campaign between Arlen Specter and Pat Toomey, I would have no trouble supporting Arlen Specter, but I wouldn't mind having another choice. In fact, I looking for a progressive alternative in the Democratic primary about a year from now.

Comments elsewhere:

DailyKos

Open Left

Can this be true? Specter to switch? BREAKING NEWS

2009-04-28T12:25:00.002-04:00

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.party.switch/index.html

MoveOn Torture Petition

2009-04-24T13:50:00.001-04:00

In case you want to sign the petition demanding investigation of alleged torture.

Check out this powerful video about the campaign, and sign the petition, at this link: http://pol.moveon.org/investigate

Pretty Coherent Summing up of Tea Party 09

2009-04-20T22:26:00.003-04:00

Devil's Tower says it much better than I could.

The teabaggers were mostly the next iteration of the off-the-reservation and pissed at someone voters who propelled Ross Perot in 1992. Link.

TEA Day protester saved by hand she is biting

2009-04-17T22:57:00.005-04:00

Jim Buck gets all the credit:

Woman okay after falling into Susquehanna River
A quiet, solo protest against massive federal government spending ended in a city woman being rescued from the cold waters of the Susquehanna River on Wednesday morning.
Joanne Millard, 68, a resident at Riverfront Apartments, slipped on a rock and then fell into the water while dumping tea leaves from a plastic bag into the river to protest the recent trillions of dollars in government spending.

The sender says:
Jordi,
Tax protester falls in river and must be rescued by govt. she doesn't want to pay for. Thought you might want to post this at Daily Kos or something :)

Well, I got as far as this blog.

Democratic Underground already found it.

Tax Day Tea Parties Nearby?

2009-04-12T22:56:00.002-04:00

Hey-

Here is Huntington Post on Tax Day Tea Party antics.

Here is the anti-tax organizing site.

Here is where you can sign up to be a citizen journalist.

I wonder if there are any of these around here?

Is this a model of media activism we like? Want to implement? Does it also give progressives a chance to interact with our likely adversaries?

Reasons for Hope

2009-04-07T11:26:00.002-04:00

A new NYT/CBS News poll finds some signs of hope:

Poll Finds New Optimism on Economy Since Inauguration

Financial update: Big mess

2009-04-04T14:34:00.003-04:00

Here's a bit of recommended reading that was mentioned at last Thursday's meetup:

Matt Taibbi, The Big Takeover

It's from Rolling Stone so there's profanity in the first sentence, but it seems appropriate to the situation, doesn't it?

Here's what I got as the takehome message from Dave K-G's answers to our questions about the financial crisis:

1) Banks and financial services will need to be reregulated. Separating deposit banks from investment banks again would be a good start.

2) New laws should provide for regulation of any new financial products. Any weak spot will eventually be exploited. An unregulated financial system is prone to crisis (and that's not a good thing for must of us).

Three Cheers for William Greider

2009-03-30T21:15:00.002-04:00

Here's a bit of recommended reading: William Greider's 3/22/09 piece in the Washington Post, Obama told us to speak out, but is he listening?

William Greider appeared on Bill Moyer's show last Friday and elaborated on some of the points from the article: the bottom line is if we don't want the monied interests to get their way in Washington and everywhere, we're going to have to find a way to mobilize millions of people to take on business as usual. Greider believes that new laws may wind up enshrining corporatism (i.e., government run by the corporations) as our form of government.

Here's the link to the Moyers interview.

Lakoff on the Obama Code

2009-02-26T11:09:00.002-05:00

George Lakoff analyzes how President Obama is helping the American public see that progressive values are American values. It's well worth a look:

The Obama Code

Stimulus bill passes House

2009-02-13T17:10:00.002-05:00

Just wanted to remark that the "stimulus bill version 2.0" (after the House-Senate compromise) passed the House again, and Carney once again voted in favor of it (just like last time). Good for him.

Let's hope Specter sticks to his guns in the Senate.

CSCC plans healthcare forum for May 7th

2009-02-06T14:30:00.005-05:00

CSCC is organizing a Healthcare Forum on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 7 p.m. at the Union County Government Center on 15th St. N. in Lewisburg.

The theme will be "Re-Imagining Healthcare and Fixing What's Fixable: The Next 5 Years." Our goal is to generate public awareness and discussion about the importance of healthcare and about our ability as citizens to address problems in the current healthcare system.

We'll have 4-5 panel speakers from different disciplines. Each will talk about their perspective on what could be improved in the current healthcare system (in PA or nationally) and what can be done in the next five years or so.

We hope to include at least one health economics professor, one state Department of Health representative, one local healthcare administrator, and one physician. We will announce the names of the speakers once the panel is set.

The format will be short presentations by each speaker, followed by time for Q&A and discussion with the audience, for a total of 90-120 minutes.

Note: a Health Care Coverage Symposium is happening at Susquehanna University on March 25-26. Here's the link if you want details.

Meetup Tonight

2009-02-05T13:17:00.001-05:00

Monthly CSCC Meetup, tonight (Thursday, Feb. 5th) at 7:30 pm at the First Baptist Church, 51 S. 3rd St., Lewisburg. Please join us!

Discussion items on this month's agenda will be:

"How to Keep the Pressure On Our Government Between Elections": We'll distribute information and share tips & advice on calling & writing your elected officials, keeping tabs on how they vote on key issues, and letting them know you are paying attention to what they are doing for you (or to you!).
"Where Should My Money Go?": With so many political groups soliciting for donations, how do you know who will give you the most impact for your buck? We'll discuss the pros and cons of national vs. local, group vs. individual and other choices to be made when deciding whether or not to donate.
Update on CSCC's "Re-Imagining Healthcare and Fixing What's Fixable: The Next 5 Years" expert panel (to be held May 7, 2009--mark your calendars!)

Carney does good

2009-01-28T20:08:00.003-05:00

The stimulus bill passed the House today with all Republicans voting against it, and 11 Democrats joining them. My first thought was "Wow! The Republicans really plan to sink together. Good!"

My second thought was, "Uh-oh, 11 Democrats. Better check to see if Carney was one." But he wasn't! Good for you, Carney, and good for us!

An ungracious speech?

2009-01-24T13:20:00.003-05:00

Some people didn't like to the inaugural speech. Most of them are taking a plane back to Texas. Here's the NYTIMES story reporting that some of those around the ex-president thought Barach Obama was taking shots at the Bush administration.

They probably thought lines like the one about the need to "restore science to its rightful place" were out of line. It's laughable to hear Karen Hughes complain about sharp elbows and being "ungracious." Sometimes you just need to tell it like it is. But the new chief of staff had the best answer to the complaints:

Mr. Emanuel mocked Bush advisers for bristling at the message of the Inaugural Address. “If they didn’t know that was the judgment of people, then their subscription to the newspapers were canceled over the last three years,” he said.

If you want evidence to support the suggestion that science has been removed from its proper place in the last eight years, there are plenty of places to look. A good starting point is the story of James Hansen, a climate scientist for NASA whose conclusions were rewritten by unknown Bush appointees.

Where should my money go?

2009-01-21T11:52:00.003-05:00

I'm having a hard time deciding which organizations should get my money this year. Of course, I'll be renewing my CSCC membership for $20 because I want to see this local effort at grass roots communication and organization continue, but what else?

I stopped by the Brasserie Louis as the Obama party was winding down last night. I was struck by how many new faces were in the crowd of about 30--and these were young faces. That got me thinking about the Obama movement and what comes next. It seems clear that the Obama organization is going to remain together in some form. I expect that they will be soliciting contributions for their organization before too long. I've already received a mailing from DFA (Democracy for America, Howard Dean's old outfit, now run by his brother Jim) and an email from MoveOn today asking for $15 per month (now that's aggressive). When I get time I'm going to log into change.org to vote in the poll they have going on, and I can expect a request for a contribution after that. About a year ago I contributed to the Nature Conservancy, so I've been getting a weekly request of some kind from them.

So here's what I'm wondering: how do we measure whether any of this is doing any good? I think MoveOn is making a difference, but do I know? Is it better to give a larger amount to one organization or small amounts to several different efforts? What about the national Democratic party (now run by Tim Kaine) or the DCCC or the local UCDC?

So here's my thought: the group that I can see is able to leverage a small amount of money into a big impact is going to be most likely to get a contribution from me this year. Frankly, after all the campaigns and efforts of the past year, there's not a lot of excess money to give.