Mock executions and a favored Saddam technique, all endorsed by Cheney. Highlights of the CIA interrogation report By Mark Benjamin
"The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it ...The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people."
– Former Vice President Dick Cheney speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on May 21, 2009
Below are excerpts from the now declassified May 2004 inspector general's review of CIA interrogations during the so-called war on terror, which was released by the Obama administration on Monday afternoon in response to an ACLU lawsuit. Page numbers link to the actual page of the report. (You can read 24 selected pages of the report here, or download the whole report.) The report is heavily redacted.
Sometime between 28 December 2002 and 1 January 2003, the debriefer used an unloaded semi-automatic handgun as a prop to frighten Al-Nashiri into disclosing information. After discussing this plan with [blacked out] the debriefer entered the cell where Al-Nashiri sat shackled and racked the handgun once or twice close to Al-Nashiri's head. On what was probably the same day, the debriefer used a power drill to frighten Al-Nashiri. With [blacked out] consent, the debriefer entered the detainee's cell and revved the drill while the detainee stood naked and hooded. [Page 42]
(Darius Rejali, the author of "Torture and Democracy" and an expert on the history on the torture, told Salon that the use of a power drill as an implement of torture is fairly rare, but was favored by one recently deceased despot: Saddam Hussein.)
[Blacked out] staged the incident, which included screaming and yelling outside the cell by other CIA officers and [blacked out] guards. When the guards moved the detainee from the interrogation room, they passed a guard who was dressed as a hooded detainee, lying motionless on the ground, and made it appear as if he had been shot to death. [Page 70]
During another incident [blacked out] the same Headquarters debriefer, according to a [blacked out] who was present, threatened Al-Nashiri by saying that if he did not talk, "We could get your mother in here," and, "We can bring your family in here" ... It was widely believed in Middle East circles that [blacked out] interrogation techniques involves sexually abusing female relatives in front of the detainee. [Pages 42 and 43]
An experienced Agency interrogator reported that the [interrogators] threatened Khalid Shaykh Muhammad [blacked out]. According to this interrogator, the [blacked out] interrogators said to Khalid Shaykh Muhammad that if anything else happens in the United States, "We're going to kill your children." [Page 43]
On another occasion [blacked out] said he had to intercede after [blacked out] expressed concern that Al-Nashiri's arms might be dislocated from his shoulders. [Blacked out] explained that, at the time, the interrogators were attempting to put Al-Nashiri in a standing stress position. Al-Nashiri was reportedly lifted off the floor by his arms while his arms were bound behind his back with a belt. [Page 44]
[Blacked out] interrogator reported that he witnessed ... the use of a stiff brush that was intended to induce pain on Al-Nashiri and standing on Al-Nashiri's shackles, which resulted in cuts and bruises. [Page 44]
The Review determined that interrogators used the waterboard on Khalid Shaykh Muhammad in a manner inconsistent with ... the description of the waterboard in the [Justice Department] opinion, in that the technique was used on Khalid Shaykh Muhammad a large number of times … The Attorney General was informed the waterboard had been used 119 times on a single individual ... Cables indicate that Agency interrogators [blacked out] applied the waterboard technique to Khalid Shaykh Muhammad 183 [blacked out]. [Pages 44 and 45]
In July 2002, [blacked out] operations officer, participated with another operations officer in a custodial interrogation of a detainee [blacked out] reportedly used a "pressure point" technique: with both of his hands on the detainee's neck, [blacked out] manipulated his fingers to restrict the detainee's carotid artery. [Page 69]
In December 2002, [blacked out] cable reported that a detainee was left in a cold room, shackled and naked, until he demonstrated cooperation. [Page 75]
According to [blacked out] and others who have worked [blacked out] "water dousing" has been used [blacked out] since early 2003 when [blacked out] officer introduced this technique to the facility. Dousing involves laying a detainee down on a plastic sheet and pouring water over him for 10 to 15 minutes. [Page 76]
The act of putting a detainee in a diaper can cause abrasions if the detainee struggles because the floor of the facility is concrete. [Page 77]
Inasmuch as (enhanced interrogation techniques) have been used only since August 2002, and they have not all been used with every high value detainee, there is limited data on which to assess their individual effectiveness. [Page 89]
From Appendix F: Draft [CIA Office of Medical Services] guidelines on Medical and Psychological support to detainee interrogations.
In our limited experience, extensive sustained use of the waterboard can introduce new risks. Most seriously, for reasons of physical fatigue or psychological resignation, the subject may simply give up, allowing excess filling of the airways and loss of consciousness. An unresponsive subject should be righted immediately, and the interrogator should deliver a sub-xyphoid thrust to expel the water. If this fails to restore normal breathing, aggressive medical intervention is required. [Page 9]
"Handgun and power drill"
Editor's note: You can download the full IG report here, or read a short collection of excerpts here.
Mark Benjamin is a national correspondent for Salon based in Washington, D.C.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/25/cia_ig_report/
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
Obama’s Team Is Lacking Most of Its Top Players
By PETER BAKER
WASHINGTON — As President Obama tries to turn around a summer of setbacks, he finds himself still without most of his own team. Seven months into his presidency, fewer than half of his top appointees are in place advancing his agenda.
Of more than 500 senior policymaking positions requiring Senate confirmation, just 43 percent have been filled — a reflection of a White House that grew more cautious after several nominations blew up last spring, a Senate that is intensively investigating nominees and a legislative agenda that has consumed both.
While career employees or holdovers fill many posts on a temporary basis, Mr. Obama does not have his own people enacting programs central to his mission. He is trying to fix the financial markets but does not have an assistant treasury secretary for financial markets. He is spending more money on transportation than anyone since Dwight D. Eisenhower but does not have his own inspector general watching how the dollars are used. He is fighting two wars but does not have an Army secretary.
He sent Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Africa to talk about international development but does not have anyone running the Agency for International Development. He has invited major powers to a summit on nuclear nonproliferation but does not have an assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation.
“If you’re running G.M. without half your senior executives in place, are you worried? I’d say your stockholders would be going nuts,” said Terry Sullivan, a professor at the University of North Carolina and executive director of the White House Transition Project, a scholarly program that tracks appointments. “The notion of the American will — it’s not being thwarted, but it’s slow to come to fruition.”
Mrs. Clinton expressed the exasperation of many in the administration last month when she was asked by A.I.D. employees why they did not have a chief. “The clearance and vetting process is a nightmare,” she told them. “And it takes far longer than any of us would want to see. It is frustrating beyond words.”
The process of assembling a new administration has frustrated presidents for years, a point brought home when George W. Bush received the now-famous memorandum titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike U.S.” eight years ago this month but still did not have most of his national security team in place when planes smashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
All parties vowed to fix the process, and Mr. Obama has a more intact national security team than his predecessor at this point. But even in this area, vital offices remain open. No Obama appointee is running the Transportation Security Administration, the Customs and Border Protection agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Mr. Obama still does not have an intelligence chief at the Department of Homeland Security, nor a top civilian in charge of military readiness at the Pentagon.
Mr. Obama is far enough along in his presidency that some early appointees are already leaving even before the last of the first round have assumed their posts. Among those who have left already is the person charged with filling the empty offices, Donald H. Gips, who quit as presidential personnel director to go to South Africa as ambassador last month.
The consequences can be felt in small ways and large — from the extra work for appointees on the job to the slowdown of policy reviews and development. For example, Mr. Obama’s promised cybersecurity initiative to improve coordination among government agencies and the private sector has stalled while he looks for someone to lead it.
“There’s every reason to be concerned,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader. “The president deserves to have his full complement of staff in the different agencies.”
But the White House expressed less concern because by its count it has matched or surpassed past presidents in putting together its government. “Given that we’re ahead of where previous administrations have been, we feel we’re moving at a fairly quick clip to get everything done,” said Bill Burton, a deputy White House press secretary.
Measuring the progress in appointments depends on what positions are counted and who is doing the counting. The White House Transition Project counts 543 policymaking jobs requiring Senate confirmation in four top executive ranks. As of last week, Mr. Obama had announced his selections for 319 of those positions, and the Senate had confirmed 236, or 43 percent of the top echelon of government. Other scholars have slightly different but similar tallies.
The White House prefers to include ambassadors, United States attorneys, marshals and judges, who are also subject to Senate votes but are not counted by the scholars. By that count, Mr. Obama has won confirmation of 304 nominees, compared with 301 for Mr. Bush, 253 for Bill Clinton and 212 for the first President George Bush at this point in their administrations.
If lower-ranking senior executive service officials and political appointees who do not require Senate approval are counted, the White House said it had installed 1,830 people, at least 50 percent more than any of the last three presidents had at this stage.
No matter how the counting is done, though, hundreds of senior positions remain empty with 15 percent of Mr. Obama’s term over. While appointments linger, those jobs are generally filled with acting officials — and the White House says that has not slowed its ability to effect change.
But acting officials do not have the full latitude that confirmed appointees do. “It’s just not the same thing,” said Paul Light, a professor at New York University who specializes in appointments. “They don’t have the same authority. They don’t feel the same loyalties or freedom to exert control. And what you get is drift in the agencies.”
Blame is being freely passed around. After several early nominees were discovered to have failed to pay some taxes, the White House tightened its vetting. The Senate Finance Committee has a former Internal Revenue Service official helping to go through many nominees’ taxes. And Republican senators are holding up nominees like John McHugh for Army secretary to influence what happens to the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
The Finance Committee argued that fault lay elsewhere. Scott Mulhauser, a spokesman for the panel, said it had approved 14 of 16 nominees whose paperwork was received before July. But officials said the process had become so intrusive that many candidates declined to be considered.
“Anyone who has gone through it or looked at this process will tell you that every administration it gets worse and it gets more cumbersome,” Mrs. Clinton said last month. “And some very good people, you know, just didn’t want to be vetted.” She added: “You have to hire lawyers, you have to hire accountants. I mean, it is ridiculous.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/us/politics/24confirm.html?_r=1&exprod=myyahoo&pagewanted=print
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
WASHINGTON — As President Obama tries to turn around a summer of setbacks, he finds himself still without most of his own team. Seven months into his presidency, fewer than half of his top appointees are in place advancing his agenda.
Of more than 500 senior policymaking positions requiring Senate confirmation, just 43 percent have been filled — a reflection of a White House that grew more cautious after several nominations blew up last spring, a Senate that is intensively investigating nominees and a legislative agenda that has consumed both.
While career employees or holdovers fill many posts on a temporary basis, Mr. Obama does not have his own people enacting programs central to his mission. He is trying to fix the financial markets but does not have an assistant treasury secretary for financial markets. He is spending more money on transportation than anyone since Dwight D. Eisenhower but does not have his own inspector general watching how the dollars are used. He is fighting two wars but does not have an Army secretary.
He sent Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Africa to talk about international development but does not have anyone running the Agency for International Development. He has invited major powers to a summit on nuclear nonproliferation but does not have an assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation.
“If you’re running G.M. without half your senior executives in place, are you worried? I’d say your stockholders would be going nuts,” said Terry Sullivan, a professor at the University of North Carolina and executive director of the White House Transition Project, a scholarly program that tracks appointments. “The notion of the American will — it’s not being thwarted, but it’s slow to come to fruition.”
Mrs. Clinton expressed the exasperation of many in the administration last month when she was asked by A.I.D. employees why they did not have a chief. “The clearance and vetting process is a nightmare,” she told them. “And it takes far longer than any of us would want to see. It is frustrating beyond words.”
The process of assembling a new administration has frustrated presidents for years, a point brought home when George W. Bush received the now-famous memorandum titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike U.S.” eight years ago this month but still did not have most of his national security team in place when planes smashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
All parties vowed to fix the process, and Mr. Obama has a more intact national security team than his predecessor at this point. But even in this area, vital offices remain open. No Obama appointee is running the Transportation Security Administration, the Customs and Border Protection agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Mr. Obama still does not have an intelligence chief at the Department of Homeland Security, nor a top civilian in charge of military readiness at the Pentagon.
Mr. Obama is far enough along in his presidency that some early appointees are already leaving even before the last of the first round have assumed their posts. Among those who have left already is the person charged with filling the empty offices, Donald H. Gips, who quit as presidential personnel director to go to South Africa as ambassador last month.
The consequences can be felt in small ways and large — from the extra work for appointees on the job to the slowdown of policy reviews and development. For example, Mr. Obama’s promised cybersecurity initiative to improve coordination among government agencies and the private sector has stalled while he looks for someone to lead it.
“There’s every reason to be concerned,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader. “The president deserves to have his full complement of staff in the different agencies.”
But the White House expressed less concern because by its count it has matched or surpassed past presidents in putting together its government. “Given that we’re ahead of where previous administrations have been, we feel we’re moving at a fairly quick clip to get everything done,” said Bill Burton, a deputy White House press secretary.
Measuring the progress in appointments depends on what positions are counted and who is doing the counting. The White House Transition Project counts 543 policymaking jobs requiring Senate confirmation in four top executive ranks. As of last week, Mr. Obama had announced his selections for 319 of those positions, and the Senate had confirmed 236, or 43 percent of the top echelon of government. Other scholars have slightly different but similar tallies.
The White House prefers to include ambassadors, United States attorneys, marshals and judges, who are also subject to Senate votes but are not counted by the scholars. By that count, Mr. Obama has won confirmation of 304 nominees, compared with 301 for Mr. Bush, 253 for Bill Clinton and 212 for the first President George Bush at this point in their administrations.
If lower-ranking senior executive service officials and political appointees who do not require Senate approval are counted, the White House said it had installed 1,830 people, at least 50 percent more than any of the last three presidents had at this stage.
No matter how the counting is done, though, hundreds of senior positions remain empty with 15 percent of Mr. Obama’s term over. While appointments linger, those jobs are generally filled with acting officials — and the White House says that has not slowed its ability to effect change.
But acting officials do not have the full latitude that confirmed appointees do. “It’s just not the same thing,” said Paul Light, a professor at New York University who specializes in appointments. “They don’t have the same authority. They don’t feel the same loyalties or freedom to exert control. And what you get is drift in the agencies.”
Blame is being freely passed around. After several early nominees were discovered to have failed to pay some taxes, the White House tightened its vetting. The Senate Finance Committee has a former Internal Revenue Service official helping to go through many nominees’ taxes. And Republican senators are holding up nominees like John McHugh for Army secretary to influence what happens to the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
The Finance Committee argued that fault lay elsewhere. Scott Mulhauser, a spokesman for the panel, said it had approved 14 of 16 nominees whose paperwork was received before July. But officials said the process had become so intrusive that many candidates declined to be considered.
“Anyone who has gone through it or looked at this process will tell you that every administration it gets worse and it gets more cumbersome,” Mrs. Clinton said last month. “And some very good people, you know, just didn’t want to be vetted.” She added: “You have to hire lawyers, you have to hire accountants. I mean, it is ridiculous.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/us/politics/24confirm.html?_r=1&exprod=myyahoo&pagewanted=print
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Bill Moyers Journal:Health Care Discussion
BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the JOURNAL.
I'm okay with protest. Sometimes I wish I'd done more of it myself when I was young.
But it's hard to reason with someone who's packing a gun. That's why I found so menacing that photograph of the fellow standing outside President Obama's town hall meeting on health care in New Hampshire this week with a 9mm pistol strapped to his thigh and a sign quoting Thomas Jefferson on watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Knowing from his MySpace profile that he admires white supremacists, it made me queasy to see that man standing there, pistol at his side. Of course he's exercising his Second Amendment rights under the Constitution and he has a carry permit. But still…
The protesters I admire are those unarmed men and women who put themselves in danger for Civil Rights. And the Suffragettes, marching for the right to vote. And the veterans of the Bonus Army who camped out in Washington after the first World War when the government defaulted on its obligations to them. And those who spoke out against the Vietnam War. I've been haunted for years by the image of the pacifist who doused his clothing in kerosene and burned himself to death beneath Robert McNamara's Pentagon window in 1965, soon after I'd had a meeting in that very office. Some said he was delusional, but his wife said he was expressing "His concern over the great loss of life and human suffering caused by the war in Vietnam." Over the years I came to better understand the deeply moral grounding of his anguished martyrdom.
PROTESTORS: No more Obamacare. Just say no! Just say no!
BILL MOYERS: So you can see, perhaps, why it's hard even to describe as protests what's happening today -- the raucous disruption of town meetings that deny others their right to free speech. The cries of tyranny, the analogies to Hitler on the signs and in postings on the internet. That's not conscience at work; it's the product of colicky, cranky unconscionable anger, fueled by lies.
Here's Newt Gingrich dissembling on health care. Yes, the same Newt Gingrich, once disgraced, now back on the Sunday talk shows like Napoleon returning from Elba.
NEWT GINGRICH: You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government when there clearly are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia including selective standards.
BILL MOYERS: Remember, this is from the man who told the New York Times in 1994 that he would use opposition to Clinton's health care reform as "…a springboard to win Republican control of the House." That's exactly what he did - and hopes to do again.
Oh, I forgot Sarah Palin, who, like Gingrich, is also vying to speak for the extreme right of their party. She noted on her Facebook page that, quote, "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel'… Such a system is downright evil." She said.
Death panel? We have nothing to fear but fear mongering itself.
Even in the hallowed halls of Congress, the cuckoo flu seems to have reached epidemic proportions:
REP. PAUL BROUN: This program of government option that's being touted as being this panacea, the savior of allowing people to have quality health care at an affordable price, is going to kill people.
BILL MOYERS: Throughout our history, there's a thin line between hot-headed, partisanship and deeply ingrained paranoia. Yet what are we really talking about? Nothing less -- or more -- than trying to do a civilized thing -- stem the exorbitant costs of a health care system that routinely victimizes those without the wherewithal to check into a hospital when they're sick.
How to make sense of all this? I put out an SOS for my two guests. They're just what the doctor ordered.
You'll recognize Kathleen Hall Jamieson instantly -- she's been at this table often, making sense of politics and the press. She is director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, which runs FactCheck.org, a non-partisan research organization that tests the accuracy of our political discourse. Among her many books is my favorite, UNSPUN: FINDING FACTS IN A WORLD OF DISINFORMATION.
Drew Altman is President and CEO of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, widely respected for its independent research and information on American health care. The foundation runs a superb, impartial website that looks at the health care reform advertising blitz and measures claims against the truth -- check it out via our website at PBS.org.
Welcome to you both. You're just in time.
DREW ALTMAN: Thank you.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Thank you.
BILL MOYERS: We're seeing this debate take a really ugly turn. Let's take a look at how ugly.
CROWD: No more Obamacare! No more Obamacare! No more Obamacare!
PROTESTOR MALE: Tell me what page it's on. What page is it on?
REP. JOHN D. DINGELL: It is in the bill.
PROTESTOR MALE: What page?
REP. JOHN D. DINGELL: Go and sit down.
PROTESTOR MALE: You want to talk about conspiracies? I'll tell you about conspiracies!
PROTESTOR MALE: One day God's going to stand before you and he's going to judge you.
CROWD: Kill the bill! Kill the bill! Kill the bill!
PROTESTOR FEMALE: I want to know if it's coming out of my paycheck? Yes or no!
REP. JOHN D. DINGELL: Your employer supports the bill.
PROTESTOR FEMALE: I want an answer to the question!
BILL MOYERS: Kathleen, what's playing out here?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: People who are angry and frustrated and not necessarily well informed in part driven by people who are on the other side of the reform effort. And it's driving into news evocative visuals that are leading the public, I think, to overgeneralize the extent to which there is principal, reasoned dissent from health care reform.
DREW ALTMAN: It's part of our democracy, but I think it's actually kind of sad because the left, doesn't like this legislation a lot. They're not really enthusiastic about it. They would prefer a single-payer approach with more government. And on the conservative side, they're not crazy about it either. They would like a market approach, people getting vouches or a tax credit and just shop in the marketplace. This is down-the-middle legislation. And yet we see these fears and concerns as if this were a radical approach. It's not a radical approach. It's just a down-the-middle approach.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But you're also seeing something else. In your clip you see a woman who says, "Is it coming out of my paycheck?" She's raising a legitimate question. But when people are shouting at each other, the answer doesn't get through. And when you're impugning the integrity of the person who's answering the questions, the member of Congress, that person's response isn't going to be believed if it is able to be articulated and isn't simply shouted down.
And so it's not creating context in which misinformation on both sides can be corrected. And that's the problem. We don't have a deliberative process here taking place in public to inform public opinion.
Instead, we're potentially distorting it.
DREW ALTMAN: But I think what also happens is, the concerns of most Americans, of average Americans, just get lost in this process. This whole debate began because of the real problems and worries that average people are having paying their health care bills. And what we really have here are the strong concerns and fears-- and you don't want to minimize them; it's part of our democracy-- that some people have about this legislation.
But the worries that average people have that we see in our polls about paying their bills get lost. And in instead we're debating other things, fears that people have that really aren't there in the legislation.
BILL MOYERS: How do we decide who these people represent? I mean, are they just a fringe element that are like honey to the cameras of the press? Or is there something else going on that's difficult at this moment to measure?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I'm not sure that we should be trying to measure it. I worry about public opinion polls coming into this environment and asking questions that may actually distort our understanding of what the public knows. Unless you start by asking the public in a poll what they know, what the baseline level of knowledge is, it doesn't matter what the public thinks ultimately about a piece of legislation or not because you can be reflecting uninformed public opinion.
But the nature of public opinion it's expressed in "USA Today" in-- at a front-page piece that appeared on Thursday of this week which says "Protests Tilt Views on Health Care Bill." Now that's reflecting the results of a poll that asked about people's response not to the health care bill but to the protests about the health care bill.
But the headline leads you to think it's about the health care bill itself. And it suggests that public opinion is now shifting dramatically away from the Obama health care reform efforts.
BILL MOYERS: So the protests seem to be making some people more sympathetic to the protesters?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And potentially the press then picks that up, polls, finds that sympathy, creates a structure that suggests that health care reform initiatives are losing support. Now polls have driven press coverage which says "Obama on the defensive. Obama struggling to explain. Obama trying," when, in fact, the dynamic under that has been created by a news structure that decided to cover this in a certain way, to do polling in a certain way. And those two things played into the process to make it more difficult for the discussion to actually happen about the substance of what's going on.
DREW ALTMAN: So it's exactly right. So we have the protests, the media coverage, especially the 24-hour news cycle, follows the protests and the town meetings. Then the polls poll about the media coverage of the protests. And we create almost an alternative reality about what is occurring out there.
When you look at the real polls about where the public actually is, what you see is there's been a little bit of a tick down in public support and people are getting a little anxious as they follow the media coverage. But still the majority of the American people are for moving forward with this.
And we have seen more people begin to say, "Gee, I'm not so sure that this is good for me and my family," but it's still a small number. It's only 20, 22 percent who say, "I'm a little bit worried about this." And a much bigger number say, "I still think this is good for me and my family." And then you've got a group in the middle who's not so sure. And everyone's fighting for that group on both sides.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And imagine if you're trying now as just a person who's sitting in your home and you do all sorts of other things, you have a job, you have children, you know, you have all sorts of concerns. And what you get of this debate is what comes through news. The pictures that you're seeing are-- because the news is focusing on conflict and attack, are a very angry people shouting at representatives.
First, no substantive information. But secondly, what aren't you seeing? Well, you aren't seeing something that actually was featured on the front page of "The New York Times" this week. "Free health care draws thousands. Thousands of people came to the forum in Englewood, California, for free dental care and free medical and vision services." People at protests-- people protesting health care reform shouting at legislators as opposed to people waiting for free health care and dental care--
DREW ALTMAN: Who can't afford it otherwise.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Who can't afford it otherwise.
DREW ALTMAN: Right.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Now suppose we saw more of these pictures and fewer of those or just a balance of the two. You'd have a completely different sense of what's at play in the debate. Pictures matter. Evocative visuals lead us to generalize to what's important to the framing of the debate, how we should see this discussion. And also they help shape the answers to those public opinion polls. More pictures of people dissenting, more sense that maybe we should hold back a little in our support. More pictures of people in need of care, people just like us who don't have it, greater sense that maybe there's a social concern here. And then the question might I, the insured, at some point be in that situation?
DREW ALTMAN: And you really got to feel bad for just the American people who, from the beginning, have just been trying to answer one question. Will this help me with my health care bills? That's the question they're trying to answer.
And so they're turning on the television and they're seeing a debate about whether this is Russia or it isn't Russia and whether there are death panels and whether it's a government take over of the health care system. And they just want to know "my premiums are going up $1 thousand every five years. And is this going to help me with that 'cause I can't pay my rent or my mortgage? I'm having trouble paying for my food because of my health care bills." That's really the question they want answered.
BILL MOYERS: Some of it depends upon how well the member of Congress handles the protest. I saw one this week in which Senator McCaskill of Missouri did quite well. Take a look.
SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL: We will not get a single-payer bill, nationalized health care system out of Congress. It's not even on the table… I don't understand this rudeness. What is this? I don't get it. I honestly don't get it. Do you all think that you are persuading people when you shout out like that? Beg your pardon? You don't trust me.
BILL MOYERS: Some of those protesters, some of the loudest protesters, were advocates of a single-payer nationalized plan that-- which she said is not going to happen. So what do you think about how she handled that?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, first, there is a way to structure these encounters in which you increase the likelihood that the person who is there to speak for the Congress, in this case Senator McCaskill, actually is able to control the microphone.
And in part in this structure in the rooms of some of these members as they talk to audiences is set up for confrontation because the member is standing there in the same environment, looking face to face with all these individuals. And once you get into that range and cameras come in, you can hear the shouting out at the same moment you hear the member's voice. And as a result, the member doesn't control the environment. She's controlling the environment.
But more importantly, she, across the last week, has held a number of forums in which she's had a chance to explain in depth at longer-- in longer periods than this the substance of the various pieces of legislation and debunk misinformation. That's the way democracy should work. And that the attacks are coming from both the left and the right is an important realization. There's been a tendency in news to feature those that are coming from the right without indicating there's substantial dissatisfaction from some on the left about the fact that this isn't single-payer at the time which those on the right that, yes, it is; it's Canadian style socialized medicine. That is going to produce all sorts of bad outcomes that, in fact, don't occur in Canada or Great Britain, in fact.
DREW ALTMAN: It's revealing that in this clip, the single-payer advocates were so upset with the Senator because it just makes the point that both the folks further on the left and on the far right are equally dissatisfied with this legislation.
I'd like to make just one other point about this bill, which is that they're all doing town meetings. And these town meetings, of course, bring out folks who are most interested in the issue on the right and on the left.
And that leaves the President alone as the national communicator about health reform. And it might have been helpful if some of these members in the Congress who are putting this legislation together also played a role as national explainers of what's going on with health reform because, again, the President is by himself as the national explainer of this issue.
BILL MOYERS: But how do you explain that he has lost control of the message? I mean, he's got the biggest pulpit of all. And yet he's not determining this narrative right now, right? How did he drop the ball?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: He's lost the message in news. He didn't lose the message in his town hall earlier this week when he spent much of the time in the town hall explaining the legislation and arguing that the status quo is scarier. If we don't change, it's scarier than if we do change.
And he did it in detail and he did it very effectively. News then comes in and plays that town hall as Obama on the defensive, trying to explain his message.
And so what happens is the few who watch the town hall get the whole context. That was an effective town hall for President Obama. He made one serious error when he suggested AARP had certified the legislation, that the legislation would not produce cuts in Medicare, when in fact it has not endorsed any legislation.
That also then is featured in news. But those who watched the whole town hall I think reasonably would have concluded a strong case was made that keeping the status quo, not putting change in place, was scarier. What was going to happen in the future is scarier for those with insurance than it would be if we made the change.
DREW ALTMAN: I think, in addition, what happened is for a time the experts' agenda and the policy makers' agenda on Capitol Hill hijacked the public's agenda.
BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?
DREW ALTMAN: Because the focus became about bending the curve and health information technology and the policy makers' understandable interest in reducing the federal deficit in the future.
And now, as you may have noticed, they brought the discussion back to the concerns of the people, which brought us this debate in the first place. And so the language has changed. It's now about health insurance reform and not about health reform.
BILL MOYERS: Take a look at this montage.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: And that's why we are going to pass health insurance reform in 2009[…] Now when we pass health care reform, insurance companies will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive, in a given a year or a lifetime[…] we are closer to achieving health insurance reform than we have ever been[…]every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests fight back with everything they've got.
BILL MOYERS: Health insurance reform. Not health care reform. What's the strategy behind that?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: People like their health care. They don't want their health care reform. The problem is one of access and cost. And they mis-framed this debate in 1993, '94 by talking about health care reform. Early in this debate--
BILL MOYERS: The Clintons?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Yes. Early in this debate, talked about health care reform brought up all the wrong associations. If it's health insurance reform, then who's potentially the enemy? The insurance industry. Who's rationing care? It's the insurance industry. Who should we be concerned about bringing under control? The insurance industry. They're the ones who stand between you and your doctor.
Obama's coming in to interdict that. He's going to get this under control. It's a very important reframing.
DREW ALTMAN: I think this is really critical because this wasn't the debate drifted for a while and the message drifted for a while. It wasn't defined in terms that average people could understand. So they couldn't answer--
BILL MOYERS: You're including me in that. I'm serious about that.
DREW ALTMAN: And maybe I--
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I think you're including all of us in that.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah.
DREW ALTMAN: So people just couldn't answer the question, "What does this mean for me and my family?" And so they didn't know what they had to lose if this didn't happen. But more importantly, that left the field open for the critics and the opposition to define it the way they wanted to and even to scare people a little bit that this might be a government takeover of the health care system. Or a bureaucrat might get between you and your doctor.
People couldn't say, "No, I want to fight for this because I know what I'm going to get. I'm going to get some help with my bills." Or "I'm going to get-- the insurance system is going to change. And if I get sick or if I have cancer or heart disease, I'm going to be able to get health insurance and they can't drop me. Or I can change jobs and I'll still have health insurance coverage."
They didn't know what they would get. They didn't know what they might lose if this didn't pass. And that now is changing. In a sense, what happened was the media and the debate focused on the issues which were in contention on Capitol Hill, that they were debating on Capitol Hill, because media coverage follows the controversies instead of the people issues that brought us this debate in the first place.
BILL MOYERS: Let me show you the ad that the liberal group MoveOn.org is running-- taking on the insurance industry in the vein of what-- Obama was saying in Portsmouth, New Hampshire this week. Take a look.
ADVERTISEMENT: They are enormous and powerful. They prey on our weaknesses, trying to separate the healthy from the sick. Their strategy is to confuse and exhaust their victims. And they kill people each year by denying coverage while profiting billions. During shark week, let's take on the real predators: health insurance companies. Call Congress, tell them: don't put insurance profits before health care. Support a real public option.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: It's an evocative image, the idea that the health insurance industry is a shark about to devour you. But what-- as it plays with you beforehand, it's certainly one that's memorable. I don't think it's fair to suggest that they're killing people. There is a process in place, however, in which if the public option is robust in this health insurance plan, it does dramatically change what they are able to do.
And we could come out of this reform scenario with a world in which things are much better for the insurance industry but don't necessarily accomplish the objectives that President Obama has if the public option is taken down by arguments that it's government takeover or socialized medicine or whatever.
I think the public option is an important piece in cost control and in insuring long term that the insurance industry, which has many positive aspects, but that the insurance industry is as competitive as it ought to be but also to treat people fairly
DREW ALTMAN: You know, one side says it's a government takeover of the health care system. And the other side says, "Well, then you'll just be left at the mercy of the sharks in the health insurance industry." That's messaging. It's standard health reform messaging. Whether there is or isn't a public option in this legislation, it would fundamentally change how private health insurance works in a way that would be better for people. That's the substance of the legislation.
BILL MOYERS: How do you explain the disinformation and the misinformation? You had Representative John Mica this week saying that Obama's plan creates a new cottage industry of death counselors. You've got Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich talking about euthanasia. What-- how do you account for that? And how does the press break through and the average citizen break through to understand that that's a lie?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: That's one of those claims generated because a provision in the bill has meant-- a provision of one of the bills has been seriously distorted. But in this case, news organizations have actually done a very good job debunking the claim. If you just simply count up the number of news organizations that have taken that on, gone to the provision, said, "It's not there; here's what this is," you'd say news has done a pretty good job.
Why is there still misinformation out there? Because you have in these news accounts of the town halls people still shouting about death counsels or death panels. And as a result, it's still getting through in news despite news's own debunking of it.
BILL MOYERS: So it's an effective strategy?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Any strategy which takes the White House off message and puts the President in the position of having to deny the death panels are in a bill is an effective strategy for the opposition. It takes something which is a tiny, tiny, tiny misleading piece of one piece of potential legislation and blows it up into being, in effect, the intent of the bill, killing grandmother.
DREW ALTMAN: But there's a deeper issue, I think, which is not just debunking the myths and doing the fact checking, which is critically important. But it is how much and how often you cover the town hall meetings and spend time debunking the myths and doing the fact checking because the more you cover it, the more the focus becomes the ads and the town hall meetings. Even if you're fact checking and even if you're providing the facts, you create unease among the American people that there is something wrong here, that there is a debate that there may not actually be about these facts. And that unease grows. And we see that in our polling. We do a tracking poll every month on this. And you can just see that anxiety growing in the American people.
BILL MOYERS: So the fear mongering is working?
DREW ALTMAN: I believe that this will turn, as much as anything, on the media coverage of this. And it has in the past. And the media has a set of important decisions to make not just about getting to the facts as opposed to covering "he said this and she said that," but how much they cover the town hall meetings, how much they cover the ads, as opposed to looking at the legislation and also covering what's in it, what it means for people.
BILL MOYERS: Well, there's not any legislation yet, as you have--
DREW ALTMAN: Well, we have five bills and we'll--
BILL MOYERS: Yeah.
DREW ALTMAN: --maybe get to two and then to one. But we'll see.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And I predict end-of-life voluntary private counseling I bet is not going to be in the final legislation.
BILL MOYERS: Euthanasia?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And I bet the word "euthanasia" is not ever going to appear in a piece of legislation.
DREW ALTMAN: Somebody may make a decision that having voluntary counseling just isn't worth it.
BILL MOYERS: I don't know why they included that in the bill.
DREW ALTMAN: It was a Republican…
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Now he's backing away.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: You know, I know why. The-- everyone who has worked with elderly parents or foresees a point at which they are going to have to be making these kinds of decisions has thought about end-of-life issues.
BILL MOYERS: I had my mother when she was dying, you know? I had to face that. You--
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, and we-- we've all been in this kind of a situation. And we're going to be personally affected by this at some point. And wouldn't you like to have at that point the-- the ability to say that-- that that discussion you'd like to have with your doctor about what the options look like? Do you want to stay on a ventilator under these kinds of circumstances? You know, what kind of heroic means do you want in case, you know, you were in critical life support failure? How much resuscitation do you want? Do you want a do-not-resuscitate order or not?
Do you want that encounter with your physician, when the physician's explaining what that means paid for or not? I can see someone sitting in a room saying, "Why would we want to deny people the opportunity to take advantage of that medical exchange and have it covered?" Why wouldn't you want people to know about hospice, which is a--
DREW ALTMAN: Yeah, they--
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: --a wonderful movement in this country that has done more--
DREW ALTMAN: They genuinely thought it would be helpful.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, okay.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And I don't think they heard the possibility that this well-intentioned and I think completely appropriate move would be translated into killing grandmother. And I'm interested, by the way, in which no one's hypothesizing killing grandfather.
BILL MOYERS: Well, I think there are too many grandfathers in Congress in control of the legislation. I mean, but the truth of the matter is no good deed goes unpunished, right?
DREW ALTMAN: Well, I don't think we anticipated. In the past, these debates were about health care's legendary interest groups and raw politics. But, you know, there is a deep strain in our country. There was a debate once about fluoridation, just fluoridating the water supply. And it became a debate about this being a Communist plot. And I think the people at these town meetings--
BILL MOYERS: Ah, democracy--
DREW ALTMAN: --believe these things. This is our country.
BILL MOYERS: What do you think when you hear protesters standing up at these town hall meetings say, "Keep your cotton-picking government hands off my Medicare?" What's going on there?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I love the fact that those people love their Medicare because it provides the basis ultimately for a turn in this argument to explain how similar part of these proposals to their Medicare. It actually is reassuring to me, not that they're misinformed and don't realize that Medicare is government based but that the Medicare model is, in fact, the model under the public option essentially.
DREW ALTMAN: You know, facts are useful here. While this legislation does involve a significant expansion of government financing for coverage for people, it's useful to point out that the lion's share of the coverage is private coverage, which is why many people think the private insurance industry is supporting this legislation and they are because they get more paying customers.
And while there is a debate about the public option in this legislation, one, it isn't clear that a public option will materialize in the final legislation 'cause many people are against it. And the Congressional Budget Office has actually estimated looking at the House bill that if there is a public option under the rules and I won't go through the details of how it will work, potentially by 2019, which is a ways off, maybe nine or ten million people might enroll in that public option. So that could hardly be construed as a government takeover of the health care system.
BILL MOYERS: Yes, Drew, but what people on the left say, liberals and people even further left, say that what this legislation threatens to do is to require citizens to subscribe to insurance under the insurance company. And without a public option, the insurance company has a captive constituent.
DREW ALTMAN: One the reasons for that is in order to do the reforms of the health insurance system, how health insurance works, which everyone benefits from. It's the one part of this legislation that helps everyone. So you can't be turned away if you get cancer or heart disease or if you're sick. You'd have to have a big pool, so you spread the risk that way so that those of us who are healthy are subsidizing those of us who are sick because we, too, may get sick some day. So that's the reason for the requirement that everyone's in.
BILL MOYERS: Is it a legitimate concern that if I'm required by government to have insurance and the only people selling that insurance are insurance companies, then I'm their captive?
DREW ALTMAN: Well, what it really means then is we have to be-- I think this is the next shoe to drop in this debate, once we get past five bills and we can focus on what are the details of health reform, health insurance reform sorry, legislation is, there'll be a set of rules about what are the minimum benefits that need to be provided so people are adequately protected? What's the basic plan that people will get? What are the subsidies that people are going to get? And will the subsidies that people get be adequate so that now they're going to be required to have health insurance coverage, they can actually afford that coverage?
And when we see the details of the legislation, when we get to a House bill and a Senate bill and a final bill, I believe everyone will be focused on that question because something on the order of 30 million people-- it could be more or less depending on the details-- will be in these so-called exchanges buying mostly private health insurance policies and will be able to look at that. And another maybe 11 million people will be getting their coverage through expansions of the Medicaid program. So there'll be a lot of people who are affected by that.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But there's one other issue. It's not simply going to be will individuals be able to afford it under a mandate, but will government be able to afford it? Will we collectively, as the taxpayers, be able to afford? And one of the things that is legitimate underlying the protests in these encounters with members of Congress is a concern about the cost. Can the government continue to carry these gigantic deficits? Will the--
BILL MOYERS: A legitimate question.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And those are very important questions. And it-- when the CBO has scored--
BILL MOYERS: Congressional Budget Office.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: --existing legislation, it has suggested that some of the projections were overly optimistic. And as a result, that we may not yet be in a situation in which Obama, President Obama, can deliver on his promise that this will be deficit neutral over ten years. And then it's possible that they get to being deficit neutral over ten years. What about the out years? What about the years beyond ten years?
We're in a situation that we wouldn't have been in were it not for many of the decisions of the Bush administration. But the deficit now is a serious issue with real economic consequences in the long term. And when you hear individuals in these exchanges with members of Congress saying, first, we had the big bailout. Then we had the big stimulus. Then we had cash for clunkers. How are we going to afford that? What are you passing on to my children and grandchildren? And what's it going to cost me as a taxpayer? Those individuals are asking legitimate important questions and as are the Republicans who are concerned about how this is going to be paid for long term. That's helping to restrain the process to increase the likelihood that everybody is going to be honest when they look at the CBO numbers, the final piece of legislation, to see what the effect is on deficit and debt long term.
DREW ALTMAN: And it needs to be said that there are legitimate reasons why conservatives, be they Republicans or blue dog Democrats or any conservative could be against this legislation. It's just not death panels or government takeover, but there are legitimate reasons they could be against it. The policy makers who are putting this together are absolutely committed to doing this in a deficit neutral way.
BILL MOYERS: Meaning?
DREW ALTMAN: Meaning that they will pay for it through a combination of savings measures and new revenues.
BILL MOYERS: It will not contribute to the increased deficit?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Over the first ten years.
DREW ALTMAN: But there's a bit of a catch here. First, though, that's the biggest challenge they face. Of all the challenges they face, the toughest one is financing, financing, financing. It is coming up with that list of savings measures and new revenues that really is the toughest nut to crack. And that's what they're working away at.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I think that you've got a real problem with cost shifting in this country. It's not as large as the administration has made it out to be. But when people come into hospitals without insurance and they are helped in the process, as they should be, that cost goes somewhere and it comes off into the people who are insured through some mechanism. I think we ought to be concerned about what that does economically in the long term, also what it does to the well being of those who come in without insurance and, as a result, get care later with a worse prognosis.
We ought to be concerned about that because we're moral human beings. But when Obama, President Obama, makes the big argument which says our economic future is dependent on fixing this, if he could make that single case, he could justify putting this through even if he couldn't in the process guarantee deficit neutrality across a period beyond ten years. He hasn't persuasively made the case. But imagine if he could persuade you that we've got another kind of economic meltdown coming because we're not fixing this piece of our own economy. And he makes the case to you, we could forestall that. Or if it were to happen, it wouldn't be as bad if we fixed this. Wouldn't you find that a persuasive argument? I think there's a case to be made, and I think it's a challenge to him to make it.
BILL MOYERS: What will each of you be looking for as Congress comes back into session on this issue?
DREW ALTMAN: I would look for-- I think two things. One, obviously, have they weathered this storm during the recess? Does it unravel or does it move forward still? I'm certain it'll move forward. I'm pretty confident it will move forward. Let me put it that way.
And then secondly, when they put the legislation together, have they found a way to pay for it? And what is the tradeoff between lowering the price tag of paying for it, which they're trying to do, and the benefits people get? And when we look at that, does it still meet the expectations of the American people for the help they're looking for with their health care bills?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I'm not looking for what Congress does, but I'm looking for the signals that are sent to the public by groups the public trusts. If the final legislation comes forward and the AARP has actually endorsed it, then you have a powerful signal to seniors that there's nothing here that's going to hurt you.
If a Concord Coalition, which cares a lot about deficits, has said this final legislation has gotten the cost drivers under control and hence long-term costs under control, that in fact this will help address the problem of rising costs, and if the AMA and the nursing associations are also on board, then I think you'll have reassurance that you've got two important groups in the health care equation saying, "We don't think that our relationship with our patients is going to be hurt by that or our ability to do our job." I'm going to look for those four signals that they've got a good piece of legislation. And I think if you've got those four signals, much of the details can fall to the side because you've got a lot of reassurance going out to the public that it's not as scary as the extremes on either side would argue.
BILL MOYERS: Drew Altman, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, thank you for being with me on the Journal.
DREW ALTMAN: Thank you, Bill.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: You're welcome.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08142009/watch.html
I'm okay with protest. Sometimes I wish I'd done more of it myself when I was young.
But it's hard to reason with someone who's packing a gun. That's why I found so menacing that photograph of the fellow standing outside President Obama's town hall meeting on health care in New Hampshire this week with a 9mm pistol strapped to his thigh and a sign quoting Thomas Jefferson on watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Knowing from his MySpace profile that he admires white supremacists, it made me queasy to see that man standing there, pistol at his side. Of course he's exercising his Second Amendment rights under the Constitution and he has a carry permit. But still…
The protesters I admire are those unarmed men and women who put themselves in danger for Civil Rights. And the Suffragettes, marching for the right to vote. And the veterans of the Bonus Army who camped out in Washington after the first World War when the government defaulted on its obligations to them. And those who spoke out against the Vietnam War. I've been haunted for years by the image of the pacifist who doused his clothing in kerosene and burned himself to death beneath Robert McNamara's Pentagon window in 1965, soon after I'd had a meeting in that very office. Some said he was delusional, but his wife said he was expressing "His concern over the great loss of life and human suffering caused by the war in Vietnam." Over the years I came to better understand the deeply moral grounding of his anguished martyrdom.
PROTESTORS: No more Obamacare. Just say no! Just say no!
BILL MOYERS: So you can see, perhaps, why it's hard even to describe as protests what's happening today -- the raucous disruption of town meetings that deny others their right to free speech. The cries of tyranny, the analogies to Hitler on the signs and in postings on the internet. That's not conscience at work; it's the product of colicky, cranky unconscionable anger, fueled by lies.
Here's Newt Gingrich dissembling on health care. Yes, the same Newt Gingrich, once disgraced, now back on the Sunday talk shows like Napoleon returning from Elba.
NEWT GINGRICH: You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government when there clearly are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia including selective standards.
BILL MOYERS: Remember, this is from the man who told the New York Times in 1994 that he would use opposition to Clinton's health care reform as "…a springboard to win Republican control of the House." That's exactly what he did - and hopes to do again.
Oh, I forgot Sarah Palin, who, like Gingrich, is also vying to speak for the extreme right of their party. She noted on her Facebook page that, quote, "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel'… Such a system is downright evil." She said.
Death panel? We have nothing to fear but fear mongering itself.
Even in the hallowed halls of Congress, the cuckoo flu seems to have reached epidemic proportions:
REP. PAUL BROUN: This program of government option that's being touted as being this panacea, the savior of allowing people to have quality health care at an affordable price, is going to kill people.
BILL MOYERS: Throughout our history, there's a thin line between hot-headed, partisanship and deeply ingrained paranoia. Yet what are we really talking about? Nothing less -- or more -- than trying to do a civilized thing -- stem the exorbitant costs of a health care system that routinely victimizes those without the wherewithal to check into a hospital when they're sick.
How to make sense of all this? I put out an SOS for my two guests. They're just what the doctor ordered.
You'll recognize Kathleen Hall Jamieson instantly -- she's been at this table often, making sense of politics and the press. She is director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, which runs FactCheck.org, a non-partisan research organization that tests the accuracy of our political discourse. Among her many books is my favorite, UNSPUN: FINDING FACTS IN A WORLD OF DISINFORMATION.
Drew Altman is President and CEO of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, widely respected for its independent research and information on American health care. The foundation runs a superb, impartial website that looks at the health care reform advertising blitz and measures claims against the truth -- check it out via our website at PBS.org.
Welcome to you both. You're just in time.
DREW ALTMAN: Thank you.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Thank you.
BILL MOYERS: We're seeing this debate take a really ugly turn. Let's take a look at how ugly.
CROWD: No more Obamacare! No more Obamacare! No more Obamacare!
PROTESTOR MALE: Tell me what page it's on. What page is it on?
REP. JOHN D. DINGELL: It is in the bill.
PROTESTOR MALE: What page?
REP. JOHN D. DINGELL: Go and sit down.
PROTESTOR MALE: You want to talk about conspiracies? I'll tell you about conspiracies!
PROTESTOR MALE: One day God's going to stand before you and he's going to judge you.
CROWD: Kill the bill! Kill the bill! Kill the bill!
PROTESTOR FEMALE: I want to know if it's coming out of my paycheck? Yes or no!
REP. JOHN D. DINGELL: Your employer supports the bill.
PROTESTOR FEMALE: I want an answer to the question!
BILL MOYERS: Kathleen, what's playing out here?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: People who are angry and frustrated and not necessarily well informed in part driven by people who are on the other side of the reform effort. And it's driving into news evocative visuals that are leading the public, I think, to overgeneralize the extent to which there is principal, reasoned dissent from health care reform.
DREW ALTMAN: It's part of our democracy, but I think it's actually kind of sad because the left, doesn't like this legislation a lot. They're not really enthusiastic about it. They would prefer a single-payer approach with more government. And on the conservative side, they're not crazy about it either. They would like a market approach, people getting vouches or a tax credit and just shop in the marketplace. This is down-the-middle legislation. And yet we see these fears and concerns as if this were a radical approach. It's not a radical approach. It's just a down-the-middle approach.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But you're also seeing something else. In your clip you see a woman who says, "Is it coming out of my paycheck?" She's raising a legitimate question. But when people are shouting at each other, the answer doesn't get through. And when you're impugning the integrity of the person who's answering the questions, the member of Congress, that person's response isn't going to be believed if it is able to be articulated and isn't simply shouted down.
And so it's not creating context in which misinformation on both sides can be corrected. And that's the problem. We don't have a deliberative process here taking place in public to inform public opinion.
Instead, we're potentially distorting it.
DREW ALTMAN: But I think what also happens is, the concerns of most Americans, of average Americans, just get lost in this process. This whole debate began because of the real problems and worries that average people are having paying their health care bills. And what we really have here are the strong concerns and fears-- and you don't want to minimize them; it's part of our democracy-- that some people have about this legislation.
But the worries that average people have that we see in our polls about paying their bills get lost. And in instead we're debating other things, fears that people have that really aren't there in the legislation.
BILL MOYERS: How do we decide who these people represent? I mean, are they just a fringe element that are like honey to the cameras of the press? Or is there something else going on that's difficult at this moment to measure?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I'm not sure that we should be trying to measure it. I worry about public opinion polls coming into this environment and asking questions that may actually distort our understanding of what the public knows. Unless you start by asking the public in a poll what they know, what the baseline level of knowledge is, it doesn't matter what the public thinks ultimately about a piece of legislation or not because you can be reflecting uninformed public opinion.
But the nature of public opinion it's expressed in "USA Today" in-- at a front-page piece that appeared on Thursday of this week which says "Protests Tilt Views on Health Care Bill." Now that's reflecting the results of a poll that asked about people's response not to the health care bill but to the protests about the health care bill.
But the headline leads you to think it's about the health care bill itself. And it suggests that public opinion is now shifting dramatically away from the Obama health care reform efforts.
BILL MOYERS: So the protests seem to be making some people more sympathetic to the protesters?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And potentially the press then picks that up, polls, finds that sympathy, creates a structure that suggests that health care reform initiatives are losing support. Now polls have driven press coverage which says "Obama on the defensive. Obama struggling to explain. Obama trying," when, in fact, the dynamic under that has been created by a news structure that decided to cover this in a certain way, to do polling in a certain way. And those two things played into the process to make it more difficult for the discussion to actually happen about the substance of what's going on.
DREW ALTMAN: So it's exactly right. So we have the protests, the media coverage, especially the 24-hour news cycle, follows the protests and the town meetings. Then the polls poll about the media coverage of the protests. And we create almost an alternative reality about what is occurring out there.
When you look at the real polls about where the public actually is, what you see is there's been a little bit of a tick down in public support and people are getting a little anxious as they follow the media coverage. But still the majority of the American people are for moving forward with this.
And we have seen more people begin to say, "Gee, I'm not so sure that this is good for me and my family," but it's still a small number. It's only 20, 22 percent who say, "I'm a little bit worried about this." And a much bigger number say, "I still think this is good for me and my family." And then you've got a group in the middle who's not so sure. And everyone's fighting for that group on both sides.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And imagine if you're trying now as just a person who's sitting in your home and you do all sorts of other things, you have a job, you have children, you know, you have all sorts of concerns. And what you get of this debate is what comes through news. The pictures that you're seeing are-- because the news is focusing on conflict and attack, are a very angry people shouting at representatives.
First, no substantive information. But secondly, what aren't you seeing? Well, you aren't seeing something that actually was featured on the front page of "The New York Times" this week. "Free health care draws thousands. Thousands of people came to the forum in Englewood, California, for free dental care and free medical and vision services." People at protests-- people protesting health care reform shouting at legislators as opposed to people waiting for free health care and dental care--
DREW ALTMAN: Who can't afford it otherwise.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Who can't afford it otherwise.
DREW ALTMAN: Right.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Now suppose we saw more of these pictures and fewer of those or just a balance of the two. You'd have a completely different sense of what's at play in the debate. Pictures matter. Evocative visuals lead us to generalize to what's important to the framing of the debate, how we should see this discussion. And also they help shape the answers to those public opinion polls. More pictures of people dissenting, more sense that maybe we should hold back a little in our support. More pictures of people in need of care, people just like us who don't have it, greater sense that maybe there's a social concern here. And then the question might I, the insured, at some point be in that situation?
DREW ALTMAN: And you really got to feel bad for just the American people who, from the beginning, have just been trying to answer one question. Will this help me with my health care bills? That's the question they're trying to answer.
And so they're turning on the television and they're seeing a debate about whether this is Russia or it isn't Russia and whether there are death panels and whether it's a government take over of the health care system. And they just want to know "my premiums are going up $1 thousand every five years. And is this going to help me with that 'cause I can't pay my rent or my mortgage? I'm having trouble paying for my food because of my health care bills." That's really the question they want answered.
BILL MOYERS: Some of it depends upon how well the member of Congress handles the protest. I saw one this week in which Senator McCaskill of Missouri did quite well. Take a look.
SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL: We will not get a single-payer bill, nationalized health care system out of Congress. It's not even on the table… I don't understand this rudeness. What is this? I don't get it. I honestly don't get it. Do you all think that you are persuading people when you shout out like that? Beg your pardon? You don't trust me.
BILL MOYERS: Some of those protesters, some of the loudest protesters, were advocates of a single-payer nationalized plan that-- which she said is not going to happen. So what do you think about how she handled that?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, first, there is a way to structure these encounters in which you increase the likelihood that the person who is there to speak for the Congress, in this case Senator McCaskill, actually is able to control the microphone.
And in part in this structure in the rooms of some of these members as they talk to audiences is set up for confrontation because the member is standing there in the same environment, looking face to face with all these individuals. And once you get into that range and cameras come in, you can hear the shouting out at the same moment you hear the member's voice. And as a result, the member doesn't control the environment. She's controlling the environment.
But more importantly, she, across the last week, has held a number of forums in which she's had a chance to explain in depth at longer-- in longer periods than this the substance of the various pieces of legislation and debunk misinformation. That's the way democracy should work. And that the attacks are coming from both the left and the right is an important realization. There's been a tendency in news to feature those that are coming from the right without indicating there's substantial dissatisfaction from some on the left about the fact that this isn't single-payer at the time which those on the right that, yes, it is; it's Canadian style socialized medicine. That is going to produce all sorts of bad outcomes that, in fact, don't occur in Canada or Great Britain, in fact.
DREW ALTMAN: It's revealing that in this clip, the single-payer advocates were so upset with the Senator because it just makes the point that both the folks further on the left and on the far right are equally dissatisfied with this legislation.
I'd like to make just one other point about this bill, which is that they're all doing town meetings. And these town meetings, of course, bring out folks who are most interested in the issue on the right and on the left.
And that leaves the President alone as the national communicator about health reform. And it might have been helpful if some of these members in the Congress who are putting this legislation together also played a role as national explainers of what's going on with health reform because, again, the President is by himself as the national explainer of this issue.
BILL MOYERS: But how do you explain that he has lost control of the message? I mean, he's got the biggest pulpit of all. And yet he's not determining this narrative right now, right? How did he drop the ball?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: He's lost the message in news. He didn't lose the message in his town hall earlier this week when he spent much of the time in the town hall explaining the legislation and arguing that the status quo is scarier. If we don't change, it's scarier than if we do change.
And he did it in detail and he did it very effectively. News then comes in and plays that town hall as Obama on the defensive, trying to explain his message.
And so what happens is the few who watch the town hall get the whole context. That was an effective town hall for President Obama. He made one serious error when he suggested AARP had certified the legislation, that the legislation would not produce cuts in Medicare, when in fact it has not endorsed any legislation.
That also then is featured in news. But those who watched the whole town hall I think reasonably would have concluded a strong case was made that keeping the status quo, not putting change in place, was scarier. What was going to happen in the future is scarier for those with insurance than it would be if we made the change.
DREW ALTMAN: I think, in addition, what happened is for a time the experts' agenda and the policy makers' agenda on Capitol Hill hijacked the public's agenda.
BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?
DREW ALTMAN: Because the focus became about bending the curve and health information technology and the policy makers' understandable interest in reducing the federal deficit in the future.
And now, as you may have noticed, they brought the discussion back to the concerns of the people, which brought us this debate in the first place. And so the language has changed. It's now about health insurance reform and not about health reform.
BILL MOYERS: Take a look at this montage.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: And that's why we are going to pass health insurance reform in 2009[…] Now when we pass health care reform, insurance companies will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive, in a given a year or a lifetime[…] we are closer to achieving health insurance reform than we have ever been[…]every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests fight back with everything they've got.
BILL MOYERS: Health insurance reform. Not health care reform. What's the strategy behind that?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: People like their health care. They don't want their health care reform. The problem is one of access and cost. And they mis-framed this debate in 1993, '94 by talking about health care reform. Early in this debate--
BILL MOYERS: The Clintons?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Yes. Early in this debate, talked about health care reform brought up all the wrong associations. If it's health insurance reform, then who's potentially the enemy? The insurance industry. Who's rationing care? It's the insurance industry. Who should we be concerned about bringing under control? The insurance industry. They're the ones who stand between you and your doctor.
Obama's coming in to interdict that. He's going to get this under control. It's a very important reframing.
DREW ALTMAN: I think this is really critical because this wasn't the debate drifted for a while and the message drifted for a while. It wasn't defined in terms that average people could understand. So they couldn't answer--
BILL MOYERS: You're including me in that. I'm serious about that.
DREW ALTMAN: And maybe I--
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I think you're including all of us in that.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah.
DREW ALTMAN: So people just couldn't answer the question, "What does this mean for me and my family?" And so they didn't know what they had to lose if this didn't happen. But more importantly, that left the field open for the critics and the opposition to define it the way they wanted to and even to scare people a little bit that this might be a government takeover of the health care system. Or a bureaucrat might get between you and your doctor.
People couldn't say, "No, I want to fight for this because I know what I'm going to get. I'm going to get some help with my bills." Or "I'm going to get-- the insurance system is going to change. And if I get sick or if I have cancer or heart disease, I'm going to be able to get health insurance and they can't drop me. Or I can change jobs and I'll still have health insurance coverage."
They didn't know what they would get. They didn't know what they might lose if this didn't pass. And that now is changing. In a sense, what happened was the media and the debate focused on the issues which were in contention on Capitol Hill, that they were debating on Capitol Hill, because media coverage follows the controversies instead of the people issues that brought us this debate in the first place.
BILL MOYERS: Let me show you the ad that the liberal group MoveOn.org is running-- taking on the insurance industry in the vein of what-- Obama was saying in Portsmouth, New Hampshire this week. Take a look.
ADVERTISEMENT: They are enormous and powerful. They prey on our weaknesses, trying to separate the healthy from the sick. Their strategy is to confuse and exhaust their victims. And they kill people each year by denying coverage while profiting billions. During shark week, let's take on the real predators: health insurance companies. Call Congress, tell them: don't put insurance profits before health care. Support a real public option.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: It's an evocative image, the idea that the health insurance industry is a shark about to devour you. But what-- as it plays with you beforehand, it's certainly one that's memorable. I don't think it's fair to suggest that they're killing people. There is a process in place, however, in which if the public option is robust in this health insurance plan, it does dramatically change what they are able to do.
And we could come out of this reform scenario with a world in which things are much better for the insurance industry but don't necessarily accomplish the objectives that President Obama has if the public option is taken down by arguments that it's government takeover or socialized medicine or whatever.
I think the public option is an important piece in cost control and in insuring long term that the insurance industry, which has many positive aspects, but that the insurance industry is as competitive as it ought to be but also to treat people fairly
DREW ALTMAN: You know, one side says it's a government takeover of the health care system. And the other side says, "Well, then you'll just be left at the mercy of the sharks in the health insurance industry." That's messaging. It's standard health reform messaging. Whether there is or isn't a public option in this legislation, it would fundamentally change how private health insurance works in a way that would be better for people. That's the substance of the legislation.
BILL MOYERS: How do you explain the disinformation and the misinformation? You had Representative John Mica this week saying that Obama's plan creates a new cottage industry of death counselors. You've got Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich talking about euthanasia. What-- how do you account for that? And how does the press break through and the average citizen break through to understand that that's a lie?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: That's one of those claims generated because a provision in the bill has meant-- a provision of one of the bills has been seriously distorted. But in this case, news organizations have actually done a very good job debunking the claim. If you just simply count up the number of news organizations that have taken that on, gone to the provision, said, "It's not there; here's what this is," you'd say news has done a pretty good job.
Why is there still misinformation out there? Because you have in these news accounts of the town halls people still shouting about death counsels or death panels. And as a result, it's still getting through in news despite news's own debunking of it.
BILL MOYERS: So it's an effective strategy?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Any strategy which takes the White House off message and puts the President in the position of having to deny the death panels are in a bill is an effective strategy for the opposition. It takes something which is a tiny, tiny, tiny misleading piece of one piece of potential legislation and blows it up into being, in effect, the intent of the bill, killing grandmother.
DREW ALTMAN: But there's a deeper issue, I think, which is not just debunking the myths and doing the fact checking, which is critically important. But it is how much and how often you cover the town hall meetings and spend time debunking the myths and doing the fact checking because the more you cover it, the more the focus becomes the ads and the town hall meetings. Even if you're fact checking and even if you're providing the facts, you create unease among the American people that there is something wrong here, that there is a debate that there may not actually be about these facts. And that unease grows. And we see that in our polling. We do a tracking poll every month on this. And you can just see that anxiety growing in the American people.
BILL MOYERS: So the fear mongering is working?
DREW ALTMAN: I believe that this will turn, as much as anything, on the media coverage of this. And it has in the past. And the media has a set of important decisions to make not just about getting to the facts as opposed to covering "he said this and she said that," but how much they cover the town hall meetings, how much they cover the ads, as opposed to looking at the legislation and also covering what's in it, what it means for people.
BILL MOYERS: Well, there's not any legislation yet, as you have--
DREW ALTMAN: Well, we have five bills and we'll--
BILL MOYERS: Yeah.
DREW ALTMAN: --maybe get to two and then to one. But we'll see.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And I predict end-of-life voluntary private counseling I bet is not going to be in the final legislation.
BILL MOYERS: Euthanasia?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And I bet the word "euthanasia" is not ever going to appear in a piece of legislation.
DREW ALTMAN: Somebody may make a decision that having voluntary counseling just isn't worth it.
BILL MOYERS: I don't know why they included that in the bill.
DREW ALTMAN: It was a Republican…
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Now he's backing away.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: You know, I know why. The-- everyone who has worked with elderly parents or foresees a point at which they are going to have to be making these kinds of decisions has thought about end-of-life issues.
BILL MOYERS: I had my mother when she was dying, you know? I had to face that. You--
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, and we-- we've all been in this kind of a situation. And we're going to be personally affected by this at some point. And wouldn't you like to have at that point the-- the ability to say that-- that that discussion you'd like to have with your doctor about what the options look like? Do you want to stay on a ventilator under these kinds of circumstances? You know, what kind of heroic means do you want in case, you know, you were in critical life support failure? How much resuscitation do you want? Do you want a do-not-resuscitate order or not?
Do you want that encounter with your physician, when the physician's explaining what that means paid for or not? I can see someone sitting in a room saying, "Why would we want to deny people the opportunity to take advantage of that medical exchange and have it covered?" Why wouldn't you want people to know about hospice, which is a--
DREW ALTMAN: Yeah, they--
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: --a wonderful movement in this country that has done more--
DREW ALTMAN: They genuinely thought it would be helpful.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, okay.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And I don't think they heard the possibility that this well-intentioned and I think completely appropriate move would be translated into killing grandmother. And I'm interested, by the way, in which no one's hypothesizing killing grandfather.
BILL MOYERS: Well, I think there are too many grandfathers in Congress in control of the legislation. I mean, but the truth of the matter is no good deed goes unpunished, right?
DREW ALTMAN: Well, I don't think we anticipated. In the past, these debates were about health care's legendary interest groups and raw politics. But, you know, there is a deep strain in our country. There was a debate once about fluoridation, just fluoridating the water supply. And it became a debate about this being a Communist plot. And I think the people at these town meetings--
BILL MOYERS: Ah, democracy--
DREW ALTMAN: --believe these things. This is our country.
BILL MOYERS: What do you think when you hear protesters standing up at these town hall meetings say, "Keep your cotton-picking government hands off my Medicare?" What's going on there?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I love the fact that those people love their Medicare because it provides the basis ultimately for a turn in this argument to explain how similar part of these proposals to their Medicare. It actually is reassuring to me, not that they're misinformed and don't realize that Medicare is government based but that the Medicare model is, in fact, the model under the public option essentially.
DREW ALTMAN: You know, facts are useful here. While this legislation does involve a significant expansion of government financing for coverage for people, it's useful to point out that the lion's share of the coverage is private coverage, which is why many people think the private insurance industry is supporting this legislation and they are because they get more paying customers.
And while there is a debate about the public option in this legislation, one, it isn't clear that a public option will materialize in the final legislation 'cause many people are against it. And the Congressional Budget Office has actually estimated looking at the House bill that if there is a public option under the rules and I won't go through the details of how it will work, potentially by 2019, which is a ways off, maybe nine or ten million people might enroll in that public option. So that could hardly be construed as a government takeover of the health care system.
BILL MOYERS: Yes, Drew, but what people on the left say, liberals and people even further left, say that what this legislation threatens to do is to require citizens to subscribe to insurance under the insurance company. And without a public option, the insurance company has a captive constituent.
DREW ALTMAN: One the reasons for that is in order to do the reforms of the health insurance system, how health insurance works, which everyone benefits from. It's the one part of this legislation that helps everyone. So you can't be turned away if you get cancer or heart disease or if you're sick. You'd have to have a big pool, so you spread the risk that way so that those of us who are healthy are subsidizing those of us who are sick because we, too, may get sick some day. So that's the reason for the requirement that everyone's in.
BILL MOYERS: Is it a legitimate concern that if I'm required by government to have insurance and the only people selling that insurance are insurance companies, then I'm their captive?
DREW ALTMAN: Well, what it really means then is we have to be-- I think this is the next shoe to drop in this debate, once we get past five bills and we can focus on what are the details of health reform, health insurance reform sorry, legislation is, there'll be a set of rules about what are the minimum benefits that need to be provided so people are adequately protected? What's the basic plan that people will get? What are the subsidies that people are going to get? And will the subsidies that people get be adequate so that now they're going to be required to have health insurance coverage, they can actually afford that coverage?
And when we see the details of the legislation, when we get to a House bill and a Senate bill and a final bill, I believe everyone will be focused on that question because something on the order of 30 million people-- it could be more or less depending on the details-- will be in these so-called exchanges buying mostly private health insurance policies and will be able to look at that. And another maybe 11 million people will be getting their coverage through expansions of the Medicaid program. So there'll be a lot of people who are affected by that.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But there's one other issue. It's not simply going to be will individuals be able to afford it under a mandate, but will government be able to afford it? Will we collectively, as the taxpayers, be able to afford? And one of the things that is legitimate underlying the protests in these encounters with members of Congress is a concern about the cost. Can the government continue to carry these gigantic deficits? Will the--
BILL MOYERS: A legitimate question.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And those are very important questions. And it-- when the CBO has scored--
BILL MOYERS: Congressional Budget Office.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: --existing legislation, it has suggested that some of the projections were overly optimistic. And as a result, that we may not yet be in a situation in which Obama, President Obama, can deliver on his promise that this will be deficit neutral over ten years. And then it's possible that they get to being deficit neutral over ten years. What about the out years? What about the years beyond ten years?
We're in a situation that we wouldn't have been in were it not for many of the decisions of the Bush administration. But the deficit now is a serious issue with real economic consequences in the long term. And when you hear individuals in these exchanges with members of Congress saying, first, we had the big bailout. Then we had the big stimulus. Then we had cash for clunkers. How are we going to afford that? What are you passing on to my children and grandchildren? And what's it going to cost me as a taxpayer? Those individuals are asking legitimate important questions and as are the Republicans who are concerned about how this is going to be paid for long term. That's helping to restrain the process to increase the likelihood that everybody is going to be honest when they look at the CBO numbers, the final piece of legislation, to see what the effect is on deficit and debt long term.
DREW ALTMAN: And it needs to be said that there are legitimate reasons why conservatives, be they Republicans or blue dog Democrats or any conservative could be against this legislation. It's just not death panels or government takeover, but there are legitimate reasons they could be against it. The policy makers who are putting this together are absolutely committed to doing this in a deficit neutral way.
BILL MOYERS: Meaning?
DREW ALTMAN: Meaning that they will pay for it through a combination of savings measures and new revenues.
BILL MOYERS: It will not contribute to the increased deficit?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Over the first ten years.
DREW ALTMAN: But there's a bit of a catch here. First, though, that's the biggest challenge they face. Of all the challenges they face, the toughest one is financing, financing, financing. It is coming up with that list of savings measures and new revenues that really is the toughest nut to crack. And that's what they're working away at.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I think that you've got a real problem with cost shifting in this country. It's not as large as the administration has made it out to be. But when people come into hospitals without insurance and they are helped in the process, as they should be, that cost goes somewhere and it comes off into the people who are insured through some mechanism. I think we ought to be concerned about what that does economically in the long term, also what it does to the well being of those who come in without insurance and, as a result, get care later with a worse prognosis.
We ought to be concerned about that because we're moral human beings. But when Obama, President Obama, makes the big argument which says our economic future is dependent on fixing this, if he could make that single case, he could justify putting this through even if he couldn't in the process guarantee deficit neutrality across a period beyond ten years. He hasn't persuasively made the case. But imagine if he could persuade you that we've got another kind of economic meltdown coming because we're not fixing this piece of our own economy. And he makes the case to you, we could forestall that. Or if it were to happen, it wouldn't be as bad if we fixed this. Wouldn't you find that a persuasive argument? I think there's a case to be made, and I think it's a challenge to him to make it.
BILL MOYERS: What will each of you be looking for as Congress comes back into session on this issue?
DREW ALTMAN: I would look for-- I think two things. One, obviously, have they weathered this storm during the recess? Does it unravel or does it move forward still? I'm certain it'll move forward. I'm pretty confident it will move forward. Let me put it that way.
And then secondly, when they put the legislation together, have they found a way to pay for it? And what is the tradeoff between lowering the price tag of paying for it, which they're trying to do, and the benefits people get? And when we look at that, does it still meet the expectations of the American people for the help they're looking for with their health care bills?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I'm not looking for what Congress does, but I'm looking for the signals that are sent to the public by groups the public trusts. If the final legislation comes forward and the AARP has actually endorsed it, then you have a powerful signal to seniors that there's nothing here that's going to hurt you.
If a Concord Coalition, which cares a lot about deficits, has said this final legislation has gotten the cost drivers under control and hence long-term costs under control, that in fact this will help address the problem of rising costs, and if the AMA and the nursing associations are also on board, then I think you'll have reassurance that you've got two important groups in the health care equation saying, "We don't think that our relationship with our patients is going to be hurt by that or our ability to do our job." I'm going to look for those four signals that they've got a good piece of legislation. And I think if you've got those four signals, much of the details can fall to the side because you've got a lot of reassurance going out to the public that it's not as scary as the extremes on either side would argue.
BILL MOYERS: Drew Altman, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, thank you for being with me on the Journal.
DREW ALTMAN: Thank you, Bill.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: You're welcome.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08142009/watch.html
The Swiss Menace By PAUL KRUGMAN
It was the blooper heard round the world. In an editorial denouncing Democratic health reform plans, Investor’s Business Daily tried to frighten its readers by declaring that in Britain, where the government runs health care, the handicapped physicist Stephen Hawking “wouldn’t have a chance,” because the National Health Service would consider his life “essentially worthless.”
Professor Hawking, who was born in Britain, has lived there all his life, and has been well cared for by the National Health Service, was not amused.
Besides being vile and stupid, however, the editorial was beside the point. Investor’s Business Daily would like you to believe that Obamacare would turn America into Britain — or, rather, a dystopian fantasy version of Britain. The screamers on talk radio and Fox News would have you believe that the plan is to turn America into the Soviet Union. But the truth is that the plans on the table would, roughly speaking, turn America into Switzerland — which may be occupied by lederhosen-wearing holey-cheese eaters, but wasn’t a socialist hellhole the last time I looked.
Let’s talk about health care around the advanced world.
Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens. There are, however, wide variations in the specifics, with three main approaches taken.
In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. Like every system, the National Health Service has problems, but over all it appears to provide quite good care while spending only about 40 percent as much per person as we do. By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs.
The second route to universal coverage leaves the actual delivery of health care in private hands, but the government pays most of the bills. That’s how Canada and, in a more complex fashion, France do it. It’s also a system familiar to most Americans, since even those of us not yet on Medicare have parents and relatives who are.
Again, you hear a lot of horror stories about such systems, most of them false. French health care is excellent. Canadians with chronic conditions are more satisfied with their system than their U.S. counterparts. And Medicare is highly popular, as evidenced by the tendency of town-hall protesters to demand that the government keep its hands off the program.
Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.
In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some “Swiss” aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.
So where does Obamacare fit into all this? Basically, it’s a plan to Swissify America, using regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage.
If we were starting from scratch we probably wouldn’t have chosen this route. True “socialized medicine” would undoubtedly cost less, and a straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system. That’s why I and others believe that a true public option competing with private insurers is extremely important: otherwise, rising costs could all too easily undermine the whole effort.
But a Swiss-style system of universal coverage would be a vast improvement on what we have now. And we already know that such systems work.
So we can do this. At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.
•
Correction: In Friday’s column I mistakenly asserted that Senator Johnny Isakson was responsible for a provision in a House bill that would allow Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling. In fact, he is responsible for a provision in a Senate bill that would allow a different, newly created government program to pay for such counseling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
Professor Hawking, who was born in Britain, has lived there all his life, and has been well cared for by the National Health Service, was not amused.
Besides being vile and stupid, however, the editorial was beside the point. Investor’s Business Daily would like you to believe that Obamacare would turn America into Britain — or, rather, a dystopian fantasy version of Britain. The screamers on talk radio and Fox News would have you believe that the plan is to turn America into the Soviet Union. But the truth is that the plans on the table would, roughly speaking, turn America into Switzerland — which may be occupied by lederhosen-wearing holey-cheese eaters, but wasn’t a socialist hellhole the last time I looked.
Let’s talk about health care around the advanced world.
Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens. There are, however, wide variations in the specifics, with three main approaches taken.
In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. Like every system, the National Health Service has problems, but over all it appears to provide quite good care while spending only about 40 percent as much per person as we do. By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs.
The second route to universal coverage leaves the actual delivery of health care in private hands, but the government pays most of the bills. That’s how Canada and, in a more complex fashion, France do it. It’s also a system familiar to most Americans, since even those of us not yet on Medicare have parents and relatives who are.
Again, you hear a lot of horror stories about such systems, most of them false. French health care is excellent. Canadians with chronic conditions are more satisfied with their system than their U.S. counterparts. And Medicare is highly popular, as evidenced by the tendency of town-hall protesters to demand that the government keep its hands off the program.
Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.
In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some “Swiss” aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.
So where does Obamacare fit into all this? Basically, it’s a plan to Swissify America, using regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage.
If we were starting from scratch we probably wouldn’t have chosen this route. True “socialized medicine” would undoubtedly cost less, and a straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system. That’s why I and others believe that a true public option competing with private insurers is extremely important: otherwise, rising costs could all too easily undermine the whole effort.
But a Swiss-style system of universal coverage would be a vast improvement on what we have now. And we already know that such systems work.
So we can do this. At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.
•
Correction: In Friday’s column I mistakenly asserted that Senator Johnny Isakson was responsible for a provision in a House bill that would allow Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling. In fact, he is responsible for a provision in a Senate bill that would allow a different, newly created government program to pay for such counseling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
U.S. Gov. Contracts to Convert Algae into Jet Fuel
The U.S. Government has signed a research contract with the Arizona State University to discover the best means to convert the oils from ordinary pond scum into JP-8 military jet fuel. As part of a team with UOP (a Honeywell company), ASU lead researchers Qiang Hu and Milton Sommerfeld‚ will spearhead the $6.7 million government assignment by first researching which of the 40,000 varied strands of algae produce the most oil.
We have covered the story on the conversion of Algae to fuel before back in a June Article: From Pond Goo to Alternative Fuel: Algae the Diesel of Tomorrow?The advantages of algae as a fuel source over other, bio-sources are many, but here are just a few:Algae is not a food source for humans and animals therefore it would not deplete the food supply. Algae can grow in nearly any water environment, including water with a high salt content and brackish waters, so it will not compete for a clean water supply. It is yet another benefit that Algae can grow nearly anywhere so you do not have to worry about taking up good farm soil or keeping it out of industrial areas.
In fact algaes second greatest attribute besides producing nearly 100 times more oil than soy beans is that it feeds on the carbon dioxide‚ that nearly all industries produce. Thus making algae the ultimate counter in order to become carbon neutral.
ASU will be conducting its research over the course of this year with the intention of producing a jet fuel substance that is ready for mass production by the end of 2008. With the substantial government contract backing them up they certainly have an advantage over the other universities and small businesses seeking to make the leap from algae to fuel.
The jet fuel created is intended for use by both U.S. and NATO air defense, as well as commercial jets. Like most bio-fuels it is a cleaner burning fuel that would be a welcomed replacement for petroleum based jet fuel. We will watching and waiting for more news to come from ASU in the coming year. The algae-to-fuel conversion could put a whole new spin on the old insult of calling someone pond scum.
What an environmentally friendly thing to say. A little gassy, but kind.
Source[Autopia , ASUnews]
http://www.ridelust.com/us-gov-contracts-asu-to-convert-algae-into-jet-fuel/
Military Inks $35 Mil in Algae-Biodiesel Contracts
Posted by John Davis December 22nd, 2008
The U.S. military has inked a pair of deals worth about $35 million to develop biodiesel made from algae.
Cleantech.com reports two San Diego companies will work on the fuel to be used by the U.S. Army and Air Force:
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) signed a $14.9 million deal with Science Applications International to work on making the algae-based jet fuel commercially and technically feasible.
DARPA also signed a $19.9 million deal with General Atomics to research algae-based fuel.
The two agreements are expected to last through 2010.
For several years, the U.S. Department of Defense has been searching for an alternative to its Jet Propellant 8 (JP-8) fuel for military jets…
DARPA says that more than 90 percent of the fuel used by the Department of Defense is JP-8, amounting to 71 million barrels and a cost of $6 billion in 2006. The kerosene-based fuel is less flammable and less hazardous than other fuel options, allowing for better safety and combat survivability.
JP-8 is a flexible fuel for military applications used in heaters, stoves, tanks, and other vehicles in military service.
related topics: Biodiesel, Government
http://domesticfuel.com/2008/12/22/military-inks-35-mil-in-algae-biodiesel-contracts/
We have covered the story on the conversion of Algae to fuel before back in a June Article: From Pond Goo to Alternative Fuel: Algae the Diesel of Tomorrow?The advantages of algae as a fuel source over other, bio-sources are many, but here are just a few:Algae is not a food source for humans and animals therefore it would not deplete the food supply. Algae can grow in nearly any water environment, including water with a high salt content and brackish waters, so it will not compete for a clean water supply. It is yet another benefit that Algae can grow nearly anywhere so you do not have to worry about taking up good farm soil or keeping it out of industrial areas.
In fact algaes second greatest attribute besides producing nearly 100 times more oil than soy beans is that it feeds on the carbon dioxide‚ that nearly all industries produce. Thus making algae the ultimate counter in order to become carbon neutral.
ASU will be conducting its research over the course of this year with the intention of producing a jet fuel substance that is ready for mass production by the end of 2008. With the substantial government contract backing them up they certainly have an advantage over the other universities and small businesses seeking to make the leap from algae to fuel.
The jet fuel created is intended for use by both U.S. and NATO air defense, as well as commercial jets. Like most bio-fuels it is a cleaner burning fuel that would be a welcomed replacement for petroleum based jet fuel. We will watching and waiting for more news to come from ASU in the coming year. The algae-to-fuel conversion could put a whole new spin on the old insult of calling someone pond scum.
What an environmentally friendly thing to say. A little gassy, but kind.
Source[Autopia , ASUnews]
http://www.ridelust.com/us-gov-contracts-asu-to-convert-algae-into-jet-fuel/
Military Inks $35 Mil in Algae-Biodiesel Contracts
Posted by John Davis December 22nd, 2008
The U.S. military has inked a pair of deals worth about $35 million to develop biodiesel made from algae.
Cleantech.com reports two San Diego companies will work on the fuel to be used by the U.S. Army and Air Force:
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) signed a $14.9 million deal with Science Applications International to work on making the algae-based jet fuel commercially and technically feasible.
DARPA also signed a $19.9 million deal with General Atomics to research algae-based fuel.
The two agreements are expected to last through 2010.
For several years, the U.S. Department of Defense has been searching for an alternative to its Jet Propellant 8 (JP-8) fuel for military jets…
DARPA says that more than 90 percent of the fuel used by the Department of Defense is JP-8, amounting to 71 million barrels and a cost of $6 billion in 2006. The kerosene-based fuel is less flammable and less hazardous than other fuel options, allowing for better safety and combat survivability.
JP-8 is a flexible fuel for military applications used in heaters, stoves, tanks, and other vehicles in military service.
related topics: Biodiesel, Government
http://domesticfuel.com/2008/12/22/military-inks-35-mil-in-algae-biodiesel-contracts/
Thursday, August 20, 2009
faithforhealth.org.
We are completely overwhelmed -- and inspired -- by the response to last night's faith community call to action with President Obama.
140,000 people tuned-in live as people of faith offered moving testimony about our broken health care system. We heard from people like Rev. Heyward Wiggins, who had a parishioner in his congregation die, because he couldn't afford blood tests that would have detected his cancer in time to treat it, and many others with similarly heartbreaking stories.
President Obama and his Domestic Policy Director Melody Barnes spoke directly to the issues that people of faith care about most, and addressed the moral dimensions of the health care debate.
If you were unable to listen to the call last night, recordings are now available at faithforhealth.org.
This is only the beginning. We still have a tough fight ahead of us to get the reform we so desperately need -- and we all the support we can get from your faith communities.
140,000 people joined last night's call and we've gotten over 24,000 signatures for our petitions on health care. It's never been clearer that people of faith support health reform. But we know you have many more friends who support health reform, and we're going to need help from every last one of them. Forward the message below to members of your faith community, friends and family and invite them to listen to the call with President Obama and then join the 40 Days for Health Reform campaign.
We are truly blown away by the response to last night. Thank you for helping to make it happen! We'll be in touch in the coming days about other ways you can help pass strong health care reform.
Beth, Katie, Dan, Kristin and Jennifer,
The Faithful America Team
Message to Forward:
Hi,
Our health care system is broken. It's clear we need a change, but honest dialog has been disrupted by shouting and distortions.
Last night, 140,000 people tuned in to "40 Minutes for Health Reform," a call to action on health care from the faith community. The call included people of faith and President Obama taking about the urgent moral imperative to win quality, affordable health care for all American families.
The call is part of "40 Days for Health Reform," a campaign on health care reform from the faith community. Over the next 40 days, people of faith will run a national TV ad campaign, sign petitions, conduct in-district public meetings reaching over 100 Members of Congress,
Visit www.faithforhealth.org to listen to the call with President Obama then sign the petition to join the 40 Days campaign and stay up to date with all these exciting activities.
"Beth Dahlman, Faithful America"Add sender to Contacts
All content © 2008 Faithful America
1101 Vermont Avenue, 9th Floor Washington, DC 20005
140,000 people tuned-in live as people of faith offered moving testimony about our broken health care system. We heard from people like Rev. Heyward Wiggins, who had a parishioner in his congregation die, because he couldn't afford blood tests that would have detected his cancer in time to treat it, and many others with similarly heartbreaking stories.
President Obama and his Domestic Policy Director Melody Barnes spoke directly to the issues that people of faith care about most, and addressed the moral dimensions of the health care debate.
If you were unable to listen to the call last night, recordings are now available at faithforhealth.org.
This is only the beginning. We still have a tough fight ahead of us to get the reform we so desperately need -- and we all the support we can get from your faith communities.
140,000 people joined last night's call and we've gotten over 24,000 signatures for our petitions on health care. It's never been clearer that people of faith support health reform. But we know you have many more friends who support health reform, and we're going to need help from every last one of them. Forward the message below to members of your faith community, friends and family and invite them to listen to the call with President Obama and then join the 40 Days for Health Reform campaign.
We are truly blown away by the response to last night. Thank you for helping to make it happen! We'll be in touch in the coming days about other ways you can help pass strong health care reform.
Beth, Katie, Dan, Kristin and Jennifer,
The Faithful America Team
Message to Forward:
Hi,
Our health care system is broken. It's clear we need a change, but honest dialog has been disrupted by shouting and distortions.
Last night, 140,000 people tuned in to "40 Minutes for Health Reform," a call to action on health care from the faith community. The call included people of faith and President Obama taking about the urgent moral imperative to win quality, affordable health care for all American families.
The call is part of "40 Days for Health Reform," a campaign on health care reform from the faith community. Over the next 40 days, people of faith will run a national TV ad campaign, sign petitions, conduct in-district public meetings reaching over 100 Members of Congress,
Visit www.faithforhealth.org to listen to the call with President Obama then sign the petition to join the 40 Days campaign and stay up to date with all these exciting activities.
"Beth Dahlman, Faithful America"
All content © 2008 Faithful America
1101 Vermont Avenue, 9th Floor Washington, DC 20005
ALGAE IS THE ANSWER TO OUR DEPENDENCE ON OIL
Type: Common Interest - Science
Description: Converting algae into bio-diesel is the most efficient way to solve our energy problem. After conversion, algae can be integrated into our existing technology. This can save a lot of time, energy and money. Ross Youngs is the owner of a few environmentally friendly companies called Univenture(.com), UniKeep(.com) and AlgaeVS(.com). He is currently creating systems that grow algae for conversion into bio-diesel. He has a good team who is constantly researching. He has the capacity and ability to develop this technology, but the biggest problem holding the development back is the funding. He has been in contact with the air force, every university in Ohio, the local government, and he's testified for funds in congress. It has been a long time now and he still hasn't received any grants or federal funds. President Obama, please recognize that algae is the most viable and reasonable solution to oil.
Ross O. Youngs founded Univenture on the ideals of inventing and manufacturing more environmentally friendly packaging solutions for corporate customers in the US and abroad. In 1988, we began with our original Safety-sleeve® disc package which significantly reduced the amount of material required to package and distribute discs while at the same time protecting the disc for longer use and re-use.
Univenture has recently launched our newest initiative AlgaeVenture Systems LLC, a Univenture Inc. company. We are seeking to provide the missing link to commercialize a strong algae industry with our unique manufacturing technologies, engineering and logistics experience, and history of successful product development. These factors position us among the very few who are able to successfully commercialize algae production systems rapidly. Over thirty years of historical government research, along with contemporary research and technological development point to the viability of algae as an extremely prolific source of both oil and feedstock with the ability to feed virtually every aspect of the current petroleum-product industry as well as the evolving bio-diesel industry.
I have decided to rally everyone to invite all of your friends on Facebook. Our group is slow growing but with your help we could reach unexpected numbers. It would be of enormous help to this cause and much appreciated. Think about being independent from foreign sources of energy, once again cheap and abundant energy that is renewable. Thanks to everyone who has already done their part.
*****DONT FORGET INVITE YOUR FRIENDS*******
Univenture, Inc. and AlgaeVenture Systems, a wholly owned LLC in Marysville, Ohio has announced on March 10, 2009 the details of a disruptive solid liquid separation and dewatering technology specifically designed for microalgae. Patent documents have been filed and an operational prototype unit has been demonstrated to collaborators who have participated in research and commercialization proposals.
Prototype and laboratory testing has successfully been achieved with three species attempted including Chlorella vulgaris, Euglena gracilis, and Botryococcus braunii. The company plans to continue development on the process, equipment, and technology and is looking to establish relationships with potential customers, licensees, distributors, as well as funding or investing sources.
For potential customers, funding sources and investors, a demonstration of the equipment is available by appointment in Marysville, Ohio.
Corporate Contact:
Amy Bucklin
AVS Project Manager
(937) 645-4604
abucklin@univenture.com
Contact Info
Email:
Website: http://www.algaeventure.com
Office: AlgaeVenture Corporate Headquarters
Location: 13311 Industrial Parkway
Marysville, OH
Description: Converting algae into bio-diesel is the most efficient way to solve our energy problem. After conversion, algae can be integrated into our existing technology. This can save a lot of time, energy and money. Ross Youngs is the owner of a few environmentally friendly companies called Univenture(.com), UniKeep(.com) and AlgaeVS(.com). He is currently creating systems that grow algae for conversion into bio-diesel. He has a good team who is constantly researching. He has the capacity and ability to develop this technology, but the biggest problem holding the development back is the funding. He has been in contact with the air force, every university in Ohio, the local government, and he's testified for funds in congress. It has been a long time now and he still hasn't received any grants or federal funds. President Obama, please recognize that algae is the most viable and reasonable solution to oil.
Ross O. Youngs founded Univenture on the ideals of inventing and manufacturing more environmentally friendly packaging solutions for corporate customers in the US and abroad. In 1988, we began with our original Safety-sleeve® disc package which significantly reduced the amount of material required to package and distribute discs while at the same time protecting the disc for longer use and re-use.
Univenture has recently launched our newest initiative AlgaeVenture Systems LLC, a Univenture Inc. company. We are seeking to provide the missing link to commercialize a strong algae industry with our unique manufacturing technologies, engineering and logistics experience, and history of successful product development. These factors position us among the very few who are able to successfully commercialize algae production systems rapidly. Over thirty years of historical government research, along with contemporary research and technological development point to the viability of algae as an extremely prolific source of both oil and feedstock with the ability to feed virtually every aspect of the current petroleum-product industry as well as the evolving bio-diesel industry.
I have decided to rally everyone to invite all of your friends on Facebook. Our group is slow growing but with your help we could reach unexpected numbers. It would be of enormous help to this cause and much appreciated. Think about being independent from foreign sources of energy, once again cheap and abundant energy that is renewable. Thanks to everyone who has already done their part.
*****DONT FORGET INVITE YOUR FRIENDS*******
Univenture, Inc. and AlgaeVenture Systems, a wholly owned LLC in Marysville, Ohio has announced on March 10, 2009 the details of a disruptive solid liquid separation and dewatering technology specifically designed for microalgae. Patent documents have been filed and an operational prototype unit has been demonstrated to collaborators who have participated in research and commercialization proposals.
Prototype and laboratory testing has successfully been achieved with three species attempted including Chlorella vulgaris, Euglena gracilis, and Botryococcus braunii. The company plans to continue development on the process, equipment, and technology and is looking to establish relationships with potential customers, licensees, distributors, as well as funding or investing sources.
For potential customers, funding sources and investors, a demonstration of the equipment is available by appointment in Marysville, Ohio.
Corporate Contact:
Amy Bucklin
AVS Project Manager
(937) 645-4604
abucklin@univenture.com
Contact Info
Email:
Website: http://www.algaeventure.com
Office: AlgaeVenture Corporate Headquarters
Location: 13311 Industrial Parkway
Marysville, OH
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Obama to address Faith Community health-care reform
Aug. 19 conference call, webcast
By Wayne Rhodes, Editor, Faith in Action
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The United Methodist General Board of Church & Society (GBCS) is co-sponsor of an unprecedented nationwide faith-community call-in and audio webcast on health-care reform featuring President Obama on Wednesday, Aug. 19. The event, "40Minutes for Health Reform," will be from 5 to 5:40 p.m. EST.
Sponsors of the event support the need for health-care reform in the United States, but no specific legislation will be endorsed during the call. Instead the call is to provide the most up-to-date information about proposed legislation, and will focus on health-care reform as a moral imperative.
President Obama will urge the faith community to action, and a high-level administration official will answer questions from participants. Questions can be submitted online after signing the electronic RSVP: United Methodists.
The call will be hosted by Blog Talk Radio. Participation is unlimited. Participants can either log on to www.FaithforHealth.org at the time of the call or dial (347) 996-5501; no passcode is necessary, but long-distance charges may apply.
The president’s decision to address the health-care debate specifically with the faith community demonstrates how important religious organizations are to passing reform, according to the Rev. Cynthia Abrams, director of GBCS’s work area on Alcohol, Other Addictions & Health Care. “The faith community's engagement in the debate is desperately needed to pass reform,” she said. “Special interests are trying to hijack the debate with misinformation, negative and disruptive tactics. The stakes are high, because without reform this year, health care will become increasingly unaffordable or inaccessible to average Americans for years to come.”
The call with President Obama is part of a broader effort to make sure that the faith community has a strong voice in the outcome of the health-reform debate. For example, in partnership with PICO National Network, Sojourners and Catholics in Alliance, Faith in Public Life has released a new TV ad with grassroots faith leaders calling for reform. It began airing on national cable this week.
United Methodists are invited to participate in the “John 10:10 Challenge” to raise the faith community’s voice in support of comprehensive U.S. health-care reform. The challenge, issued by GBCS, is based on Jesus’ declaration that he came so all “may have life, and have it abundantly.” A new website, John 10:10 Challenge, contains resources to enable persons to be informed, engaged and empowered to begin advocacy for U.S. health-care reform.
The United Methodist Church states in its Social Principles (¶162.V) that it believes health care is “a basic human right.” Last year, the denomination’s highest policy-making body, the General Conference, adopted a resolution that supports a single-payer system.
That resolution, #3201 in the 2008 Book of Resolutions, urges United Methodists to exert influence through all structures and means “to connectionally advocate and fervently lobby the federal government for the adoption and implementation of a totally nonprofit health-insurance system, a single-payer system administered by the federal government.”
40 Minutes for Health Reform's sponsors encourage RSVPs for the call and/or listening online. Sponsors hope to direct participants to a website where they can sign up to receive action alerts to stay involved in the effort to reform health care.
Among the numerous faith groups working in collaboration to achieve health-care reform are the United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries, Church Women United, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Islamic Society of North America, National Council of Jewish Women, National Episcopal Health Ministries, Presbyterian Church (USA), Network: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby and United Jewish Communities.
The General Board of Church & Society is one of four international general program boards of The United Methodist Church, which has more than 11 million members worldwide. The board’s primary areas of ministry are Advocacy, Education and Leadership Formation, United Nations and International Affairs, and resourcing these areas for the nearly 35,000 local churches of the denomination. It has offices on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and at the Church Center at the United Nations.
Date: 8/14/2009©2005-2009
Contact: Wayne L. Rhodes, Director of Communications
(202) 488-5630 or wrhodes@umc-gbcs.org
http://www.ncjumc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=150:president-to-listen-to-faith-community&catid=14:frontpage-only-items
By Wayne Rhodes, Editor, Faith in Action
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The United Methodist General Board of Church & Society (GBCS) is co-sponsor of an unprecedented nationwide faith-community call-in and audio webcast on health-care reform featuring President Obama on Wednesday, Aug. 19. The event, "40Minutes for Health Reform," will be from 5 to 5:40 p.m. EST.
Sponsors of the event support the need for health-care reform in the United States, but no specific legislation will be endorsed during the call. Instead the call is to provide the most up-to-date information about proposed legislation, and will focus on health-care reform as a moral imperative.
President Obama will urge the faith community to action, and a high-level administration official will answer questions from participants. Questions can be submitted online after signing the electronic RSVP: United Methodists.
The call will be hosted by Blog Talk Radio. Participation is unlimited. Participants can either log on to www.FaithforHealth.org at the time of the call or dial (347) 996-5501; no passcode is necessary, but long-distance charges may apply.
The president’s decision to address the health-care debate specifically with the faith community demonstrates how important religious organizations are to passing reform, according to the Rev. Cynthia Abrams, director of GBCS’s work area on Alcohol, Other Addictions & Health Care. “The faith community's engagement in the debate is desperately needed to pass reform,” she said. “Special interests are trying to hijack the debate with misinformation, negative and disruptive tactics. The stakes are high, because without reform this year, health care will become increasingly unaffordable or inaccessible to average Americans for years to come.”
The call with President Obama is part of a broader effort to make sure that the faith community has a strong voice in the outcome of the health-reform debate. For example, in partnership with PICO National Network, Sojourners and Catholics in Alliance, Faith in Public Life has released a new TV ad with grassroots faith leaders calling for reform. It began airing on national cable this week.
United Methodists are invited to participate in the “John 10:10 Challenge” to raise the faith community’s voice in support of comprehensive U.S. health-care reform. The challenge, issued by GBCS, is based on Jesus’ declaration that he came so all “may have life, and have it abundantly.” A new website, John 10:10 Challenge, contains resources to enable persons to be informed, engaged and empowered to begin advocacy for U.S. health-care reform.
The United Methodist Church states in its Social Principles (¶162.V) that it believes health care is “a basic human right.” Last year, the denomination’s highest policy-making body, the General Conference, adopted a resolution that supports a single-payer system.
That resolution, #3201 in the 2008 Book of Resolutions, urges United Methodists to exert influence through all structures and means “to connectionally advocate and fervently lobby the federal government for the adoption and implementation of a totally nonprofit health-insurance system, a single-payer system administered by the federal government.”
40 Minutes for Health Reform's sponsors encourage RSVPs for the call and/or listening online. Sponsors hope to direct participants to a website where they can sign up to receive action alerts to stay involved in the effort to reform health care.
Among the numerous faith groups working in collaboration to achieve health-care reform are the United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries, Church Women United, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Islamic Society of North America, National Council of Jewish Women, National Episcopal Health Ministries, Presbyterian Church (USA), Network: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby and United Jewish Communities.
The General Board of Church & Society is one of four international general program boards of The United Methodist Church, which has more than 11 million members worldwide. The board’s primary areas of ministry are Advocacy, Education and Leadership Formation, United Nations and International Affairs, and resourcing these areas for the nearly 35,000 local churches of the denomination. It has offices on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and at the Church Center at the United Nations.
Date: 8/14/2009©2005-2009
Contact: Wayne L. Rhodes, Director of Communications
(202) 488-5630 or wrhodes@umc-gbcs.org
http://www.ncjumc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=150:president-to-listen-to-faith-community&catid=14:frontpage-only-items
Friday, August 14, 2009
Britons unite to defend health care amid US debate
By GREGORY KATZ, Associated Press Writer Gregory Katz, Associated Press Writer
LONDON – Britons love to mock their National Health Service — just don't let anyone else poke fun at it.
They particularly resent the British universal health care system being used as a punching bag in the battle against President Barack Obama's proposed reforms.
Conservatives in the United States have relied on horror stories from Britain's system to warn Americans that Obama is trying to impose a socialized health care system that would give the government too much power.
In an interview widely interpreted here as an attack on the U.K., Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa told a local radio station last week that "countries that have government-run health care" would not have given Sen. Edward Kennedy, who suffers from a brain tumor, the same standard of care as in the U.S. because he is too old.
The superheated debate broadened this week to include renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, a British icon who suffers from motor neurone disease. A U.S. newspaper wrote that under the British system Hawking would be allowed to die — an assertion that Hawking said was absurd.
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," Hawking said, joining the ranks of those praising Britain's system.
Britons say the country's universal health care system, which provides free medical care, is far fairer than the current American system.
Behind the criticism is a popular British view that American society represents unbridled capitalism run amok, with catastrophic results for people left behind in the boom times like those of the last two decades.
Business Secretary Peter Mandelson, who is usually pro-American, blasted U.S. health care Friday, suggesting the delivery system is fine for the wealthy but not for the poor.
"If you can't pay, you have a very, very second-rate service or you can't get health service at all," he said.
Britain's left-leaning government has responded to criticism offering selected statistics that show England out performing the U.S. in health spending per capita, life expectancy and more.
Newspapers have jumped in, with the Daily Mirror calling the United States "the land of the fee" because of the way patients are forced to pay for medical services.
And Dr. Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the British Medical Association, warned Friday that Britain must be careful not to let America's "market-style philosophy" take hold at the NHS.
The National Health Service, one of the world's largest publicly funded health services, was set up in 1949 with the intention of providing everyone with access to health care regardless of their ability to pay. A number of other countries, including Canada, have similar systems.
Although Canada's program is not fully public, it ensures coverage for all of its citizens through provincial and territorial insurance systems. These systems are governed by a federal law that says coverage is universal, and ensures that taxpayers, not patient fees, pay for primary medical services.
During a press conference Monday with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Obama said Canada's model "would not work for the United States."
"We've got to develop a uniquely American approach to this problem," Obama said.
The Canadian system has been vilified during the U.S. health care debate for having long wait times and scant resources, putting Canadian officials on the defensive.
"We have a system that provides universal coverage — the flaw in the American system is that first they check the size of your wallet, not the size of your need," said Ontario Health Minister David Caplan.
Despite the widespread show of support for the British system recently, the NHS has been struggling to cope with rising medical costs, and there are fears it could be overwhelmed if swine flu cases surge this winter.
Doctors and nurses warn that the organization faces a 15 billion pound ($24 billion) deficit, and NHS hospitals are often overcrowded, dirty and understaffed. Many people have to wait weeks or months for medical care despite government promises to shorten waiting lists.
But even those who complain about the NHS say they want it to be improved, not dismantled or transformed into a U.S.-style, profit-oriented system.
Generations of Britons have grown up with universal coverage and although about 12 percent of the population has private insurance, the vast majority of people still rely on the system to provide them with emergency care, surgery, and access to a family doctor.
"The NHS has many faults but health care is a basic right and shouldn't be an arena for private companies to make profit," said Kathryn Wilson, an information technology consultant.
Even British health campaigner Kate Spall — who criticizes NHS failings in U.S. television ads produced by Conservatives for Patients' Rights, a lobby group that opposes Obama's plans — declared that the group had misled her and was distorting her true views.
Spall's mother died of kidney cancer while waiting for treatment, but she said she is still a supporter of the NHS.
"There are failings in the system but I'm not anti-NHS at all," she said, praising Britain's commitment to universal coverage.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090814/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_us_health_care/print
Associated Press Writers Karolina Tagaris in London, Charmaine Noronha in Toronto and Jennifer Loven in Washington contributed to this report.
LONDON – Britons love to mock their National Health Service — just don't let anyone else poke fun at it.
They particularly resent the British universal health care system being used as a punching bag in the battle against President Barack Obama's proposed reforms.
Conservatives in the United States have relied on horror stories from Britain's system to warn Americans that Obama is trying to impose a socialized health care system that would give the government too much power.
In an interview widely interpreted here as an attack on the U.K., Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa told a local radio station last week that "countries that have government-run health care" would not have given Sen. Edward Kennedy, who suffers from a brain tumor, the same standard of care as in the U.S. because he is too old.
The superheated debate broadened this week to include renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, a British icon who suffers from motor neurone disease. A U.S. newspaper wrote that under the British system Hawking would be allowed to die — an assertion that Hawking said was absurd.
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," Hawking said, joining the ranks of those praising Britain's system.
Britons say the country's universal health care system, which provides free medical care, is far fairer than the current American system.
Behind the criticism is a popular British view that American society represents unbridled capitalism run amok, with catastrophic results for people left behind in the boom times like those of the last two decades.
Business Secretary Peter Mandelson, who is usually pro-American, blasted U.S. health care Friday, suggesting the delivery system is fine for the wealthy but not for the poor.
"If you can't pay, you have a very, very second-rate service or you can't get health service at all," he said.
Britain's left-leaning government has responded to criticism offering selected statistics that show England out performing the U.S. in health spending per capita, life expectancy and more.
Newspapers have jumped in, with the Daily Mirror calling the United States "the land of the fee" because of the way patients are forced to pay for medical services.
And Dr. Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the British Medical Association, warned Friday that Britain must be careful not to let America's "market-style philosophy" take hold at the NHS.
The National Health Service, one of the world's largest publicly funded health services, was set up in 1949 with the intention of providing everyone with access to health care regardless of their ability to pay. A number of other countries, including Canada, have similar systems.
Although Canada's program is not fully public, it ensures coverage for all of its citizens through provincial and territorial insurance systems. These systems are governed by a federal law that says coverage is universal, and ensures that taxpayers, not patient fees, pay for primary medical services.
During a press conference Monday with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Obama said Canada's model "would not work for the United States."
"We've got to develop a uniquely American approach to this problem," Obama said.
The Canadian system has been vilified during the U.S. health care debate for having long wait times and scant resources, putting Canadian officials on the defensive.
"We have a system that provides universal coverage — the flaw in the American system is that first they check the size of your wallet, not the size of your need," said Ontario Health Minister David Caplan.
Despite the widespread show of support for the British system recently, the NHS has been struggling to cope with rising medical costs, and there are fears it could be overwhelmed if swine flu cases surge this winter.
Doctors and nurses warn that the organization faces a 15 billion pound ($24 billion) deficit, and NHS hospitals are often overcrowded, dirty and understaffed. Many people have to wait weeks or months for medical care despite government promises to shorten waiting lists.
But even those who complain about the NHS say they want it to be improved, not dismantled or transformed into a U.S.-style, profit-oriented system.
Generations of Britons have grown up with universal coverage and although about 12 percent of the population has private insurance, the vast majority of people still rely on the system to provide them with emergency care, surgery, and access to a family doctor.
"The NHS has many faults but health care is a basic right and shouldn't be an arena for private companies to make profit," said Kathryn Wilson, an information technology consultant.
Even British health campaigner Kate Spall — who criticizes NHS failings in U.S. television ads produced by Conservatives for Patients' Rights, a lobby group that opposes Obama's plans — declared that the group had misled her and was distorting her true views.
Spall's mother died of kidney cancer while waiting for treatment, but she said she is still a supporter of the NHS.
"There are failings in the system but I'm not anti-NHS at all," she said, praising Britain's commitment to universal coverage.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090814/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_us_health_care/print
Associated Press Writers Karolina Tagaris in London, Charmaine Noronha in Toronto and Jennifer Loven in Washington contributed to this report.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Recession ends in France and Germany
By PAN PYLAS, AP Business Writer Pan Pylas, Ap Business Writer
LONDON – Government programs to support the auto industry helped Germany and France return to economic growth in the second quarter, rebounds that stoked hopes the recession in the wider 16-country euro area may also end sooner than thought.
Europe's two biggest economies each saw growth of 0.3 percent from the previous three-month period, surprising analysts' expectations for equivalent declines and technically ending their worst recession in decades.
The French and German increases marked a stunning turnaround from the previous quarter, when Germany shrank by a massive 3.5 percent and France contracted by 1.3 percent.
The unexpected increases in Germany and France meant that the 16-country euro area contracted at a sharply reduced rate of 0.1 percent, much less than the 0.5 percent anticipated in the markets.
Though the euro zone drop was the fifth straight quarterly decline, it was a marked improvement on the record 2.5 percent fall recorded in the first quarter and was even better than the 0.3 percent quarterly decline recorded in the U.S., the world's single largest economy.
France's Finance Minister Christine Lagarde credited the government-backed stimulus plan for the auto industry for the country's ability to weather the economic storm and return to growth.
"France is finally coming out of the red," she said on RTL radio.
Lagarde later told Le Figaro newspaper that she expected the economy to demonstrate "a complete exit from the crisis" in mid-2010. "We are clearly in the stabilization phase," she was quoted as saying in an interview released Thursday night.
Countries across Europe have established so-called "cash for clunkers" programs in the hope that wary consumers will trade in their old cars for newer and more efficient models — in the process kick-starting the economy.
Unicredit economist Andreas Rees reckons that the export-dependent auto sector contributed 0.25 percentage point to overall German GDP growth.
Despite the apparent benefits, Europe's economy is not out of the woods yet — it still faces the prospect of a marked rise in unemployment when programs to support workers putting in reduced hours end, and worries about what happens after the expiration of the auto incentives.
And recovery would start from a much lower base level — the euro zone economy is 4.6 percent smaller than a year ago and that could take two to three years of solid economic growth to make up.
Nevertheless, Thursday's figures will likely surprise policy-makers at the European Central Bank. As recently as last week, the central bank's president Jean-Claude Trichet said the recession would likely continue until next year at least.
The better than expected performance helped the euro bounce half a percentage point to $1.4270.
Much will depend on what happens in the currency markets over the coming months. Europe's manufacturers will not have been pleased that the euro has consolidated above $1.40 after having fallen toward $1.25 earlier in the year — a higher euro makes euro zone products more expensive in export markets.
The signs so far are that exporters in Germany, the euro zone's biggest single economy, have managed to offset the impact of the higher euro amid rising global demand. Government figures last week showed that German exports were up 7 percent on the month in June, their biggest rise in nearly three years.
Other countries may not be as capable as Germany at offsetting the negative euro impact, analysts cautioned.
"Whilst German exporters may be able to absorb a rising euro, given that their high-end produce faces less competition than those of their neighbors, it is doubtful whether France and Italy can without suffering much pain," said Neil Mellor, analyst at the Bank of New York Mellon.
Economists also stressed that the road to recovery will not be straightforward — especially as much of the improvement in Germany and France was due to very sharp falls in imports, which reduced trade deficits and lessened the GDP reduction stemming from the net trade balance.
In addition, they said rising unemployment will continue to rein in consumer demand.
"With output unlikely to return to pre-recession levels in the medium term, unemployment may become a serious drag on the euro area's economic performance," said Jorg Radeke, economist at the Centre for Economic and Business Research in London.
The contrasting economic performances among the euro member states are likely to cause headaches for the European Central Bank, said Radeke.
While Germany and France saw output rise in the second quarter, other euro zone countries remain mired in recession, including Italy, which saw GDP fall another 0.5 percent, and the Netherlands, where GDP dropped 0.9 percent. Figures Friday could well show Spain contracted a further 1 percent as its economy reels from a near 20 percent unemployment rate.
The EU as a whole, including countries that don't use the euro such as Britain and Sweden, saw output drop 0.3 percent in the second quarter from the previous three month period. Britain dragged the rate lower with a 0.8 percent decline.
Once again, the Baltic countries were the big laggards, with output sliding a quarterly 3.7 percent in Estonia, 1.6 percent in Latvia and a massive 12.3 percent in Lithuania.
A more detailed breakdown of the GDP figures in the EU will be released on September 2.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_eu_economy/print
Associated Press Writers Angela Charlton and Maria Danilova in Paris contributed to this report.
LONDON – Government programs to support the auto industry helped Germany and France return to economic growth in the second quarter, rebounds that stoked hopes the recession in the wider 16-country euro area may also end sooner than thought.
Europe's two biggest economies each saw growth of 0.3 percent from the previous three-month period, surprising analysts' expectations for equivalent declines and technically ending their worst recession in decades.
The French and German increases marked a stunning turnaround from the previous quarter, when Germany shrank by a massive 3.5 percent and France contracted by 1.3 percent.
The unexpected increases in Germany and France meant that the 16-country euro area contracted at a sharply reduced rate of 0.1 percent, much less than the 0.5 percent anticipated in the markets.
Though the euro zone drop was the fifth straight quarterly decline, it was a marked improvement on the record 2.5 percent fall recorded in the first quarter and was even better than the 0.3 percent quarterly decline recorded in the U.S., the world's single largest economy.
France's Finance Minister Christine Lagarde credited the government-backed stimulus plan for the auto industry for the country's ability to weather the economic storm and return to growth.
"France is finally coming out of the red," she said on RTL radio.
Lagarde later told Le Figaro newspaper that she expected the economy to demonstrate "a complete exit from the crisis" in mid-2010. "We are clearly in the stabilization phase," she was quoted as saying in an interview released Thursday night.
Countries across Europe have established so-called "cash for clunkers" programs in the hope that wary consumers will trade in their old cars for newer and more efficient models — in the process kick-starting the economy.
Unicredit economist Andreas Rees reckons that the export-dependent auto sector contributed 0.25 percentage point to overall German GDP growth.
Despite the apparent benefits, Europe's economy is not out of the woods yet — it still faces the prospect of a marked rise in unemployment when programs to support workers putting in reduced hours end, and worries about what happens after the expiration of the auto incentives.
And recovery would start from a much lower base level — the euro zone economy is 4.6 percent smaller than a year ago and that could take two to three years of solid economic growth to make up.
Nevertheless, Thursday's figures will likely surprise policy-makers at the European Central Bank. As recently as last week, the central bank's president Jean-Claude Trichet said the recession would likely continue until next year at least.
The better than expected performance helped the euro bounce half a percentage point to $1.4270.
Much will depend on what happens in the currency markets over the coming months. Europe's manufacturers will not have been pleased that the euro has consolidated above $1.40 after having fallen toward $1.25 earlier in the year — a higher euro makes euro zone products more expensive in export markets.
The signs so far are that exporters in Germany, the euro zone's biggest single economy, have managed to offset the impact of the higher euro amid rising global demand. Government figures last week showed that German exports were up 7 percent on the month in June, their biggest rise in nearly three years.
Other countries may not be as capable as Germany at offsetting the negative euro impact, analysts cautioned.
"Whilst German exporters may be able to absorb a rising euro, given that their high-end produce faces less competition than those of their neighbors, it is doubtful whether France and Italy can without suffering much pain," said Neil Mellor, analyst at the Bank of New York Mellon.
Economists also stressed that the road to recovery will not be straightforward — especially as much of the improvement in Germany and France was due to very sharp falls in imports, which reduced trade deficits and lessened the GDP reduction stemming from the net trade balance.
In addition, they said rising unemployment will continue to rein in consumer demand.
"With output unlikely to return to pre-recession levels in the medium term, unemployment may become a serious drag on the euro area's economic performance," said Jorg Radeke, economist at the Centre for Economic and Business Research in London.
The contrasting economic performances among the euro member states are likely to cause headaches for the European Central Bank, said Radeke.
While Germany and France saw output rise in the second quarter, other euro zone countries remain mired in recession, including Italy, which saw GDP fall another 0.5 percent, and the Netherlands, where GDP dropped 0.9 percent. Figures Friday could well show Spain contracted a further 1 percent as its economy reels from a near 20 percent unemployment rate.
The EU as a whole, including countries that don't use the euro such as Britain and Sweden, saw output drop 0.3 percent in the second quarter from the previous three month period. Britain dragged the rate lower with a 0.8 percent decline.
Once again, the Baltic countries were the big laggards, with output sliding a quarterly 3.7 percent in Estonia, 1.6 percent in Latvia and a massive 12.3 percent in Lithuania.
A more detailed breakdown of the GDP figures in the EU will be released on September 2.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_eu_economy/print
Associated Press Writers Angela Charlton and Maria Danilova in Paris contributed to this report.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
GM says new Volt to get 230 mpg in city driving
By KIMBERLY S. JOHNSON and TOM KRISHER, AP Auto Writers Kimberly S. Johnson And Tom Krisher, Ap Auto Writers
WARREN, Mich. – General Motors Corp. said Tuesday its Chevrolet Volt rechargeable electric car should get 230 miles per gallon of gasoline in city driving, more than four times the mileage of the current champion, the Toyota Prius.
The Volt is powered by an electric motor and a battery pack with a 40-mile range. After that, a small internal combustion engine kicks in to generate electricity for a total range of 300 miles. The battery pack can be recharged from a standard home outlet.
GM came up with the 230-mile figure in early tests using draft guidelines from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for calculating the mileage of extended range electric vehicles, said Tony Posawatz, GM's vehicle line director for the Volt.
If the figure is confirmed by the EPA, which does the tests for the mileage posted on new car door stickers, the Volt would be the first car to exceed triple-digit gas mileage, Posawatz said.
GM has produced about 30 Volts so far and is making 10 a week, CEO Fritz Henderson said during a presentation of the vehicle at the company's technical center in the Detroit suburb of Warren.
Henderson said charging the volt will cost about 40 cents a day.
"The EPA labels can and will be a game changer for us," he said.
Most automakers are working similar plug-in designs, but GM could be the leader with the Volt, which is due in showrooms late in 2010.
Toyota's Prius, the most efficient car now sold in the U.S., gets 48 miles per gallon of gas. It is a gas-electric hybrid that runs on a small internal combustion engine assisted by a battery-powered electric motor to save gasoline.
The first-generation Volt is expected to cost near $40,000, making it cost-prohibitive to many people even if gasoline returns to $4 per gallon. The price is expected to drop with future generations of the Volt, but GM has said government tax credits and the savings on fuel could make it cost-effective, especially at 230 miles per gallon.
"We get a little cautious about trying to forecast what fuel prices will do," Posawatz said. "We achieved this number and if fuel prices go up, it certainly does get more attractive even in the near-term generation," he said.
Figures for the Volt's highway and combined city/highway mileage have not yet been calculated, Posawatz said. The combined mileage will be in the triple digits as well, he said, but both combined and highway will be worse than city because the engine runs more on longer highway trips.
The EPA guidelines, developed with input from automakers, figure that cars like the Volt will travel more on straight electricity in the city than on the highway. If a person drives the Volt less than 40 miles, in theory they could go without using gasoline.
The mileage figure could vary as the guidelines are refined and the Volt gets further along in the manufacturing process, Posawatz said.
GM is nearly halfway through building about 80 Volts that will look and behave like the production model, and testing is running on schedule, Posawatz said.
Two critical areas, battery life and the electronic switching between battery and engine power, are still being refined, but the car is on schedule to reach showrooms late in 2010, he said.
GM is simulating tests to make sure the new lithium-ion batteries last 10 years, Posawatz said.
"We're further along, but we're still quite a ways from home," he said. "We're developing quite a knowledge base on all this stuff. Our confidence is growing."
The other area of new technology, switching between battery and engine power, is proceeding well, he said, with engineers just fine-tuning the operations.
"We're very pleased with the transition from when it's driving EV (electric vehicle) to when the engine and generator kick in," he said,
GM also is finishing work on the power cord, which will be durable enough that it can survive being run over by the car. The Volt, he said, will have software on board so it can be programmed to begin and end charging during off-peak electrical use hours.
Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Co. and Daimler AG are all developing plug-ins and electric cars, and Toyota Motor Corp. is working on a plug-in version of its gas-electric hybrid system. Nissan Motor Co. announced last month that it would begin selling an electric vehicle in Japan and the U.S. next year.
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gm_volt_mileage/print
WARREN, Mich. – General Motors Corp. said Tuesday its Chevrolet Volt rechargeable electric car should get 230 miles per gallon of gasoline in city driving, more than four times the mileage of the current champion, the Toyota Prius.
The Volt is powered by an electric motor and a battery pack with a 40-mile range. After that, a small internal combustion engine kicks in to generate electricity for a total range of 300 miles. The battery pack can be recharged from a standard home outlet.
GM came up with the 230-mile figure in early tests using draft guidelines from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for calculating the mileage of extended range electric vehicles, said Tony Posawatz, GM's vehicle line director for the Volt.
If the figure is confirmed by the EPA, which does the tests for the mileage posted on new car door stickers, the Volt would be the first car to exceed triple-digit gas mileage, Posawatz said.
GM has produced about 30 Volts so far and is making 10 a week, CEO Fritz Henderson said during a presentation of the vehicle at the company's technical center in the Detroit suburb of Warren.
Henderson said charging the volt will cost about 40 cents a day.
"The EPA labels can and will be a game changer for us," he said.
Most automakers are working similar plug-in designs, but GM could be the leader with the Volt, which is due in showrooms late in 2010.
Toyota's Prius, the most efficient car now sold in the U.S., gets 48 miles per gallon of gas. It is a gas-electric hybrid that runs on a small internal combustion engine assisted by a battery-powered electric motor to save gasoline.
The first-generation Volt is expected to cost near $40,000, making it cost-prohibitive to many people even if gasoline returns to $4 per gallon. The price is expected to drop with future generations of the Volt, but GM has said government tax credits and the savings on fuel could make it cost-effective, especially at 230 miles per gallon.
"We get a little cautious about trying to forecast what fuel prices will do," Posawatz said. "We achieved this number and if fuel prices go up, it certainly does get more attractive even in the near-term generation," he said.
Figures for the Volt's highway and combined city/highway mileage have not yet been calculated, Posawatz said. The combined mileage will be in the triple digits as well, he said, but both combined and highway will be worse than city because the engine runs more on longer highway trips.
The EPA guidelines, developed with input from automakers, figure that cars like the Volt will travel more on straight electricity in the city than on the highway. If a person drives the Volt less than 40 miles, in theory they could go without using gasoline.
The mileage figure could vary as the guidelines are refined and the Volt gets further along in the manufacturing process, Posawatz said.
GM is nearly halfway through building about 80 Volts that will look and behave like the production model, and testing is running on schedule, Posawatz said.
Two critical areas, battery life and the electronic switching between battery and engine power, are still being refined, but the car is on schedule to reach showrooms late in 2010, he said.
GM is simulating tests to make sure the new lithium-ion batteries last 10 years, Posawatz said.
"We're further along, but we're still quite a ways from home," he said. "We're developing quite a knowledge base on all this stuff. Our confidence is growing."
The other area of new technology, switching between battery and engine power, is proceeding well, he said, with engineers just fine-tuning the operations.
"We're very pleased with the transition from when it's driving EV (electric vehicle) to when the engine and generator kick in," he said,
GM also is finishing work on the power cord, which will be durable enough that it can survive being run over by the car. The Volt, he said, will have software on board so it can be programmed to begin and end charging during off-peak electrical use hours.
Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Co. and Daimler AG are all developing plug-ins and electric cars, and Toyota Motor Corp. is working on a plug-in version of its gas-electric hybrid system. Nissan Motor Co. announced last month that it would begin selling an electric vehicle in Japan and the U.S. next year.
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gm_volt_mileage/print
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Heath Care Reform: Progress Report
Swiftboating Town Halls
With federal lawmakers returning home this week to begin their month-long recess, the far right is welcoming them with large, angry throngs at "town halls gone wild." "Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops [and] congressmen fearful for their safety" have marked the ugly scenes that have become the rule in recent days, as normally respectful meetings between representatives and their constituents have been inundated with right-wing protesters focused on killing health care reform. Over the weekend, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) became one of the more widely publicized victims, when a mob of protesters chanting "just say no" to health care followed him out of an event. These encounters are being orchestrated by the same lobbyist-run groups -- Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks -- that brought together the tax day tea parties in April. While trying to give the appearance of a "grassroots" uprising, the demonstrations are cover for a corporate-lobbyist engineered harassment strategy that encourages participants to "yell," "stand up and shout," and "rattle" elected officials in favor of reforming health care. Their goal -- recently outlined by an influential lobbyist as "delay" then "kill" -- is apparent: Having successfully delayed a vote until after the August recess, lobbyists are seizing on town halls to ambush lawmakers in an attempt to fool them and the greater public into thinking there is wide opposition to health care reform. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs took a "hard line against the Tea-Party organized disruptions," labeling them a "Brooks Brothers Brigade," a reference to GOP staffers staging protests during the 2000 Florida recount.
THE MEMOS: As with the tea parties, these town halls are "lessons in how political interests enlist human and technological resources to build political pressure while those responsible remain safely behind the curtain." Last week, The Progress Report obtained a leaked memo from a volunteer with Tea Party Patriots, a website sponsored by Americans for Prosperity (AFP) (led by a former associate of Jack Abramoff) and FreedomWorks (led by former Republican Majority Leader and current lobbyist Dick Armey). The memo detailed how town hall goers should infiltrate meetings and harass Democratic members of Congress. The memo said activists should "stand up and shout out and sit right back down" so the representative is "made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington." The overall goal, said the memo, is to "rattle" the elected official. Earlier this week, a FreedomWorks volunteer, who doubles as a Tea Party protester, published another memo that outlined a strategy "for his fellow activists -- a playbook of sorts for protesters seeking to disrupt and harass members of Congress during town hall forums in their districts."
A BROAD STRATEGY: Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, has endorsed the strategy of staged protests, telling Politico the days of civil town halls are now "over." In a memo to House Republicans, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) promised "anger" during the August recess: "Americans' anger will be on full display in the weeks ahead as Members of Congress leave Washington and travel the nation listening to the voices of their constituents." The published memos are similar to talking points being distributed by FreedomWorks that push an anti-health reform assault all summer. Patients United, a front group maintained by AFP, is busing people all over the country to protest health care reform. America's Health Insurance Plans, the trade group and lobbying juggernaut representing the health insurance industry, is also sending staffers to monitor town halls in 30 states. Meanwhile, Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR), led by disgraced hospital executive Rick Scott, is running a national campaign against a public health care option. Yesterday, the group took credit for "helping gin up the sometimes-rowdy outbursts targeting House Dems at town hall meetings around the country, raising questions about their spontaneity." Earlier in the week, a representative of CPR "sent an email to a list serve (called the Tea Party Patriots Health Care Reform Committee) containing a spreadsheet that lists over one hundred congressional town halls from late July into September." And last weekend, CPR announced it will send staff to "confront" lawmakers at town halls and then transition to negative ads.
TOWN HALLS GONE WILD: In one incident of right-wing outrage, protesters surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY), forcing police to escort him to his car. In another, anti-health care protesters hung up an effigy of Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) outside his district office in Salisbury, MD. The city was the site of a recent symposium on the dangers of "government-run health care," sponsored by a group called "Patients First," a project of AFP. Two nights ago, Reps. Steve Kagen (D-WI) and Steve Driehaus (D-OH) had to face down angry mobs. Kagen, whose town hall was targeted by the Wisconsin chapter of AFP, was "repeatedly disrupted" by "incomprehensible" shrieks and shouts from conservatives. And just last night, Fox's local Houston affiliate reported that at a rowdy town hall hosted by Rep. Gene Green (D-TX), some attendees admitted "they don't live in the district." Still, Democrats are vowing not to let the disruptions stop health care reform. "I hope my colleagues won't fall for a sucker-punch like this," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) told The Progress Report. "These health insurance companies and people like them are trying to load these town halls for visual impact on television." Doggett agreed. After his town hall was ambushed he declared, "I am more committed than ever to win approval of legislation to offer more individual choice to access affordable health care. An effective public plan is essential to achieve that goal." And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised Democrats wouldn't waiver: "In spite of the loud, shrill voices trying to interrupt town hall meetings and just throw a monkey wrench into everything, we're going to continue to be positive and work hard."
ECONOMY -- ANTI-EFCA BUSINESS FRONT GROUP HIRES KARL ROVE & CO.: The Economic Freedom Alliance (EFA), a conglomeration of Midwestern business interests, is currently targeting Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) with a billboard campaign and website that implores constituents to "not let Evan Bayh kill jobs" by supporting the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). As a part of its effort to kill EFCA, EFA has hired Anne Layne-Farrar, an economist who works for the corporate consulting firm LECG, to produce a report that claims EFCA would "cost the U.S. economy 600,000 jobs" by the end of 2010. Layne-Farrar's report was funded by the "Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs," which includes anti-labor industry titans such as the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As the Institute for Southern Studies notes, "Even as a piece of business research-for-hire, Layne-Farrar's study is shockingly weak -- based on a thin set of old and irrelevant data that doesn't even bear out her own conclusions." In addition, EFA's newest ally in its war against organized labor is former Bush adviser Karl Rove; this year alone, EFA has paid $100,000 to Karl Rove & Co. Given Rove's long history of engaging in spin, distortion, falsehoods, and lies, it's no surprise that an organization like EFA -- which also has recently teamed up with notorious astroturf group Americans for Prosperity -- would enlist his help in smearing EFCA.
U.S. journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee, accompanied by President Clinton and CAP President and CEO John Podesta, arrived back home in California this morning after being held for five months in North Korea while reporting for Current TV. Current co-founder Al Gore released a statement, reading, "Our hearts go out to them -- and to their families -- for persevering through this horrible experience."
Two former employees of Xe -- the private military company formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide -- are alleging that founder Erik Prince is complicit in the murder of individuals who worked with federal authorities investigating the company.
MoveOn.org recently announced it would place ads to pressure centrist Democrats on health care reform, but yesterday, President Obama told Senate Democrats that he wanted "left-wing groups" to back off. "In this context about the less productive tone of the debate in Washington, he said he didn't like to see 'left wing groups attack fellow Democrats,'" a While House official said.
Groups on all sides of the health care reform debate are "pouring tens of millions of dollars into advertising campaigns designed to push the cause of reform forward, slow it down or stop it in its tracks." According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, more than $52 million has been spent on health care related ads nationwide.
Democrats in Congress are worried that with the intense focus on health care reform, "a major climate change bill may be left on the cutting-room floor this year." Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has asked Senate committees to complete their work on cap-and-trade legislation by Sept. 28.
Prison employees and residents of Standish, MI want to keep the city's maximum corrections facility "open at all costs, even if that means becoming the new home of Guantanamo Bay detainees." While Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) opposed moving the detainees to Michigan, local residents "are most concerned about keeping some of the 340 jobs and other economic sustenance the prison provides."
The city of New York has accused Lehman Brothers of underpaying its taxes by $627 million since 1996. The city is working to persuade a federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan to move it up the list of Lehman's creditors.
And finally: Washington, DC had fun yesterday celebrating President Obama's 48th birthday. Z-Burger -- where President Clinton recently stopped by and picked up a "double burger (hold the mayo), onion rings, french fries, apple pie milkshake" -- gave out free burgers and cake during lunchtime. The 250-pound cake, which took three days to construct, had "images of Obama throughout his life." Employees at Madame Tussauds also put together "a wax birthday party."
The OMB strikes back.
Meet the Washington Post's new editorial team.
Fox News' Glenn Beck says there's no excuse for violence.
On health care reform, there's a problem with seniors.
Even though jailed journalists were freed, John Bolton thinks Clinton's trip to North Korea was a mistake.
It's time to dump the "Arab rejectionism" talking point.
CNN privately pressured cable operators not to run Media Matters' Lou Dobbs ad.
Would birthers want to see Bobby Jindal's birth certificate too?
"This funding will provide tax relief by savings local tax dollars and, under the stewardship of Chief Livingston, will go a long way to fight crime more effectively through community policing."
-- Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), 7/28/09, touting funds from the economic recovery act
VERSUS
"Mr. President, where's the stimulus package? Where are the jobs? ... Mr. Speaker, this is not the change the folks in Coffee County, Georgia, can use. They need jobs."
-- Kingston, 7/28/09, attacking the economic recovery act
"The Progress Report"View contact details
thinkprogress.org
With federal lawmakers returning home this week to begin their month-long recess, the far right is welcoming them with large, angry throngs at "town halls gone wild." "Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops [and] congressmen fearful for their safety" have marked the ugly scenes that have become the rule in recent days, as normally respectful meetings between representatives and their constituents have been inundated with right-wing protesters focused on killing health care reform. Over the weekend, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) became one of the more widely publicized victims, when a mob of protesters chanting "just say no" to health care followed him out of an event. These encounters are being orchestrated by the same lobbyist-run groups -- Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks -- that brought together the tax day tea parties in April. While trying to give the appearance of a "grassroots" uprising, the demonstrations are cover for a corporate-lobbyist engineered harassment strategy that encourages participants to "yell," "stand up and shout," and "rattle" elected officials in favor of reforming health care. Their goal -- recently outlined by an influential lobbyist as "delay" then "kill" -- is apparent: Having successfully delayed a vote until after the August recess, lobbyists are seizing on town halls to ambush lawmakers in an attempt to fool them and the greater public into thinking there is wide opposition to health care reform. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs took a "hard line against the Tea-Party organized disruptions," labeling them a "Brooks Brothers Brigade," a reference to GOP staffers staging protests during the 2000 Florida recount.
THE MEMOS: As with the tea parties, these town halls are "lessons in how political interests enlist human and technological resources to build political pressure while those responsible remain safely behind the curtain." Last week, The Progress Report obtained a leaked memo from a volunteer with Tea Party Patriots, a website sponsored by Americans for Prosperity (AFP) (led by a former associate of Jack Abramoff) and FreedomWorks (led by former Republican Majority Leader and current lobbyist Dick Armey). The memo detailed how town hall goers should infiltrate meetings and harass Democratic members of Congress. The memo said activists should "stand up and shout out and sit right back down" so the representative is "made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington." The overall goal, said the memo, is to "rattle" the elected official. Earlier this week, a FreedomWorks volunteer, who doubles as a Tea Party protester, published another memo that outlined a strategy "for his fellow activists -- a playbook of sorts for protesters seeking to disrupt and harass members of Congress during town hall forums in their districts."
A BROAD STRATEGY: Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, has endorsed the strategy of staged protests, telling Politico the days of civil town halls are now "over." In a memo to House Republicans, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) promised "anger" during the August recess: "Americans' anger will be on full display in the weeks ahead as Members of Congress leave Washington and travel the nation listening to the voices of their constituents." The published memos are similar to talking points being distributed by FreedomWorks that push an anti-health reform assault all summer. Patients United, a front group maintained by AFP, is busing people all over the country to protest health care reform. America's Health Insurance Plans, the trade group and lobbying juggernaut representing the health insurance industry, is also sending staffers to monitor town halls in 30 states. Meanwhile, Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR), led by disgraced hospital executive Rick Scott, is running a national campaign against a public health care option. Yesterday, the group took credit for "helping gin up the sometimes-rowdy outbursts targeting House Dems at town hall meetings around the country, raising questions about their spontaneity." Earlier in the week, a representative of CPR "sent an email to a list serve (called the Tea Party Patriots Health Care Reform Committee) containing a spreadsheet that lists over one hundred congressional town halls from late July into September." And last weekend, CPR announced it will send staff to "confront" lawmakers at town halls and then transition to negative ads.
TOWN HALLS GONE WILD: In one incident of right-wing outrage, protesters surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY), forcing police to escort him to his car. In another, anti-health care protesters hung up an effigy of Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) outside his district office in Salisbury, MD. The city was the site of a recent symposium on the dangers of "government-run health care," sponsored by a group called "Patients First," a project of AFP. Two nights ago, Reps. Steve Kagen (D-WI) and Steve Driehaus (D-OH) had to face down angry mobs. Kagen, whose town hall was targeted by the Wisconsin chapter of AFP, was "repeatedly disrupted" by "incomprehensible" shrieks and shouts from conservatives. And just last night, Fox's local Houston affiliate reported that at a rowdy town hall hosted by Rep. Gene Green (D-TX), some attendees admitted "they don't live in the district." Still, Democrats are vowing not to let the disruptions stop health care reform. "I hope my colleagues won't fall for a sucker-punch like this," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) told The Progress Report. "These health insurance companies and people like them are trying to load these town halls for visual impact on television." Doggett agreed. After his town hall was ambushed he declared, "I am more committed than ever to win approval of legislation to offer more individual choice to access affordable health care. An effective public plan is essential to achieve that goal." And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised Democrats wouldn't waiver: "In spite of the loud, shrill voices trying to interrupt town hall meetings and just throw a monkey wrench into everything, we're going to continue to be positive and work hard."
ECONOMY -- ANTI-EFCA BUSINESS FRONT GROUP HIRES KARL ROVE & CO.: The Economic Freedom Alliance (EFA), a conglomeration of Midwestern business interests, is currently targeting Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) with a billboard campaign and website that implores constituents to "not let Evan Bayh kill jobs" by supporting the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). As a part of its effort to kill EFCA, EFA has hired Anne Layne-Farrar, an economist who works for the corporate consulting firm LECG, to produce a report that claims EFCA would "cost the U.S. economy 600,000 jobs" by the end of 2010. Layne-Farrar's report was funded by the "Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs," which includes anti-labor industry titans such as the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As the Institute for Southern Studies notes, "Even as a piece of business research-for-hire, Layne-Farrar's study is shockingly weak -- based on a thin set of old and irrelevant data that doesn't even bear out her own conclusions." In addition, EFA's newest ally in its war against organized labor is former Bush adviser Karl Rove; this year alone, EFA has paid $100,000 to Karl Rove & Co. Given Rove's long history of engaging in spin, distortion, falsehoods, and lies, it's no surprise that an organization like EFA -- which also has recently teamed up with notorious astroturf group Americans for Prosperity -- would enlist his help in smearing EFCA.
U.S. journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee, accompanied by President Clinton and CAP President and CEO John Podesta, arrived back home in California this morning after being held for five months in North Korea while reporting for Current TV. Current co-founder Al Gore released a statement, reading, "Our hearts go out to them -- and to their families -- for persevering through this horrible experience."
Two former employees of Xe -- the private military company formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide -- are alleging that founder Erik Prince is complicit in the murder of individuals who worked with federal authorities investigating the company.
MoveOn.org recently announced it would place ads to pressure centrist Democrats on health care reform, but yesterday, President Obama told Senate Democrats that he wanted "left-wing groups" to back off. "In this context about the less productive tone of the debate in Washington, he said he didn't like to see 'left wing groups attack fellow Democrats,'" a While House official said.
Groups on all sides of the health care reform debate are "pouring tens of millions of dollars into advertising campaigns designed to push the cause of reform forward, slow it down or stop it in its tracks." According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, more than $52 million has been spent on health care related ads nationwide.
Democrats in Congress are worried that with the intense focus on health care reform, "a major climate change bill may be left on the cutting-room floor this year." Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has asked Senate committees to complete their work on cap-and-trade legislation by Sept. 28.
Prison employees and residents of Standish, MI want to keep the city's maximum corrections facility "open at all costs, even if that means becoming the new home of Guantanamo Bay detainees." While Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) opposed moving the detainees to Michigan, local residents "are most concerned about keeping some of the 340 jobs and other economic sustenance the prison provides."
The city of New York has accused Lehman Brothers of underpaying its taxes by $627 million since 1996. The city is working to persuade a federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan to move it up the list of Lehman's creditors.
And finally: Washington, DC had fun yesterday celebrating President Obama's 48th birthday. Z-Burger -- where President Clinton recently stopped by and picked up a "double burger (hold the mayo), onion rings, french fries, apple pie milkshake" -- gave out free burgers and cake during lunchtime. The 250-pound cake, which took three days to construct, had "images of Obama throughout his life." Employees at Madame Tussauds also put together "a wax birthday party."
The OMB strikes back.
Meet the Washington Post's new editorial team.
Fox News' Glenn Beck says there's no excuse for violence.
On health care reform, there's a problem with seniors.
Even though jailed journalists were freed, John Bolton thinks Clinton's trip to North Korea was a mistake.
It's time to dump the "Arab rejectionism" talking point.
CNN privately pressured cable operators not to run Media Matters' Lou Dobbs ad.
Would birthers want to see Bobby Jindal's birth certificate too?
"This funding will provide tax relief by savings local tax dollars and, under the stewardship of Chief Livingston, will go a long way to fight crime more effectively through community policing."
-- Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), 7/28/09, touting funds from the economic recovery act
VERSUS
"Mr. President, where's the stimulus package? Where are the jobs? ... Mr. Speaker, this is not the change the folks in Coffee County, Georgia, can use. They need jobs."
-- Kingston, 7/28/09, attacking the economic recovery act
"The Progress Report"
thinkprogress.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)