Blogs: Isaiah J. Poole

A Car Mechanic's Plea For A Health Care Fix

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:53:11 -0400

For David White, a small business owner in Bar Harbor, Maine, the health care crisis is doubly personal.

For one thing, he was proud of being able to cover the full cost of health insurance premiums for his employees at MDI Imported car repair service. But in 2002—a year in which his company experienced a record profit and in which he considered giving his employees a generous raise—he instead had to lay off one of his employees for six months, reduce the amount of coverage he offered and increase costs. That was because the company’s health insurance premiums that year doubled, more than eating up the increased profits of his business.

“I was literally in tears laying this out to my men, and I am not fond of crying in front of my men” he said in a news conference Tuesday, where he was telling his story at the announcement of the Health Care for America Now! Coalition.

After that news conference, he revealed that his parents, both over 70, until recently held jobs — his father driving a school bus until a stroke left him unable to do so — just so they could have health coverage. His mother finally retired earlier this year, now that she is eligible for coverage as a retiree under the school system’s health plan. “I know many people in that same situation,” he added.

White’s personal experience galvanized him to action, which is why he was in Washington to appear at the Health Care for America Now! event at the National Press Club alongside representatives from labor and citizen activist groups.

Richard Kirsch, the director of the coalition, said that so far about 116 organizations have signed up in solidarity with the coalition’s principles, which include coverage for the nation’s 47 million uninsured, the ability to choose between well-regulated private plans and a public plan, equity in access and effective cost controls.

The central mission of the coalition is to build the kind of mass movement Kirsch said did not exist when then-first lady Hillary Clinton tackled health care reform in 1993, only to see the effort shot down in a fusillade of advertising and lobbying from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Leaders of the coalition are vowing that that won’t allow that to happen this time, and they have pledged a $40 million effort over the coming months to set the stage for a reform effort in Congress and the White House in 2009.

“The people in this coalition represent the deepest single-issue coalition in modern American history,” said Jeff Blum, the executive director of USAction, who went on to call the health care reform movement “the human rights movement of our time, a movement that transcends race, class and geography.”

“Today we’ve got a message for our elected officials,” said Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “If you put profits ahead of patients, get out of the way. Don’t tell us about reforms that lack a guarantee of coverage. Don’t tell us about taxing the health care benefit employees receive on the job. Don’t tell us that insurance company practices don’t need to be regulated. Don’t tell us that $10,000 deductibles are OK.”

Conservatives have courted business owners like White with promises of low taxation and deregulation, but health care is an area where progressives and the small business community can forge common ground. Leaving the insurance industry to its own devices certainly hasn't worked for small business; deregulation has actually saddled small business owners who want to provide good benefits for their employees with costs that they cannot reasonably bear.

When entrepreneurs and their workers look at the policies now being presented to them during the election season, they are seeing that the choice is between a practical plan for affordable, universal health care and a plan that conservatives call “choice” but is really individuals sweating it out on their own in a hostile private insurance market, with nothing but a meager tax credit that will cover only a fraction of their premiums.

One thing that the movement will need is more people like White to tell their stories—from business owners to seniors who work well past retirement age just so they can have adequate health insurance coverage. “There’s a role for government in this that only we—the backbone of America— can hold it to,” White said. “I’m here to say that we can’t afford not to.”

Hundreds Tell Fox: "Stop The Attacks"

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:52:26 -0400

"Dear FOX News, Here's a Fourth of July gift for you, from an Obama supporter and patriotic American," begins a note from Anthony in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. "This year my son and I plan to use window paints to fill our big picture window with the American flag. Please remember that all kinds of Americans, not just Republican Americans, love their country!"

We received notes like this from more than 600 of you in the first 48 hours of our call to tell Fox News to stop branding progressives as unpatriotic, and instead contribute to a respectful debate about the future direction of the country. Each of these people is sending the personnel at Fox News a flag pin that they can wear to remind them that millions of progressive Americans love and stand up for America.

Here's a sample of the messages you're sending with those pins:

"Dear Fox News, You might believe that you are the only Americans who see the value in freedoms, but you would be wrong. The patriots who founded this Nation came from a variety of backgrounds and held a variety of beliefs. Some were progressives, just like me. My grandfathers who fought in the War of 1812, and the Civil War, and my father who served in the Navy in WWII, all believed that they were patriots, and defended our Nation to allow the liberties you criticize, and in fact abuse! I love my country, and I honor our flag, not just this week, but every week. You do not own patriotism. It seems you do not even know what it is! End your criticism of those who disagree with you as being 'unpatriotic'. Dissent is at the very heart of our First Amendment. None of us can pick and choose which liberties we would like to honor!"
—David D., Berwyn, Pa.

"My father flew 55 missions over the European theater in World War II and in 1949 died flying for the Air National Guard. My daughter is a Lt. Commander in the Navy Reserve. I love this country and would not want to live anywhere else. I fly the flag as often as I can. I am against our intervention in Iraq. I am for hunting down Al Qaida. I am also for caring for our infrastructure (roads, etc.), providing the best educational system in the world, making health care available to every one and finding and supporting alternative energy. Please don't call me unpatriotic because I am a liberal. I love this country and want it to be better in every way."
—Ann S., Fredericksburg, Texas.

"America right or wrong does not make a patriot. Patriotism is related to protecting our country by upholding the rights of the Constitution and above all being honest in all our endeavors."
—Maria, Randolph, Vt.

"Dear Fox News, I am the most patriotic of patriotic Americans. I actually became a citizen for the sole reason of being able to vote, in my opinion, one of the highest expressions of patriotism. I understand the true meaning of patriotism which is supporting your country by loving her enough to cheer her on when she is right and letting her know when she is on the wrong track so that it can be corrected. I support our troops without question and would put my life on the line for this country I have adopted. Finally, I love my country. I love my flag. I'm a patriotic progressive American. Please accept this 4th of July gift, and end the attacks on patriotic Americans!"
—Wendy M., San Rafael Calif.

"How dare you say that I am not patriotic just because my political and social beliefs are different from your own! How dare you tell me that I am not patriotic when I know, sing and revere our national anthem; when I proudly display our flag, year around; when I say what I think, even though others may disagree or may not want to hear it. This is a DEMOCRACY and to denigrate others who are forthright in their disagreement is to denigrate ALL OF US!! Shame on you!"
—Marjorie C., Sebastopol, Calif.

"I appreciate our multicultural past. I support real benefits and help for our returning soldiers. I am against Halliburton's money gouging tactics taking real money from our troops. I will display my American flag proudly and boldly this Fourth."
—Robert M., Columbus, Ohio

"Americans are currently engaged in a national debate on how to forge a new direction for our nation after eight years of bitter divisiveness and the unending list of failed policies of the Bush administration. Sadly, Fox News is not a part of that debate, but instead is bent on defending the status quo and making rabid-dog attacks on patriotic Americans and their hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow. Your brand of journalism (Ha!) is better suited to China or Russia, where honest and open debate is not tolerated, and espousing the party line is the only news tolerated."
—Bill W., Palm Bay, Fla.

"As a veteran of World War II—in the combat engineers in Germany—I resent slurs about the patriotism of people who disagree with you."
— Harry F., Roslyn Heights N.Y.

"As a Vietnam era Army veteran, I want you all to know that patriotic Americans do not all believe as you all do. Lapel pins and bumper stickers and your noise on TV do not define patriotism; working toward a better future for all Americans in a tolerant and inclusive society and respecting the Constitution do define patriotism."
— Matthew K., Tempe, Ariz.

"As an Army Reserve veteran, I find your remarks unpatriotic because they intend to divide the country for partisan purposes."
—Jerry S., Washington, D.C.

"One does not have to hate those one disagrees with; one does not have to lie about them either. And certainly, people who love their country and believe in its principles cannot betray it by indulging in cheap, hateful and lying innuendoes. I am a loyal American who is appalled by some of the tactics you all engage in. This flag is an emblem of the country we share; it is not an idol, but it should be respected by the best we are, not the shoddiest."
—Betty L., St. Paul, Minn.

"As an immigrant to this country, I was appalled at the Swift Boat attacks against John Kerry in the last election. I do not believe these are the actions of patriotic people. Patriotism to me is love of country and respect for its citizens."
—Rosemary G., Foster City, Calif.

"Criticism of the Bush administration is an act of love of this country and its constitution, and not a sign of unpatriotism. In contrast to Fox News, I love this country and rejoice in the First Amendment."
—Millie Fortier, San Francisco, Calif.

"Dear fellow Americans, Do you ever scold your kids when they do something wrong? THAT'S what REAL Americans do when America does something wrong, WE try to make America better! Progressive Americans are America's hope for a better tomorrow and a better America. Conservatives want to go back to the 1950s when only white males had power and opportunity. STOP the attacks on patriotic Americans!"
— David P., Austin Texas

Dear Fox "News" - I respect and love the American dream, the Constitution of the United States, the members of the Armed Forces and all those who care about people different from themselves. The American way is compassionate, informed, and in the public interest. Enjoy this symbol of patriotism from a progressive American!"
—Virginia W., Lincoln, Neb.

"Democracy is messy by definition and it appears you use this to misrepresent political views that differ with your own as being unpatriotic. None of the parties have a monopoly on patriotism and to claim that progressives don't love this great, but imperfect country is laughably absurd."
—Terry B., Oceanside, Calif.

"Dear Fox News, Please join me in celebrating the American principle that people of differing political viewpoints can respect each other as fellow patriots. I hold "liberal" viewpoints and am also patriotic. I support policies that make our country strong and secure. I differ from your commentators in how we can best achieve that goal. Please stop impugning my patriotism simply because I disagree with you."
—Andrew S., Jamaica Plain, Mass.

"Patriotism does NOT belong to one party or ideology and I urge you to cease your incessant attacks. Please accept our 4th of July gift in hopes we can all come together & recognize that we are all true patriots under the same grand flag & constitution that celebrates our unity even among diversity. God bless America!"
—Patricia D., Little Neck, N.Y.

"My family came to this country in 1683 and have been part of building it and defending it ever since. We came for religious and political freedom—we were progressives then and we are now. I love my flag and the nation its stands for and I respect your right to your views, with this gift I ask you to respect mine and those of people like me. That is what patriotism is all about in this country. Stop attacking the patriotism of your fellow Americans; it's un-American."
—Mark L., East Rockaway, N.Y.

Don't Let Anyone Question Your Patriotism

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:38:53 -0400

It is a shame that Sen. Barack Obama's speech on patriotism Monday in Independence, Mo., was overshadowed by yet another false controversy, this time over the appropriateness of comments by retired general Wesley Clark about Sen. John McCain's qualifications for the presidency. (For the record: When Clark says, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,'' he's right. There. I said it.)

But, perhaps in a perverse way, it underscores the importance of one of the points that Obama made: Our political disagreements over the direction of the country and who is best qualified to lead it in the right direction should never be used as a weapon to question our love for this country. In fact, the willingness to be intensely engaged in the struggle to being this nation closer to its ideals is the very mark of a patriot.

That's why a campaign we're launching today at the Campaign for America's Future is so important. We're focusing on Fox News Channel, which has a long record of mocking progressives as being less patriotic than conservatives, and telling them: You don't have a monopoly on patriotism, and it's time to stop attacking patriotic Americans simply because you don't agree with them.

We're also asking you to tell Fox News, and us, what it means to be a patriot. There is space for a short message on the petition form, or you can click the comment link at the end of this post and write a longer reflection. We'll be highlighting these comments during the Fourth of July holiday.

To the extent that Obama's speech got television news press attention, it was because of his statement that "I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine." But the context around that statement is important:

it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together. ... [T]hroughout our history, men and women of far greater stature and significance than me have had their patriotism questioned in the midst of momentous debates. Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French. The anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British and intent on restoring monarchal rule. Likewise, even our wisest Presidents have sought to justify questionable policies on the basis of patriotism. Adams’ Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans – all were defended as expressions of patriotism, and those who disagreed with their policies were sometimes labeled as unpatriotic.

In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic.

Obama later turned to the use and abuse of patriotic language in the post-9/11 era:

Beyond a loyalty to America’s ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. ... For the rest of us – for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military – the call to sacrifice for the country’s greater good remains an imperative of citizenship. Sadly, in recent years, in the midst of war on two fronts, this call to service never came. After 9/11, we were asked to shop. The wealthiest among us saw their tax obligations decline, even as the costs of war continued to mount. Rather than work together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and thereby lessen our vulnerability to a volatile region, our energy policy remained unchanged, and our oil dependence only grew.

When someone makes a comment like the one Michelle Obama made some weeks ago that evoked heated criticism from the right—"For the first time in my life, I am really proud of my country"—it is tragic that the first impulse was not to consider the emotional journey she has traveled as an African-American woman that would lead her to make a statement so mixed with pain and joy, or to consider the journey of the millions of Americans who identified with that comment, but it was to question her, and their, love for this country.

I cannot honestly say, as Cindy McCain said in response to Michelle Obama's remark, that "I have always been proud of my country." But I have always loved it. And I don't think anyone who has been disappointed with the gap between the American ideal and the American reality, and who has fought to close that gap, should have their love for their country belittled. To quote from Obama's speech Monday, "patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations."

The need to resolve how we best do that, and how we unite as a country, has never been more urgent.

Let's tell Fox News and the radical right that from now on, you can disagree with our positions, but you can't question our love and passion for this country and its core values.

The Rogues In Robes

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:49:15 -0400

You may differ on the merits with the supporters of the District of Columbia's gun ban, who were handed a major defeat by the Supreme Court on Thursday. But progressives can't deny this: The conservative bloc on the court is a rogue band of ideological thugs who care less about strict constructionism and all of the other conservative legal buzzwords they use, but are all about furthering a conservative political agenda.

Only when Justice Anthony Kennedy swings in the opposite direction, as he did when the court rebuked the Bush administration's stance on habeas corpus rights for terrorist suspects, is there a remote chance that the march of right-wing and corporatist ideology gets thrown off-stride. The graphic at right, from People for the American Way's SaveTheCourt.org, brings that point home.

Note what E.J. Dionne pointed out in his latest column about the nature of the gun ban ruling:

Conservative justices claim that they defer to local authority. Not in this case. They insist that political questions should be decided by elected officials. Not in this case. They argue that they pay careful attention to the precise words of the Constitution. Not in this case.

His column concludes with that hope that "this decision opens people's eyes to the fact that judicial activism is now a habit of the right, not the left, and that "originalism" is too often a sophisticated cover for ideological decision-making by conservative judges."

It is more proof that elections have serious consequences. The right understands the importance of a compliant judiciary in consolidating their political power, and they have made populating the judiciary with like-minded justices a cornerstone of their agenda. As a result, not only are conservatives on the precipice of having a decades-long hammerlock on the Supreme Court, but they have institutionalized a conservative tilt throughout the federal judiciary, as the chart below prepared by SaveTheCourt.org shows:

Review the top 10 reasons that saving the court in November matters at SaveTheCourt.org and remember that this is part of what's at stake in the coming election.

Obstruction Boosts Insurance Fat Cats

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:31:28 -0400

Senate conservatives went into their customary obstruction mode again late Thursday, choosing to protect the interests of insurance companies while shortchanging the health care needs of older Americans and ignoring the will of the majority.

Thirty-nine conservatives supported a filibuster of a bill, passed overwhelmingly by the House, that would prevent a 10.6 percent cut in the reimbursement rate for doctors accepting Medicare patients starting July 1. To offset the cut, the bill would have trimmed taxpayer subsidies to insurance companies participating in the Medicare Advantage program. A bipartisan majority in the Senate supported the bill, but the usual coterie of block-and-blame conservatives played their "Dr. No" role as they have since the beginning of the term.

Medicare Advantage, instituted at the behest of conservatives who want to ultimately privatize Medicare, cost taxpayers $7.1 billion more in 2006 than it would have cost of its participants were in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program, The Government Accountability Office found in a February report. One reason, the GAO says, is that on average only 87 cents of every dollar spent on Medicare Advantage actually go to health care; the rest goes for administrative and marketing costs—and, of course, insurance company profit.

The bill, HR 6331, would have shifted $14 billion over five years from the insurance companies in Medicare Advantage so that Medicate fee-for-service doctors would be properly reimbursed for their costs. Without that shift, no doubt thousands of the 600,000 doctors now participating in the Medicare program would simply stop accepting Medicare patients. The Bush administration issued a veto threat, and the block-and-blame conservatives in the Senate lined up behind it.

The Medicare Advantage program was sold as an alternative to the what conservatives considered unnecessarily high costs in fee-for-service Medicare, but as The New York Times reported in May, Medicare Advantage has quickly developed its own, predictable trail of waste and inefficiency:

... Generous federal payments to private Medicare Advantage plans — set by law — have created a “tremendous incentive” for insurers to maximize sales by aggressive marketing. ... The report says insurers often encourage agents to sell these products by paying larger commissions and bonuses than agents would receive for selling other health insurance products.

The resulting mish-mash of confusing plans, oversold at times by zealous marketers, is a bad deal for taxpayers. Keeping the program as it is will cost an additional $54 billion through 2012, the GAO said, and while some of that money does help pay for some services that are not covered under traditional Medicare, it's right to ask why taxpayers should be subsidizing insurance companies when it is demonstrably more cost-effective for traditional Medicare to provide those same services.

But this is what we get with blind ideology. The next time a conservative inveighs against government waste, ask them about Medicare Advantage and that $54 billion, and ask why Senate conservatives are so determined to keep that particular bit of waste on the books.

A Time To Demand a Stand With Workers

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:56:36 -0400

One year ago today, a Senate Republican filibuster killed the Employee Free Choice Act, and with it died one of the most important things Congress could have done to repair the economic damage done to working-class families caused by decades of conservative economic policies.

The right-wing effort to keep that legislation from resurfacing continues in over-the-top fashion. One of the most recent jeremiads against the bill—brought to the fore by the discredited Center for Union Facts, the source of a misleading ad campaign against unions—compares union organizing efforts at a Minneapolis hotel, where the card-check provisions of EFCA were in place as a result of a local law, to the effort by strongman Robert Mugabe to keep power in Zimbabwe, calling the efforts “coercive.”

The idea that union volunteers visiting workers’ homes and encouraging them to sign union organizing cars is remotely comparable to the brutality of the Mugabe regime points to the hysterical desperation of the right over this issue — and the fact that they have no answer to what workers actually say they want.

What they want, as our latest Making Sense 2008 alert shows, is clear from polls in which more than half of all U.S. workers—nearly 60 million—say they would join a union right now if they could. Their best opportunity to get ahead is by uniting with co-workers to bargain with employers for better wages and benefits. Working people want that opportunity.

Plus, the allegations of abuses of union organizers pale in comparison to the abuses of anti-union employers taking advantage of what is now a broken system. Corporations routinely intimidate, harass, coerce and illegally fire people who try to organize unions. Workers are fired in a quarter of private sector union organizing campaigns; 78 percent of private employers require supervisors to deliver anti-union messages to their employees; and even after workers successfully form a union, they can’t get a contract one-third of the time. The National Labor Relations Board, once a reliable arbiter of employer-employee disputes, is now so politicized under a Bush administration that is ideologically opposed to unions that it has issued a torrent of precedent-busting anti-union rulings.

The federal government is blocking the freedom of working people to make their own decisions about joining a union. The current “election” system for union recognition is decidedly undemocratic. One side—the corporation—has all the power, controls the information workers receive, and routinely poisons the process by intimidating, harassing, coercing, and even firing people who try to organize unions.

Enacting the Employee Free Choice Act would do three simple, fair things for workers: It would make it possible for a majority of employees to sign union authorization cards, validated by the National Labor Relations Board, to have that union recognized by their employer; it would strengthen penalties for companies that coerce or intimidate employees in an effort to prevent them form forming a union; and it would bring in a neutral third party to settle a contract when a company and a newly-certified union cannot come to an agreement after three months.

Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama supports this legislation, Sen. John McCain does not. This is a good time to ask people running for office whether they stand with workers and their right to form unions or with the corporations and conservative enablers who would block this right.

Who Will Restore the Balance of Power?

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:30:06 -0400

The Bush administration's gross abuse of presidential power demands that we insist on the next president reversing the damage done to the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

The reversal of the imperial presidency, a mainstay of the right from Nixon onward, must be a core plank of our agenda if we are to have no more undeclared wars, no more detentions without legal rights, no more signing statements on bills that disregard the congressional intent in signing them—in short, no more presidents operating as if the Constitution is an annoying inconvenience.

It is essential, as Robert Borosage wrote Wednesday, that Congress rein in the abuses by the White House before those abuses become entrenched. The Supreme Court made this clear more than 50 years ago, as Borosage wrote: "What the Court said in Youngstown is that if presidents assert a prerogative, such the power to make war without a congressional declaration — systematically, with unbroken regularity, with the knowledge of the Congress and are never questioned — then that practice becomes a Constitutional power that cannot be infringed upon by the Congress or the Courts."

Right now activists are watching with grave concern Sen. Barack Obama's vow to vote for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill now before the Senate that Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said on Wednesday was a "capitulation" to the Bush administration's reach for expansive authority to spy on Americans and disregard our civil liberties.

Obama has pledged to fight immunity for telecommunication companies that broke the law to bend to Bush administration demands for surveillance activity. But this is far from enough to satisfy the larger demand for a democracy in proper balance.

A major speech Obama gave in 2007 on terrorism makes promising statements:

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

But then again, so does Republican presidential candidate John McCain, whose website says bluntly:

"The President's powers are rightly checked by the other branches of government, and John McCain will not attempt to acquire powers granted to Congress. He will exercise his veto but not subvert legislation through statements. "

We need more than these words. President Bush has so damaged the framework of our democracy and so recklessly abused the powers of his office that if impeachment isn't warranted—and many in the progressive movement vigorously disagree on that point—certainly an inquest into that abuse is essential. It is fair to ask both presidential candidates where they stand on that inquest and on how they would conduct their presidencies so that they, too, would not be liable to face such an inquest from a future Congress.

Bush's Obstruction Binge

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:45:41 -0400

After having issued 10 veto threats in May, President Bush has issued another nine in the first three weeks of June, obstructing bills that would help fight global warming, help the long-term unemployed, continue passenger rail funding and provide a comprehensive set of remedies to the subprime mortgage crisis. Our updated "Presidential Veto Watch" chronicles the continuing fits of obstinance and petulance coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue..

The latest in the obstruction binge was Thursday, when the White House told the Senate that it would reject the mortgage crisis bill because, "The Federal Government must not prolong necessary corrections in the housing market, bail out lenders, or subsidize irresponsible borrowing and lending, at the expense of hard-working people who have played by the rules."

The message came as consideration of the bill on the Senate floor was beginning, and it left even some Senate conservatives aghast. The Washington Post quoted Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., as calling the bill a "good-faith, bipartisan effort to address this ongoing crisis." Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, released a joint statement with chairman Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., that said, "We believe this legislation represents a compromise that will bring relief to hundreds of thousands of homeowners and the housing markets without putting the American taxpayer at risk."

With that, the Senate on late Thursday rejected efforts by right-wing senators to weaken the bill—but not before the right-wing spin machine joined the administration in trying to paint its opposition to the bill in populist garb. FreedomWorks, the group headed by former congressman Dick Armey, has a statement that says passage of the bill will mean that taxpayers will end up owning "an overpriced house in Las Vegas." They are also calling it a "Dodd-Countrywide housing bailout," seizing on the politically problematic deal that Dodd did get on his own Countrywide mortgage.

The bottom line is this: The administration does not only want to leave high and dry the people who tried to game the system when housing prices were accelerating upward and hucksters were inviting everyone to a non-stop party. They would also leave high and dry those "hard-working people who have played by the rules," and the communities they live in, for the sake of free-market ideological purity. As conservatives pontificate on the moral hazards of helping the people they encouraged to jump into the pool of deregulated financial excess, they overlook their own hazardous morality.

The White House and the Dick Armeys of the world have no real answer for the ripple effects record levels of foreclosures have on communities. That includes, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, projected economic losses of $166 billion for 361 metropolitan areas, as well as increased crime and decay in the neighborhoods where foreclosures hit hardest. This is what the Bush administration calls "necessary corrections."

The range of veto threats show that the administration continues to be out of touch with the will of the majority of voters, even as it feigns concern about the issues, such as global climate change, that the bills intend to address. Thursday's votes on the mortgage bill are the latest signs that some Senate Republicans are feeling the heat for following the path of blind obstruction their conservative leadership set at the beginning of the session.

A Second Chance to Stand for American Jobs

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:01:08 -0400

The Government Accountability Office gave American workers and the principle of fairness a victory when it ruled that that a multibillion-dollar Air Force tanker contract was improperly awarded to a consortium that included the French company EADS, makers of Airbus, and was backed by Sen. John McCain.

Back in March we called out McCain and the cabal of lobbyists and Air Force officials who tilted the procurement process in a way that, as the GAO concludes, led to "a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman," EADS's American partner.

The key point that we were making, though, went beyond the flaws of one procurement process. At stake was whether the country would continue a short-sighted, headlong rush to sign away its manufacturing capacity, and the jobs that go with that capacity, under the illusion that doing so would save a few short-term dollars.

What Bob Borosage wrote at that time needs to be at the forefront of the political discussion, not only about this deal, but about our manufacturing and trade policies generally:

Many market fundamentalist economists argue that the Europeans made a mistake in subsidizing Airbus, and that the U.S. benefits by allowing them to make the airplanes and pocketing the benefits of those subsidies. That attitude has played a large role in informing U.S. trade policies. It is the attitude that undergirds McCain’s purblind support for trade accords defined by global corporations to protect property rights and not worker rights or the environment.

We disagree. We think the U.S. has to have a national trade strategy in a global economy. In key industries, our capacity to make things here matters. Those who make the current generation of advanced products are the most likely to assemble the capital, invention and hands-on machinist and engineering experience vital to creating the next generation. The innovative economy doesn’t exist in a vacuum or a think tank. For the U.S. to compete on the high end of the global economy requires us to be serious about sustaining advanced manufacturing and technological capacity here in the U.S. Failing to figure out that strategy will leave U.S. workers in a race to the bottom, hollowing out the middle class that is this nation’s triumph. Then we’ll see a reaction that will make all of us shudder.

In that regard, McCain's response to the GAO report speaks volumes. After conceding that the GAO findings will mean that the contract that he helped grease for EADS-Northrop Grumman should be rebid, he was quoted as concluding, “I’m still proud that the first time around, I saved taxpayers $6.2 billion.”

No, he shouldn't be, because no, he didn't. The GAO findings question whether the EADS-Northrop Grumman deal was the best deal for the taxpayers; its news release says that the Air Force "conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost."

More importantly, there is a difference between price and cost. The fact that an item can be purchased for a few pennies or a few billion dollars less doesn't make it the best buy. The long-term damage done to the country's middle class as millions of manufacturing jobs went overseas, in the pursuit of cheap goods and high profit margins, is a strong testament to that reality. In what the GAO itself said was a "close competition" on the merits between an all-American contractor and an international consortium with less of an interest in protecting America's job base, the deciding factor should be the future of American workers and the protection of our manufacturing capacity.

Now, it appears we have a chance in this contract to make the right decision for the right reasons.

Also Coming Up Empty: "Drill Here" Rhetoric

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:32:49 -0400

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is spearheading a new campaign that obscures the facts about the practical impact of opening up new lands to oil drilling.

You may have already seen the ads while surfing the Web: "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." Don't be fooled.

It's spearheaded by "American Solutions for Winning the Future," Gingrich's 527 organization, and among its key funders are Republican stalwarts Sheldon Adelson ($2 million) and Fred Godley ($1 million), both wealthy property developers.

The group is asking people to sign a petition that asks "the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline prices (and diesel and other fuel prices) by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries."

But, as my colleague Bill Scher points out, neither the U.S. Congress nor anyone else can "act immediately to lower gasoline prices" by authorizing more oil drilling.

But the Congress can, and should, demand more answers about why oil companies want to drill in places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve when they, as Democrats such as Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., pointed out this week, haven't fully utilized 68 million acres of federal lands where they are already authorized to explore and drill.

More importantly, Gingrich could do the country a real service by holding his own conservative allies accountable for dragging their feet and resisting change—denying climate change while never denying a tax break or regulatory weakening on the oil industry wish list—and causing the country to be unprepared for the current crisis.