Friday, May 8, 2009

Pay to Play Politics is Unacceptable for Health Care Reform


by Kevin Zeese / May 8th, 2009
Dissident Voice 

The Senate Finance Committee which has taken millions from the insurance industry, HMO’s, pharmaceutical industry – those that profit from health care in America only scheduled their donors to speak. 

You can see the C-SPAN and other videos on our new websiteProsperityAgenda.US. You can see the news reports from The Associated Press, Wall Street Journal, Politico, Democracy Now and National Public Radio which all carried stories about the protest. Prosperity Agenda is an economic justice project of the Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics. You can help us develop an economy for all, including a health care system for all, by participating – share your comments, ideas and strategies. Join our effort.

Last week Senator Richard Durbin said the banks “own” the Congress. This week it is evident, that when it comes to health care the health care profiteers own Congress, especially the Senate Finance Committee. If we do not put forward organized, aggressive, grass roots action we will see a swindle of the American people. In the name of false health care reform billions in tax payer dollars will go to campaign donors and the health care problem will continue to worsen.

It is time for concerted action.

We have the power to ensure health care for all in a national single payer health care program that ends the corruption of the health insurance industry, the HMO’s and the pharmaceutical industry.

We can do it … together.

Let’s make it happen.

Full article.





A Tsunami of Hunger Looms on the Horizon


The new working poor, as well as more families with young children, are threatening to overwhelm New York City's last hunger safety net.

A crisis is brewing and Carlos Rodriguez sees it in ever longer lines. "More work boots with plaster or paint on them," he says. "Guys clearly coming in from the work site."

A spokesperson for the Food Bank for New York City, Rodriguez has experienced tough times before, but not like this. "It takes a lot of pride for a New York construction worker to stand on the soup kitchen line. That's something I never saw, even during 9/11, during that recession."

Full Story

The Inequality of Environmental Pollution

Massive CIA Torture Cover-Up


Government Could Destroy Records in Hundreds of Guantanamo Cases

by Chisun Lee, ProPublica - May 7, 2009 11:07 am EDT 

A stockpile of documents about hundreds of Guantanamo Bay detainees, some written by the prisoners themselves, could be destroyed under a little-known provision of a federal court order the Bush administration obtained in 2004.

For four years, records in the prisoners' habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the legality of their detentions have been piling up in a secure federal facility in the Crystal City neighborhood of Arlington, Va. Because much of the information is classified, the 750 or so attorneys representing the prisoners are required to do and store all their work on-site.

The provision is part of a broad order (PDF) issued at the very outset of the habeas cases -- at the last official count in January, 220 cases remained -- that set rules for how sensitive documents and attorney access should be handled. It calls for the government to destroy all classified records given to, prepared by or kept by prisoners' lawyers -- including originals and copies of writings, photographs, videotapes, computer files and voice recordings -- when the cases end.

Case files already fill 40 to 50 locked file cabinets, and restricted computer drives hold still more. Documents include captives' letters, drawings and poems, their attorneys' notes from meetings with them, and reports of their interrogations, according to several lawyers who routinely access the files. In some cases they describe the capture, transfer and investigation of prisoners, the identities of their accusers, and the government's reasons for holding them. The lawyers estimate that a quarter to a third of the records have been marked classified.

Although the lawyers are forbidden to reveal classified details, they could include prisoners' personal accounts of abuses and interrogation procedures that have recently been described in secondhand reports. These voices have been missing, the New York Times noted today, because the government refuses to disclose prisoners' statements and their lawyers operate under a gag order.

Full storyA stockpile of documents about hundreds of Guantanamo Bay detainees, some written by the prisoners themselves, could be destroyed under a little-known provision of a federal court order the Bush administration obtained in 2004.

For four years, records in the prisoners' habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the legality of their detentions have been piling up in a secure federal facility in the Crystal City neighborhood of Arlington, Va. Because much of the information is classified, the 750 or so attorneys representing the prisoners are required to do and store all their work on-site.

The provision is part of a broad order (PDF) issued at the very outset of the habeas cases -- at the last official count in January, 220 cases remained -- that set rules for how sensitive documents and attorney access should be handled. It calls for the government to destroy all classified records given to, prepared by or kept by prisoners' lawyers -- including originals and copies of writings, photographs, videotapes, computer files and voice recordings -- when the cases end.

Case files already fill 40 to 50 locked file cabinets, and restricted computer drives hold still more. Documents include captives' letters, drawings and poems, their attorneys' notes from meetings with them, and reports of their interrogations, according to several lawyers who routinely access the files. In some cases they describe the capture, transfer and investigation of prisoners, the identities of their accusers, and the government's reasons for holding them. The lawyers estimate that a quarter to a third of the records have been marked classified.

Although the lawyers are forbidden to reveal classified details, they could include prisoners' personal accounts of abuses and interrogation procedures that have recently been described in secondhand reports. These voices have been missing, the New York Times noted today, because the government refuses to disclose prisoners' statements and their lawyers operate under a gag order.

Full story

GM new jobs will be filled by workers overseas.


Under Restructuring, GM To Build More Cars Overseas
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Friday, May 8, 2009

The U.S. government is pouring billions into General Motors in hopes of reviving the domestic economy, but when the automaker completes its restructuring plan, many of the company's new jobs will be filled by workers overseas.

According to an outline the company has been sharing privately with Washington legislators, the number of cars that GM sells in the United States and builds in Mexico, China and South Korea will roughly double.

Full story

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Uncle Sam gets stressed


Uncle Sam gets stressed

Treasury releases its evaluations of top banks' financial health -- but the federal budget reveals that the government's own fiscal position is shaky.

By Mike Madden

May 8, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- Would the United States government passa stress test?

It was hard to resist asking the question Thursday. Through some unfortunate timing, the Obama administration's top economic and financial officials spent the day releasing both a detailed federal budget and the results of the Treasury Department's examination of the country's biggest banks. Not surprisingly, the spin on each, coming out of the White House, was that things were looking better.

"We must build a government of the 21st century -- a government that is more efficient and more effective," President Obama said in the morning, touting the programs his budget would eliminate for wasting federal money. "Today we have taken an important step toward building this kind of government -- not just for this generation of Americans, but for the sake of generations to come."

...What Republicans in Congress didn't mention, though Conant did, is the essentially make-believe nature of the proposed cuts, anyway. Just about every program in the federal budget has some kind of constituency out there, and some lawmaker is virtually guaranteed to fight to keep every cent of the $17 billion Obama wants to cut. Like the less-detailed budget blueprint Obama put out in February, none of what the administration released Thursday will become law on its own. Congress sets the actual funding levels for all the discretionary spending the budget covers; Obama can veto, or threaten to veto, their appropriations bills, but all the paper the White House shoveled out about the budget amounts to nothing more than a declaration of his negotiating position on the matter....

full article

Torture and Civilization


Torture and Civilization

Christopher Orr weighs in with a utilitarian argument about why torture is bad:

When a group of combatants are badly outnumbered, or surrounded, or otherwise very, very unlikely to win a conflict, they have a considerable incentive to surrender - but only if they believe they will subsequently be treated with mercy.That is why individuals, and nations, surrender. The humane treatment of surrendered captives, therefore, is a crucial — arguably the crucial — understanding between adversaries if their conflict is to end in any way other than with the wholesale slaughter of the losers.

If arguments like this persuade anyone, I'm all for them.  Any port in a storm.  But ultimately these exercises in logic chopping never work.  Is torture OK against an enemy that refuses to give up?  Is torture OK in a non-combat setting?  Is torture OK if you somehow convince yourself that it will save the lives of your enemy in the long run by ending the war sooner?  In the end, you can always chop the logic a little bit finer if you're minded to.  It just doesn't work.

I don't have either the vocabulary or the literary sensibility to explain with any eloquence why I oppose torture, so I usually stay out of conversations like this.  Besides, they depress the hell out of me.  But for the record, it goes something like this.

I don't care about the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law.  I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment."  I don't care about the difference between uniformed combatants and terrorists.  I don't care whether it "works."  I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; I oppose even moderate abuse of helpless detainees; I oppose abuse of criminal suspects and religious heretics as much as I oppose it during wartime; and I oppose it even if it produces useful information.

The whole point of civilization is as much moral advancement as it is physical and technological advancement.  But that moral progress comes slowly and very, very tenuously.  In the United States alone, it took centuries to decide that slavery was evil, that children shouldn't be allowed to work 12-hour days on power looms, and that police shouldn't be allowed to beat confessions out of suspects.

On other things there's no consensus yet.  Like it or not, we still make war, and so does the rest of the world.  But at least until recently, there was a consensus that torture is wrong.  Full stop.  It was the practice of tyrants and barbarians.  But like all moral progress, the consensus on torture is tenuous, and the only way to hold on to it — the only way to expand it — is by insisting absolutely and without exception that we not allow ourselves to backslide.  Human nature being what it is — savage, vengeful, and tribal — the temptations are just too great.  Small exceptions will inevitably grow into big ones, big ones into routine ones, and the progress of centuries is undone in an eyeblink.

Somebody else could explain this better than me.  But the consensus against torture is one of our civilization's few unqualified moral advances, and it's a consensus won only after centuries of horror and brutality.  We just can't lose it.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/04/torture-and-civilization


Meanwhile, Obama Readies 21,000 More Troops


After US Strikes, Afghans Describe 'Tractor Trailers Full of Pieces of Human Bodies;' Meanwhile, Obama Readies 21,000 More Troops


As rage spreads in Afghanistan after US bombing that killed up to 130 people, unnamed Pentagon officials are spinning another cover-up. Defiant Obama moves ahead with troop increase.

by Jeremy Scahill

As President Barack Obama prepares to send some 21,000 more US troops into Afghanistan, anger is rising in the western province of Farah, the scene of a US bombing massacre that may have killed as many as 130 Afghans, including 13 members of one family. At least six houses were bombed and among the dead and wounded are women and children. As of this writing reports indicate some people remain buried in rubble. The US airstrikes happened on Monday and Tuesday. Just hours after Obama met with US-backed president Hamid Karzai Wednesday, hundreds of Afghans—perhaps as many as 2,000— poured into the streets of the provincial capital, chanting “Death to America.” The protesters demanded a US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

In Washington, Karzai said he and the US occupation forces should operate from a “higher platform of morality,” saying, “We must be conducting this war as better human beings,” and recognize that “force won’t buy you obedience.” And yet, his security forces opened fire on the demonstrators, reportedly wounding five people.

continued

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Economic Casualties Pile Into Tent Cities

Economic Casualties Pile Into Tent Cities

by Emily Bazar

PINELLAS COUNTY, Fla. - Jim Marshall recalls everything about that beautiful fall day.

The temperature was about 70 degrees on Nov. 19, the sky was "totally blue," and the laughter from a martini bar drifted into the St. Petersburg park where Marshall, 39, sat contemplating his first day of homelessness.

"I was thinking, 'That was me at one point,' " he says of the revelers. "Now I'm thinking, 'Where am I going to sleep tonight? Where do I eat? Where do I shower?' "

The unemployed Detroit autoworker moved to Florida last year hoping he'd have better luck finding a job. He didn't, and he spent three months sleeping on sidewalks before landing in a tent city in Pinellas County, north of St. Petersburg, on Feb. 26.

Marshall is among a growing number of the economic homeless, a term for those newly displaced by layoffs, foreclosures or other financial troubles caused by the recession. They differ from the chronic homeless, the longtime street residents who often suffer from mental illness, drug abuse or alcoholism.

For the economic homeless, the American ideal that education and hard work lead to a comfortable middle-class life has slipped out of reach. They're packing into motels, parking lots and tent cities, alternately distressed and hopeful, searching for work and praying their fortunes will change.

"My parents always taught me to work hard in school, graduate high school, go to college, get a degree and you'll do fine. You'll do better than your parents' generation," Marshall says. "I did all those things. ... For a while, I did have that good life, but nowadays that's not the reality."

Tent cities and shelters from California to Massachusetts report growing demand from the newly homeless. The National Alliance to End Homelessness predicted in January that the recession would force 1.5 million more people into homelessness over the next two years. Already, "tens of thousands" have lost their homes, Alliance President Nan Roman says.

The $1.5 billion in new federal stimulus funds for homelessness prevention will help people pay rent, utility bills, moving costs or security deposits, she says, but it won't be enough.

"We're hearing from shelter providers that the shelters are overflowing, filled to capacity," says Ellen Bassuk, president of the National Center on Family Homelessness. "The number of families on the streets has dramatically increased."

'A change in the population'

Pinellas Hope, the tent city run by Catholic Charities here since December 2007, has been largely for the chronically homeless, some of whom suffer from mental illness or struggle with drugs or alcohol.

About 20% of its 240 residents became homeless recently because of the economic downturn, says Frank Murphy, president of Catholic Charities, Diocese of St. Petersburg.

"We're seeing a change in the population. ... We're seeing a lot more that are just plain losing their jobs and their homes," says Sheila Lopez, chief operating officer of the charity. "A lot are either job-ready or working but have lost their home because they were laid off, or their apartment, and now can't go to work because they're not shaven, they're not clean, they're living in a car, or they're living on the street."

The charity plans to expand the tent city and build an encampment in a neighboring county, an idea that has drawn objections from nearby homeowners and businesses.

Communities elsewhere are facing similar pressures:

  • In Massachusetts, a record number of homeless families need emergency shelter, says Robyn Frost, executive director of the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless. In mid-April, there were 2,763 families in shelters, including 655 in motels because the shelters were full, an increase of 36% since July, she says.

"We have a high number of foreclosure properties, and many of them are multifamily apartments," Frost says. "We were seeing a great number of families being displaced."

  • Reno officials shut down a tent city in October after making more shelter space available, but new encampments are popping up along the Truckee River and elsewhere, says Kelly Marschall of the Reno Area Alliance for the Homeless.

The homeless include "a startling number of first-time homeless," she says. "We asked them what industries they were involved in. The majority were talking about construction, the housing industry, real estate. There was a direct correlation to the housing market crash."

  • In Santa Barbara, Calif., 84 men and women sleep in their cars, trucks or recreational vehicles in 17 parking lots around the city, says Jason Johnson with the New Beginnings Counseling Center, which runs the RV Safe Parking Program. The city, which allows the use of three municipal lots at night, supports the program, says city parking superintendent Victor Garza. Last May, there were 58 participants and no waiting list. Now 40 people are waiting.

"People's last refuge has become their vehicle," Johnson says.

Objections by residents

Pinellas Hope in Florida looks like a cookie-cutter subdivision, except that the orderly rows are of tents, not houses. Besides 250 tents, all of similar size, shape and color, there are 15 wooden sheds, 6 feet by 8 feet, that Catholic Charities built as shelters.

The charity plans to reduce the number of tents to 150 and erect 100 sheds, which are more durable, and build as many as 80 permanent studio apartments on the property, Murphy says.

His group also wants to open a campground for 240 homeless people in neighboring Hillsborough County, he says, primarily using wooden sheds.

Unlike Pinellas Hope, which doesn't border residential neighborhoods, the Hillsborough County parcel is across the street from a tidy 325-home subdivision called East Lake Park. There, opponents of the tent city have a website: www.stoptentcity.com.

Hal and Cindy Hart are raising three grandchildren in their home on the lake. The kids, 4 to 13, fish for bass, ride their bikes to friends' houses and attend neighborhood parties.

The Harts fear that large numbers of homeless people, some with addictions and criminal backgrounds, would loiter in the neighborhood. "We will not be able to let our grandchildren ride their bikes outside without constant supervision," says Hal Hart, 52, a paralegal.

The Harts agree that the homeless population needs services, but they think the emphasis should be on programs that will help families, not single adults.

Murphy says the diocese wants to address the neighbors' concerns and has lowered the number of proposed occupants from 500.

'A temporary situation'

Pinellas Hope, which has a waiting list of about 150 people, is attracting a growing stream of homeless men, women and couples. Families with children are sent to area shelters.

New arrivals must agree to rules, such as not using drugs or alcohol, and perform chores, Lopez says. They get mats, sleeping bags, toiletries, flip-flops for showers and lockable boxes in their tents to store valuables. Within one week, they must make a plan describing how they will work their way out of homelessness.

Residents are expected to move on within five months, but some stay longer. Campers have access to trailers with bathrooms, showers, computers, washers and dryers and a room of donated clothes. They get a free bus pass the first month and advice on writing résumés.

By day, some leave camp to look for work or ride the bus to pass the time. Others stay, watching TV in large communal tents, doing laundry or playing Monopoly. At night, an off-duty police officer patrols the camp, which is governed by curfews: 10:30 p.m. on weeknights and midnight Fridays and Saturdays.

The camp bustles at dinnertime, when everyone gathers for a hot meal provided by churches and other organizations.

A year ago, there were 5,500 homeless people in Pinellas County, says St. Petersburg police officer Richard Linkiewicz, a homeless-outreach officer. This year, there are 7,500, including 1,300 children in homeless families, he says.

Many of the newly homeless worked in construction, a booming industry in Florida before the economic bust, he says.

David Grondin, 48, moved in on Feb. 7 and stayed for two months. A union carpenter, he graduated from the University of South Florida in 1999 with a bachelor's degree in fine arts.

He struggled as carpentry work and odd jobs disappeared. When his 1992 Saturn died in August, he could no longer get to jobs far from public transportation routes.

Frustrated by his inability to find a job in Florida, last month Grondin took a bus to Portland, Maine, where he's staying with friends and looking for carpentry work. "I was definitely middle class," he says. "I had a car. I got a paycheck every week."

Kevin Shutt, 53, moved into Pinellas Hope in March after he was laid off from his job waiting tables because diners "stopped coming through the doors," he says.

Shutt has decorated his tent with house plants, including a ficus tree his mother gave him nearly 30 years ago, and pinned Tampa Bay Rays and Buccaneers jerseys to the inside walls.

He tearfully recounts how he got kicked out of his apartment by a roommate when he couldn't come up with the rent. A former homeowner who made Caesar salads tableside at restaurants, now he can't get a job at Taco Bell, he says. "This is the first time in my life I ever dreamed about living in a tent," he says.

An optimist by nature, Shutt vows that his stay will be short. He has filled out more than 175 job applications and occasionally works for a friend doing canvas work on boats. "This is a temporary situation," he says.

A diminished outlook

Marshall, the former autoworker, has an associate's degree in electronic engineering and is less encouraged.

He remembers a comfortable life in Michigan, where he worked in automotive testing, owned a brick ranch-style home, made up to $50,000 a year and played in softball leagues.

Companies he worked for started losing contracts a few years ago, and eventually the work dried up, he says. He sold his house and moved into an apartment, but by 2007 he couldn't pay the rent.

He came to Florida in August, thinking the job market was better. But he couldn't pay the rent here, either.

At Pinellas Hope, Marshall searches online job sites or takes the bus to apply for work at McDonald's, factories and Wal-Mart. He gets $45 a week selling his blood plasma.

"I have my résumé online. I go door to door. I make phone calls," he says. "I have not received one phone call, one e-mail. I thought with my experience and my degree, it wouldn't be this difficult."

Marshall feels ill at ease in the camp and has trouble sleeping, and not just because of the armadillos that burrow under his tent. "I'm scared," he says. "If I can't find a job, where do I go next?"

At this point, he has lowered his expectations. "I don't expect ever to make $50,000 a year working in the auto industry, but just enough to survive, have my own place, buy my own food, my own clothes," he says. "What every American would expect."

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Why Dem Senators Screwed Homeowners

Because they can...

In Their Own Words: Why Dem Senators Screwed Homeowners

Posted by Ryan Grim, Huffington Post at 12:50 PM on May 1, 2009.


Only 45 Senate Democrats voted Thursday to oppose the banking industry and pass legislation aimed at stemming foreclosures.


Only 45 Senate Democrats voted Thursday to oppose the banking industry and pass legislation aimed at stemming foreclosures. The bill would have allowed bankruptcy judges to allow homeowners who met strict conditions to renegotiate mortgages -- a process known as cramdown. It would have only applied to mortgages entered into before 2009.

Earlier in the week, the measure's lead proponent, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), concluded that banks "frankly own the place."

Of course, the 11 Democrats who voted "no" have a more charitable view of their own motivations. So we asked them what their reasoning was. In their own words, here is how (those we could find) explained their vote:

Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): "A number of things. I thought the 31 percent is an arbitrary number. I think there are a whole lot of folks, are likely folks, out there who have little debt outside their home who could -- I just thought it was an arbitrary number and I didn't like the way it was constructed."

Dorgan is referring to the percentage of a person's income that a judge could determine should be dedicated to paying the monthly mortgage. The figure is roughly in line with what financial analysts agree is appropriate.

Is Durbin right? Do banks own the Senate?

"I don't know who he's speaking about," said Dorgan. "He worked on this for a long, long time. And I wish they would have found a way to reach an agreement that would have allowed the legislation to get through...I don't know the context of which he said that."

Is the bill totally finished? "I don't know. I think I wish they had found some middle ground by which they could have moved a piece of legislation. They didn't do that. And you know, this legislation went well beyond subprime, as you know."

Ben Nelson (D-Neb.): "I've not supported the cramdown for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I hate to see that authority to determine what the future contract is ceded to the court."

Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who ultimately voted yes: "My concern about this is that in our appropriate zeal to help the four or five percent of Americans who might be faced with bankruptcy, we don't unduly raise the costs of homeownership on the 95 percent who never will."

Tom Carper (D-Del.): "One of the reasons why usually mortgage rates are cheaper for primary homes is that the markets have the certainty that the judge won't be invited to come in and change the terms of the mortgage."

Of course, the Senate package only included mortgages pre-2009, so interest rates on future mortgages would be unaffected. So what would it take to get Carper's vote?

"We talked earlier about limiting the range of the mortgages that can be modified from those originated, say, in 2003 to maybe through 2007. That would've been very helpful. The other thing is, the House has a provision that says if a mortgage is modified on behalf of a homeowner and later on that homeowner sells the house and realizes the profit--the House has a provision that if the lender participates, the first year [the lender recoups] 90 percent [of that profit], second year is 70 percent, third year is 50 percent, fourth year, 30 percent. I thought that was a better formula for participation. So those two points would have done it for me. Not that that would have made the bill perfect, but it would have done it for me. And it's unfortunate we didn't have a chance, given the nature of the agreement, announced by Senator Reid, that we wouldn't have a chance to offer any amendments."

Is Durbin right about who owns the Senate?

"The banks sure don't think so. My guess is they don't feel like they have much [power] at all. Let me just say, I don't that's true. Not even close. But we could have had this provision--could have passed something close to what was on the floor--could have passed if we'd had, maybe on the floor, a chance to perfect it."

Could it come back again?

"My guess is we're not going to see this again."

Really?

"I don't think we're going to see this again."

Jon Tester (D-Mont.): "I just think a deal's a deal. I have a lot of empathy for folks who tend to get led astray, but I just think it's going to create some problems -- pretty obvious, actually. I don't have to list them. I'm generally opposed. I don't think it works well."

Mary Landrieu (D-La.): "My community bankers are really opposed to it and I think it's important for people to realize there is a big difference right now in the country between the health of these large international financial institutions and our local community banks...I think we gotta be careful about adopting processes and procedures that would really hurt our community banks."

The Huffington Post asked a few Republicans, too, since they still do, after all, vote.

Mel Martinez (R-Fla.): "We're working through this crisis. It's not quite as impending an issue as it may have been four months ago, because I think we're beginning to ease -- the crisis is sort of working its way through."

George Voinovich (R-Ohio): "I evaluated it and it harms more than it helps. It's the precedent that it sets in terms of a lot of people who are out there quite frankly very responsible. Our credit unions were giving money to people who were responsible. You've got some people who were being very responsible and doing their job and come to you and say if this happens we're going to have to change the interest rate, recalculate. I mean, I want to encourage those people. I don't want to discourage them."

Susan Collins (R-Maine), on how her vote will play at home: "I think it'll play just fine, because I view it as increasing the costs for homeowners, so it just wasn't the right approach." 


A yes vote, John Kerry (D-Mass.), also weighed in: "They don't own me and I'm in the Senate. I think it's unfortunate. I don't know what the rationale is behind people's votes. I don't know what motivates -- some senators don't like changing of a contract. Some senators don't like to have courts have the power. There are different reasons."

Millions of different reasons, perhaps.

Digg!