CSCC Meetup Feb. 4th - Rails to Trails Project

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

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

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

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

LARA, Rails to Trails, and the Daily Item

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

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?

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?

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

(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

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.