Two good articles on healthcare reform, the second is HEALTH-CARE POLLS, GOOD WILL AND THE GOLDEN RULE.
Yesterday, the Senate passed a jobs bill by a 70-28 vote, showing that even in today’s polarized political climate, bipartisan solutions to the major problems facing the country are still possible.
Today, President Obama hosts a summit on health-care reform with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. Can we hope for the same result? The indications are, probably not. While there are real ideological and policy differences, the bottom line, as some commentators have noted, is that the president and Democrats want a bill to pass, and Republicans don’t.
In the Senate bill that is the basis of the president’s proposal, Democrats have made major concessions. Any semblance of a public option has disappeared, and extended coverage is through private insurance companies. Rather than offering universal coverage, the bill would extend health insurance to 31 million more people; however, 15 million would still not be covered, including undocumented immigrants. Even so, Republican senators maintained their stone wall of opposition, with none voting for the bill.
Democrats could make further compromises -- reform of the malpractice system, for example -- that go against their special interests. But without a guarantee that this would result in Republican votes, there is no incentive to do so. With the mid-term elections approaching, the political reality is that not passing any health-care bill benefits Republicans.
It’s simply the latest example of our badly broken political system. What will win the next election is more important than what policy changes will benefit the country and most Americans.
As the health-care debate enters this final state, Sojourners and I joined with 25 other religious leaders and 57 national organizations in signing a letter delivered to the president and Congress, and an ad in several newspapers read widely on Capitol Hill. In the open letter, we said:
We write to you at this critical juncture to urge you to complete the task at hand on behalf of the millions who are left out and left behind in our current health-care system ... We know that no comprehensive health-care reform bill will be perfect. (Indeed, if any piece of legislation ever fulfills our full vision, our vision is far too small.) However, we also know -- as providers and consumers of services and care -- that inaction at this critical moment is no way forward ... Let us not delay health-care justice any longer. This is your moment for political courage, vision, leadership, and faith. We urge you to take heart and move meaningful health-care reform forward.
In the next days, we must be clear on this one simple message. Inaction on health care is not an option; too many lives depend on it.
Health-Care Polls, Good Will, and the Golden Rule
by Valerie Elverton Dixon 02-24-2010
100224_091022-068-health-careGood will is a primary element of moral conduct. This is an important idea in the thought of philosopher Immanuel Kant. A good will is good in itself because it does not depend upon whether or not the person will benefit from a particular action or not. An individual acting out of a good will considers his or her duty to act in accordance with the moral law.
Kant’s test for whether or not an action coheres to the moral law is his Categorical Imperative, which is very close to the Golden Rule that Jesus taught. The Categorical Imperative says: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” The Golden Rule says: “In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12). So, to act from a good will is to act in accordance to one’s duty to do to others as we would be done by — to ask ourselves what kind of world we would create if everyone acted the way we do.
Sadly, many of our Congress members are not acting with a good will. In advance of President Obama’s health-care reform summit, for example, at least one Republican Congress member is saying that the American people oppose the President’s health-care reform proposal. He is correct. A recent Rasmussen poll reports that 56% of its respondents strongly oppose President Obama’s health-care reform. However, what the Congress member does not say is that in polls where the respondents are told what the elements of the bill are, they approve of the various elements, and support for the bill goes up.
A Newsweek Poll conducted Feb. 17-18, 2010, found the following opinions of the president’s plan: opposed 49%, favor40%, unsure 9%. After hearing about the specifics of the proposal, the numbers changed: opposed 43%, favor48%, unsure 9%. Fifty percent of the respondents favor “a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans.”
More people in the Kaiser Family Foundation Kaiser Health Tracking Poll believe their families would be better off if the president and Congress passed health-care reform (better off 34%, worse off32%, 26% not much difference). This number goes up when asked if the country as a whole would be better off (better off 45%, worse off34%, not much difference 12%). Thirty-two percent think that Congress should pass legislation that has already been approved while 20% think Congress should pass only those provisions where there is broad agreement. Fifty-nine percent think the delay is due to both sides playing politics.
This Congress member told the partial truth. This is dishonest. This is dissembling. This is unnecessary. There are items in the polls that would support Republican positions. Most people think it is important for health insurers to have the ability to sell across state lines. However, by giving only the facts of the poll that support his position, this Congress member violated the Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule. The presumption here is that he would not want people to tell half-truths to him or that we ought not to make half-truth-telling a universal law.
What is worse, we have to spend time checking the facts of a poll rather than learning the facts of the various proposals, a combination of which may finally get this country to universal health care. And universal health care is a moral good and ought to be a legislative imperative.
Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School.
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
04 March 2010
WAR HAS BECOME A PERMANENT CONDITION
The American people and the governing class have accepted that war has become a permanent condition. Protracted war has become a widely accepted part of our politics.
- Andrew Bacevich, retired Army Col. (and now history professor at Boston University) whose son was killed in Iraq in 2007, on how eight years of war have affected American foreign policy. (Source: The Washington Post) Click the header to go to the story.
Death toll in Afghan war nears 1,000
By Craig Whitlock, Greg Jaffe and Julie Tate
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 24, 2010; A01
More than eight years after the Taliban was toppled from power, the number of U.S. military fatalities in the war in Afghanistan is nearing 1,000, a grim milestone in a resurgent conflict that is claiming the lives of an increasing number of troops who had survived previous combat tours in Iraq.
As of Tuesday, 996 U.S. military personnel had died while serving in Operation Enduring Freedom. The roll call of the fallen began on Oct. 10, 2001, when Air Force Master Sgt. Evander E. Andrews was killed in a forklift accident in Qatar while building an airstrip in preparation for the invasion of Afghanistan. The latest confirmed addition came Sunday, when Army Pfc. J.R. Salvacion, 27, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, died of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit near Kandahar.
The number of dead is small in comparison with U.S. casualties in Iraq, where 4,366 uniformed personnel have died since 2003. But as operations intensify in Afghanistan, the war is killing more and more service members who came home safely after serving in Iraq, only to return to the battlefield in another theater.
Since Dec. 1, at least 30 percent of the American military personnel who have died in Afghanistan have been veterans of the Iraq war, according to a Washington Post analysis.
Among them: Marine Staff Sgt. Chris Eckard, 30, who was killed Saturday in Helmand province, the site of a major NATO offensive targeting Taliban-held territory. Eckard, an explosives specialist from Hickory, N.C., had disarmed hundreds of makeshift bombs during four tours in Iraq. It was his first assignment to Afghanistan. He leaves behind a wife and two sons, ages 4 and 18 months.
"Chris loved the Marines. He was all about the Marines," said his sister-in-law, Chastity Eckard. "This was going to be his last tour."
The impending milestone of 1,000 deaths hasn't drawn much notice in the United States or in Afghanistan, despite the Obama administration's focus on the war and the launch this month of the largest U.S.-NATO military operation in the country since 2001.
When the United States crossed the threshold of 1,000 deaths in the Iraq war in September 2004, there was widespread concern in Washington that public support for the conflict would collapse. To some, the relatively quiet approach of the new benchmark is a sign that the country has grown more sober-minded in the way it perceives the war. "We've learned that the public doesn't react reflexively to the tote board of [war deaths]," said Peter Feaver, who served in George W. Bush's administration and teaches political science at Duke University.
Others see a fundamental change in American foreign policy after almost nine years of combat. "The American people and the governing class have accepted that war has become a permanent condition," said retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, a history professor at Boston University whose son was killed in Iraq in 2007. "Protracted war has become a widely accepted part of our politics." Even before his son's death, Bacevich spoke out forcefully against the wars.
More than 600 troops from NATO allies and other countries have died in Afghanistan since 2001. Thousands of Afghan civilians, soldiers and police officers have also died in the war, although the precise number is unknown.
Back to the front, again
For many Americans, what is most striking is that so many Marines and soldiers have died during their second or third combat tours. Of the 73 U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan since Dec. 1, at least 23 had previously served in Iraq, according to The Post's analysis.
"It affirms what we already knew, which is that the burden of this very long war is being borne by a small percentage of the population," Bacevich said.
Both the Obama and Bush administrations have wrestled with how to highlight the sacrifices of the troops and, to the extent possible, share the burden with the rest of the country. During the debate last year over the Afghanistan strategy, President Obama made high-profile visits to Arlington National Cemetery and Dover Air Force Base to witness the return of fallen U.S. troops. Lawmakers, meanwhile, have repeatedly boosted pay and benefits for service members, sometimes to the consternation of the Pentagon, which has become concerned that the surging personnel costs are squeezing out money for new weapons.
But the White House, Congress and the military seem broadly comfortable with the notion that a relatively small number of professional soldiers and Marines should be expected to fight multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"There are enormous and disturbing moral implications in the tacit agreement we have made to have such a small percentage of our population bear so great a burden," Bacevich said. "But there is no recognition of it or desire to raise questions about it."
For families, questions
White House officials said they do not want to draw special attention to what they described as an arbitrary figure. "We mourn the loss of each and every serviceman and woman," said National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer. "The nation is indebted to them and their families for making the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our country."
But as the casualty count rises, so does the number of grieving relatives who can't help question why their sons and daughters, or their spouses or parents, had to keep returning to the battlefield, tempting fate again and again.
Adam K. Ginett, a 29-year-old Air Force tech sergeant from eastern North Carolina, told his family that he felt compelled by a sense of public service to serve two tours in Iraq, followed by two more in Afghanistan. An explosives and ordinance disposal specialist, he had extensive experience in the highly risky job of defusing makeshift bombs, the insurgents' weapon of choice in both war zones.
When Ginett was a teenager, "I told him he'd be safer going into the Air Force, that at least he'd get a clean bed to sleep in every night," said his grandfather James Haslam, 80, a former Marine. "But he chose perhaps the most dangerous job in the military."
When he was last home in July, visiting his parents in tiny Coats, N.C., Ginett was gently challenged by his mother, who wanted to know: Why do you keep volunteering to go back to the war? "It just seemed like he was always going," said his mother, Christina Kazakavage. "He said: 'Mom, it's just my turn. I gotta go.' "
As he departed for the airport to return to Afghanistan, he left behind a book for his mother. Titled "Final Salute: A Story of Unfinished Lives," it tells the story of a Marine major assigned to knock on the doors of military spouses and parents and deliver the tragic news that their loved ones had sacrificed their lives for their country.
"After I read that book, I looked at my husband and said, 'He's not going to come home.' After reading that book, I just knew," Kazakavage said. "I think it was just Adam's way of preparing me."
Staff writer Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.
- Andrew Bacevich, retired Army Col. (and now history professor at Boston University) whose son was killed in Iraq in 2007, on how eight years of war have affected American foreign policy. (Source: The Washington Post) Click the header to go to the story.
Death toll in Afghan war nears 1,000
By Craig Whitlock, Greg Jaffe and Julie Tate
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 24, 2010; A01
More than eight years after the Taliban was toppled from power, the number of U.S. military fatalities in the war in Afghanistan is nearing 1,000, a grim milestone in a resurgent conflict that is claiming the lives of an increasing number of troops who had survived previous combat tours in Iraq.
As of Tuesday, 996 U.S. military personnel had died while serving in Operation Enduring Freedom. The roll call of the fallen began on Oct. 10, 2001, when Air Force Master Sgt. Evander E. Andrews was killed in a forklift accident in Qatar while building an airstrip in preparation for the invasion of Afghanistan. The latest confirmed addition came Sunday, when Army Pfc. J.R. Salvacion, 27, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, died of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit near Kandahar.
The number of dead is small in comparison with U.S. casualties in Iraq, where 4,366 uniformed personnel have died since 2003. But as operations intensify in Afghanistan, the war is killing more and more service members who came home safely after serving in Iraq, only to return to the battlefield in another theater.
Since Dec. 1, at least 30 percent of the American military personnel who have died in Afghanistan have been veterans of the Iraq war, according to a Washington Post analysis.
Among them: Marine Staff Sgt. Chris Eckard, 30, who was killed Saturday in Helmand province, the site of a major NATO offensive targeting Taliban-held territory. Eckard, an explosives specialist from Hickory, N.C., had disarmed hundreds of makeshift bombs during four tours in Iraq. It was his first assignment to Afghanistan. He leaves behind a wife and two sons, ages 4 and 18 months.
"Chris loved the Marines. He was all about the Marines," said his sister-in-law, Chastity Eckard. "This was going to be his last tour."
The impending milestone of 1,000 deaths hasn't drawn much notice in the United States or in Afghanistan, despite the Obama administration's focus on the war and the launch this month of the largest U.S.-NATO military operation in the country since 2001.
When the United States crossed the threshold of 1,000 deaths in the Iraq war in September 2004, there was widespread concern in Washington that public support for the conflict would collapse. To some, the relatively quiet approach of the new benchmark is a sign that the country has grown more sober-minded in the way it perceives the war. "We've learned that the public doesn't react reflexively to the tote board of [war deaths]," said Peter Feaver, who served in George W. Bush's administration and teaches political science at Duke University.
Others see a fundamental change in American foreign policy after almost nine years of combat. "The American people and the governing class have accepted that war has become a permanent condition," said retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, a history professor at Boston University whose son was killed in Iraq in 2007. "Protracted war has become a widely accepted part of our politics." Even before his son's death, Bacevich spoke out forcefully against the wars.
More than 600 troops from NATO allies and other countries have died in Afghanistan since 2001. Thousands of Afghan civilians, soldiers and police officers have also died in the war, although the precise number is unknown.
Back to the front, again
For many Americans, what is most striking is that so many Marines and soldiers have died during their second or third combat tours. Of the 73 U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan since Dec. 1, at least 23 had previously served in Iraq, according to The Post's analysis.
"It affirms what we already knew, which is that the burden of this very long war is being borne by a small percentage of the population," Bacevich said.
Both the Obama and Bush administrations have wrestled with how to highlight the sacrifices of the troops and, to the extent possible, share the burden with the rest of the country. During the debate last year over the Afghanistan strategy, President Obama made high-profile visits to Arlington National Cemetery and Dover Air Force Base to witness the return of fallen U.S. troops. Lawmakers, meanwhile, have repeatedly boosted pay and benefits for service members, sometimes to the consternation of the Pentagon, which has become concerned that the surging personnel costs are squeezing out money for new weapons.
But the White House, Congress and the military seem broadly comfortable with the notion that a relatively small number of professional soldiers and Marines should be expected to fight multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"There are enormous and disturbing moral implications in the tacit agreement we have made to have such a small percentage of our population bear so great a burden," Bacevich said. "But there is no recognition of it or desire to raise questions about it."
For families, questions
White House officials said they do not want to draw special attention to what they described as an arbitrary figure. "We mourn the loss of each and every serviceman and woman," said National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer. "The nation is indebted to them and their families for making the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our country."
But as the casualty count rises, so does the number of grieving relatives who can't help question why their sons and daughters, or their spouses or parents, had to keep returning to the battlefield, tempting fate again and again.
Adam K. Ginett, a 29-year-old Air Force tech sergeant from eastern North Carolina, told his family that he felt compelled by a sense of public service to serve two tours in Iraq, followed by two more in Afghanistan. An explosives and ordinance disposal specialist, he had extensive experience in the highly risky job of defusing makeshift bombs, the insurgents' weapon of choice in both war zones.
When Ginett was a teenager, "I told him he'd be safer going into the Air Force, that at least he'd get a clean bed to sleep in every night," said his grandfather James Haslam, 80, a former Marine. "But he chose perhaps the most dangerous job in the military."
When he was last home in July, visiting his parents in tiny Coats, N.C., Ginett was gently challenged by his mother, who wanted to know: Why do you keep volunteering to go back to the war? "It just seemed like he was always going," said his mother, Christina Kazakavage. "He said: 'Mom, it's just my turn. I gotta go.' "
As he departed for the airport to return to Afghanistan, he left behind a book for his mother. Titled "Final Salute: A Story of Unfinished Lives," it tells the story of a Marine major assigned to knock on the doors of military spouses and parents and deliver the tragic news that their loved ones had sacrificed their lives for their country.
"After I read that book, I looked at my husband and said, 'He's not going to come home.' After reading that book, I just knew," Kazakavage said. "I think it was just Adam's way of preparing me."
Staff writer Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.
WHEN IS IT A CHURCH?
Tax Status Of Lawmakers' Religious Refuge Disputed
by Peter Overby
February 24, 2010
The three-story, brick townhouse at 133 C Street SE sits a half-block from the Cannon House Office Building, roughly three blocks from the Capitol — the home-away-from-home for a regular contingent of fundamentalist Christian members of Congress, who can pray in the living room and walk to work.
The C Street Center, which owns the 1880 vintage townhouse, claims status as a church. And as with other religious organizations, the IRS takes the center's word that it is a church. As a result, the center doesn't have to file public tax returns, as most nonprofit organizations must do.
The arrangement fits the C Street Center's practically invisible public presence. But now a group of 13 ministers has asked the IRS to revoke that church status.
Their complaint, delivered to the IRS on Tuesday, says: "An organization whose chief activity is providing room and board to members of Congress is not a church." It cites a list of 15 factors that the agency considers in granting church status.
"Is there public worship?" said the leader of the group of ministers, Pastor Eric Williams of the North Congregational United Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio. "Is it open to the public? Are there trained leaders who serve the church? C Street really has none of those marks that make it a church."
And if it is not a church, Williams says other questions come up — like whether the C Street Center's fundraising and other activities meet the requirements for 501(c)(3) charities.
NPR couldn't call the center for an interview, because it doesn't reveal its phone number — or numbers for lawyers or other contacts — on property records, other public documents or, seemingly, any other documents.
The townhouse would likely go unnoticed, except that its denizens keep popping up in embarrassing news stories.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford lived there when he was a Republican member of the House. Last June, he got caught going to visit his mistress in Buenos Aires. Sanford held a tearful news conference, where he said he'd turned back to C Street for help.
"I was part of a group called C Street when I was in Washington," he said. "It was a — believe it or not — a Christian Bible study, some folks that asked members of Congress hard questions that I think were very, very important. And I've been working with them."
Then, three weeks later, Leisha Pickering filed an alienation-of-affections lawsuit against the mistress of her husband, Mississippi Republican Chip Pickering. Leisha Pickering alleged that the pair carried on a home-wrecking affair while he was in Congress and living at the C Street house.
And then, in November, two Republican senators associated with C Street drew still more publicity to the house.
Nevada Sen. John Ensign owned up to an affair with a staffer. And Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said he had been a go-between as Ensign and the woman's husband fought over a financial settlement. Coburn defended his actions in an interview on the ABC program This Week, saying, "Look, my whole goal in this thing was to bring two families to closure of a very painful episode."
While the vast majority of lawmakers who stay at C Street are Republicans, regardless of party, they are all followers of an intimate, high-powered — and some say closed — Christian network.
And they belong to House and Senate prayer groups at the Capitol. Those groups are organized by the Fellowship Foundation, a $19 million entity that builds alliances of leaders "led by God," as it said on a 2005 federal tax return. The Fellowship Foundation also organizes the annual National Prayer Breakfast, where every president since Dwight Eisenhower has spoken.
As recently as 2006, the Fellowship Foundation's tax return listed the C Street Center as a "related organization." But in an interview Tuesday, foundation President Richard Carver said he's been to 133 C Street only once, and that was six years ago.
He drew a bright line between the Fellowship and C Street. "There are members of Congress there who may very well be part of the prayer groups in the House and the Senate," he said. But "the Fellowship Foundation has never owned the C Street facility. The C Street facility has its own board of directors, which sets its own policy. And we have no operational control over what happens at C Street, to the best of my knowledge."
by Peter Overby
February 24, 2010
The three-story, brick townhouse at 133 C Street SE sits a half-block from the Cannon House Office Building, roughly three blocks from the Capitol — the home-away-from-home for a regular contingent of fundamentalist Christian members of Congress, who can pray in the living room and walk to work.
The C Street Center, which owns the 1880 vintage townhouse, claims status as a church. And as with other religious organizations, the IRS takes the center's word that it is a church. As a result, the center doesn't have to file public tax returns, as most nonprofit organizations must do.
The arrangement fits the C Street Center's practically invisible public presence. But now a group of 13 ministers has asked the IRS to revoke that church status.
Their complaint, delivered to the IRS on Tuesday, says: "An organization whose chief activity is providing room and board to members of Congress is not a church." It cites a list of 15 factors that the agency considers in granting church status.
"Is there public worship?" said the leader of the group of ministers, Pastor Eric Williams of the North Congregational United Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio. "Is it open to the public? Are there trained leaders who serve the church? C Street really has none of those marks that make it a church."
And if it is not a church, Williams says other questions come up — like whether the C Street Center's fundraising and other activities meet the requirements for 501(c)(3) charities.
NPR couldn't call the center for an interview, because it doesn't reveal its phone number — or numbers for lawyers or other contacts — on property records, other public documents or, seemingly, any other documents.
The townhouse would likely go unnoticed, except that its denizens keep popping up in embarrassing news stories.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford lived there when he was a Republican member of the House. Last June, he got caught going to visit his mistress in Buenos Aires. Sanford held a tearful news conference, where he said he'd turned back to C Street for help.
"I was part of a group called C Street when I was in Washington," he said. "It was a — believe it or not — a Christian Bible study, some folks that asked members of Congress hard questions that I think were very, very important. And I've been working with them."
Then, three weeks later, Leisha Pickering filed an alienation-of-affections lawsuit against the mistress of her husband, Mississippi Republican Chip Pickering. Leisha Pickering alleged that the pair carried on a home-wrecking affair while he was in Congress and living at the C Street house.
And then, in November, two Republican senators associated with C Street drew still more publicity to the house.
Nevada Sen. John Ensign owned up to an affair with a staffer. And Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said he had been a go-between as Ensign and the woman's husband fought over a financial settlement. Coburn defended his actions in an interview on the ABC program This Week, saying, "Look, my whole goal in this thing was to bring two families to closure of a very painful episode."
While the vast majority of lawmakers who stay at C Street are Republicans, regardless of party, they are all followers of an intimate, high-powered — and some say closed — Christian network.
And they belong to House and Senate prayer groups at the Capitol. Those groups are organized by the Fellowship Foundation, a $19 million entity that builds alliances of leaders "led by God," as it said on a 2005 federal tax return. The Fellowship Foundation also organizes the annual National Prayer Breakfast, where every president since Dwight Eisenhower has spoken.
As recently as 2006, the Fellowship Foundation's tax return listed the C Street Center as a "related organization." But in an interview Tuesday, foundation President Richard Carver said he's been to 133 C Street only once, and that was six years ago.
He drew a bright line between the Fellowship and C Street. "There are members of Congress there who may very well be part of the prayer groups in the House and the Senate," he said. But "the Fellowship Foundation has never owned the C Street facility. The C Street facility has its own board of directors, which sets its own policy. And we have no operational control over what happens at C Street, to the best of my knowledge."
Playing For Change | Peace All Over The World
Playing For Change | Peace All Over The World
Posted using ShareThis
Click the link to experience.
Peace All Over The World
We met Robert Bradley while shooting our first film, "Playing for Change: A Cinematic Discovery of Street Music." Robert is originally from Detroit, Michigan, but we filmed this song in Los Angeles in front of a Playing For Change graffiti wall painted by a local artist. We had just finished a take of Robert singing "Playing For Change Blues," a song we created while filming across America, and were beginning to interview him. All of a sudden he started speaking the lyrics to this song... We immediately grabbed another mic for his guitar, plugged it directly into the camera and asked him to perform it for us. Enjoy!
Hello Playing For Change Family!
As we enter this New Year and New Decade together we are offered the opportunity to create a world driven by peace, love and mutual respect. Let's continue to spread the message of connecting the world through music and finding ways to build bridges instead of walls between us.
This is an exciting time for Playing For Change. We are in the process of traveling and creating new Songs Around the World, and bringing the Playing For Change Band everywhere we can. And the Playing For Change Foundation is building new Music Schools and Community Centers-- their newest is in the village of Kirina, Mali!
We invite you to join us on this journey and hope you enjoy this week's video from the Playing For Change archive, recorded a few years ago in the streets of Los Angeles. "Peace All Over the World" is not just a dream but rather a state of mind that we can achieve together!!
One Love,
Mark
Posted using ShareThis
Click the link to experience.
Peace All Over The World
We met Robert Bradley while shooting our first film, "Playing for Change: A Cinematic Discovery of Street Music." Robert is originally from Detroit, Michigan, but we filmed this song in Los Angeles in front of a Playing For Change graffiti wall painted by a local artist. We had just finished a take of Robert singing "Playing For Change Blues," a song we created while filming across America, and were beginning to interview him. All of a sudden he started speaking the lyrics to this song... We immediately grabbed another mic for his guitar, plugged it directly into the camera and asked him to perform it for us. Enjoy!
Hello Playing For Change Family!
As we enter this New Year and New Decade together we are offered the opportunity to create a world driven by peace, love and mutual respect. Let's continue to spread the message of connecting the world through music and finding ways to build bridges instead of walls between us.
This is an exciting time for Playing For Change. We are in the process of traveling and creating new Songs Around the World, and bringing the Playing For Change Band everywhere we can. And the Playing For Change Foundation is building new Music Schools and Community Centers-- their newest is in the village of Kirina, Mali!
We invite you to join us on this journey and hope you enjoy this week's video from the Playing For Change archive, recorded a few years ago in the streets of Los Angeles. "Peace All Over the World" is not just a dream but rather a state of mind that we can achieve together!!
One Love,
Mark
Playing For Change | Dreams of Kirina
Playing For Change | Dreams of Kirina
Posted using ShareThis
Episode #26: Baaba Maal performs for the village elders in Kirina, Mali! Click the link above to go to the page to experience.
24 Hour Exclusive On PlayingForChange.com
PFC Episode 26 Song for Kirina
Hello Playing For Change Family!
When we think about the role of dreams in our lives, they serve as both the places we go when we shut our eyes as well as the hopes and aspirations we hold for the future of our loved ones and ourselves. Playing For Change began as a dream to create something that could be full of positivity and inspiration for the human race. We have found that music is the greatest tool on earth for us to achieve our dreams of a better world for everyone. The village of Kirina, Mali is the heart and soul of this dream and a place with music at its core.
It is an ancient village with about 1,000 people, all of whom are descendents of musicians-- many of them over 75 generations! They have no electricity, but enough soul to brighten all of us as we share this journey together. It is also the home of the newest Playing For Change Music School. When they heard the Playing For Change crew was coming to visit them to discuss the idea for the new school, they told us they had dreamed we would come. They went on to explain that they are prepared to be a part of the next chapter of our life’s journey, and thus have titled the new school “The Playing For Life” Music school.
Last week we traveled with the Playing For Change team to Kirina with our brother and soul mate Baaba Maal. He is a legendary singer in West Africa, and even he was humbled by the opportunity to visit the people of Kirina and meet the elders. He told us that he learned about Kirina growing up in school, but did not realize that it was a real place that still maintains their ancient traditions and culture. We traveled with 4 cars full of musicians and the Playing For Change crew and were greeted with open arms and songs from the villagers. We gave gifts to the elders and were granted permission for Baaba and friends to perform music for the village chief under their mango tree. I swear if ever humanity has shined a light it was on this day!! Baaba performed for all the people in Kirina and was joined by our friend and percussion master, Mohamadou Diabate. The elders from the village had donated land for us to build our new music school, and this day was an opportunity to celebrate the great future we all share together.
I ask everyone who believes in a better world for tomorrow to join us today to build our next great music and art school in the village of Kirina, Mali. Together, it is a dream that we can make come true, and we will always know that there is a place where music and inspiration are passed on from generation to generation for the betterment of all of humanity – Playing For Life!!!
One Love,
Mark
Posted using ShareThis
Episode #26: Baaba Maal performs for the village elders in Kirina, Mali! Click the link above to go to the page to experience.
24 Hour Exclusive On PlayingForChange.com
PFC Episode 26 Song for Kirina
Hello Playing For Change Family!
When we think about the role of dreams in our lives, they serve as both the places we go when we shut our eyes as well as the hopes and aspirations we hold for the future of our loved ones and ourselves. Playing For Change began as a dream to create something that could be full of positivity and inspiration for the human race. We have found that music is the greatest tool on earth for us to achieve our dreams of a better world for everyone. The village of Kirina, Mali is the heart and soul of this dream and a place with music at its core.
It is an ancient village with about 1,000 people, all of whom are descendents of musicians-- many of them over 75 generations! They have no electricity, but enough soul to brighten all of us as we share this journey together. It is also the home of the newest Playing For Change Music School. When they heard the Playing For Change crew was coming to visit them to discuss the idea for the new school, they told us they had dreamed we would come. They went on to explain that they are prepared to be a part of the next chapter of our life’s journey, and thus have titled the new school “The Playing For Life” Music school.
Last week we traveled with the Playing For Change team to Kirina with our brother and soul mate Baaba Maal. He is a legendary singer in West Africa, and even he was humbled by the opportunity to visit the people of Kirina and meet the elders. He told us that he learned about Kirina growing up in school, but did not realize that it was a real place that still maintains their ancient traditions and culture. We traveled with 4 cars full of musicians and the Playing For Change crew and were greeted with open arms and songs from the villagers. We gave gifts to the elders and were granted permission for Baaba and friends to perform music for the village chief under their mango tree. I swear if ever humanity has shined a light it was on this day!! Baaba performed for all the people in Kirina and was joined by our friend and percussion master, Mohamadou Diabate. The elders from the village had donated land for us to build our new music school, and this day was an opportunity to celebrate the great future we all share together.
I ask everyone who believes in a better world for tomorrow to join us today to build our next great music and art school in the village of Kirina, Mali. Together, it is a dream that we can make come true, and we will always know that there is a place where music and inspiration are passed on from generation to generation for the betterment of all of humanity – Playing For Life!!!
One Love,
Mark
03 March 2010
MCCAIN'S RECONCILIATION FLIP FLOP from MOJO and THE PLUMLINE 1MAR10
Great articles on budget reconciliation and healthcare reform, and last is a primer from NPR on the process and rules of the Senate. Copy and paste links in this post to go to the actual articles, click the header to go to the MOJO article.
— By Suzy Khimm
| Mon Mar. 1, 2010 11:59 AM PST
This Sunday on "Meet the Press," Sen. John McCain announced that he plans to introduce an amendment that would prohibit the Democrats from using reconciliation to make changes to Medicare. Entitlement programs "should not be part of a reconciliation process," he declared to David Gregory, referring to the filibuster-proof procedure that requires only 51 votes. "It’s too important."
But just five years ago McCain himself voted to use reconciliation to make spending cuts to an entitlement program—in this case, Medicaid. McCain, along with 30 other current Republican senators, used a simple majority to pass George W. Bush's 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, which, among other things, "reduced Medicaid spending and allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid," as Greg Sargent notes. (Sargent's list of all the Republicans who have voted for reconciliation over the past 20 years is worth a look.)
McCain's hypocrisy blows a hole in the Republicans' contention that if Democrats use reconciliation to pass health care reform, they'll "end the Senate" as we know it. While the GOP has accused Democrats of "ramming" and "jamming" reform through the Senate, the bill in question already passed the Senate back in December. If that measure manages to clear the House, the Senate will only be passing limited tweaks to its bill via a so-called reconciliation sidecar—not pushing through a massive overhaul of the entire legislation. And although some of those fixes may apply to Medicare and Medicaid, they fall squarely within accepted reconciliation procedure, which is used for legislative tweaks that directly affect the federal budget.
Of course, Republicans themselves have long pushed for much deeper spending cuts to entitlement programs, only to turn around and accuse the Democrats of slashing benefits for vulnerable Americans. All of which makes it clear that McCain's latest flip-flop is just a political maneuver intended to derail reform, not some principled defense of the democratic process.
Chart: Your Handy Guide To GOP Senators Who Backed Reconciliation
Copy and paste this link for the article
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/chart-your-handy-guide-to-gop-senators-who-backed-reconciliation/
For your reading pleasure, we’ve drawn up a comprehensive chart detailing which GOP Senators who are currently in office have voted for measures passed via reconciliation over the last 20 years.
Over the weekend, GOP Senators argued en masse that if Dems press forward with plans to pass health reform via reconciliation, it will effectively destroy what remains of our fragile experiment in democracy. As Lamar Alexander put it, such a move would “end the Senate.”
But as many have pointed out already, reconciliation has been repeatedly used in the past, even to pass health-care-related measures. So we thought it would be useful to tally up how the GOPers currently inhabiting the Senate voted on them. The highlights:
* Mitch McConnell and Orrin Hatch, two leading voices against the Dem use of reconciliation, along with 19 other current GOP Senators, voted for the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which passed by a simple majority (58-33) via reconciliation.
* McConnell, Hatch, NRSC chief John Cornyn and 21 other current GOP Senators voted for the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, which accelerated the Bush tax cuts and added new ones. This passed by a simple majority via reconciliation — 50-50 in the Senate with Dick Cheney casting the tiebreaking vote.
* John McCain, a leading critic of Dem plans to use reconciliation, along with McConnell, Cornyn and 27 other current GOP Senators, voted to pass the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, which reduced Medicaid spending and allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid. This passed by a simple majority (52-47) via reconciliation.
* McCain, McConnell, Cornyn, and 28 other current GOP Senators voted for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, which extended the Bush tax cuts for some tax brackets. This passed by a simple majority (54-44) via reconciliation.
Now, Republicans argue that these uses of reconciliation pale beside the use of reconciliation being planned right now by Dems to reshape the nation’s massive health care system. However, Dems are not planning to pass their whole measure via reconciliation. It has already passed the Senate, and they would only pass the “sidecare” fix via this tactic.
GOP Senators’ Votes On Reconciliation
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (87 to 7)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill
1) McCain
2) Lugar
3) Grassley
4) Bond
5) Specter (now a D)
6) Hatch
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (54 to 45)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
1) Lugar
2) Bond
3) Specter (now a D)
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (passed 50 to 50)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
None
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (passed 52 to 47)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
1) Shelby
2) Kyl
3) McCain
4) Lugar
5) Grassley
6) McConnell
7) Snowe
8 ) Bond
9) Gregg
10) Inhofe
11) Specter (now a D)
12) Hutchison
13) Bennett
14) Hatch
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (passed 78 to 21)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
1) Shelby
2) Kyl
3) McCain
4) Lugar
5) Grassley
6) McConnell
7) Snowe
8 ) Bond
9) Gregg
10) Inhofe
11) Specter (now a D)
12) Hutchison
13) Bennett
14) Hatch
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (passed 85 to 15)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
1) Shelby
2) Kyl
3) McCain
4) Lugar
5) Grassley
6) Brownback
7) Roberts
8 ) McConnell
9) Collins
10) Snowe
11) Bond
12) Gregg
13) Specter (now a D)
14) Hutchison
15) Bennett
16) Hatch
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (passed 92 to 8 )
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Kyl
4) McCain
5) Lugar
6) Grassley
7) Brownback
8 ) Roberts
9) McConnell
10) Collins
11) Snowe
12) Bond
13) Gregg
14) Inhofe
15) Specter (now a D)
16) Hutchison
17) Bennett
18) Hatch
19) Enzi
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (50 to 49)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Kyl
4) McCain
5) Crapo
6) Lugar
7) Grassley
8 ) Brownback
9) Roberts
10) Jim Bunning
11) Mitch McConnell
12) Collins
13) Snowe
14) Gregg
15) Voinovich
16) Inhofe
17) Specter (now D)
18) Hutchison
19) Bennett
20) Hatch
21) Enzi
Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 (60 to 34)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor:
1) Jeff Sessions
2) Richard Shelby
3) Jon Kyl
4) John McCain
5) Michael Crapo
6) Richard Lugar
7) Charles Grassley
8 ) Samuel Brownback
9) Pat Roberts
10) Jim Bunning
11) Mitch McConnell
12) Susan Collins
13) Olympia Snowe
14) Christopher Bond
15) Judd Gregg
16) James Inhofe
17) Arlen Specter (now D)
18) Kay Hutchison
19) Robert Bennett
20) Orrin Hatch
21) Michael Enzi
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (58 to 33)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor (Second Vote)
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Kyl
4) Crapo
5) Lugar
6) Grassley
7) Brownback
8 ) Roberts
9) Bunning
10) McConnell
11) Collins
12) Snowe
13) Bond
14) Ensign
15) Gregg
16 Voinovich
17) Inhofe
18) Specter (now D)
19) Hutchison
20) Bennett
21) Hatch
22) Enzi
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (50 to 50)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor (Second Vote)
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Lisa Murkowski
4) Kyl
5) Crapo
6) Lugar
7) Grassley
8 ) Brownback
9) Roberts
10) Bunning
11) McConnell
12) Collins
13) Bond
14) Ensign
15) Gregg
16 Voinovich
17) Inhofe
18) Specter (now D)
19) Graham
20) Alexander
21) Cornyn
22) Hutchison
23) Bennett
24) Hatch
25) Enzi
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (52 to 47)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Murkowski
4) Kyl
5) McCain
6) Martinez
7) Isakson
8 ) Crapo
9) Lugar
10) Grassley
11) Brownback
12) Roberts
13) Bunning
14) McConnell
15) Vitter
16) Bond
17) Ensign
18) Gregg
19) Burr
20) Voinovich
21) Coburn
22) Inhofe
23) DeMint
24) Graham
25) Alexander
26) Cornyn
27) Hutchison
28) Bennett
29) Hatch
30) Enzi
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (54 to 44)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor (Second Vote)
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Murkowski
4) Kyl
5) McCain
6) Martinez
7) Isakson
8 ) Crapo
9) Lugar
10) Grassley
11) Brownback
12) Roberts
13) Bunning
14) McConnell
15) Vitter
16) Collins
17) Bond
18) Ensign
19) Gregg
20) Burr
21) Coburn
22) Inhofe
23) DeMint
24) Graham
25) Thune
26) Alexander
27) Cornyn
28) Hutchison
29) Bennett
30) Hatch
31) Enzi
College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (79 to 12)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor (Second Vote)
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Murkowski
4) Kyl
5) Martinez
6) Isakson
7) Crapo
8 ) Lugar
9) Grassley
10) Brownback
11) Collins
12) Snowe
13) Ensign
14) Voinovich
15) Thune
16) Alexander
17) Corker
18) Cornyn
19) Hutchison
20) Bennett
21) Hatch
22) Barrasso
23) Enzi
Thanks to reporter Ryan Derrousseau for the research help.
NPR PRIMER ON BUDGET RECONCILIATION
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124196402&sc=nl&cc=ph-20100301
Reconciliation Won't Be Smooth Ride For Health Bill
by Liz Halloran
March 1, 2010
Democrats face a bumpy road ahead as they prepare an attempt to pass a version of health care overhaul legislation by using a Senate procedure that circumvents a GOP filibuster. So who better to explain how the coming weeks may unfold on the Hill than the man who helped write the road rules?
Robert Dove is the preeminent expert on the rules of the U.S. Senate: He served in its parliamentary office for more than three decades, heading it for a dozen years before his 2001 retirement.
Health Care & Reconciliation
The budget reconciliation process has been used to pass major health care legislation before. Among the changes passed using the procedure:
1982 — TEFRA: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act first opened Medicare to HMOs
1986 — COBRA: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act allowed people who were laid off to keep their health coverage, and stopped hospitals from dumping ER patients unable to pay for their care
1987 — OBRA '87: Added nursing home protection rules to Medicare and Medicaid, created no-fault vaccine injury compensation program
1989 — OBRA '89: Overhauled doctor payment system for Medicare, created new federal agency on research and quality of care
1990 — OBRA '90: Added cancer screenings to Medicare, required providers to notify patients about advance directives and living wills, expanded Medicaid to all kids living below poverty level, required drug companies to provide discounts to Medicaid
1993 — OBRA '93: created federal vaccine funding for all children
1996 — Welfare Reform: Separated Medicaid from welfare
1997 — BBA: The Balanced Budget Act created the state-federal childrens' health program called CHIP
2005 — DRA: The Deficit Reduction Act reduced Medicaid spending, allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid
Dove helped write the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which contains the filibuster-busting provision called "reconciliation," and, as parliamentarian, he presided over many such maneuvers. The process allows the Senate, under certain restrictions, to pass legislation with a simple majority vote. Dove, a professor at George Washington University and lawyer with Patton Boggs, sat down with NPR after President Obama's health care summit last week.
He predicted a messy process ahead — one that could give important, but not unprecedented, power to current Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin. He knows the pressure Frumin faces: Dove, once a top aide to Republican Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, became an ex-parliamentarian nine years ago after a disagreement with GOP leaders over a rules interpretation.
NPR: What are the special rules the Senate must follow in debating and amending reconciliation legislation that contains changes to the already-approved House and Senate bills?
DOVE: Debate — that's easy: Total [Senate] debate on a reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours. Amendments, that's much harder. There is no limit to how many you can send. And you can send amendments of whatever length and have them read.
This seems to allow much room for the minority party to delay a vote on a reconciliation bill. How might this play out?
I can remember Sen. Dole sending up, attached to an amendment, the United States Code. [The code is the compilation of every Unites States law.] That got peoples' attention. After he had gotten what he wanted, he asked for unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
Doesn't that become a virtual filibuster?
It becomes a way of people forcing votes on many things that senators don't want to vote on. Despite the fact that amendments [to reconciliation bills] have to be germane and cannot violate the Byrd Rule [see below], that doesn't stop senators from sending amendments that are totally out of order, and then asking for a vote on waiving the Budget Act [rules] to allow them. That vote counts as a real vote and is used against senators who can claim they were protecting the budget process, but suddenly are on record as refusing to waive [rules] to deal with Guantanamo Bay, or trying terrorists in New York City. I can imagine the list of amendments that will be sent forward.
You mention that Senate reconciliation amendments are required to pass the "germane" test, which was in the original Budget Act, and also not violate the Byrd Rule, which was added later. What do those prescribe?
The germane test is very narrow: Basically, all you can do is play around the edges of something that's already in the bill. It doesn't mean because you're dealing with the subject matter of health care that anything dealing with health care is germane — not at all. It is a very nice test for people who have written the bill, because they know that things that they didn't deal with aren't going to be available as amendments on the floor.
But the Byrd Rule, which was adopted in 1985, complicated that? [The rule was named after Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who devised it as a budget-balancing maneuver.]
The initial Budget Act limited amendments by saying they had to be germane, but that was supplemented by the Byrd Rule. And that has a whole series of things that are not in order as amendments to reconciliation bills. Some are very simple. For example, any provision that has no effect on the budget — doesn't increase it, doesn't decrease it — is not in order. But some of them are very difficult. One test requires that if something actually does [affect the budget], it becomes the duty of the parliamentarian to go into the motives of why the provision is there.
How might that "motives provision" play out, given differences in the current Senate and House bills — including whether proposed federal subsidies may be used to purchase insurance plans that cover abortion?
In 1995 there was a provision that absolutely disallowed any federal funds for abortion. The Congressional Budget Office determined that it was going to save money. But it was my view that the provision was not there in order to save money. It was there to implement social policy. Therefore I ruled that it was not in order and it was stricken. That is a tough rule: to go into the motives of people who have either amendments, or have put provisions into bills.
What happens if senators disagree with the parliamentarian's ruling, and the presiding chair — whether it's Vice President Joe Biden, who is officially the Senate president, or a Democratic senator — rejects the recommendation and issues his or her own ruling?
Under the Budget Act, rulings by the chair can only be overturned by 60 votes. That means that the vice president or whoever is sitting in the chair, plus 41 senators, can effectively control the procedure. For Republicans to overturn a ruling of the vice president or presiding chair, they would not only need their 41 members, they would need 19 more votes to overturn.
Have you ever seen a Senate chair overrule the parliamentarian?
It could happen, but, so far, since Hubert Humphrey, who was vice president when I came to the Senate, that has not been the practice.
Do you agree, as some have suggested, that under the rules of Senate reconciliation, the country could end up with a health care bill shaped by the chamber's parliamentarian?
That would be correct if this was starting de novo as a reconciliation bill. It's not. There are already a lot of provisions in the Senate bill that was passed in December not under reconciliation. And those provisions will still apply — unless they are contradicted by reconciliation.
Related NPR Stories
Pelosi Says Votes Are There For Health Care March 1, 2010
Should We Thank Jim Bunning For His Knuckleball To The Senate? March 1, 2010
Reconciliation Path For Health Bill Stretches Vocabularies March 1, 2010
Health Care No Stranger To Reconciliation Process Feb. 24, 2010
— By Suzy Khimm
| Mon Mar. 1, 2010 11:59 AM PST
This Sunday on "Meet the Press," Sen. John McCain announced that he plans to introduce an amendment that would prohibit the Democrats from using reconciliation to make changes to Medicare. Entitlement programs "should not be part of a reconciliation process," he declared to David Gregory, referring to the filibuster-proof procedure that requires only 51 votes. "It’s too important."
But just five years ago McCain himself voted to use reconciliation to make spending cuts to an entitlement program—in this case, Medicaid. McCain, along with 30 other current Republican senators, used a simple majority to pass George W. Bush's 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, which, among other things, "reduced Medicaid spending and allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid," as Greg Sargent notes. (Sargent's list of all the Republicans who have voted for reconciliation over the past 20 years is worth a look.)
McCain's hypocrisy blows a hole in the Republicans' contention that if Democrats use reconciliation to pass health care reform, they'll "end the Senate" as we know it. While the GOP has accused Democrats of "ramming" and "jamming" reform through the Senate, the bill in question already passed the Senate back in December. If that measure manages to clear the House, the Senate will only be passing limited tweaks to its bill via a so-called reconciliation sidecar—not pushing through a massive overhaul of the entire legislation. And although some of those fixes may apply to Medicare and Medicaid, they fall squarely within accepted reconciliation procedure, which is used for legislative tweaks that directly affect the federal budget.
Of course, Republicans themselves have long pushed for much deeper spending cuts to entitlement programs, only to turn around and accuse the Democrats of slashing benefits for vulnerable Americans. All of which makes it clear that McCain's latest flip-flop is just a political maneuver intended to derail reform, not some principled defense of the democratic process.
Chart: Your Handy Guide To GOP Senators Who Backed Reconciliation
Copy and paste this link for the article
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/chart-your-handy-guide-to-gop-senators-who-backed-reconciliation/
For your reading pleasure, we’ve drawn up a comprehensive chart detailing which GOP Senators who are currently in office have voted for measures passed via reconciliation over the last 20 years.
Over the weekend, GOP Senators argued en masse that if Dems press forward with plans to pass health reform via reconciliation, it will effectively destroy what remains of our fragile experiment in democracy. As Lamar Alexander put it, such a move would “end the Senate.”
But as many have pointed out already, reconciliation has been repeatedly used in the past, even to pass health-care-related measures. So we thought it would be useful to tally up how the GOPers currently inhabiting the Senate voted on them. The highlights:
* Mitch McConnell and Orrin Hatch, two leading voices against the Dem use of reconciliation, along with 19 other current GOP Senators, voted for the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which passed by a simple majority (58-33) via reconciliation.
* McConnell, Hatch, NRSC chief John Cornyn and 21 other current GOP Senators voted for the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, which accelerated the Bush tax cuts and added new ones. This passed by a simple majority via reconciliation — 50-50 in the Senate with Dick Cheney casting the tiebreaking vote.
* John McCain, a leading critic of Dem plans to use reconciliation, along with McConnell, Cornyn and 27 other current GOP Senators, voted to pass the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, which reduced Medicaid spending and allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid. This passed by a simple majority (52-47) via reconciliation.
* McCain, McConnell, Cornyn, and 28 other current GOP Senators voted for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, which extended the Bush tax cuts for some tax brackets. This passed by a simple majority (54-44) via reconciliation.
Now, Republicans argue that these uses of reconciliation pale beside the use of reconciliation being planned right now by Dems to reshape the nation’s massive health care system. However, Dems are not planning to pass their whole measure via reconciliation. It has already passed the Senate, and they would only pass the “sidecare” fix via this tactic.
GOP Senators’ Votes On Reconciliation
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (87 to 7)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill
1) McCain
2) Lugar
3) Grassley
4) Bond
5) Specter (now a D)
6) Hatch
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (54 to 45)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
1) Lugar
2) Bond
3) Specter (now a D)
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (passed 50 to 50)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
None
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (passed 52 to 47)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
1) Shelby
2) Kyl
3) McCain
4) Lugar
5) Grassley
6) McConnell
7) Snowe
8 ) Bond
9) Gregg
10) Inhofe
11) Specter (now a D)
12) Hutchison
13) Bennett
14) Hatch
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (passed 78 to 21)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
1) Shelby
2) Kyl
3) McCain
4) Lugar
5) Grassley
6) McConnell
7) Snowe
8 ) Bond
9) Gregg
10) Inhofe
11) Specter (now a D)
12) Hutchison
13) Bennett
14) Hatch
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (passed 85 to 15)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
1) Shelby
2) Kyl
3) McCain
4) Lugar
5) Grassley
6) Brownback
7) Roberts
8 ) McConnell
9) Collins
10) Snowe
11) Bond
12) Gregg
13) Specter (now a D)
14) Hutchison
15) Bennett
16) Hatch
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (passed 92 to 8 )
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Kyl
4) McCain
5) Lugar
6) Grassley
7) Brownback
8 ) Roberts
9) McConnell
10) Collins
11) Snowe
12) Bond
13) Gregg
14) Inhofe
15) Specter (now a D)
16) Hutchison
17) Bennett
18) Hatch
19) Enzi
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (50 to 49)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor of bill (the Second vote)
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Kyl
4) McCain
5) Crapo
6) Lugar
7) Grassley
8 ) Brownback
9) Roberts
10) Jim Bunning
11) Mitch McConnell
12) Collins
13) Snowe
14) Gregg
15) Voinovich
16) Inhofe
17) Specter (now D)
18) Hutchison
19) Bennett
20) Hatch
21) Enzi
Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000 (60 to 34)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor:
1) Jeff Sessions
2) Richard Shelby
3) Jon Kyl
4) John McCain
5) Michael Crapo
6) Richard Lugar
7) Charles Grassley
8 ) Samuel Brownback
9) Pat Roberts
10) Jim Bunning
11) Mitch McConnell
12) Susan Collins
13) Olympia Snowe
14) Christopher Bond
15) Judd Gregg
16) James Inhofe
17) Arlen Specter (now D)
18) Kay Hutchison
19) Robert Bennett
20) Orrin Hatch
21) Michael Enzi
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (58 to 33)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor (Second Vote)
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Kyl
4) Crapo
5) Lugar
6) Grassley
7) Brownback
8 ) Roberts
9) Bunning
10) McConnell
11) Collins
12) Snowe
13) Bond
14) Ensign
15) Gregg
16 Voinovich
17) Inhofe
18) Specter (now D)
19) Hutchison
20) Bennett
21) Hatch
22) Enzi
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (50 to 50)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor (Second Vote)
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Lisa Murkowski
4) Kyl
5) Crapo
6) Lugar
7) Grassley
8 ) Brownback
9) Roberts
10) Bunning
11) McConnell
12) Collins
13) Bond
14) Ensign
15) Gregg
16 Voinovich
17) Inhofe
18) Specter (now D)
19) Graham
20) Alexander
21) Cornyn
22) Hutchison
23) Bennett
24) Hatch
25) Enzi
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (52 to 47)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Murkowski
4) Kyl
5) McCain
6) Martinez
7) Isakson
8 ) Crapo
9) Lugar
10) Grassley
11) Brownback
12) Roberts
13) Bunning
14) McConnell
15) Vitter
16) Bond
17) Ensign
18) Gregg
19) Burr
20) Voinovich
21) Coburn
22) Inhofe
23) DeMint
24) Graham
25) Alexander
26) Cornyn
27) Hutchison
28) Bennett
29) Hatch
30) Enzi
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (54 to 44)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor (Second Vote)
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Murkowski
4) Kyl
5) McCain
6) Martinez
7) Isakson
8 ) Crapo
9) Lugar
10) Grassley
11) Brownback
12) Roberts
13) Bunning
14) McConnell
15) Vitter
16) Collins
17) Bond
18) Ensign
19) Gregg
20) Burr
21) Coburn
22) Inhofe
23) DeMint
24) Graham
25) Thune
26) Alexander
27) Cornyn
28) Hutchison
29) Bennett
30) Hatch
31) Enzi
College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (79 to 12)
Republicans still in Congress Voting in Favor (Second Vote)
1) Sessions
2) Shelby
3) Murkowski
4) Kyl
5) Martinez
6) Isakson
7) Crapo
8 ) Lugar
9) Grassley
10) Brownback
11) Collins
12) Snowe
13) Ensign
14) Voinovich
15) Thune
16) Alexander
17) Corker
18) Cornyn
19) Hutchison
20) Bennett
21) Hatch
22) Barrasso
23) Enzi
Thanks to reporter Ryan Derrousseau for the research help.
NPR PRIMER ON BUDGET RECONCILIATION
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124196402&sc=nl&cc=ph-20100301
Reconciliation Won't Be Smooth Ride For Health Bill
by Liz Halloran
March 1, 2010
Democrats face a bumpy road ahead as they prepare an attempt to pass a version of health care overhaul legislation by using a Senate procedure that circumvents a GOP filibuster. So who better to explain how the coming weeks may unfold on the Hill than the man who helped write the road rules?
Robert Dove is the preeminent expert on the rules of the U.S. Senate: He served in its parliamentary office for more than three decades, heading it for a dozen years before his 2001 retirement.
Health Care & Reconciliation
The budget reconciliation process has been used to pass major health care legislation before. Among the changes passed using the procedure:
1982 — TEFRA: The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act first opened Medicare to HMOs
1986 — COBRA: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act allowed people who were laid off to keep their health coverage, and stopped hospitals from dumping ER patients unable to pay for their care
1987 — OBRA '87: Added nursing home protection rules to Medicare and Medicaid, created no-fault vaccine injury compensation program
1989 — OBRA '89: Overhauled doctor payment system for Medicare, created new federal agency on research and quality of care
1990 — OBRA '90: Added cancer screenings to Medicare, required providers to notify patients about advance directives and living wills, expanded Medicaid to all kids living below poverty level, required drug companies to provide discounts to Medicaid
1993 — OBRA '93: created federal vaccine funding for all children
1996 — Welfare Reform: Separated Medicaid from welfare
1997 — BBA: The Balanced Budget Act created the state-federal childrens' health program called CHIP
2005 — DRA: The Deficit Reduction Act reduced Medicaid spending, allowed parents of disabled children to buy into Medicaid
Dove helped write the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which contains the filibuster-busting provision called "reconciliation," and, as parliamentarian, he presided over many such maneuvers. The process allows the Senate, under certain restrictions, to pass legislation with a simple majority vote. Dove, a professor at George Washington University and lawyer with Patton Boggs, sat down with NPR after President Obama's health care summit last week.
He predicted a messy process ahead — one that could give important, but not unprecedented, power to current Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin. He knows the pressure Frumin faces: Dove, once a top aide to Republican Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, became an ex-parliamentarian nine years ago after a disagreement with GOP leaders over a rules interpretation.
NPR: What are the special rules the Senate must follow in debating and amending reconciliation legislation that contains changes to the already-approved House and Senate bills?
DOVE: Debate — that's easy: Total [Senate] debate on a reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours. Amendments, that's much harder. There is no limit to how many you can send. And you can send amendments of whatever length and have them read.
This seems to allow much room for the minority party to delay a vote on a reconciliation bill. How might this play out?
I can remember Sen. Dole sending up, attached to an amendment, the United States Code. [The code is the compilation of every Unites States law.] That got peoples' attention. After he had gotten what he wanted, he asked for unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
Doesn't that become a virtual filibuster?
It becomes a way of people forcing votes on many things that senators don't want to vote on. Despite the fact that amendments [to reconciliation bills] have to be germane and cannot violate the Byrd Rule [see below], that doesn't stop senators from sending amendments that are totally out of order, and then asking for a vote on waiving the Budget Act [rules] to allow them. That vote counts as a real vote and is used against senators who can claim they were protecting the budget process, but suddenly are on record as refusing to waive [rules] to deal with Guantanamo Bay, or trying terrorists in New York City. I can imagine the list of amendments that will be sent forward.
You mention that Senate reconciliation amendments are required to pass the "germane" test, which was in the original Budget Act, and also not violate the Byrd Rule, which was added later. What do those prescribe?
The germane test is very narrow: Basically, all you can do is play around the edges of something that's already in the bill. It doesn't mean because you're dealing with the subject matter of health care that anything dealing with health care is germane — not at all. It is a very nice test for people who have written the bill, because they know that things that they didn't deal with aren't going to be available as amendments on the floor.
But the Byrd Rule, which was adopted in 1985, complicated that? [The rule was named after Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who devised it as a budget-balancing maneuver.]
The initial Budget Act limited amendments by saying they had to be germane, but that was supplemented by the Byrd Rule. And that has a whole series of things that are not in order as amendments to reconciliation bills. Some are very simple. For example, any provision that has no effect on the budget — doesn't increase it, doesn't decrease it — is not in order. But some of them are very difficult. One test requires that if something actually does [affect the budget], it becomes the duty of the parliamentarian to go into the motives of why the provision is there.
How might that "motives provision" play out, given differences in the current Senate and House bills — including whether proposed federal subsidies may be used to purchase insurance plans that cover abortion?
In 1995 there was a provision that absolutely disallowed any federal funds for abortion. The Congressional Budget Office determined that it was going to save money. But it was my view that the provision was not there in order to save money. It was there to implement social policy. Therefore I ruled that it was not in order and it was stricken. That is a tough rule: to go into the motives of people who have either amendments, or have put provisions into bills.
What happens if senators disagree with the parliamentarian's ruling, and the presiding chair — whether it's Vice President Joe Biden, who is officially the Senate president, or a Democratic senator — rejects the recommendation and issues his or her own ruling?
Under the Budget Act, rulings by the chair can only be overturned by 60 votes. That means that the vice president or whoever is sitting in the chair, plus 41 senators, can effectively control the procedure. For Republicans to overturn a ruling of the vice president or presiding chair, they would not only need their 41 members, they would need 19 more votes to overturn.
Have you ever seen a Senate chair overrule the parliamentarian?
It could happen, but, so far, since Hubert Humphrey, who was vice president when I came to the Senate, that has not been the practice.
Do you agree, as some have suggested, that under the rules of Senate reconciliation, the country could end up with a health care bill shaped by the chamber's parliamentarian?
That would be correct if this was starting de novo as a reconciliation bill. It's not. There are already a lot of provisions in the Senate bill that was passed in December not under reconciliation. And those provisions will still apply — unless they are contradicted by reconciliation.
Related NPR Stories
Pelosi Says Votes Are There For Health Care March 1, 2010
Should We Thank Jim Bunning For His Knuckleball To The Senate? March 1, 2010
Reconciliation Path For Health Bill Stretches Vocabularies March 1, 2010
Health Care No Stranger To Reconciliation Process Feb. 24, 2010
ARE YOU REPRESENTED BY A HIGHWAY HYPOCRITE?
Click the header to find out!
Highway Hypocrites voted against the Recovery Act and spent the last year attacking it -- while praising it in letters requesting funds and press releases touting projects in their districts.
We've identified 118 Republican senators and representatives guilty of highway hypocrisy. But we know there are more.
Are you represented by a highway hypocrite?
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the Recovery Act created as many as 3.9 million jobs. But Highway Hypocrites already knew the Recovery Act was putting Americans to work across the country, they were simply attacking it to score political points.
We've identified just over half of all Republicans in Congress as Highway Hypocrites -- but we're on a campaign to expose them all. So we've got one question for every Republican who voted against the Recovery Act: How much Recovery Act money have you requested for your district?
Find out where your representatives stand on the Recovery Act now. If you are represented by a Republican who voted against the Recovery Act, use our easy online tool to write them a letter asking how much money they have requested.
We're hoping to build pressure to make them come clean. After all, shouldn't Republican members of Congress be proud of fighting to create jobs in their districts?
Highway Hypocrites voted against the Recovery Act and spent the last year attacking it -- while praising it in letters requesting funds and press releases touting projects in their districts.
We've identified 118 Republican senators and representatives guilty of highway hypocrisy. But we know there are more.
Are you represented by a highway hypocrite?
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the Recovery Act created as many as 3.9 million jobs. But Highway Hypocrites already knew the Recovery Act was putting Americans to work across the country, they were simply attacking it to score political points.
We've identified just over half of all Republicans in Congress as Highway Hypocrites -- but we're on a campaign to expose them all. So we've got one question for every Republican who voted against the Recovery Act: How much Recovery Act money have you requested for your district?
Find out where your representatives stand on the Recovery Act now. If you are represented by a Republican who voted against the Recovery Act, use our easy online tool to write them a letter asking how much money they have requested.
We're hoping to build pressure to make them come clean. After all, shouldn't Republican members of Congress be proud of fighting to create jobs in their districts?
A FINAL VOTE FOR HEALTH REFORM from PRES. OBAMA 3MAR10
Last Thursday's first-of-its-kind summit capped off a debate that has lasted nearly a year. Every idea has now been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Both parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable and gets more dire each day. Today, I want to state as clearly and forcefully as I know how: Now is the time to make a decision about the future of health care in America.
The final proposal I've put forward draws on the best ideas from all sides, including several put forward by Republicans at last week's summit. It will put Americans in charge of their own health care, ensuring that neither government nor insurance company bureaucrats can ration, deny, or put out of financial reach the care our families need and deserve.
I strongly believe that Congress now owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Reform has already passed the House with bipartisan support and the Senate with a super-majority of sixty votes. Now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that has been routinely used and has passed such landmark measures as welfare reform and both Bush tax cuts.
Earlier today, I asked leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And now, I'm asking you, the members of the Organizing for America community, to raise your voice and do the same.
The final march for reform has begun, and your participation is crucial. Please commit to join with me to take reform across the finish line.
Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system:
First, it would protect all Americans from the worst practices of insurance companies. Never again will the mother with breast cancer have her coverage revoked, see her premiums arbitrarily raised, or be forced to live in fear that a pre-existing condition will bar her from future coverage.
Second, my proposal would give individuals and small businesses the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. And my proposal says that if you still can't afford the insurance in this new marketplace, we will offer you tax credits based on your income -- tax credits that add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history.
Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for everyone -- families, businesses, and the federal government -- and bring down our deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. These savings mean businesses small and large will finally be freed up to create jobs and increase wages. With costs currently skyrocketing, reform is vital to remaining economically strong in the years and decades to come.
In the few crucial weeks ahead, you can help make sure this proposal becomes law. Please sign up to join the Organizing for America campaign in the final march for reform: Click the header to go to the OFA site to participate.
When I talked about change on the campaign, this is what I was talking about: coming together to solve a huge problem that has been troubling America for 100 years and standing up to the special interests to deliver a brighter, smarter future for generations to come.
I look forward to signing this historic reform into law. And when I do, it will be because your organizing played an essential role in making change possible.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
The final proposal I've put forward draws on the best ideas from all sides, including several put forward by Republicans at last week's summit. It will put Americans in charge of their own health care, ensuring that neither government nor insurance company bureaucrats can ration, deny, or put out of financial reach the care our families need and deserve.
I strongly believe that Congress now owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Reform has already passed the House with bipartisan support and the Senate with a super-majority of sixty votes. Now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that has been routinely used and has passed such landmark measures as welfare reform and both Bush tax cuts.
Earlier today, I asked leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And now, I'm asking you, the members of the Organizing for America community, to raise your voice and do the same.
The final march for reform has begun, and your participation is crucial. Please commit to join with me to take reform across the finish line.
Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system:
First, it would protect all Americans from the worst practices of insurance companies. Never again will the mother with breast cancer have her coverage revoked, see her premiums arbitrarily raised, or be forced to live in fear that a pre-existing condition will bar her from future coverage.
Second, my proposal would give individuals and small businesses the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. And my proposal says that if you still can't afford the insurance in this new marketplace, we will offer you tax credits based on your income -- tax credits that add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history.
Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for everyone -- families, businesses, and the federal government -- and bring down our deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. These savings mean businesses small and large will finally be freed up to create jobs and increase wages. With costs currently skyrocketing, reform is vital to remaining economically strong in the years and decades to come.
In the few crucial weeks ahead, you can help make sure this proposal becomes law. Please sign up to join the Organizing for America campaign in the final march for reform: Click the header to go to the OFA site to participate.
When I talked about change on the campaign, this is what I was talking about: coming together to solve a huge problem that has been troubling America for 100 years and standing up to the special interests to deliver a brighter, smarter future for generations to come.
I look forward to signing this historic reform into law. And when I do, it will be because your organizing played an essential role in making change possible.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
MORE SENATORS SIGN ON FOR HEALTHCARE REFORM DFA ACTION 3MAR10
Click the link to sign the letter to bring healthcare reform including the public option to a vote and passage by Congress.
We continue to build momentum proving the votes exist in the Senate to pass a public option using reconciliation, which requires only 50 votes plus Vice President Biden.
In only two weeks, we've gone from zero to 34 senators on the record. Eight Senators -- including Dick Durbin, the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat -- just this week. These Senators heard your phone calls and now they're helping lead the charge for the public option.
Thanks to your hard work, no other way forward on healthcare reform has more united support. The majority of Senate Democrats, the majority of House Democrats, and the majority of Americans all agree: It's time to pass a public option using reconciliation.
CO-SIGN THE LETTER CALLING FOR A PUBLIC OPTION USING RECONCILIATION
Here's all 34 Healthcare Heroes who've committed to voting YES:
Michael Bennet (CO) Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
Jeff Merkley (OR) Sherrod Brown (OH)
Patrick Leahy (VT) John Kerry (MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) Al Franken (MN)
Roland Burris (IL) Bernie Sanders (VT)
Barbara Boxer (CA) Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Frank Lautenberg (NJ) Chuck Schumer (NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (NH) Ted Kaufman (DE)
Debbie Stabenow (MI) Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Jack Reed (RI) Tom Udall (NM)
Arlen Specter (PA) Harry Reid (NV)
Robert Menendez (NJ) Tim Johnson (SD)
Daniel Inouye (HI) Carl Levin (MI)
Mark Udall (CO) Dick Durbin (IL)
Ben Cardin (MD) Amy Klobuchar (MN)
Jeff Bingaman (NM) Bob Casey (PA)
Patty Murray (WA) Ron Wyden (OR)
Day after day, we're naming names and proving the votes exist for the public option in reconciliation.
Some Democrats in Washington, including White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, keep saying the votes aren’t there, but they won't name the Senate Democrats who are villains of real reform.
It's time for Robert Gibbs and the White House to name names and be transparent about which Democrats are actually opposed to the public option. They have a responsibility to tell the country who is undermining the will of the American public -- who overwhelmingly support the public option over the Senate bill that lacks one.
ADD YOUR NAME TODAY
Democrats will pass healthcare reform this year. It's up to us to make sure it includes the most popular piece of reform.
Thank you for everything you do.
-Charles
Charles Chamberlain, Political Director
Democracy for America
We continue to build momentum proving the votes exist in the Senate to pass a public option using reconciliation, which requires only 50 votes plus Vice President Biden.
In only two weeks, we've gone from zero to 34 senators on the record. Eight Senators -- including Dick Durbin, the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat -- just this week. These Senators heard your phone calls and now they're helping lead the charge for the public option.
Thanks to your hard work, no other way forward on healthcare reform has more united support. The majority of Senate Democrats, the majority of House Democrats, and the majority of Americans all agree: It's time to pass a public option using reconciliation.
CO-SIGN THE LETTER CALLING FOR A PUBLIC OPTION USING RECONCILIATION
Here's all 34 Healthcare Heroes who've committed to voting YES:
Michael Bennet (CO) Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
Jeff Merkley (OR) Sherrod Brown (OH)
Patrick Leahy (VT) John Kerry (MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) Al Franken (MN)
Roland Burris (IL) Bernie Sanders (VT)
Barbara Boxer (CA) Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Frank Lautenberg (NJ) Chuck Schumer (NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (NH) Ted Kaufman (DE)
Debbie Stabenow (MI) Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Jack Reed (RI) Tom Udall (NM)
Arlen Specter (PA) Harry Reid (NV)
Robert Menendez (NJ) Tim Johnson (SD)
Daniel Inouye (HI) Carl Levin (MI)
Mark Udall (CO) Dick Durbin (IL)
Ben Cardin (MD) Amy Klobuchar (MN)
Jeff Bingaman (NM) Bob Casey (PA)
Patty Murray (WA) Ron Wyden (OR)
Day after day, we're naming names and proving the votes exist for the public option in reconciliation.
Some Democrats in Washington, including White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, keep saying the votes aren’t there, but they won't name the Senate Democrats who are villains of real reform.
It's time for Robert Gibbs and the White House to name names and be transparent about which Democrats are actually opposed to the public option. They have a responsibility to tell the country who is undermining the will of the American public -- who overwhelmingly support the public option over the Senate bill that lacks one.
ADD YOUR NAME TODAY
Democrats will pass healthcare reform this year. It's up to us to make sure it includes the most popular piece of reform.
Thank you for everything you do.
-Charles
Charles Chamberlain, Political Director
Democracy for America
THIS IS HOW WE STOP BLACKWATER from CREDO ACTION 3MAR10
Click on the header if you want to participate in this action and sign the petition.
Then read the article from MOJO 23FEB10 or copy and paste the link to go to the article yourself
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/02/blackwater-paravant-unauthorized-weapons-afghanistan-levin
There's finally a bill to stop private, for-profit companies like Blackwater from waging war in our name with little regard for anything beyond their bottom line.
More than 22,000 mercenaries are operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, and these unaccountable hired guns have shot civilians and participated in torture at Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities.
The Stop Outsourcing Security Act, just introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky, would prohibit hiring private mercenaries like Blackwater to perform tasks traditionally done by the military.
Click here to automatically sign our petition to urge your representative to co-sponsor the Stop Outsourcing Our Security Act.
Recent Congressional hearings have painted a dismal picture of Blackwater's operations. Employees stole hundreds of weapons meant for Afghan national police. They billed the U.S. government for a prostitute. They created a shell company called "Paravant" so they could keep getting government contracts after they trashed the Blackwater name.
But Blackwater is just the poster child for all that's wrong with hiring mercenaries for our military tasks. Contractors waste billions of taxpayer dollars while engaging in legally and ethically questionable activities. And when they commit morally repugnant acts like the killing civilians, they're doing so on our dime and in our name.
The Stop Outsourcing Our Security Act would ban private security contractors from performing military, security, law enforcement, intelligence, and armed rescue functions. The bill also imposes better transparency requirements on existing contracts, so firms like Blackwater that still have contracts would be forced to report their activities more frequently and would be under better Congressional oversight.
Such oversight is desperately needed for economic as well as human rights reasons. As the most contracted-out war in U.S. history, the conflict in Afghanistan is a model of fiscal irresponsibility. The Congressional Commission on Wartime Contracting called the billions of wasted taxpayer dollars "fiscal hemorrhaging."
And worst of all, the number of private military contractors operating in Iraq and Afghanistan just keeps growing. In fact, private mercenaries far outnumber U.S. military personnel. It's hard to tell the difference between a security contractor and a U.S. service person — and when these hired guns shoot civilians, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are rightly outraged at the United States.
It's past time we stopped wasting money and destroying lives with our reliance on mercenary contractors.
Click here to automatically sign the petition to ask your representative to co-sponsor the Stop Outsourcing Our Security Act and put an end to private contractors performing duties our military should.
Thank you for standing up to companies like Blackwater.
LiAnna Davis, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
P.S. It was recently reported that despite Blackwater's atrocious record, it is likely to get a $1 billion contract from the Department of Defense to train the Afghan police.
BLACKWATERS GUNRUNNERS from MOJO
Tue Feb. 23, 2010 6:00 PM PST
Blackwater improperly obtained hundreds of weapons intended for use by Afghanistan's already underequipped police force—and then falsely claimed to a Senate committee that the firearms had been returned when many remained unaccounted for.
According to a months-long investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee that unearthed a range of misconduct by the company's personnel, contractors working for a Blackwater subsidiary named Paravant operated recklessly and routinely violated military regulations. The inquiry also identified a series of major vetting lapses by the company, which employed at least one contractor it had previously fired for improper behavior in Iraq and others who abused alcohol and drugs, including steroids. The investigation paints a grim picture of the state of contracting oversight in Afghanistan, where, according to committee staffers, military officials missed multiple red flags calling Paravant's conduct into question—and were even confused about who was ultimately responsible for overseeing the company's work in the first place.
On Wednesday the committee will hold a hearing on Paravant, which, in the fall of 2008 inked a subcontract with Raytheon to train Afghan National Army troops. The work, worth about $20 million over two years, was carried out under a 10-year, $11.2 billion contract known as Warfighter FOCUS. Paravant, one of numerous subsidiaries incorporated by Blackwater founder Erik Prince, was created solely for the purposes of this subcontract. According to Brian McCracken, a former Paravant vice president who now works for Raytheon, Blackwater and Paravant were "one and the same." He said the subsidiary was created to avoid the "baggage" of Blackwater's scandal-tainted brand.
The committee, chaired by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), first began investigating Paravant last summer, following an episode on May 5 when off-duty Paravant trainers opened fire on an oncoming car, killing two Afghan civilians and wounding a third. Similar to fallout after Blackwater operators gunned down civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square, the episode outraged Afghans and, according to the Justice Department, "caused diplomatic difficulties" for State Department officials in Afghanistan.
In January, two of the contractors, Justin Cannon and Christopher Drotleff, were indicted on second-degree murder and firearms violations. (They maintain that they fired in self-defense.) Blackwater moved quickly to fire the pair, saying they had violated the company's policy prohibiting the consumption of alcohol. But Daniel Callahan, who initially represented the contractors, contends that the men were scapegoated. He claims Blackwater concocted the drinking charge as a pretext to fire them. What Blackwater wanted to cover up, he says, was that Cannon, Drotleff, and their Paravant colleagues were issued weapons they were unauthorized to carry. (A spokeswoman for Xe, as Blackwater is now known, did not respond to a request for comment.)
The information obtained by the committee, which combed through thousands of documents and conducted dozens of interviews, confirms widespread use of unauthorized weapons by Blackwater and Paravant personnel. And, say committee staffers, the shooting episode involving Cannon and Drotleff was not the first to involve Paravant contractors.
Five months earlier, in December 2008, a Paravant training team got the "wild idea" to take target practice from a speeding vehicle, according to the firm's former program manager, Johnnie Walker. The team's leader, Russell Cannon, mounted the car carrying an AK-47 and decided to "ride it like a stagecoach," Walker told the committee. When the vehicle hit a bump, Cannon's weapon discharged, striking a colleague in the head and seriously wounding him.
"The reckless disregard for weapons safety is particularly striking given that he and his team were hired for the specific purpose of teaching the Afghan National Army how to safely use their weapons," said Levin in a prepared statement.
The shooting was reported by Raytheon to the Army's Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation (PEO STRI), the military division overseeing the training contract. Yet, committee staffers say, PEO STRI officials took no steps to investigate the incident—and were unaware they had even received the report until Levin's investigators confronted them with it in October. "If the shooting had been investigated, PEO STRI would have seen that Paravant personnel were using weapons improperly and unsafely, with inadequate supervision, and that they were carrying weapons they were not supposed to have," said Levin. "If corrective action had been taken in December, the May 2009 shooting could have been avoided."
This was just one of a series of oversight lapses by military officials, who also told the committee of routinely seeing Paravant contractors in possession of weapons but never checking to see if they had the requisite approval to carry them. Meanwhile, Blackwater and Paravant personnel were apparently well aware they were violating regulations. In November 2008, for instance, Blackwater's country manager for Afghanistan, Ricky Chambers, requested Paravant personnel return the weapons they'd been issued. The reason? According to documents reviewed by the committee, the company was "expecting an investigation into Blackwater accountability in Iraq resulting from a lawsuit, and fear[ed] it will impact Blackwater accountability procedures in Afghanistan." Chambers later recommended against approaching the colonel in charge of training the Afghan security forces to receive formal approval to use weapons authorized under a separate contract. The official, Chambers said, "may ask too many questions."
Chambers, who declined to be interviewed by the committee, citing his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, eventually suggested Paravant contractors obtain weapons at a US-operated weapons depot outside of Kabul. Known as Bunker 22, the facility houses weapons and ammunition for the exclusive use of the Afghan National Police. According to the committee, Blackwater had previously acquired more than 500 AK-47s and other weapons from the facility, using them to arm contractors working for a variety of Blackwater-connected firms. The company was able to acquire the weapons via an inside connection with an official, Chief Warrant Officer Greg Sailer, who worked at the facility. Sailer was a one-time Navy colleague of Blackwater's then-armorer, JD Stratton. On multiple occasions, Sailer facilitated the handover of hundreds of weapons to Stratton and other Blackwater contractors—in at least two cases, without any paper trail documenting the transfer. In another case, when Sailer conveyed more than 200 AK-47s to Blackwater, the contractor who took custody of them signed them out under the name "Eric Cartman" or "Carjman"—an apparent reference to the South Park character. (A Blackwater lawyer told the committee that the company had never employed an individual by either name.)
Since June, Blackwater has claimed at least twice that the weapons had been returned to Bunker 22. As recently as February 20, Blackwater told the committee that the company had "return[ed] all Bunker 22 firearms that had been issued to Paravant personnel."
But, said Levin, "records obtained by the Committee prove the company's statements to be false." He added, "these are weapons that belonged to the Afghan National Police—not Blackwater. And it is only on the eve of this hearing that the company is giving the majority of them back to the Afghan government." (This is not the first time Blackwater has been accused of possessing weapons it wasn't supposed to have. In the past, the company has come under investigation for illegally smuggling assault weapons and silencers into Iraq.)
It's bad enough that Blackwater improperly obtained hundreds of weapons intended for the Afghan police, committee staffers say. Worse still, Paravant distributed them to a crew of poorly vetted contractors who should never have been carrying them at all. Records released in connection with the prosecution of Cannon and Drotleff indicate that both had records of misconduct and violent behavior. And the backgrounds of other Paravant recruits were equally checkered.
Take Sebastian Kucharski, an assistant team leader for Paravant who had previously been fired by Blackwater in Iraq following an alcohol-fueled altercation. Kucharski's name, say committee staffers, even appeared on Blackwater's internal "Do Not Hire" list. Yet Blackwater brought him back on—only to fire him again last May after he got into another fight, this time with military personnel. Then there's Karl Newman, a Paravant team leader, who was booted from the contract by the army after he attempted to "pull rank on a US Army Lieutenant." Paravant's ex-project manager, the aptly named Johnnie Walker, was let go after repeatedly violating the company's no-drinking policy. The committee's investigators found that other Paravant personnel were terminated for alcohol and drug use, including one contractor who was found in possession of steroids and hypodermic needles.
Committee staffers say Blackwater also took a cavalier approach to the supervision of its contractors. Following the shooting last May, Raytheon sent a written warning to Paravant for failing to exercise "sufficient command, control and oversight of its personnel." Paravant responded: "If [Raytheon] believes that Paravant needs to supervise all sucontractor personnel at all times… Paravant will need to submit a request for equitable adjustment for the additional personnel, security, and other costs of providing such '24-7' supervision throughout Afghanistan." In effect, say committee staff, Blackwater was seeking additional compensation for a duty it was already contractually obligated to perform—and in the process shirking responsibility for the actions of its personnel.
Oversight lapses in Afghanistan and Iraq have been well documented. And, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, the actions of contractors—and those of Blackwater personnel in particular—have potentially undermined US foreign policy goals in both theaters. As Levin pointed out, "Even one irresponsible act by contractor personnel can hurt the mission and put our troops in harm's way."
Then read the article from MOJO 23FEB10 or copy and paste the link to go to the article yourself
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/02/blackwater-paravant-unauthorized-weapons-afghanistan-levin
There's finally a bill to stop private, for-profit companies like Blackwater from waging war in our name with little regard for anything beyond their bottom line.
More than 22,000 mercenaries are operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, and these unaccountable hired guns have shot civilians and participated in torture at Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities.
The Stop Outsourcing Security Act, just introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky, would prohibit hiring private mercenaries like Blackwater to perform tasks traditionally done by the military.
Click here to automatically sign our petition to urge your representative to co-sponsor the Stop Outsourcing Our Security Act.
Recent Congressional hearings have painted a dismal picture of Blackwater's operations. Employees stole hundreds of weapons meant for Afghan national police. They billed the U.S. government for a prostitute. They created a shell company called "Paravant" so they could keep getting government contracts after they trashed the Blackwater name.
But Blackwater is just the poster child for all that's wrong with hiring mercenaries for our military tasks. Contractors waste billions of taxpayer dollars while engaging in legally and ethically questionable activities. And when they commit morally repugnant acts like the killing civilians, they're doing so on our dime and in our name.
The Stop Outsourcing Our Security Act would ban private security contractors from performing military, security, law enforcement, intelligence, and armed rescue functions. The bill also imposes better transparency requirements on existing contracts, so firms like Blackwater that still have contracts would be forced to report their activities more frequently and would be under better Congressional oversight.
Such oversight is desperately needed for economic as well as human rights reasons. As the most contracted-out war in U.S. history, the conflict in Afghanistan is a model of fiscal irresponsibility. The Congressional Commission on Wartime Contracting called the billions of wasted taxpayer dollars "fiscal hemorrhaging."
And worst of all, the number of private military contractors operating in Iraq and Afghanistan just keeps growing. In fact, private mercenaries far outnumber U.S. military personnel. It's hard to tell the difference between a security contractor and a U.S. service person — and when these hired guns shoot civilians, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are rightly outraged at the United States.
It's past time we stopped wasting money and destroying lives with our reliance on mercenary contractors.
Click here to automatically sign the petition to ask your representative to co-sponsor the Stop Outsourcing Our Security Act and put an end to private contractors performing duties our military should.
Thank you for standing up to companies like Blackwater.
LiAnna Davis, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
P.S. It was recently reported that despite Blackwater's atrocious record, it is likely to get a $1 billion contract from the Department of Defense to train the Afghan police.
BLACKWATERS GUNRUNNERS from MOJO
Tue Feb. 23, 2010 6:00 PM PST
Blackwater improperly obtained hundreds of weapons intended for use by Afghanistan's already underequipped police force—and then falsely claimed to a Senate committee that the firearms had been returned when many remained unaccounted for.
According to a months-long investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee that unearthed a range of misconduct by the company's personnel, contractors working for a Blackwater subsidiary named Paravant operated recklessly and routinely violated military regulations. The inquiry also identified a series of major vetting lapses by the company, which employed at least one contractor it had previously fired for improper behavior in Iraq and others who abused alcohol and drugs, including steroids. The investigation paints a grim picture of the state of contracting oversight in Afghanistan, where, according to committee staffers, military officials missed multiple red flags calling Paravant's conduct into question—and were even confused about who was ultimately responsible for overseeing the company's work in the first place.
On Wednesday the committee will hold a hearing on Paravant, which, in the fall of 2008 inked a subcontract with Raytheon to train Afghan National Army troops. The work, worth about $20 million over two years, was carried out under a 10-year, $11.2 billion contract known as Warfighter FOCUS. Paravant, one of numerous subsidiaries incorporated by Blackwater founder Erik Prince, was created solely for the purposes of this subcontract. According to Brian McCracken, a former Paravant vice president who now works for Raytheon, Blackwater and Paravant were "one and the same." He said the subsidiary was created to avoid the "baggage" of Blackwater's scandal-tainted brand.
The committee, chaired by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), first began investigating Paravant last summer, following an episode on May 5 when off-duty Paravant trainers opened fire on an oncoming car, killing two Afghan civilians and wounding a third. Similar to fallout after Blackwater operators gunned down civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square, the episode outraged Afghans and, according to the Justice Department, "caused diplomatic difficulties" for State Department officials in Afghanistan.
In January, two of the contractors, Justin Cannon and Christopher Drotleff, were indicted on second-degree murder and firearms violations. (They maintain that they fired in self-defense.) Blackwater moved quickly to fire the pair, saying they had violated the company's policy prohibiting the consumption of alcohol. But Daniel Callahan, who initially represented the contractors, contends that the men were scapegoated. He claims Blackwater concocted the drinking charge as a pretext to fire them. What Blackwater wanted to cover up, he says, was that Cannon, Drotleff, and their Paravant colleagues were issued weapons they were unauthorized to carry. (A spokeswoman for Xe, as Blackwater is now known, did not respond to a request for comment.)
The information obtained by the committee, which combed through thousands of documents and conducted dozens of interviews, confirms widespread use of unauthorized weapons by Blackwater and Paravant personnel. And, say committee staffers, the shooting episode involving Cannon and Drotleff was not the first to involve Paravant contractors.
Five months earlier, in December 2008, a Paravant training team got the "wild idea" to take target practice from a speeding vehicle, according to the firm's former program manager, Johnnie Walker. The team's leader, Russell Cannon, mounted the car carrying an AK-47 and decided to "ride it like a stagecoach," Walker told the committee. When the vehicle hit a bump, Cannon's weapon discharged, striking a colleague in the head and seriously wounding him.
"The reckless disregard for weapons safety is particularly striking given that he and his team were hired for the specific purpose of teaching the Afghan National Army how to safely use their weapons," said Levin in a prepared statement.
The shooting was reported by Raytheon to the Army's Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation (PEO STRI), the military division overseeing the training contract. Yet, committee staffers say, PEO STRI officials took no steps to investigate the incident—and were unaware they had even received the report until Levin's investigators confronted them with it in October. "If the shooting had been investigated, PEO STRI would have seen that Paravant personnel were using weapons improperly and unsafely, with inadequate supervision, and that they were carrying weapons they were not supposed to have," said Levin. "If corrective action had been taken in December, the May 2009 shooting could have been avoided."
This was just one of a series of oversight lapses by military officials, who also told the committee of routinely seeing Paravant contractors in possession of weapons but never checking to see if they had the requisite approval to carry them. Meanwhile, Blackwater and Paravant personnel were apparently well aware they were violating regulations. In November 2008, for instance, Blackwater's country manager for Afghanistan, Ricky Chambers, requested Paravant personnel return the weapons they'd been issued. The reason? According to documents reviewed by the committee, the company was "expecting an investigation into Blackwater accountability in Iraq resulting from a lawsuit, and fear[ed] it will impact Blackwater accountability procedures in Afghanistan." Chambers later recommended against approaching the colonel in charge of training the Afghan security forces to receive formal approval to use weapons authorized under a separate contract. The official, Chambers said, "may ask too many questions."
Chambers, who declined to be interviewed by the committee, citing his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, eventually suggested Paravant contractors obtain weapons at a US-operated weapons depot outside of Kabul. Known as Bunker 22, the facility houses weapons and ammunition for the exclusive use of the Afghan National Police. According to the committee, Blackwater had previously acquired more than 500 AK-47s and other weapons from the facility, using them to arm contractors working for a variety of Blackwater-connected firms. The company was able to acquire the weapons via an inside connection with an official, Chief Warrant Officer Greg Sailer, who worked at the facility. Sailer was a one-time Navy colleague of Blackwater's then-armorer, JD Stratton. On multiple occasions, Sailer facilitated the handover of hundreds of weapons to Stratton and other Blackwater contractors—in at least two cases, without any paper trail documenting the transfer. In another case, when Sailer conveyed more than 200 AK-47s to Blackwater, the contractor who took custody of them signed them out under the name "Eric Cartman" or "Carjman"—an apparent reference to the South Park character. (A Blackwater lawyer told the committee that the company had never employed an individual by either name.)
Since June, Blackwater has claimed at least twice that the weapons had been returned to Bunker 22. As recently as February 20, Blackwater told the committee that the company had "return[ed] all Bunker 22 firearms that had been issued to Paravant personnel."
But, said Levin, "records obtained by the Committee prove the company's statements to be false." He added, "these are weapons that belonged to the Afghan National Police—not Blackwater. And it is only on the eve of this hearing that the company is giving the majority of them back to the Afghan government." (This is not the first time Blackwater has been accused of possessing weapons it wasn't supposed to have. In the past, the company has come under investigation for illegally smuggling assault weapons and silencers into Iraq.)
It's bad enough that Blackwater improperly obtained hundreds of weapons intended for the Afghan police, committee staffers say. Worse still, Paravant distributed them to a crew of poorly vetted contractors who should never have been carrying them at all. Records released in connection with the prosecution of Cannon and Drotleff indicate that both had records of misconduct and violent behavior. And the backgrounds of other Paravant recruits were equally checkered.
Take Sebastian Kucharski, an assistant team leader for Paravant who had previously been fired by Blackwater in Iraq following an alcohol-fueled altercation. Kucharski's name, say committee staffers, even appeared on Blackwater's internal "Do Not Hire" list. Yet Blackwater brought him back on—only to fire him again last May after he got into another fight, this time with military personnel. Then there's Karl Newman, a Paravant team leader, who was booted from the contract by the army after he attempted to "pull rank on a US Army Lieutenant." Paravant's ex-project manager, the aptly named Johnnie Walker, was let go after repeatedly violating the company's no-drinking policy. The committee's investigators found that other Paravant personnel were terminated for alcohol and drug use, including one contractor who was found in possession of steroids and hypodermic needles.
Committee staffers say Blackwater also took a cavalier approach to the supervision of its contractors. Following the shooting last May, Raytheon sent a written warning to Paravant for failing to exercise "sufficient command, control and oversight of its personnel." Paravant responded: "If [Raytheon] believes that Paravant needs to supervise all sucontractor personnel at all times… Paravant will need to submit a request for equitable adjustment for the additional personnel, security, and other costs of providing such '24-7' supervision throughout Afghanistan." In effect, say committee staff, Blackwater was seeking additional compensation for a duty it was already contractually obligated to perform—and in the process shirking responsibility for the actions of its personnel.
Oversight lapses in Afghanistan and Iraq have been well documented. And, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, the actions of contractors—and those of Blackwater personnel in particular—have potentially undermined US foreign policy goals in both theaters. As Levin pointed out, "Even one irresponsible act by contractor personnel can hurt the mission and put our troops in harm's way."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)