OurFuture.org Blogs: Bernie Horn

A Lesson from Yesterday's Election

Bernie Horn — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:08:18 -0800

The Republican Party isn’t dead. Republicans can survive, and even thrive, if they appear to embrace moderation. But yesterday, the Sarah Palin-“movement conservative” wing of Republicanism was shown to be wildly unpopular.

As you surely know, Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative Party candidate Douglas Hoffman yesterday in the Special Election for Congress in New York’s 23rd district. This was a stunner because the 23rd is a bedrock Republican district—essentially held by the Republican Party for the entire 20th century.

Republicans made the “mistake” of nominating a moderate-conservative woman, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, who supports gay rights and abortion rights. The right wing was appalled. The likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck denounced the Assemblywoman.

Sarah Palin jumped on this right-wing bandwagon and endorsed Hoffman over Scozzafava and the race became a cause célèbre for “movement conservatives” across the country. As the New York Times reported:

The Club for Growth, a group that promotes limited government and lower taxes, spent about $1 million promoting Mr. Hoffman. Social conservative organizations like the Susan B. Anthony List, which opposes abortion, and the National Organization for Marriage, which fights same-sex marriage laws, joined forces in support of Mr. Hoffman. They printed literature, made phone calls and flooded the district with volunteers from across the country.

Assemblywoman Scozzafava shocked everyone when she first withdrew from the race and then, the next day, threw her support to Bill Owens, the Democrat. Despite weekend polls showing that Hoffman would surely win, Owens came out on top.

Here’s the lesson: Voters continue to allow conservative candidates to define themselves. The Republican candidates for governor in both New Jersey and Virginia promoted themselves as practical, mainstream, and moderate—and persuadable voters believed them. But even bedrock Republicans will reject candidates who openly embrace the extremist, tea-bagger philosophy that dominates Republicans in our Nation’s Capital.

There’s another example in yesterday’s election. Right wingers tried to pass a “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” (TABOR) by referendum in the states of Maine and Washington. This is a measure that ties the growth of state, county and local budgets to population growth and the rate of inflation, hamstringing legislators and forcing draconian cuts during any economic downturn. The TABOR initiative was adopted in Colorado in 1992 and extremists have been trying for years to get it passed elsewhere.

But TABOR was defeated handily, by 60 to 40 percent in Maine and by 55 to 45 in Washington. Even in a terrible recession, voters rejected government-by-ideology.

Please don’t misunderstand me. Yesterday’s election stunk, particularly the narrow defeat of same-sex marriage in Maine. But the results of the off-year contests are no great victory for Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and certainly not for Sarah Palin.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People”.

A Sweetener for Health Reform

Bernie Horn — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:15:37 -0700

Politico reported today that Democrats—worried that the health reform bill delays most changes until 2013—want to add some provisions that will benefit Americans immediately. Great idea! For example, there’s a little-known bill by Congressman Chris Van Hollen that would enable neighborhood pharmacies to sell prescription drugs to about 50 million uninsured Americans at near-Canadian prices. And it would cost the government nothing.

Quite reasonably, Democrats are concerned about the politics of health care reform:

Democrats are pushing Senate leaders and the White House to speed up key benefits in the health reform bill to 2010, eager to give the party something to show taxpayers for their $900 billion investment in an election year.

The most significant changes to the health care system wouldn’t kick in until 2013—two election cycles away. With Republicans expected to make next year a referendum on health care reform, Democrats are quietly lobbying to push up the effective dates on popular programs, so they'll have something to run on in the congressional midterm elections.…

Under the Democratic wish list, senior citizens would receive discounts on brand-name drugs next year. Small businesses that provide insurance would see tax credits. And a $5 billion high-risk pool would cover people with preexisting conditions.

These are all good ideas. But there’s another idea that has received virtually no attention: H.R. 1725, sponsored by Chris Van Hollen who is both Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Assistant to the Speaker. The bill is cosponsored by Representatives John Conyers, Donna Edwards, Frank Kratovil, Chellie Pingree, Nick Rahall, Dutch Ruppersberger, and John Sarbanes.

How does it work? Understand that drug manufacturers routinely provide discounts to public and private insurance programs through a system of rebates. Under H.R. 1725, the manufacturers would be required to pay the rebate they currently pay to Medicaid for drugs purchased through new state discount programs for families earning less than 300 percent of the federal poverty level. States would be required to use the rebates to provide consumer discounts, which would be in the range of 40 to 45 percent off retail prices.

Until all Americans are eligible for comprehensive health insurance in 2013, this would provide the best drug discounts in the country—by far.

As a practical matter, participants would present a card at their neighborhood pharmacy that entitles them to the discounted prices. The pharmacy would bill the state Medicaid program for the amount of the discount, and the state would reimburse the pharmacy out of its quarterly drug manufacturer rebates. No new state negotiation would be required because states already negotiate Medicaid drug prices. No new government bureaucracy needs to be created because all transactions would operate through rules and procedures already running in the Medicaid system.

There is absolutely no cost to the federal government. There are very small administrative costs for a state to implement the program, however, the legislation allows states to retain some of the extra rebated funds to cover such costs. So states need not spend any of their funds either.

If implemented, about 50 million Americans would benefit. Of the 47 million uninsured Americans, about 38 million are under 300 percent of poverty. An additional 7 million Americans under 300 percent of poverty have health insurance that doesn’t include prescription drugs. The program would also assist around 7 million seniors: 4 million who don’t participate in Medicare Part D and 3 million who participate in Part D but fall into the “doughnut hole.”

Won’t PhRMA oppose this bill? Of course they will, because the drug companies like their unfair, inflated prices. That doesn’t mean the legislation will be blocked, however, because everyone else in America wins under the measure. Fifty million Americans benefit by getting fair instead of unfair drug prices. State and local governments, insurers, and the insured benefit because they won’t have to pay for uncompensated care (at emergency rooms and the like) caused by people not taking prescriptions because they can’t afford them—it’s much cheaper for people to control their blood pressure with drugs, for example, than to deal with their heart attacks and strokes. Doctors benefit because they are able to assist patients who otherwise can’t afford medicine. Pharmacies benefit because they’ll have increased sales, especially pharmacies near the Canadian or Mexican borders.

And here’s the funny thing: the drug companies would benefit too. Because of the nature of the business, the marginal cost of manufacturing additional pills is next to nothing—so increased sales represent almost pure profit. A Merrill Lynch analysis (pre-Medicare Part D) estimated that a 40 percent drug price discount would increase sales volume to program beneficiaries by 45 percent. Accordingly, overall drug revenues would likely drop only 3.3 percent. A later analysis by Alan Sager PhD, Professor of Health Services at Boston University School of Public Health, found that Merrill Lynch used conservative estimates and that sales volume would likely be even higher. At worst, the drug manufacturers will break even. At best, they will add tens of millions of customers eager for new products.

Why not “reimportation” instead? The purpose of this measure is identical to the purpose of reimportation: to give Americans access to fair, negotiated prices similar to Canadian prices. This legislation, however, has two advantages over reimportation. First, it eliminates all arguments about drug safety—Americans would buy American drugs. Second, it eliminates arguments about the availability of fairly-priced drugs—there would be no question about limited supplies that could be reimported or the logistics of getting such drugs into the hands of Americans.

Sounds too good to be true? The truth is, this program has already been tried and it’s already proven itself. For 18 months in 2001 and 2002, this program, then called “Healthy Maine,” was the most successful drug discount program in America, providing discounts that were double the size of any other program. It was based on a section 1115 Medicaid waiver granted by the Clinton Administration covering every family earning under 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Healthy Maine went into effect on June 1, 2001 and provided discounts of about 30% off retail prices for 110,000 Maine residents—approximately 2/3 of all residents who lacked prescription drug coverage, both seniors and non-seniors.

Because Healthy Maine was officially a part of the Medicaid program, all drug manufacturers paid Medicaid-mandated rebates for all FDA-approved drugs. The state used the rebate funds to lower participants’ drug prices at pharmacies. While Maine citizens enjoyed 30 percent discounts in 2001-02, the savings would be substantially greater today. At the time, Maine did not negotiate supplemental Medicaid rebates from drug manufacturers, as almost all states do today.

On December 24, 2002 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Healthy Maine program was not legal because one detail—a 2 percent financial contribution by the state—was not mentioned in the Clinton Administration’s Medicaid waiver. The court’s ruling meant that, in order to keep Healthy Maine running, the Bush Administration would have to sign a separate Medicaid waiver. Bush officials (naturally) refused and the program ended.

It’s time to give this model a new life.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People”.

Another Un-American Attack on Religious Freedom

Bernie Horn — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 06:43:16 -0700

There was another attack on religious freedom in Washington, DC last Friday. Sadly, it received little notice in the news. Worse, almost no one has denounced this demonstration of naked bigotry.

A prayer event was held on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol on September 25. Here in Washington, it happens all the time. Public prayers by Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and even worshipers from the Unification Church—the Moonies—are a common sight in our Nation’s Capitol. What was different last Friday? Because the worshipers were Muslims, fundamentalist Christians decided to heckle them.

Here’s how the prayer event was described by the Los Angeles Times:

Thousands of Muslims, prostrating themselves in prayer, gathered just feet from the Capitol on Friday for “A Day of Islamic Unity,” an event intended to showcase what organizers called the “peace, beauty and solidarity” of Islam… [T]he crowd was energetic as participants rolled out variegated prayer mats and plastic tarps in front of the Capitol, where Obama's inauguration was held in January.

“We can show the world that not all Muslims hate America,” said Habib Beyah, who came from New Jersey with his son to participate. “Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Muslims are extremists.”

The local ABC News affiliate reported:

It was a first as thousands of Muslims from different countries and backgrounds—the women on one side and the men on the other—came to the Capitol to pray and to say that they're just like everyone else.

“We’re just here to show our positive side and show that we can be peaceful and we can be normal people,” said Seher Rakin, a Burke resident. “Muslims are not terrorists,” added Asma Chikanawari, a Springfield resident. “They’re not violent people. We’re a religion of peace.”

But some right-wingers don’t want to let Muslims pray in peace.

About 50 protesters came to heckle. One contingent calling itself “Operation Save America” carried signs and distributed papers saying “Islam Is A Lie.” There was “a 10-foot-tall wooden cross and two giant wooden tablets depicting the Ten Commandments.” A minister from North Carolina shouted “I would suggest you convert to Christ!” and Islam “forces its dogma down your throat.”

It got so bad that an Imam from New Jersey had to ask protesters to tone it down: “We would never come to a prayer meeting that you have to make a disturbance… Please show us some respect. This is a sacred moment. Just as your Sunday is sacred, our Friday is sacred.” But the request was futile—the whole point for the right-wingers was to disrespect the Muslim religion.

As usual, this tea bagger-style affair was not spontaneous. It was orchestrated by leaders of the far right. Here they speak for themselves:

Rev. Canon Julian Dobbs, leader of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America's Church and Islam Project, claimed:

[The service is] part of a well-defined strategy to Islamize American society and replace the Bible with the Koran, the cross with the Islamic crescent and the church bells with the Athan [the Muslim call to prayer].

Christian evangelist Lou Engle said:

[The prayer event] is much more than a nice little Muslim gathering. It's an invocation of spiritual powers of an ideology [that] doesn't have the same set of values that our nation has had.

The founder of “Stop Islamization of America”—which held its organizational meeting in Washington on Friday—wrote:

[All non-Muslims] are at war with an ideology that is as diabolical as Nazism and even more cruel. The Nazis planned destruction for the Jews and were clear on this point in their own foundational document, Mein Kampf. The Koran does not limit itself to Jews alone, though there is a special deep hatred for Jews in the Koran; rather the Koran and Islam is at war with all unbelievers (the kafir) everywhere and forever.

We need to recognize and condemn the bigotry. Religious freedom is one of the pillars of our nation's value system. Demeaning another American’s religion is simply un-American. If you want to maintain the freedom to practice your own religion, remember the words of Clarence Darrow:

You can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can be free only if I am free.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People”.

Wall Street’s “Days of Reckless Behavior” Are Not Over

Bernie Horn — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:29:54 -0700

Barack Obama visited Wall Street on Monday to deliver a message: the banking industry hasn’t learned the right lessons from our recent economic collapse and the Administration intends to make things right. Terrific. But did the President say everything that needs to be said?

Here’s the key section of President Obama’s speech:

[T]here are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment. Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering, they are choosing to ignore them. They do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation’s. So I want them to hear my words: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.

That was a great indictment of Wall Street’s irresponsibility. But then the President narrows his argument by saying:

This crisis was not just the result of decisions made by the mightiest of financial firms. It was also the result of decisions made by ordinary Americans to open credit cards and take on mortgages. And while there were many who took out loans they knew they couldn’t afford, there were also millions of Americans who signed contracts they didn’t fully understand offered by lenders who didn’t always tell the truth. This is in part because there is no single agency charged with making sure it doesn’t happen. That is what we’ll change.

I appreciate that the President is making the case for a particular solution—an agency to oversee all risky financial products. But in order to get a handle on the excesses of Wall Street, I believe the public needs to hear and understand a larger point.

When the government allows—and even encourages—irresponsible corporate and individual behavior, who is most at fault? The corporations and individuals that took advantage of risky opportunities to make windfall profits or the government that allowed and/or created those opportunities?

I think it is the government—in this case the Bush Administration and the Federal Reserve—that is mostly to blame. The exotic financial instruments that ultimately collapsed world markets were the result of a willful refusal to regulate. The housing bubble that brought on the current Great Recession was caused by these instruments, artificially low interest rates, and other factors within government control.

Before Americans go along with the broad progressive solutions we need to fix our financial system—before people agree to strong government oversight—they need to understand the economic problem. The problem is government acting, or failing to act, based on conservative economic theory that the best market is a “free market.” This theory is fantasy.

American markets are not, and never were, free of government influence. There is no such thing as letting the market decide. The government is always involved, always biasing market results, always nudging and twisting and bumping around the so-called invisible hand.

Just open up the business page of any major newspaper and look for yourself. One company or industry wins a government subsidy. Another is forced to disclose finances by the SEC. The Fed increases or decreases the prime rate, affecting everyone’s ability to borrow. Another regulatory requirement is placed or revoked; another enforcement action is announced.

If conservative economists actually believed in free markets, wouldn’t they be railing against all the market distortions caused by government subsidies and preferences? But they don’t. That’s because they don’t really want government to keep its nose out of economic decisions—they want the government to step in and prejudice the market in their favor. They use the term free market not as a philosophy to follow but as a rhetorical device—albeit a hugely effective one—to skew public opinion toward conservative economic policy.

Progressive economist Dean Baker summarized the situation better than I can:

The market is just a tool, and in fact a very useful one. It makes no more sense to lash out against markets than to lash out against the wheel. The reality is that conservatives have been quite actively using the power of the government to shape market outcomes in ways that redistribute income upward. However, conservatives have been clever enough to not own up to their role in this process, pretending all along that everything is just the natural working of the market. And, progressives have been foolish enough to go along with this view.

Let’s muster a little cleverness of our own. Let’s tell the truth: It’s never a question of whether government will be involved in markets. It’s only a question of whether the government encourages fair markets or unfair ones. Wall Street has been the scene of one unfairly distorted market after another, and we've got to stop it.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People”.

Insist that Democrats Invoke Majority Rule in the Senate

Bernie Horn — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:35:03 -0700

It has come to this: Americans cannot get the health care reform we need without using the “reconciliation” process in the U.S. Senate. We can’t get 60 votes. Senator Kennedy’s seat will remain vacant for 5 months. Senator Byrd remains very ill. A handful of “moderate” Democrats and Republicans stand in the way of achieving cloture. It’s time to craft and pass a bill that requires a majority vote.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle—as moderate a Democrat as any—urges Democrats to invoke majority rule:

[S]hould Republican intransigence continue, Democrats cannot simply stop. They cannot ignore the human suffering as well as their fiscal responsibility to act. They must focus on the budgetary implications of health reform and use the Senate rules of budget reconciliation to allow a health-care bill move with majority support. The choice between complete legislative failure and majority rule should not pose a dilemma for any Democratic senator.

Republicans who cry foul have only themselves to blame. First, they walked away from the table even though they had many opportunities to participate in White House meetings and in House and Senate committees over the past eight months—and eight years. Second, they set an ample number of precedents over the past decade in using their majorities then to pass their agenda using the same reconciliation rules in the Senate.

Naturally, Republicans are “crying foul.” Two days ago, Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said Democrats would set off a “minor revolution in the country” if they use reconciliation. He gave this advice to Democrats:

I think that would wreck our health care system and wreck the Democratic Party if they did that… The intensity [of the opposition] is like nothing I have seen in a long, long time.

Yesterday, conservative columnist David Brooks gave Democrats similar advice in the New York Times:

Some now argue that the administration should just ignore the ignorant masses and ram health care through using reconciliation, the legislative maneuver that would reduce the need for moderate votes. This would be suicidal. You can’t pass the most important domestic reform in a generation when the majority of voters think you are on the wrong path. To do so would be a sign of unmitigated arrogance. If Obama agrees to use reconciliation, he will permanently affix himself to the liberal wing of his party and permanently alienate independents. He will be president of 35 percent of the country─and good luck getting anything done after that.

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) warned that he is all ready for the reconciliation fight with “hundreds of procedural objections.” He promised a news reporter that he will “wage a vicious fight if Democrats try to circumvent Senate rules and use a budget maneuver to pass a trillion dollar healthcare plan with a simple majority.”

To quote the former President, bring it on.

Democrats in Washington must pass a strong health reform bill or voters will give up on them. There is no turning back. There is no “death with dignity” for the health care bill. This is the most important political fight in memory—we cannot afford to lose.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People”.

Right Wingers Have No Sense of Shame

Bernie Horn — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:58:26 -0700

One of the greatest Senators in American history has died. Not everyone agreed with him. But except for the most ideological crazies, everyone who knew him respected his humanity, his energy, his longevity, and his love of country. A few decades ago, critics would have the basic decency to shut up while the flags flew at half mast. Today, they simply have no sense of shame.

There has always been a private ethical code which people have obeyed because of personal beliefs or community pressure or the disadvantage to not complying. Self-regulation has always been essential in politics, business, and private behavior, because it’s impossible to legislate everything that is desirable in society.

Culture constantly changes, and the private ethical code inevitably allows behavior that used to be taboo—like disrespect toward schoolteachers, douche ads on television, and undisguised greed in corporate boardrooms.

In politics, the big change in culture occurred with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Something snapped. Self-regulation fell. To the new brand of conservatives, prior social norms—ideas of honor—were for suckers.

But the worst political thugs of the Reagan administration seem like refined gentlemen and ladies compared to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and their ilk. The vulgar leaders of the current right wing have, quite naturally, brought out the worst in the conservative fringe—gun waving, physical threats and violence, shouting down democratic debate, and cold-blooded lies about politicians and policies.

All that is just prelude to my point. Can the leaders of the right wing noise machine suspend their uncouth, loutish, boorish, childish behavior for just a few days? Have they no conception of respect for anyone who disagrees with their politics? Have they no shame?

This is not our nation’s darkest hour, but the fanatic fringe reminds me of it.

Fifty years ago there was a movement led by U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthyism was a brutal, calculated, personal attack on individuals who disagreed with McCarthy’s politics. Truth became irrelevant. The bigger the lie, the more effective it seemed to be. And the media—by and large—played along.

It was a great moment in American history when McCarthy was challenged on nationwide television by the Special Counsel for the United States Army, Joseph Nye Welch. On June 9, 1954, McCarthy attacked a young lawyer in Welch’s firm because he had once belonged to the National Lawyers Guild. (Personal note—my mother was a member at that time.) Welch responded:

Until this moment, Senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or your recklessness... Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

This televised exchange helped finally bring down McCarthy and end that black era in our nation’s history.

Right now, America needs a few brave, articulate people in the mold of Joseph Welch to shame the purveyors of hate. To work, democracy needs a level of decency. Congress, which was designed to compromise, requires a measure of good faith. Partisans, if they are to have any beneficial effect, must at least understand propriety.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People”.

The Health Care Mess: Who’s To Blame?

Bernie Horn — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:05:01 -0700

August has been a frustrating month for progressives who seek quality, affordable health care for every American. Why does the Administration vacillate? Why does the media legitimize the opinions of right-wing liars and kooks? Why can’t congressional leaders get their act together? Most of all, who’s to blame?

Not President Obama. Sure, the White House has made its share of mistakes, but they have been minor. The Obama strategy has been consistent and firmly based on political realities. One reality is that Obama cannot dictate the details of legislation to members of Congress, even to loyal Democrats. The Administration’s job is to help, guide, and cajole lawmakers to craft the most effective plan that can possibly be enacted into law—and the measure that has taken shape in the U.S. House fits that description. As a former Senator, Barack Obama knows that no one, not even the President, can order around U.S. Senators. Each Senator has his or her own political kingdom, and insists on being treated as royalty. It is not Obama’s fault that a handful of Democratic Senators are not, and never were, progressives. More about that in a moment.

Not “the Democrats.” Let’s be reasonable. No one controls the whole Democratic Party. But Speaker Pelosi and her leadership team have done a pretty impressive job of getting House Democrats to support the stimulus, the FY2010 budget, and a strong health care bill. The “Blue Dog” caucus of Democrats remains a stumbling block. But Pelosi and her whips have already shown their power and determination—when push comes to shove they will succeed in passing a pretty strong health care plan. Sadly, the Senate is a different matter. Senator Reid has perhaps been too patient while Senator Baucus fiddles around with phony bipartisanship. In any case, the majority of Senate Democrats have, so far, worked faithfully for a real health care solution.

Not the progressives. You never thought we progressives were to blame, of course. But the media have recently suggested that the proponents of a public health care option are holding up legislative progress. The Washington Post even found some unnamed source in the White House to say:

I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo… We’ve gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don’t understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform. It’s a mystifying thing…

Okay, maybe some blame is appropriate here. During the past year, what planet was this spokesperson on? Progressives have made it entirely clear why the public health care option is essential—and Barack Obama agreed during the campaign! The President is now going around the country arguing for the public option. In poll after poll, Americans overwhelmingly support a public option—we are fighting for the will of the people. What’s so mysterious about that?

Not the Republicans. Well yes, of course they're at fault for opposing health care reform. But really, who’s surprised? If there was any hope of Republicans working in a bipartisan fashion this year, that hope was shattered by their irresponsible obstructionism during the stimulus debate. As Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage made very clear, the vision of bipartisan health care legislation has been proven a fantasy:

The effort to gain bipartisan support was torpedoed by the leading Republican negotiator, Senator Charles Grassley, when he revealed his true colors by embracing the vicious inanity about “death panels.” He aligned himself with the wingnuts, and there is simply no reason or way to negotiate with lunacy…. More to the point, the Republican National Committee scorns [any reform] as a “government take over of health care.”

The point is, except for a very few reasonable GOP Senators like Olympia Snowe, we never were going to get Republican cooperation. The Republicans never were the solution.

Not the right-wing crazies. A frantic fringe of militants are being mobilized and used by the likes of Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich—who themselves are acting on behalf of wealthy GOP interests—to shout down Democrats, progressives, moderates, and even well-intentioned conservatives. We know that these people do not represent the silent majority. They are merely the same old John Birch Society-types who continually shriek absurdities (e.g. “Get us out of the U.N.!), but who are—for good reason—almost always ignored. Except to the extent that any wavering Democrats take them seriously, the tea-baggers are irrelevant. We need to answer their lies and de-legitimize their hate speech. But they are not our focus.

A very small group of so-called moderate Democrats are to blame.

This legislation, or at least much of it, requires a 60 vote majority to pass the Senate. At best, we might hope to persuade two or three Senate Republicans to support it. Sadly, we cannot count on our long-time health care leader, Senator Edward Kennedy, to be available for the vote (and an unusual provision in Massachusetts law makes it impossible for him to be quickly replaced).

So we need the vote of nearly every Senate Democrat and a handful currently stand in the way, including the likes of Max Baucus (MT), Evan Bayh (IN), Ben Nelson (NE), Mary Landrieu (LA), and Blanche Lincoln (AR). None of these Democrats ever professed to be a liberal or progressive. Their voters elected them as moderates or conservatives. We think the right thing to do is obvious. But it’s not obvious to them.

We progressives need to persuade them (and a few House Blue Dogs as well) that real health care reform is not liberal or conservative, it is neither too expensive nor too radical, and it is no danger to the market system—rather, it will help businesses both large and small. The President, congressional leaders, and grassroots activists need to focus on these few target Democrats and make them understand that the progressive vision for health care reform is essential—it is the only way—to provide for the security of all Americans, our children and their children.

The challenge is clear. Go get ‘em.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People”.

Stimulus for States Worked—But They Need More

Bernie Horn — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:36:22 -0700

In almost every state, President Obama’s Recovery Act prevented catastrophic cuts in education, health care, and a variety of other programs—at least temporarily. This federal aid not only protected state and local services for millions of Americans, it shored up local economies and saved both public and private jobs. But disaster looms next year.

Last week, I visited the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures, held this year in Philadelphia. Usually it’s like riding on a luxury ocean-liner—several thousand people with unlimited food and a celebratory atmosphere. This year, it was like riding an ocean-liner, but one where everyone knew that icebergs ahead could sink us.

In this case, the icebergs are gigantic state budget deficits caused by the worst recession in 70 years. Budget offices from the various states have warned their governors and legislators, but the coming debacle across the states has received inadequate attention.

Our friends at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) have been trying to warn policymakers about the states’ dire fiscal problems:

Combined budget gaps for the next two years—state fiscal years 2010 and 2011—are estimated to total at least $350 billion.

CBPP explains that state budget shortfalls will exceed $163 billion for FY 2010 and are likely to equal $160 to $180 billion in FY 2011. Because general fund expenditures of all the states combined total about $685 billion, CBPP points out that a $163 billion deficit is tremendous—about one-fourth of the states’ general fund budgets.

CBPP also describes how the federal Recovery Act has been mitigating state budget deficits:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes roughly $140 billion in fiscal relief for state governments, enough to close 30 to 40 percent of state shortfalls. States are using these funds to help balance their budgets while minimizing harmful cuts in public services.

So, federal stimulus money has been crucial to keep states afloat. But the money was front-loaded. Here’s how the $140 billion in federal relief breaks out over the years:

Stimulus dollars available to fill state budget shortfalls
(for notes and sources, see below)

(in billions of dollars)……………....FY 2009……..FY 2010……..FY 2011
Stimulus dollars
--Additional Medicaid funds……….$25.2 B………$40.5 B………$21.5 B
--State Fiscal Stabilization funds....$16.4 B………$29.2 B………$6.7 B
Total……………………………….....$41.6 B………$69.7 B………$28.2 B

When state legislators come back into session early next year, they will have to draft budgets for FY 2011. While deficits for that year are projected to be as bad or worse than FY 2010, there will be less than half as much in federal stimulus money to plug the gap.

In 2009, governors and state legislators had to make horrible program cuts, enact painful tax increases, and draw down rainy-day funds to balance state budgets. Unless Congress appropriates at least another $30-$50 billion (which, right now, no one is even seriously considering), the state legislative decisions of 2009 will seem like a pleasure cruise compared to the legislative sessions that begin next January.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Notes about the chart:

1. The breakdown of additional Medicaid (FMAP) funds can be found in this document from CBPP. Support for Medicaid is cut in half because this section of the Recovery Act only supports the states to December 31, 2010—halfway through fiscal year 2011.

2. The breakdown of State Fiscal Stabilization Funding (SFSF) is based on percentages provided by the Education Commission of the States (ECS). The last ECS paper published on this subject said that based on the first 31 approved applications, states planned to spend 36% of the funds in FY 2009, 53% in FY 2010, and 11% in FY 2011. The author kindly sent me an update: based on 49 of 50 states (all except Pennsylvania), they plan to spend 31.4% in FY 2009, 55.8% in FY 2010, and 12.8% in FY 2011. My numbers are based on those percentages.

3. There are other stimulus funds that pass through the states, especially highway infrastructure investment funds (a total of about $27 billion). But the FMAP and SFSF funds are the only major sources of money that fill state budget shortfalls. CBPP’s analysis also focuses on these two funding sources.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People”.

New Poll Shows Tremendous Support for Public Health Care Option

Bernie Horn — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:24:28 -0700

Eighty-three percent of Americans favor and only 14 percent oppose “creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase” according to EBRI, a conservative business research organization. This flatly contradicts conservatives’ loudest attack against President Obama’s plan to provide quality, affordable health care for all.

The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) calls itself “the most authoritative and objective source of information” on the issues of employee retirement and health benefits. Founded in 1978, EBRI says it “is the gold standard for private analysts and decision makers, government policymakers, the media, and the public.” And EBRI is funded by many of the largest corporations in America.

EBRI’s biggest donors include: AT&T, Bank of America, Boeing, General Dynamics, General Mills, IBM, JBMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Northop Grumman, Schering-Plough, Schwab, T.Rowe Price, UBS Financial, and Wal-Mart. EBRI also receives large contributions from the insurance industry, including: Blue Cross Blue Shield, CIGNA, Hartford, Kaiser Permanente, Massachusetts Mutual, Metropolitan Life, Union Labor Life, and UnitedHealth.

Here’s who paid for the poll, as stated by EBRI:

This survey was made possible with support from AARP, American Express, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Buck Consultants, Chevron, Deere & Company, IBM, Mercer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Principal Financial Group, Schering-Plough Corp., Shell Oil Company, The Commonwealth Fund, and Towers Perrin.

So clearly, no one can accuse this organization of being “liberal” on health care issues.

These findings are from EBRI’s 2009 Health Confidence Survey, their 12th annual poll:

Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the following:

Creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase:
• Strongly support—53 percent
• Somewhat support—30 percent
• Somewhat oppose—5 percent
• Strongly oppose—9 percent

Having national rules requiring insurance companies to cover all people, regardless of their health problems:
• Strongly support—55 percent
• Somewhat support—25 percent
• Somewhat oppose—9 percent
• Strongly oppose—9 percent

Expanding government programs, such as Medicare or Medicaid:
• Strongly support—45 percent
• Somewhat support—30 percent
• Somewhat oppose—9 percent
• Strongly oppose—12 percent

Requiring all employers to pay toward subsidized health insurance for employees:
• Strongly support—42 percent
• Somewhat support—33 percent
• Somewhat oppose—10 percent
• Strongly oppose—12 percent

Requiring everyone to participate in some kind of health insurance plan:
• Strongly support—38 percent
• Somewhat support—30 percent
• Somewhat oppose—13 percent
• Strongly oppose—16 percent

Despite clear public support for these provisions—all of which are likely to be in the Democrats’ health care reform legislation—conservatives won’t go along. The biggest battle right now is over the public plan option. As commentator Al Hunt points out:

Although almost half of Americans are already covered by a public health plan, inclusion of a government option is a deal-killer for most Republicans and [some] Democrats…

The Congressional Progressive Caucus says it is a deal-killer if the public option is left out of the health care reform legislation. Get ready for a titanic tug of war.

There was another new health care poll in the news today, this one by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Although the specifics aren’t yet released, he talks about his polling in the New Republic. I point it out because it echoes two important points I made last week in a somewhat controversial post called “Why Not Single-Payer?”

I said “About 3/4ths of insured Americans are satisfied with their health insurance.” Greenberg says: “Yet three-quarters are satisfied with their own health insurance.”

I said “When Americans hear about a health care proposal, they immediately think “how is it going to affect me and my family.” That’s their overarching, overwhelming concern.” Greenberg says when Clinton proposed his plan, “people responded personally, working to figure out what it all meant for them—the impact on their family, access to their doctors, dollars and cents, and on everything they’d done to become satisfied with their health care.”

Some readers commented that they simply didn't believe the polling I cited in "Why Not Single-Payer?" It is natural for all of us—myself included—to seek out polls that support our side and disregard contrary polling results. But please understand that President Obama and progressive health care advocates have access to so much polling on this issue; they are not picking-and-choosing the polls they like. They are making clear-headed decisions in an effort to get the very best health care plan that can possibly be enacted by Congress this year.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People”.

Right Wingers Flail As Their World Collapses

Bernie Horn — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:15:07 -0700

We are like astronomers watching a black hole collapsing inward. But it’s the conservative movement we’re viewing. Lacking a Republican president to hold it in place, the powerful gravity of extremist ideology is crushing its adherents. At least, that’s how it looks through the lens of recent public opinion polls.

Americans are very happy with President Barack Obama. The President is wildly popular among both Democrats and Independents. Republicans don’t like him but that is neither unexpected nor particularly important.

On the other hand, no one on the Republican side is well-liked. Mitch McConnell (21 percent favorable, 62 percent unfavorable), John Boehner (14 percent favorable, 64 percent unfavorable), the Republican Party (20 percent favorable, 72 percent unfavorable), and congressional Republicans (11 percent favorable, 73 percent unfavorable) are dramatically unpopular. Only 42 percent of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Republicans in Congress.

Now a new Gallup Poll shows that Republicans are leaderless. It found that most Americans cannot even identify “the main person” who speaks for Republicans today. Here are the results:

Rush Limbaugh—13 percent
Dick Cheney—10 percent
John McCain—6 percent
Newt Gingrich—6 percent
George W. Bush—3 percent
Michael Steele—1 percent
John Boehner—1 percent
Mitt Romney—1 percent
Other—9 percent

Could not name any main person—52 percent

There is a reason for this leaderless unpopularity. The Bush Administration was an enormous failure. And Americans understand that this was not just a matter of incompetence—Bush failed because conservatism failed to live up to its promise.

The only sensible thing for Republicans to do at this time is to reject at least some of the right wing ideology. If they don’t become at least somewhat more moderate, they can’t deliver a credible message to Independent voters.

But they’re doing the opposite!

Yesterday it was disclosed that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will launch a $100 million campaign to defend their extreme right wing agenda. Chamber President Tom Donohue calls this effort the “Campaign for Free Enterprise.” He declared:

We have got to go out in a big-time way and remind all Americans that it was a free enterprise system based on the values of individual initiative, hard work, risk innovation and profit which built our great country.

According to the newspaper Politico:

Donohue will begin raising money for the project this summer and roll it out in stages. As envisioned, the campaign will include a grass-roots lobbying component that will tap the strength of the Chamber’s network of small businesses and business and trade associations. A public education ad buy defending the free enterprise system is in the works, as well as an issue advocacy program tied to the 2010 midterm elections.

In the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression, that plan is downright crazy. And what about Republicans in Congress? According to the New York Times, they’re launching a new energy proposal:

[The plan] leans heavily on nuclear power, setting a goal of building 100 reactors over the next 20 years. No new nuclear plants have been ordered in the United States since 1978 because of the high cost of construction and uncertainty about regulatory approval.

Nuclear power is the least popular of all proposals to deal with America’s dependence on foreign oil. That’s consistent with congressional Republican plans on health care (force everyone to buy insurance from the unpopular private health insurance companies) and taxes (make the unpopular Bush tax cuts permanent and implement a range of new tax breaks for the rich).

While President Obama has Democrats fairly well-organized and energized—pushing for health care reform, energy independence, and greater support for education—the conservatives are totally disorganized, demoralized and unpopular. At least they are right now.

We progressives have to make the most of this rare opportunity. Because we’re not really looking through a telescope at a black hole in space. We’re gazing out of the deep, dark hole that George W. Bush and his conservative cronies dug for our country. It will take all of our strength to lift our fellow Americans into the light.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People”.