Posts tagged ‘U. S. Senate’

Durbin Meets Occupy Rockford

by , posted on Wednesday, November 9th, 2011 at 1:01 pm

Senator Richard Durbin speaks with members of Occupy Rockford at the dedication of the new Federal Court House.

Share

The Business of Polluting

by , posted on Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 at 1:13 pm

In light of the recent environmental tragedy in Japan, awareness of the growing threat of environmental toxins and pollutants has undoubtedly risen. When toxic materials enter our air and water supply, the consequences can be dire. Because the risks can be so severe, the Environmental Protection Agency has been tasked with the job of protecting the public health from these potential threats. Unfortunately, such a job is not too easy when some of the leading polluters are backed by corporate lobbyists who possess nearly endless funds. Proposing a legislation that limits greenhouse gas emissions throws a mighty wrench into the well-oiled machinery of corporate greed.

(more…)

Share

DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen on Lessons Learned and the Road Ahead

by , posted on Saturday, May 8th, 2010 at 6:00 am

In Red to Blue: Congressman Chris Van Hollen and Grassroots Politics, author Sanford Gottlieb tells the story of Chris Van Hollen’s successful grassroots campaign for Congress in 2002, and the lessons Van Hollen, and others, took away from that campaign in subsequent election cycles.

Van Hollen’s district

is MD-08, located in Washington DC’s Maryland suburbs. In the primary he beat frontrunner Mark Shriver, a Kennedy cousin with a lot of money to spend and a consultant by the name of David Axelrod on his team. He then went on to unseat longtime incumbent Connie Morella in the general election that fall. Morella was a well-liked, liberal Republican who had been long thought to be unbeatable, having enjoyed more than a little bit of support from local Democrats through the years on election day. And Van Hollen pulled this off in a Republican year. This was the first congressional election to be held after 9/11. The Republicans won back control of the Senate in 2002 and added to their majority in the House. Only two Democrats unseated incumbent Republicans that year. Chris Van Hollen was one of them.

Van Hollen has brought this experience to bear in his subsequent work at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). And he was not the only one to go to school on that 2002 campaign. As Gottlieb puts it:

David Axelrod told Van Hollen in 2008 that he had learned some lessons from being on the other side of the 2002 primary. It was a really good grassroots campaign, Axelrod said, with the passion on Van Hollen’s side. Van Hollen carried the lessons learned in 2002 into the successful effort to build a House Democratic majority in 2006. Axelrod and David Plouffe may have applied those lessons in the 2008 50-state race for the White House. (Gottlieb, Red to Blue, 32)

Last week Van Hollen appeared with Gottlieb at a book event in Washington, DC and talked about his attempt to apply those lessons learned to his work with the DCCC. Van Hollen’s introductory remarks, plus the question and answer session that followed, are presented below.

(more…)

Share

Nate Silver’s worst argument yet for Healthcare Privateering

by , posted on Monday, December 21st, 2009 at 7:13 pm

I don’t know why Nate and others keep emphasizing the low profit margins of the insurance companies.

Accounting tricks aside (e.g., counting increased perks as “costs”, etc.), the lavish compensations and bureacratic bloat are devices a “marquis class’ of individuals, who bring NOTHING of value to the system, use to extort “protection” money from vulnerable citizens. By the way, the bottom line is profit VOLUME, which is substantial.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/insurance-stocks-rise-on-news-of-health.html

One function of government is to protect its citizens against persons or institutions that can do harm, such as predators in the “healthcare provider” business. Is it that hard for the apologists of the Democratic “healthcare” bill to understand how distressing this is to progressives, or any good government types?

Profit has NO PLACE in a system of basic health care. Let the marketplace work its wonders in cosmetic surgery. The fact that profit margins are now inextricably imbedded in this push for universal healthcare is going to explode this effort down the way, and not very far off.

We know how this is going to work. We’ll be forced to give them our money (and since I’m 50, I may be forced to pay 1/4 of my income to these criminals) right up front – with the government being the collection muscle. And there is nothing NOTHING to force these guys to behave. The sharks will walk off with their compensations, and we’ll be forced back to square zero, with a more impoverished society, and the problems not solved.

The people running these “healthcare” protection rackets have no care for the public, the system, or even their own companies. We’ve already seen CEOs walk off with over $1B in compensation… they don’t have to look back.

They shouldn’t exist. All of these guys in the privateering “healthcare” racket losing their jobs would be a small blip in the unemployment rate. I’d rather some of them use their actuarial skills toward optimizing high-speed rail systems or smart power grids.

Don’t. Not this, not to these thugs. No.

Share

Giant Insurance Company Giveaway Eve – Early Evening Update

by , posted on Saturday, December 19th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

Just got home from work and am wondering if you are all feeling festive yet?

No?

Well, if you are, say, male, and are feeling left out of the opportunity to contribute something (like the right to control your body) to the effort to funnel billions of dollars to corporate America, don’t despair: there’s something in here for you too.

If you are, like me, so uninsurable that the only policy you will be offered will be junk insurance at punitively high premiums, you’re in there: the penalty for paying to keep more of your money to pay for your health care out-of-pocket (because your “policy” won’t) is up – reputedly to offset the fact that it’s much more expensive to give away lots of cash to our insurance overlords without the public option. So they had to raise more cash to offset that.

Or, if you are a union member, you too get to contribute to the Giant Giveaway. Those good insurance policies you have, via trading wage increases to get them, are going to be taxed at a higher rate – also to help offset the more expensive non-public-option Giveaway.

Who knows how many other lovely opportunities there are for Americans of all descriptions to do their part to create a festive season for the insurance industry. You can go read the manager’s amendment here and see if you can find more.

Share

Giant Insurance Company Giveaway Eve: Abortion Coverage is the New Opt-Out

by , posted on Saturday, December 19th, 2009 at 11:01 am

More on the concessions to ensure Ben Nelson gets greater control over my body (at least if I live in a Red State) from NYT.

Under Mr. Reid’s proposal, health insurance plans are not required or forbidden to cover abortion services, but there is a major exemption that would give states power to prohibit abortion coverage in the insurance markets, or exchanges, where most health plans would be sold.

Oh, also, Reid was also apparently required to sweeten the deal by outright buying Nelson off:

Mr. Reid’s amendment also includes a substantial increase in federal contributions to Nebraska’s costs of providing Medicaid coverage to the poor.

Which, of course, does not extend to abortion coverage. Because, you know, they are poor.

Share

Giant Insurance Company Giveaway Eve: Nelson Speaks

by , posted on Saturday, December 19th, 2009 at 10:46 am

Well, CNN is reporting that Ben Nelson is feeling a bit more in control of my body, so a happy camper overall.

He says:

“Anyone who is in the exchange who also gets a federal subsidy because they’re poor, if they choose a private insurance policy and want any kind of abortion coverage, they have to write that part of the premium from their own personal funds.”

Offhand I’d say that means most poor women getting subsidies will elect not to write that additional check for the coverage – can’t afford to, really, if you are poor.

No word on whether Nelson’s other demands, such as cutting the aforementioned subsidies, have also been met.

Share

Happy Giant Insurance Co. Giveaway Eve

by , posted on Saturday, December 19th, 2009 at 8:43 am

Harry Reid has indicated that he anticipates a vote on the Senate’s Festive Giant Insurance Co. Giveaway on Christmas Eve, making that a really big day for celebration by Insurance Inc.

But today is a big day too; Harry Reid says he has his 60 votes and today will unveil the final version of the Festive Giant Giveaway.

Of course, neither we nor Harry can really know that it’s final until Lieberman and Nelson have issued their public responses to the “final” version Harry thinks they’ve agreed to. We will then learn what additional perks we will have to provide to Big Insurance in order to get our money on it’s way to them.

I plan on monitoring events throughout the course of the day and hope to be back with updates, comments, despair, panic, as the situation warrants.

Share

A Kennedy in Obama’s Senate Seat?

by , posted on Thursday, May 21st, 2009 at 12:29 am

That’s what CNN’s Political Ticker is saying:

Chris Kennedy, the son of the late Robert F. Kennedy, is taking steps to run for Senate and could announce his candidacy as early as next week, a source close to the Kennedy family told CNN Wednesday…

A spokeswoman for Chris Kennedy, an Illinois businessman, would not go as far as to say he is in the race, but acknowledged that he is “seriously considering” a Senate bid…

But a second source, an Illinois Democrat also speaking on the condition of anonymity, told CNN that Kennedy’s political allies are telling state Democrats that he will indeed seek the Democratic nomination for the seat once held by President Obama.

Not that I want to see Burris keep it, but I’m completely fed up with the political dynasty thing, whichever side of the aisle is festering our ill-disguised trend toward annointing royalty, it always strikes me as disturbing, as it seems unlikely it will get us any closer to real representation of real people.

Share