Coffee and the Papers

** The Ostrich position for today is assumed by Nevada Republican operative Steve Wark, who called for support for Senator John Ensign (R-NV) because: “Republican consultant Steve Wark said Republican activists are shaking their heads, but he said they need to buck up: “I think it’s important to remember for Republicans who hold similar principles, values and political philosophy that what he has done does not diminish those values.” [LV Sun] And, those “similar principles, values and political philosophy” would be what? Adultery is acceptable? Writing an “apology letter” in February and then continuing the affair until August is acceptable? Doubling the salary of the woman with whom you are having the affair is acceptable? Putting the son of the woman with whom you are having an affair on the payroll is acceptable? Apparently trying to buy the silence of the family of the woman with whom you were having an affair is acceptable? Having your parents cut the checks to keep the lid on the scandal is acceptable? Ensign's run as the “family values” candidate, and these are strange “family values” indeed.

** The House Homeland Security Committee approved a bill (H.R. 1881) to grant TSA employees collective bargaining rights and put the employees on the General Schedule on a 13-6 party line vote. [Gov Exec]

** Business headlines I'd rather not have read: “Goldman Sachs reverts to pre-Lehman risk mean as profits surge” [Bloomberg] “Suzuki, Mitsubishi urged to 'forget America' as sales slump” [Bloomberg] “AIG seeks U.S. support for bonuses” [NYT] “At Beazer Homes, it was see no evil and pay no penalties” The company may be able to pay a very 'generous' settlement (just $15 million) for defrauding buyers, defrauding the Federal government, and lying to its shareholders. [NYT] “Commercial vacancies (Las Vegas) climbing higher” [LV Sun]

** Business headlines which were more pleasant to see this morning: “Economists raise U.S. Outlook as recession fades” [Bloomberg] “US economic growth strong, recovery imminent – ECRI” [Reuters] “With sale of its good assets, GM tries for a fresh start” [NYT]

** While some economists are debating whether a second stimulus bill might be needed to get employment figures up, the Republicans have a great idea for 2010: “Cancel the Stimulus” [WashIndy] Nothing like canceling a program that isn't yet fully operational in order to avoid waste and fraud, which has saved jobs for states, and isn't predicted to be fully in force until later this year. Intent: Let's kill this baby before it grows up and works? Question: Does this mean the GOP wants to send back the stimulus money already in the pipeline for projects in Republican held congressional districts?

** About Time! “Geithner seeks clampdown on derivatives dealers.” [Reuters] “Congress considers hiking SEC budget to prevent more Madoffs” [WashIndy]

** What you get after Howard Jarvis and the Anti-Government types win: “New round of furloughs darken state offices” [LATimes] “California IOUs to be shunned by big banks after today” [LATimes]

** “Public transit loses to polluters in climate bill subsidies” [MNIndy] “Energy Industry Sways Congress with Misleading Data” [ProPublica] “Committed to solar, Feds make renewable energy push” [LV Sun]

** Just when a person might be about to think Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) couldn't get any whackier – now she's “on the warpath against bike paths.” Bachmann doesn't think bike paths, street lighting, jungle gyms, and farmers markets have anything to do with health.

** Blue Dogs and Friends issue “ransom note” on health care insurance reform bill. [Yahoo]

Why Ensign Won't Resign: He IS CHOSEN not to do so

How on earth could a formerly popular junior Senator from Nevada, believe that he could pursue the wife of a friend even after writing a “I done wrong” letter, and having his parents draft checks to be “gifted” to the family he had wronged? What kind of individual believes that he can, and even should, remain in office even though his behavior is reckless, insensitive, and downright morally and ethically wrong? During the Rachel Maddow Show this evening Senator Ensign's connections to The Family were discussed, and Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family was interviewed.

Steve Sebelius provided more to the explanation when he reported the attendees of the second confrontation on February 15, 2007 including Tim Coe, David Coe, Marty Sherman, and U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Coburn has denied he was present when the infamous letter was written, but has not denied being at the meeting. [LV Sun] Ensign's ties to an organization that promotes a version of Christianity in which the rich are Chosen, authority is revered, and since God prefers laissez-faire capitalism the poor must wait for their handouts from the Chosen, are well documented.

From this perspective it doesn't matter if Senator Ensign did something horrific, he, like Solomon, is among the Chosen. He is rich because he is powerful, and he will be powerful because God likes rich people. And, because God likes him (has Chosen him) he should stay in office (powerful). A quick reminder of the founding of the organization 'confronting' Ensign: “The Family was founded in April 1935 by Abraham Vereide, a Norwegian immigrant who made his living as a traveling preacher. One night, while lying in bed fretting about socialists, Wobblies, and a Swedish Communist who, he was sure, planned to bring Seattle under the control of Moscow, Vereide received a visitation: a voice, and a light in the dark, bright and blinding. The next day he met a friend, a wealthy businessman and former major, and the two men agreed upon a spiritual plan. They enlisted nineteen business executives in a weekly breakfast meeting and together they prayed, convinced that Jesus alone could redeem Seattle and crush the radical unions.” [Jesus Plus Nothing] This is obviously not the Jesus who said, “Blessed are the poor...” nor is he the Redeemer who exhorted compassion in Matthew 25. This is not the religion of Jesus and 12 disciples, it is that of Vereide, a friend, and 19 business executives. This orienting philosophy, in some measure, may account for Ensign's continued refusal to take ultimate responsibility for his actions.

What could account for Ensign's disdain for calls for his resignation? Jeff Sharlet explained the political philosophy of the Family when he was interviewed by Rolling Stone after the publication of The Family. “They think that democracy has run its course. They don't need to call attention to themselves partly because they're not trying to gain access. They're not doing this from the outside, they're doing this from the inside. They're not breaking laws, they're making laws.” In other words, why would one pay attention to the Vox Populi, democracy being a “manifestation of ungodly pride,” when the Family teaches God has made a Covenant with the New Chosen. [Jesus Plus Nothing] While this may, in part, account for some of Ensign's egregious behavior it probably isn't a totally satisfying explanation – more of which was on display in the letter to Mrs. Hampton.

When City Blog's Jason Whited discussed the nature of the letter with family therapist and UNLV professor Kat Hertlein she explained that people likely to break marriage vows are also seduced by the power - “some of them believe they'll never be caught.” Hertlein's insights are an important piece in this puzzling affair. She noted Ensign never actually said what he did, doesn't specifically end the relationship, and never makes it entirely clear exactly for what he's apologizing. However, why should he, if he has that special relationship with The Almighty promoted by The Family?

From Ensign: “I take 100% responsibility for my actions. Plain + simple, it was wrong; it was sin. God never intended for us to do this. I walked away from Him + my relationship with Him has suffered terribly. I know he loves me + I know he loves you. ….More than that He wants to restore our relationships to Him.”

One of the first things that greets the eye reading Ensign's letter is the number of time he uses the pronoun “I.” This isn't a letter about “how I hurt you,” or “how I hurt my family,” or “how I insulted my wife,” or “how I've made a hash of both of our marriages.” Instead, it's a letter about “what I did was wrong,” or “I was completely self centered,” or “I destroyed everything I believe in,” and “I walked away from Him...” And the final line: “More than that He wants to restore our relationships to Him,” where it appears we have returned to that very special place reserved in the heart of The Almighty for the rich, famous, and powerful. The junior Senator evidently believes that God wants him to remain among The Chosen of the Earth, to be “restored” to his rightly held place of power, influence, and authority. If this is the case, there is no question but that the Senator would refuse all calls for his resignation – to do so would be to disavow that special and “soon to be restored” place among The Chosen.

Professor Hertlein is absolutely correct, the letter wasn't anything near an apology for an affair, it was an apology to The Almighty for a transgression that made the junior Senator feel slightly less exalted among The Chosen. God, it seems, has greater plans for Senator Ensign, to save the United States from those radical unions, and that manifestation of ungodly pride – democracy. Therefore, the sooner this political flap is over the better, because “He wants to restore our relationships to Him.”

An afterword about the secrecy of The Family: “In 1966, a few years before he was “promoted” to heaven at age eighty-four, Vereide wrote a letter declaring it time to “submerge the institutional image of [the Family].” No longer would the Family recruit its powerful members in public, nor recruit so many. “There has always been one man,” wrote Vereide, “or a small core who have caught the vision for their country and become aware of what a 'leadership led by God' could mean spiritually to the nation and to the world. . . . It is these men, banded together, who can accomplish the vision God gave me years ago.” [Jesus Plus Nothing]

Ensign's Lawyer Explains It All, or not

The statement coming from the Ensign camp today is all very lawyerly, but could be damaging from a PR perspective: (As if the Senator could do much more damage to himself and others.)

“In April 2008, (1) Senator John Ensign’s parents each made gifts to Doug Hampton, Cindy Hampton, and two of their children in the form of a check totaling $96,000. Each gift was limited to $12,000. (2)The payments were made as gifts, accepted as gifts and complied with tax rules governing gifts. After the Senator told his parents about the affair, (3) his parents decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of long-time family friends during a difficult time. (4) The gifts are consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign family to the Hamptons and others. (5) None of the gifts came from campaign or official funds nor were they related to any campaign or official duties. Senator Ensign has complied with all applicable laws and Senate ethics rules.” [LV Sun] (emphasis added)

A tax attorney may have a very different perspective on this carefully crafted statement, but to a layperson this has the distinct tone of a legal argument as opposed to an explanation for Ensign's behavior.

Gifts, Gifts, Gifts! (1) When the word “gift” is used seven times in one paragraph either the writer can't find a thesaurus or there is a deliberate repetition of a word with a specific meaning for someone – in this case probably a judge. So we are supposed to believe Ensign's assertion that his parents made “a voluntary transfer of property without consideration, for which no value is received in return.” If Ensign is to be believed then the payments were made without anything of value one party could give to another in exchange for a promise or an action. “Considerations” however, can be monetary, in commodities, or personal services. In some instances, and likely this one, “silence” can be a form of personal service. On the legal side of the ledger, it might be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mom and Dad didn't ride to the rescue of Little Johnny, opening their hearts and checkbooks to the people he'd harmed; expecting nothing in return. On the practical side of the account book – whose parents wake up one fine morning and decide that the poor dears Sonny Boy has shamed are deserving of “gifts,” all conforming to the maximum allowable amount under the IRS rule book?

(2)The payments were made as gifts, accepted as gifts and complied with tax rules governing gifts. Uh huh, this statement asserts that the Hamptons “accepted” the money without assuming that they were to do anything in return. What was going on in April 2008? Ensign admitted the affair with Mrs. Hampton lasted from December 2007 until August 2008. In February 2008, The Coburn Intervention Squad tries to convince Ensign to stop the affair. [LV Sun] The Hamptons stopped working for Senator Ensign in May 2008. [LV Sun] So, we are to believe that the Hamptons accepted the $96,000 one month before exiting the Senator's service, believing some 60 days earlier that Senator Coburn and Company had advised Ensign to “end the affair and help the Hamptons pay off their home and move to Colorado.” [LVSun] Now, we ask, how could the Hamptons have “accepted” the money as “gifts” if they knew Ensign had been advised to help them pay off the house?

Point three: (3) his parents decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of long-time family friends during a difficult time. Excuse me, but doesn't Senator Ensign take responsibility for anything related to this debacle? This is almost like saying, if the payments weren't really gifts, if the Hamptons assumed they were to take the money and keep quiet, and if the payments don't meet the standards set by the Internal Revenue Service, then it's not the Senator's fault – because “his parents decided to make the gifts.” Excuse me, but Senator Ensign was born in 1958, which would make him 51 years old now, and well over the age at which most people expect to get bailed out by Mom and Dad. This is pretty clearly an individual who expects to gather all the glory and leave others to clean up his messes. I'd suspect most people would understand Mom clearing the debris from an adolescent male's bedroom (read lair, pit or den), but fewer would comprehend parents who write checks to pay “gifts” to a family who is having a “difficult time” because of their middle aged son's adultery.

The fourth point is slightly alarming from a lay perspective. (4) The gifts are consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign family to the Hamptons and others. This sentence may seek to establish that “This Was Not A Payoff,” and “We Can Prove It Because the Ensigns Are Generous People,” but the notion that the Ensign Family Checkbooks have been open to “others” is a bit disturbing from a public relations angle. This 'Pattern of Generosity' statement may be a good point in a legal brief, but it's the kind of statement that sends the pack from the National Enquirer looking under all the rocks in the canyon to find out who else, if anyone, has been paid off before. A few more sentences like this one and the Supermarket Tabloids will have Senator Ensign paying off the husband of Dolly Parton, and the latest boyfriend of Jennifer Anniston, for photos of group escapades with aliens from Area 51.

The fifth, and final point, is pure legalese: (5) None of the gifts came from campaign or official funds nor were they related to any campaign or official duties. Senator Ensign has complied with all applicable laws and Senate ethics rules.” What's interesting about this part of the statement is not what it says, but what is not there. Most readers would probably assume that the $96,000 came from the Ensign family coffers, and not from any other funds. However, there are other payments, for example the $25,000 severance check, that do not seem to be part of this cluster of 'gifts.' It may be true that for this specific set of checks no applicable laws or Senate ethics rules were broken, but that may or may not apply to other payments made to the Hamptons at other times.

Once again, “ O' what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”

Murphy Picks Up The Baton for DADT Bill

Representative Patrick Murphy (D-PA8) has introduced H.R. 1283, the Military Readiness Act, to eliminate the DADT policy now enforced by the Pentagon. To her credit, Representative Shelley Berkley (D-NV1) has already signed on as a co-sponsor.

“Enacted in 1993, over 13,000 men and women in uniform have been discharged from the military under the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, including 800 mission critical servicemembers such as medics, fighter pilots, and nearly 60 Arabic linguists. H.R. 1283, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, would repeal the policy and allow Americans to serve their country openly, regardless of sexual orientation.” [Murphy]

The missing division: Granting that military units are composed of varying numbers of personnel, the general definition of a division is a unit including approximately 10,000 to 15,000 soldiers. [Usmil] In other words, since the promulgation of DADT we've lost the equivalent of an entire division because of this highly questionable policy. Imagine the outcry from so-called “supporters” of the U.S. military and the advocates of increasing the U.S. military strength if we'd failed to maintain an entire division, and essentially “cut” it from the resources available to the Department of Defense?

The myth of non-support: When the Gallup Organization polled Americans about DADT in November 2004, 63% supported allowing gays to serve openly in the military; 46% of conservatives agreed, 72% of moderates; and 83% of liberals. When the same inquiry was made in May 2009, 69% of national adults agreed with allowing those openly gay to serve, 58% of conservatives, 77% of moderates, and 86% of liberals. [Gallup] Between November 2004 and May 2009 6% more Americans agreed with 'open service,' 12% more conservatives, 5% more moderates, and 3% more liberals.

The Unit Cohesion and Morale Myth: Zogby Intl. surveyed members of the U.S. military in 2006, in which the question was put rather bluntly: “Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?” 26% outright agreed, 32% were neutral (unconcerned one way or the other), and 37% disagreed. 66% of the respondents didn't believe that the inclusion of gays in the unit impacted personal morale. 64% didn't think it had an impact on unit morale. [Zogby BTB] Evidently, the mythology of unit cohesion and morale doesn't hold much sway among those who are active duty personnel or veterans.

Other countries have perfectly good military forces without the 'fiction' of DADT: Major western military forces, including many in NATO allow homosexuals to openly serve: Australia; Canada; Germany; Israel; United Kingdom. Surely, no one is alleging that these U.S. allies have incompetent armies because they allow open service? It is perhaps more instructive to look at who doesn't allow open service: Cuba, China, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.

DADT wastes money: A February 2005 report from the Government Accountability Office estimated that the DADT policy had cost the U.S. government at least $190.5 million between FY 1994 and FY 2003. [PC.org] A higher estimate placed the total cost at closer to $363.8 million. No matter which set of statistical assumptions are applied, the U.S. is still wasting between $190 million and $364 million on a personnel policy for which there is relatively little reason.

Now, it would be well if Representatives Titus (D-NV3) and Heller (R-NV2) would sign on as co-sponsors to a bill that would strengthen our military, save taxpayer dollars, and value the service of all those who volunteer to wear our country's uniform.

Coffee and the Papers, Reports, and Magazine Articles

** Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tells Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) not to bend over backward to the Republicans on health insurance reform that the majority party won't pick him up when he falls over; and the next day Baucus is back at it. [Roll Call] An LTE from a Montana Human Rights Network board member should give Senator Baucus some incentive to rethink his position.

** Why don't we have a confirmation vote on Robert Groves to lead the Census Bureau? Because Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Senator David Vitter (R-LA) have holds on his nomination. Both FEAR the ACORN! Interesting, ACORN is to modern day racists what the NAACP, SNCC, or CORE were to their fathers and grandfathers? “SPLC report finds low income Latinos in South Targeted for Abuse, Discrimination.”

** The GOP candidate for the New Jersey Governorship may have put some distance between his campaign and soon-to-be-former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, but the Iowa GOP wants her to headline their annual fundraising dinner. [Des Moines Register]

** Arizona's 15 public housing authorities have spent just 3% of the $12 million in stimulus funds available for modernizing their structures [AZCent] Full GAO report here.

** The GAO's Director of Natural Resources and Environment presented a statement to the Senate subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, “Preliminary Observations on the Effectiveness and Costs of Mercury Control Technologies at Coal Fired Power Plants,” that wasn't all bad news.

** Instead of listening to Senator Jeff Sessions' quasi-hysterical assertions that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is some kind of left-wing-radical-Latina-white-hating-reverse-racist, calmer heads will want to consult the Brennan Center's report on her record in constitutional cases. The New Yorker takes a look at “The Games Senators Play.” Randall Terry has launched a particularly egregious “Defeat Sotomayor” campaign, more at Right Wing Watch.

** Speaking of right-wing-whackies, there's an e-mail floating around saying that the ACLU has filed a lawsuit to remove the cross shaped headstones in military cemeteries. Fact Check reports this is pure fantasy. And, then there's the matter of the Klingenschmitt court martial for violating a command that he not appear in protests wearing his Navy uniform – five fellow officers found him guilty in 2006 – so this has nothing to do with a “new administration,” and since the matter was investigated and prosecuted entirely by the Navy the ACLU had nothing to do with it.

** Representative John Boehner's (R-OH) wailing notwithstanding the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities finds that “Federal Fiscal Relief Is Working As Intended.” [CBPP] The EPI finds “Stimulus is working, but will not be enough.”

** The Economic Policy Institute looks at going “Beyond standardized tests” in measuring educational achievement. The Full BBA report here.

** As the debate heats up on reforming the regulation of banks and financial institutions, the Center for Responsible Lending provides an overview of the Obama Administration's proposed consumer financial products agency, and offers “Six Principles for Real Reform.” On the other side, the American Bankers Association is rustling up a “Harry and Louise” style ad campaign to defeat the regulation proposals. [Tapped] Tim Fernholz has more in “Are Democrats Ready to Fight for Consumer Protection?”

** Some of the best political-economic reporting of late isn't coming from the Wall Street rags. There's the insightful and informative “The Great American Bubble: How Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression” in Rolling Stone, now try “The Man Who Crashed The World” at Vanity Fair.

** In “Public Option Enemy Number 1” Mother Jones profiles Rick Scott, who ran “a hospital company guilty of epic fraud. Now he wants to tell you how to fix the health care system.”

** The radical anti-abortion crowd's not satisfied, “With Tiller Dead, Operation Rescue Turns Its Attention to Carhart.” [Right Wing Watch]

Wall Street Bourbons: Morgan Stanley Resurrects CDO's - They never learn and they never forget

Somewhere in an about to be foreclosed home in the Las Vegas, NV metropolitan area someone read this opening paragraph from Bloomberg News and began screaming:

“Morgan Stanley plans to repackage a downgraded collateralized debt obligation backed by leveraged loans into new securities with AAA ratings in the first transaction of its kind, said two people familiar with the sale. Morgan Stanley is selling $87.1 million of securities that it expects to receive top AAA ratings and $42.9 million of notes graded Baa2, the second-lowest investment grade by Moody’s Investors Service, according to marketing documents obtained by Bloomberg News. The bonds were created from Greywolf CLO I Ltd., a CDO arranged in January 2007 by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and managed by Greywolf Capital Management LP, an investment firm based in Purchase, New York.” [full story here] (highlighted added)

Now, where have we heard about tranched securities packages before? Where have we heard of leveraged loans? And, wasn't there something about the current “mortgage meltdown” and “credit crunch” that had something to do with repackaging lousy assets, getting a ratings agency to stamp AAA on them and foist them off, only to have those wonderful folks who brought us the Credit Default Swap hedge their bets? If I remember correctly, that didn't turn out so well.

But wait, there's more – unspecified banks have been engaging in this “activity” for several weeks, and have baptized theses securitized assets as “re-Remics.” Gee, calling them “resecuritizations of real estate mortgage investment conduits” should just change everything! And, there are some $27 billion of these babies issued this year, compared to $17 billion issued last year. Goldman-Sachs plans to sell $216.9 million in repackaged commercial mortgage debt.

Here we go again? Someone on Wall Street is the reincarnation of Charles X, of whom it was said, “He personified the old saying, 'The Bourbons never forgot anything, and never learned anything.” [GHF]

Others on this subject: The Motley Fool “Insanity Returning at Morgan Stanley, Enabled by Moody's” Seeking Alpha “The Latest Investment Bank Scam,” and The Business Insider “Morgan Stanley: Turning Crap into AAA CDO's once again.”

Ensign Apologize and Advance: The Letter and the Affair

As if we needed another chapter written in the “Torrid Affairs of the Republican Kind,” Senator John Ensign (R-NV) provides yet another. [LV Sun] Compared to the breathless prose of Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC), the letter Ensign wrote to his mistress in February 2008, lacks the Victorian literary flourishes that are the hallmark of Sanford's steamy epistles. Ensign is particularly concerned at the end of the piece to assure the letter's recipient that God wants the restoration of their domestic relationships and their relationship to Him.

Ensign doesn't indicate whether or not Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was speaking on behalf of the deity when advising that Senator Ensign end the affair, and help the Hamptons pay off their home. “Dr. Coburn did everything he could to encourage Senator Ensign to end his affair and to persuade Senator Ensign to repair the damage he had caused to his own marriage and the Hampton’s marriage," according to the statement. "Had Senator Ensign followed Dr. Coburn’s advice, this episode would have ended, and been made public, long ago." John Hart, Coburn communications director [LV Sun] If, in fact, the Coburn Intervention Crew advised Senator Ensign (on behalf of the Deity) that paying off the house and allowing the Hamptons to move (quickly?) to Colorado, was the proper thing to do – then a person might ask where in Scripture one finds the part wherein “Paying Off Fast, and Going Public” is advised?

However much the Supreme Being may have wished for reconciliation, what Ensign delivered was rejuvenation. Rather than end the affair, Ensign pursued the 'love of his life' for another six months. VT&S recommends a very appropriate passage from Galatians for Senator Ensign's next personal Bible study session. To which I'd say, “Amen!”

GOP: Stimulus Too Slow, Stimulus Too Fast - The Process And The Timelines For Spending ARRA Funds

Nevada can expect a double bonus from some economic stimulus funds (ARRA) allocated to the state thus far. First, and obviously, Nevada firms will be hired to work on water quality infrastructure projects; and, the state ends up with both improved infrastructure and better water. According to the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, the state will receive $19.2 million from the EPA to support local wastewater treatment infrastructure, and to assist Nevada communities with compliance issues to ensure safe collection and treatment of waste water. Another $194,300 will be available in CWA-604b funds for supporting state and local water quality planning projects. $19.5 million from the EPA will assist communities with drinking water infrastructure problems, especially support for arsenic treatment projects and “other critical improvements to public water supply systems.” [NDEP] Other clean-up funding includes $1.266 million from the EPA for the clean up of sites contaminated by petroleum where no viable responsible parties are available; and, $1 million in additional funds for the EPA Brownfields SRF program. [NDEP] However, the truth is that we can't expect this bonus tomorrow morning.

The economic stimulus program doesn't seem to be moving fast enough for the Republican Party, the Congressional leadership of which is whining and wailing that the stimulus funding hasn't worked. “It's already July and the economy isn't booming! See...we told you so.” [MMA] The situation is illustrative of a GOP long standing pattern – projects that move too quickly are rife with waste, fraud, and abuse; or projects that don't come on line fast enough don't do any good. A review of the NDEP's process statement is in order.

First, it should be noted that the ARRA didn't go into effect until April 1, 2009. What did NDEP spend time doing from April 2009 to June 2009? On April 14 there was “mandatory training on identifying waste, fraud, and abuse; information supplemented on April 30, 2009 by a “identifying waste, fraud, and abuse Seminar locations letter; and, augmented by a “Project monitoring and fraud prevention presentation in June 2009. The loan application process was implemented during this time period, as well as EPA guidance for applying for Buy American waivers should those be necessary to contain the project costs. [NDEP]

In December 2008, the NDEP began advertising for clean water, and drinking water projects that were “ready to go.” In January 2009 approximately $985 clean water and $562 drinking water projects had been identified. February was spent prioritizing these projects, and public comments were provided for in March and April. “Good Government” types shouldn't be disturbed by these guidelines, we'd not want a hash of slap-dash-spur-of-the-moment projects, nor would the public interest be served by shutting down public commentary. The draft priority listing is now available online. Local communities were told to complete their loan applications by May 2009, and the first loan contracts were set to be awarded in June. A second round of loan commitments is scheduled for September 2009, and by February 17, 2010 “all loan contracts must be awarded and projects either under construction or have construction contracts in place.” In short, in order to compile the applications, sort through and prioritize them, provide guidance on waivers, provide guidelines to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and to allow a reasonable amount of time for public comment, the agency required about six months lead time. Republican complainers don't get “their cake and eat it too,” either the government agencies, like the NDEP, have sufficient lead time to rationally compile a project list, and adequately train appropriate personnel at the state and local levels to spot indications of waste, fraud, and project funding abuse; or, we get fast buck projects that attract the unscrupulous to the unsupervised.

The NDEP example is instructive of one form of complaint (things are going too slowly), however there are more verses in the GOP songbook.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) wasn't upset that the Economic Stimulus package funded a new wastewater treatment plant in Perkins, OK, but he was disturbed that the legislation included enforcement of the Davis-Bacon Act such that those who worked on the project would be paid the local prevailing wage. [RCP] This example illustrates the problem with a second form of complaint. Everyone should recall that what the Republicans wanted by way of a stimulus package were more tax cuts. Tax cuts were universally observed to be the slowest and least efficacious form of immediate economic stimulation in a retail based economy. Infrastructure projects, with employees paid prevailing wages were not popular with the GOP.

On February 3, 2009 the U.S. Senate voted down an attempt to add $13 billion in highway funds, $5 billion in transit system funds, and $7 billion in water and sewer projects 58-39 on a vote requiring a super-majority 60. [CM] Senator John Ensign (R-NV) was one of the 39 voting to block the addition of this infrastructure spending. [roll call 33] Of the Democrats, only Senator Mary Landrieux (D-LA) broke ranks and joined the GOP. In the end, the final version of the Stimulus Bill included $275 billion in tax cuts. [US NWR] If it can be said that the infrastructure and public assistance funding haven't work, then it must also be said that the tax cuts didn't either.

If anyone is allowed an “I Told You So” moment, it's Mark Zandi of Moody's who observed back in January 2008 that the elements with the greatest “bang for the buck” were unemployment benefits, food stamps, aid to state governments, and increased infrastructure spending. Those items with the least “bang” were tax rebates, temporary tax cuts, and permanent tax cuts. By the time the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed, the tax cuts were in place (securing not a single GOP vote in the House) and several infrastructure categories had been cut. [DailyO]

What we have here is a stimulus package that was designed when a consensus among economists predicted a 7.7% unemployment rate by the end of 2009, which turned out to be entirely too optimistic. As recently as March 2009 economists were calculating a 9.2% rate at the end of the year. That, too, was overly optimistic. To add to the problems, not only was the initial package based on overly optimistic predictions, but during the legislative process in Congress more effective items (infrastructure spending) was replaced by less effective tax cuts and credits. [EPI]

It's by far and away too soon to tell if the ARRA will be sufficient to move the American economy into a substantial growth period. However, even with the improvements in such areas as Nevada's water quality, and other projects throughout the nation, it may soon be evident that the initial measures were too little, and insufficiently focused on short term investments with both short and long term outcomes.

In the meantime, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) has walked back his comments that the Stimulus funding hadn't produced a single contract in his home state. When his State Department of Transportation said it had just approved six more stimulus road projects for $43 million, Boehner retreated to saying, “the entire process has been absurdly slow moving.” [TP] But, what might Rep. Boehner have said had the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection not taken several weeks to prioritize its projects, take public comment, and make clear to everyone involved that waste, fraud, and abuse would not be tolerated?

Ensign Votes To Strip Over The Road Bus Security Funds

The next time Senator John Ensign (R-NV) gives a speech during which he calls for “national vigilance,” or wants us to “engage in the war on terror,” someone needs to gently remind him about his vote on July 7, 2009 to eliminate the appropriations for the Over The Road Bus Security Assistance recommended by the Transportation Safety Administration. [roll call 218]

The McCain amendment (S.Amdt 1400 to S.Amdt 1373) would have stripped a program that funds the development of security plans for intercity and charter bus services, the development of vulnerability assessments, preparing security plans, implementing response training, training front-line personnel to be aware of potential security threats, providing live or simulated exercises for improving responses, launching public awareness programs, modifying over the road buses to improve security, installing cameras and surveillance equipment on buses, terminals, garages, and bus facilities.

A person would think that planning, training, and equipping to improve over the road bus security would be a priority after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, or are the Republican tired of the whole “security thing” now that they don't control Congress or the White House?

Why else would they try to strip out funding for modifying terminals and facilities to improve security? Are they tired of issues like isolating and protecting bus drivers? Improving emergency communications systems linking the bus drivers to their operation's centers? Are they all over being concerned about funding projects to detect chemical, biological, radiological, or explosive matter on buses? [TSA]

The American Bus Association reports that independent bus operators provide 631 million passenger trips each year; and more people travel by bus in a two week period than travel by train in a year. 2007 estimates for bus ridership were around 700 million total passenger trips. [ABA]

One can't help but imagine that not so long ago the Republicans in the Senate would have been supporting the Over The Road program, and citing this admonition from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: “The nation’s public transportation systems are vulnerable to disruption from natural disasters and security-related incidents. Funding assistance from the Department of Homeland Security is needed to protect critical public transportation infrastructure from terrorists’ attack and to improve surveillance and detection. Inter-agency communications capabilities need to be improved. And a joint program involving police, fire and transportation agencies at the local and state level and justice, homeland security and transportation agencies at the Federal level needs to be developed to improve emergency response capabilities.” [AASHT]

But, perhaps, that was then and this is now?

When Carlin isn't funny? Faux Outrage over Faux Report on Faux News

A Carlin isn't funny when it's Alan Carlin, former economist with the Environmental Protection Agency who is a global climate change denier, and the author of a self authorized report on “global warming.” [WM]

Senator James Inhofe is “outraged” that the Carlin report was “suppressed by the EPA.” If the Senator would sit down, take a deep breath, and allow some oxygen to reach his cerebral cortex he would find out that:

1. The report was never suppressed because it was never authorized in the first place. No one at the EPA solicited Mr. Carlin's report. No one from the agency requested that Mr. Carlin draft the report. Nothing was suppressed because nothing was officially produced on behalf of the agency. The agency has no mandate to officially publish unofficial reports. [TPMM] Mr. Carlin can no more assume that his agency must publish his reports, than he could require that the agency publish a novel.

2. Carlin was only asked to provide comments to a working draft circulated by the agency. Carlin had submitted previous responses to agency drafts, and felt he wasn't getting enough attention from the agency administrators. It was not “an official” report rebuffed by the EPA, but Carlin's commentary, submitted as his response to the draft. Anyone who's worked in any bureaucratic setting, either governmental or corporate, knows that those in the corner offices may or may not accept and include voluntary commentaries, and that no one can assume that their commentaries will be incorporated in the final version of any document – whether it concerns global climate change or the efficacy of adding carrot juice to the Friday breakfast meeting menu of the regional sales force.

3. Since the “report” wasn't solicited, Mr. Carlin was perfectly free to publish it on his own website – which he did. If his “report” was an unsolicited effort, and his related commentary wasn't incorporated into the official agency release, then Mr. Carlin and his supporters can't say that the agency “suppressed” a report Mr. Carlin was quite free to put on the Internet for all to see. And, since he did make his views known publicly, why would the Competitive Enterprise Institute charge otherwise?

4. It really doesn't much matter if Mr. Carlin is primarily an economist or a scientist, if what he wrote could pass a peer review. Unfortunately, it didn't. In fact, it didn't get past a brief but logical response from a NASA climate scientist. [RC.org] In general, “One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.” The rest of the rejoinder is here.

All this probably won't help EPA chief Lisa Jackson when she has to listen to Senator Inhofe's irrational questions during Senate testimony today. Here's what Jackson prepared to say to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) noted “Climate deniers are taken seriously only at ExxonMobil and in the Senate.” [Think Progress]

Let Trigger RIP: More Stalling By Health Insurance Reform Opponents

No matter how amenable Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) seeks to be, no matter how “bi-partisan” President Obama wishes to be, the opponents of health insurance reform who are spending $1.2 million a day and their allies [TPM] have a simple formula for preventing any significant threats to that industry's profitability. First, demand concessions. Second, filibuster. Third, no matter how many concessions were made, vote against both cloture and the final version of the legislation. Because, whatever concessions were made they will never be enough. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), in fact, takes pride in being “an obstructionist.” He, and others, have no intention of compromising their position. [MMA]

If the opponents can't preclude the passage of a public option, then they will seek to delay it. This is the point at which the “Trigger” plan takes center stage, introduced by Republicans and some conservative Democrats, the Trigger would create a public option if industry efforts to increase competition fail. [TPM] With some measure of sensitivity to Roy Rogers' fans, Trigger is dead, stuffed, and should remain that way.

A Trigger threat would supposedly create a Damocletian Sword over the heads of the insurance industry to “force” them to reduce rates and provide better service, however when terms like “affordable,” or “meaningful,” or “several years” are inserted into the discussion, it's obvious that the Trigger idea is nothing more than a stalling tactic. [TWR] Besides, if a public option would reduce rates and make insurance plans more affordable for Americans from day one, why wait until the industry proves itself incapable of reform?

We have a government established to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” I don't see “and to preserve the profitability of health insurance corporations” anywhere in that preamble.

No Public Option, No Public Progress: Nevada Numbers and Implications

According to Statemaster statistics, Nevada ranks 47^th in the nation on the “Health Index.” The weighted average for this overall gauge is a positive 2.1, Nevada scored a dismal negative 13.37, leading only New Mexico, Mississippi, and Louisiana. At the other end of the scale we rank 2^nd nationwide in the prevalence of poor mental health conditions. This isn't surprising since we are tied for 38^th place in state expenditure for mental health services. We have a less than desirable 19% rate of persons with obesity problems. These general statistics and rankings should jar a few ideologues loose from their pro-corporate moorings. If generalized figures won't do, how about more localized numbers?

Some Local Numbers to Ponder

The Southern Nevada Health District's Quarterly Report shows 12 vaccine preventable cases of Hepatitis B (acute), and 456 cases of influenza this year to date. The State Health Division has had a “Strategic Plan for the Prevention of Obesity in Nevada,” since 2006, complete with a nice photo of asparagus on the cover, and informing the reader that “high blood pressure is twice as common” (in obese people), their Type 2 Diabetes risk doubles, and the risk for osteoarthritis increases by 9-13% for every two pound weight gain.” But, how are people to pay for vaccines, and to participate in wellness and obesity prevention programs when the state ranks 4^th in the nation for the percentage of individuals without health insurance? [Health NV]

Who's Paying For What in Nevada?

Of those who are insured in Nevada, 58% have insurance sponsored by their employers. 11% are eligible for Medicare, 8% are eligible for Medicaid, 4% have individual private coverage, and 19% go without any insurance at all. The Strategic Plan summarized the situation: “This lack of primary insurance coverage indicates that Nevadans bear a substantial amount of medical expenses through private pay, indigent medical care or state subsidy.” [Health NV] Phrased less eloquently, Nevadans are already paying for the health care services in Nevada either on their own, or out of their tax dollars. And, we still haven't been able to implement the strategic plan for reducing health care needs by addressing obesity issues. We aren't doing much better in terms of communicable diseases.

The State Health Department advises all Nevadans to “consider getting a flu vaccination.” We may assume that the “consider” part of the sentence can, in part, refer to those who eschew medical treatment for religious or personal reasons; but, more likely those who “consider” without actually getting a vaccination do so because they can't afford it, or a clinic isn't available within a reasonable distance.

Like the Strategic Plan for reducing the incidence of obesity, the state has a plan for “Hepatitis Prevention and Control” that has been in place since September 2004. A significant amount of Nevada's problem with Hepatitis control revolves around the lack of stringent enforcement of health and public safety regulations, and the lack of sufficient resources to employ and retain inspectors. However, as in the case of the flu shots, the recommendations didn't get much further than “By January 2006, develop methods to link persons with chronic Hepatitis infection to sites and health care providers where they may access treatment services.” Who pays for this “access to treatment services?” The answer hasn't changed from the paragraph above – 58% employer sponsored plans, 11% Medicare, 8% Medicaid, 4% private medical insurance plans, and 19% completely out of pocket.

In short, Nevada has two “strategic” public health plans which depend entirely on the capacity of employer paid, Medicare/Medicaid based, or individual expenditures for the implementation of their medical services and treatment components. This situation is roughly analogous to having a State Wildland Fire Plan that pre-supposes individuals and businesses will provide 81% of the resources necessary to implement it. The reports from the state Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation add more strain to this already constricted situation.

The Shrinking Employment Sector

Once upon a time, not so long ago, 58% of Nevadans got their health care insurance via an employer sponsored plan. Nevada's unemployment rate in May 2008 was 6.1%. By May 2009, the unemployment rate statewide was 11.3%, with 11.1% unemployed in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, 11.2% unemployed in the Reno-Sparks MSA, 10.8% in Carson City, and 6.0% in the Elko area. [DETR] The arithmetic is simple, there are now about 5% more Nevadans who will be without health insurance coverage because they no longer have an employer. A health care delivery system tethered to the employment figures will, of necessity, never be a stable platform from which to launch any public health improvement programs.

The current system intertwines the boom and bust cycles with our health care proposals and their implementation. When times are flush, individuals and employers may be able to pay for mental health services, weight control programs, and vaccinations. When they are not, and when citizens may be in the greatest need of assistance in these areas – they cannot access them because of the lack of individual resources.

Bottom Line? Without a Public Option there will be no Public Health progress.

Senate Finance Committee Still Hasn't Come To Terms With Three Major Health Care Insurance Issues

Perhaps Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) can explain, because I surely can't, how progress is being made in the Senate Finance Committee's negotiations over the health insurance reform legislation, given that three really large issues remain: "Those include: how to pay for coverage for 47 million uninsured Americans, whether to require most employers to kick in toward the cost of coverage and whether to create a new government-sponsored insurance program to compete with private insurers." [WaPo] All the other issues involved seem relatively trivial in comparison to those three questions. Membership roster of the Senate Finance Committee, and links here. One of the members is Senator John Ensign (R-NV)

Anyone still harboring illusions about our "Best Health Care System The World Has Ever Known" is advised to read Wendell Potter's account of how a Remote Area Medical team in Wise, Virginia opened his eyes to the reality of our medical care delivery system.

Co-oped Up: Senators Seek Solution to Their Problems By Hiding Behind Regional Cooperatives for Health Insurance Reform

The so-called "co-op" plan for health insurance reform may solve political problems in the Senate, but it doesn't address the economic and health problems faced by millions of Americans. The co-op option is one of those non-solution solutions that present themselves well to politicians looking for a way to avoid taking a principled stand on behalf of individual citizens, and minimizing the impact of legislation on corporate donors. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and other leaders in the U.S. Senate ought not to be dazzled by the kind of basic B.S. embodied in the regional co-op proposals. Here's why:

First, this "solution" is nothing more than a retread of the old Blue Cross/Blue Shield business model. The theory was that a regional cooperative would elect a board of directors, hire a CEO, and be accountable to the shareholders. There is supposed to be an intrinsic incentive to cost reduction in this model. The theory said that the cooperative would be able to negotiate deals with hospitals and physicians for services, and that, in and of itself, would help contain costs. [TP] If this business model didn't work before, why would we believe it would work now? Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) and his allies would rather ignore the fact that their "non-profit consumer-driven cooperatives," are remarkably similar to the BC/BS franchise operations across the nation, none of which seem to have been capable of reducing health care costs nationwide, much less in their regional markets. If for-profit regional plans can't secure reductions, how are non-profit operations supposed to do so?

Secondly, the non-profit cooperatives would, from the very outset, lack the negotiating leverage necessary for significant cost reductions in either premiums or health service related expenses. Long gone are the days when in 1929 the Administrator of the Baylor University hospital could deliver on a health insurance system that promised teachers 21 days of hospital care for $6 a year. [link]The regional health cooperatives would be required to bargain with hospitals which are part of nationwide corporations, some with international financing. Prescription drug prices, and the costs associated with medical technologies, would have to be negotiated with national corporations, some with international financing. If the massively powerful and well capitalized health care insurance plans haven't been able to bring sufficient clout to the bargaining table to reduce these costs - why would anyone believe that a regional non-profit could do so? [Reich]

UnitedHealth Group has a market cap of some $28.4 billion, WellPoint's market cap is $24.1 billion, and Aetna is third at $10.7 billion. [YahFin] Sanofi-Aventis (drug manufacturer) has a market cap of $77.5 billion, GlaxoSmithKline at $88.2 billion, Novartis has a market cap of $90.8 billion, Pfizer has a $97.7 market cap, and Johnson & Johnson leads them all at $154.3 billion. [YahFin] Among the hospital corporations, Health Management Association has a $1.2 billion market cap, Tenet Healthcare's market cap is $1.3 billion, LifePoint Hospitals have a $1.4 billion market cap, Community Health shows a market cap of $2.3 billion, and Universal Health Services has a $2.4 billion market cap. [YahFin] And now, our "Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho" regional health plan cooperative is supposed to bargain against or perhaps with these Big Boys?

Third, one of the possible unintended consequences of the regional cooperative option could very well be a continued lack of accountability. One of the primary reasons for any government involvement in any enterprise is to improve the accountability of the programs. The creation of independent regional cooperative, answerable only to their membership, is an invitation to the major corporations to provide "administrative" assistance. A public health insurance program would not necessarily have to be a government entity - but it must be held publicly accountable. Regionalism invites a lack of nationwide accountability. [HCAN]

Fourth, and finally, it's important to remember that the non-profit regional cooperative option is not health care insurance reform. The proposal is quite simply a suggestion that the U.S. entertain the notion that small regional cooperatives could alleviate some of the issues of the uninsured and under-insured by establishing an "exchange" for the citizens of this country the for-profit insurance corporations do not want to cover. In other words, the regional cooperatives would be inserted into the system for the purpose of insuring those whom the for-profit corporations see as unprofitable. Put even more bluntly, the citizens of the U.S. would be asked to subsidize yet more "cherry picking" on the part of the for-profit insurers.

It's high time Democratic members of the U.S. Senate stopped hiding behind the regional cooperative faux solution to a very real national problem.

Happy Holiday

...and thanks for your patience. DB will be back tomorrow after some R&R, and a brief rest after all the fine-print reading vis a vis the health insurance reform debate.

A 4th of July Independent Declaration: Red Flags for Blue Dogs on Health Care

Sorry, Mr. President, but support your administration as I do, as an independent American on the 4^th of July, I'm not going to indulge your suggestion that I stop pointing out that “bi-partisanship at any cost” isn't going to work for the citizens of Nevada who either have no health insurance coverage, or don't have enough. In this I agree with Slinkerwink's Dkos post today. The Republicans don't seem to want any form of health insurance reform that might even remotely impinge on the profitability of the health insurance corporate giants. Worse still are some Blue Dog Democrats, who take an unseemly pride in supporting the corporate interests above those of the average citizens who have given them their votes.

I take no populist pride in railing against corporations. There are some good corporate citizens, but contrary to the legal fiction created by the Supreme Court, they are not people. The corporations, no matter how well intentioned, are subservient to the will of their investors, not to the citizens who live beside and within them. A corporation has no responsibility to the public at large, it is simply a structure for conducting business transactions and allocating capital resources. So, when a politician of any stripe places the wants of a corporate sector over the needs of the public at large, then he or she is essentially a representative of the corporate elite and not a public constituency.

Corporations see nothing wrong with a government that controls the individual or collective actions of the populace. After all, they require a stable economic and social environment in which to conduct business; but, they are loath to accept any controls on their own behavior. Their spokespersons tout the efficacy of Free Market competition, yet they constantly seek to monopolize markets. 94% of the health insurance markets in the United States are essentially monopolies. The spokespersons idealize the tenets of small business enterprise while they consolidate through as many leveraged buy-outs, mergers, and acquisitions as they can achieve.

The corporation representatives are eager to assure us that their free market form of enterprise will contain costs, and provide health care insurance for each and every American – but only as long and as far as that individual American is able to pay for it. Unfortunately, the maxim that “you get what you pay for” doesn't appear applicable to health insurance products. We may purchase a major medical health insurance policy, but should we become ill the corporate headquarters will invest its efforts in ways to prevent paying the claims. It is almost as if we were to purchase an automobile only to have the dealership refuse to let us take it off the lot, lest we damage its value – while the dealer retains both our check for the vehicle and the vehicle itself. Imagine if any other retail product could be retained by rescission? by exclusions? by unwarranted limitations? And yet, this business model, this corporate plan, is exactly what some members of Congress would like to preserve.

So, thus declaring my independence this day, I will do what I did yesterday: Post a contact list of Democratic members of the United States Senate whose positions on health care insurance reform doesn't, in my estimation, promote the physical and economic well being of the people of the United States, and the other corporations and businesses harmed by the actions of the health care corporations. And here they are: (Like it or not) This time I'll highlight the more recalcitrant among them.

Who's On The Fence? And, Who's Moved?

According to 538, the following members of the U.S. Senate have not committed to a public option, however some updating and revisions may be in order:

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) The Virginian-Pilot reports that Warner is supporting the dubious “non-profit co-op” proposal, a hybrid that lacks the leverage of a national plan, and one which simply reinstate the health care corporations as trustees of a national system.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) The Las Vegas Sun reports today that Senator Reid has not yet pledged to support a public option.

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Senator Conrad appears to still be pitching his “non-profit co-op” proposal to voters in a Fargo, ND health care roundtable discussion. [InForum]

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) As indicated above, the Connecticut senator isn't likely to support a public option, if his statements today can be read as a guide. Since consistency has not been a hob-goblin of this senator's mind, it's hard to predict his final vote on this issue.

Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Senator Lincoln's opposition to a public option has been publicized, and has made her the target of some proposed advertising campaigns in her home state. [The Hill] Lincoln has voted with Republicans in the past to curb class action lawsuits, pass free trade agreements, and on ending a filibuster of estate tax repeal. [Kip] Lincoln is up for re-election this campaign season.

Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) Cardin has announced his support for a public option in his May 6, 2009 press release.

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE ) As of June 23, 2009 Carper was still expressing support for the co-op option but did not rule out his possible support for a public option in comprehensive health insurance reform. [The Hill]

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Like Lincoln, Bayh is also up for re-election, and seeks to represent a state in which WellPoint has its corporate headquarters. Bayh is an opponent of “runaway spending,” which one could infer that he would support one of the plans that in reality doesn't save the amount of money a public option could secure. [Kip] The following excerpt from a letter to a constituent may hold a clue to his thinking: “Our priority should be to fix the system as we know it, to ensure that there is access to good, quality health care for Americans.” [DemUnd] The only commentary on his website offers that he has sponsored a tax credit for small businesses to make health insurance plans more affordable; without noting that most small businesses can't afford the plans in the first place.

Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) Senator Specter has done a bit of flip flopping on this issue, but as of late appears to be agreeing with Senator Charles Schumer's public option proposal. [TPMDC]

Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) is supportive of health insurance reform but not so securely as his colleague Mark Udall in Colorado. [CoPols]

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Judging from her responses so far, Senator Feinstein is somewhere between the public option and the Co-Op plan or perhaps even somewhere between those. [TPMDC]

Senator Mark Udall (D-CO ) is supporting the public option. Assuring constituents that the Co-Op plan should not be a substitute for a public option. [CoPols]

Senator Patty Murrary (D-WA) according to one spokesperson is “in favor of a strong public options.” [TS]

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Senator Baucus has been tap dancing as fast as he can on health insurance reform, and appears of late to be embracing the Co-Op plan [WashExam]

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Senator Dodd's most recent proposal includes a public option component. [CBS]

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Loaded Orygun wasn't pleased with the Senator's responses to “triggers” and other gimmicks in the health insurance reform proposals. LO referred to Wyden's responses as “stonewalling.”

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Senator Landrieu's support for the insurance corporation's and lack of enthusiasm for a public option component has made her a target of MoveOn.org's 60 second TV ad, featuring a cancer survivor. [CNN]

Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Senator Stabenow has announced support for a public option. [DetExam]

Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Senator Pryor released this statement on June 11: “Senator Pryor supports every American being able to keep the coverage they have now or being able to choose a plan that best meets their needs. A public option plan is something that is still on the table and something he could support, but it should be designed in a way that increases and does not eliminate competition.” [ArkTimes] More at HuffPo.

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Nelson is perhaps most famous for demanding the slashing of the economic stimulus bill by tens of billions to secure his support. [Kip] Nelson moved so far as to not support a GOP filibuster of any public option, [DetExam] but not much further. He has backed off from calling the public option a “deal breaker.” [HuffPo]

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) It appears so though Senator Cantwell had a prolonged flirtation with the Co-Op proposal, but has recently recalibrated her response indicating that a public option should be part of the overall health insurance reform package. [SPI]

Therewith's my 4^th of July Independent Response, because frankly I don't care if they are Blue Dogs, Red Cats, or little White Bunnies; as long as they place the interests of a single corporate sector above the needs of the remaining companies and individuals in this great nation they aren't going to find this blog cutting them any slack.

Happy 4th of July

A very happy (and safe) 4th of July to one and all.