Derrick's Progressive News
[World on fire photo]
Progressive News Contents
House Votes to Repeal Antitrust Exemption for Health Insurers
Tax Status Of Lawmakers' Religious Refuge Disputed
A Democrat In Need Of A Little Financial Help
Just For Fun: Britain's Got Talent: "A Dog Meowing" (VIDEO)
"The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" has over 7,200,000 views, but this sequel video makes the better argument. And now even Greg Craven’s 7-hour video series (that answers in simple terms every climat denier argument) has been trumped by the book: "What's the Worst That Could Happen? A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate." Available from Amazon and others through the links at www.gregcraven.org .. Author Bill McKibben said "This book trumps most of our accounts of the global warming crisis," the former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. CENTCOM Gen. Anthony Zinni called it "innovative and intelligent.... superbly crafted.... A must read," and the New Scientist said "If Craven could get everybody who has weighed in on this debate to go through the exercises in the book, Al Gore should share his Nobel peace prize."
On Amazon: http://snurl.com/kjpvp
This funny piece shows exactly why even global warming skeptics should take global warming seriously.
Share it with your climate change denier friends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
Fed Up With The Filibuster
The unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate today forces a rethinking and modernization of the filibuster rule.
If you're as fed up with the filibuster as I am, please sign my petition to fix it today.
It's time to end the filibuster as we know it.
The American people are sick of process blocking progress. They're fed up with an arbitrary tradition that allows a minority of Senators to prevent popular, much-needed legislation from even coming to a vote. They're exasperated with Republicans' veiled attempts to kill meaningful reform -- pleas for "more time" and "starting from scratch" -- which were on full display at yesterday's White House health care summit.
Frankly, so am I.
From the public option to financial reform, a few dozen Senate Republicans have used the threat of a filibuster dozens and dozens of times, blocking much of the sweeping change voters demanded when they elected President Obama and strong Democratic majorities to Congress. The right-wing obstructionists consistently misuse and abuse the filibuster simply to score political points, at the expense of the American people.
The Harkin-Shaheen proposal would continue to provide ample time for a minority of Senators to voice their concerns about legislation and seek changes. But it would eliminate the permanent 60-vote cloture requirement to overcome a filibuster, gradually reducing the necessary vote threshold as debate continues, preventing the minority from using the procedural tactic to obstruct progress indefinitely.
Commonsense proposals like this would allow a simple majority of Senators to end an obstructionist filibuster if it has dragged on for several days or weeks. And they would allow Congress to get back into the business of sending popular, much-needed legislation -- like a strong health care reform bill -- to the President's desk.
Changing the filibuster is no pipe dream. In fact, back in the 1970s the Senate successfully amended what was a 67-vote cloture requirement to the current 60-vote requirement.
But the unprecedented obstructionism we find in the Senate today forces another rethinking and modernization of the filibuster rule.
When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and drafted the initial rules of the Senate, they never intended requiring a supermajority to pass any and all legislation. They just wanted to be sure that Senators took time to carefully debate and consider bills before taking votes. That's exactly what reforms like the Harkin-Shaheen proposal will do.
We cannot continue to allow a minority of Senators to paralyze progress. Together we can restore majority rule and make Congress work for the American people again.
Sincerely,
Dick Durbin
U.S. Senator
P.S. After you've signed the petition, please forward this email to everyone you know. It's time to step up, speak out, and fix the filibuster -- once and for all.
Paid for by Friends of Dick Durbin
Local businesses are educating communities, changing economic policies, and even outperforming chain competitors.
by Jeff Milchen | Published on Friday, February 26, 2010 by YES! Magazine | Link
The 2009 holiday season was a tough one for retail businesses. In November, their sales increased just 1.8 percent over low 2008 numbers-failing to keep pace with inflation. December was worse, with sales actually falling three tenths of a percent from 2008.
But in more than a hundred communities across North America, independent community-based businesses had a more positive story to tell. A nationwide survey of more than 1,800 independent businesses by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) found them outperforming chain competitors. Most notably, the survey found independent retailers in communities with active "Buy Independent" or "Buy Local" campaigns reported an increase in holiday sales three times stronger (up three percent) than those in cities without such campaigns (up one percent).
Given the current inflation rate of 2.7 percent, the benefit of such campaigns could mean the difference between success and failure for many store owners. "Amid the worst downturn in more than 60 years, independent businesses are succeeding by emphasizing their community roots and local ownership," says Stacy Mitchell, who executed the survey.
Jennifer Rockne directs the American Independent Business Alliance (AMIBA), a nonprofit organization supporting 70 "Independent Business Alliances" across North America. She concurs with Mitchell, saying "When executed well, these campaigns are making a huge difference for local businesses and their communities."
The increased interest in buying local isn't lost on store owners. In a recent survey of its members, the Portland Independent Business and Community Alliance in Maine found 84 percent of its member businesses reported its "Buy Indie / Buy Local" campaign and related activities had positively impacted their business-that number has increased with each year.
Critics of "go local" movements warn that buying local deprives people in the Global South of jobs that could lift them out of poverty. But are multinationals really helping?
The ILSR survey respondents hail from communities of widely varying size, geography and political leanings, but share an important quality. Like Portland, they gain support from AMIBA or the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE) and engage in year-round, long-term community education that goes beyond mere consumer choices to focus on local independent business.
Mitchell and Rockne view many "buy local" campaigns started by government entities or chambers of commerce with some skepticism. "Many are launched without long-term commitment and are motivated by desire to boost city sales tax revenues, not concern for local entrepreneurs or community character," warns Mitchell, who detailed the escalating problem of "local washing" last year. The term describes campaigns by some cities, chambers of commerce, and corporate chains to define a "local" business as merely a nearby location without regard to the crucial distinction between local and corporate ownership.
Rockne questions whether such campaigns can yield measurable impact and notes a key framing issue. "While we ask people to shift more of their spending to local independents, consumer choices alone cannot halt many of our destructive environmental, social and business trends," he says. "We need to exercise our power as citizens as well."
Why? Countless chains benefit from tax loopholes, subsidies, federal handouts and other preferential treatment that undermines fair competition and handicaps community-based businesses. Both ILSR and AMIBA help citizens to reverse such destructive government action and advance myriad pro-local measures, from local purchasing and contracting preferences to policies that promote neighborhood-scale building and prevent big box sprawl.
AMIBA is walking the talk of democratic action as one of four organizations to launch Free Speech for People, a coalition gathering support for a constitutional amendment to overrule Citizens United v FEC. The recent Supreme Court ruling granted corporations the power to spend unlimited company funds in efforts to elect or defeat judicial and political candidates. While recognizing the primary threat to our Constitution, indie business advocates also worry because, even prior to this ruling, corporate chains had little trouble translating their wealth into political favors such as those noted above.
AMIBA's presence in the coalition has helped curtail previously routine media references to the Roberts Court as "pro-business" and has created some surprisingly honest reporting in major business news outlets. "High Court Wallops Small Business" was the title of a recent Kiplinger's brief on the case.
While Rockne embraces this role, she focuses on the core mission of helping people to effectively execute local campaigns. She expects to see 100 Independent Business Alliances by year's end.
Mitchell believes the recession creates added opportunity. "Recycling capital locally by spending and investing more with local independents is powerful economic stimulus for communities," she notes. "As the evidence builds that Buy Independent and Buy Local campaigns can actually shift consciousness and purchasing choices, we're seeing interest and results grow even more rapidly."
Jeff Milchen wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Jeff is a co-founder of the American Independent Business Alliance, which hosts its second international gathering for advocates of community-based enterprise in Tampa April 8-11.
Interested?
Slow Money: Bringing Money Back to Earth Interview with Woody Tasch
Is there such a thing as money that's too fast? Slow Money founder Woody Tasch says yes, and he's trying to slow money down by connecting investors to their local economies.
Growing Local: Interview with Michelle Long
By working with local businesses, Michelle Long helped make Bellingham, Washington a national leader in urban sustainability. With BALLE, she's taking her vision to cities around North America.
House Votes to Repeal Antitrust Exemption for Health Insurers
February 24, 2010 Link
Charles Baccus provided this article/link.
Washington (CNN) - The House voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to repeal the antitrust exemption currently granted to health insurance companies.
The vote was 406-19 to repeal the exemption, which has been in place since the end of World War II. The 19 who voted against the repeal are all Republicans.
Liberal Democrats have said a repeal would help inject new competition into the health care industry while reducing consumer costs.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday that President Barack Obama strongly supports the repeal. "At its core, health reform is all about ensuring that American families and businesses have more choices, benefit from more competition and have greater control over their own health care," Gibbs said.
"Repealing this exemption is an important part of that effort.
Gibbs said the president is not seeking repeal of the exemption in lieu of broader changes to the insurance market. "This is a complementary step along the way," he told reporters.
The debate in the House on Wednesday included a colorful moment between Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-New York, and Republicans.
"You guys have chutzpah," Weiner told Republicans during the debate.
"The Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry," he said, drawing the objections of Republicans, who asked that his words be stricken from the record.
Weiner then asked for unanimous consent to replace his words and said, "Every single Republican I have ever met in my entire life is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry."
The Republicans objected again, prompting Weiner to rescind his words.
The House version of the health care bill passed last year would have removed the antitrust exemption, while the Senate's version would not.
Advocates of an exemption repeal say that the exemption has allowed health insurance companies to essentially divide the country into geographic zones. They argue the companies benefit from what amounts to local monopolies.
Industry defenders, in turn, point out that insurers are still subject to state regulations. They claim the impact of an exemption repeal is overblown.
Administration officials and their allies in Congress have taken an increasingly tough stance against the unpopular insurance industry. Among other things, Obama's latest proposal for health care reform would give the federal government new authority to block excessive rate hikes by health insurers.
Specifically, Obama's plan calls for the secretary of health and human services to work with a seven-member board made up of doctors, economists, and consumer and insurance representatives to review premium hikes.
The board - to be known as the Health Insurance Rate Authority - would provide an annual report to recommend to states whether certain rate increases should be approved, although the secretary could overrule state insurance regulators.
February 22, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Dick Quinn provided this article/link.
O.K., the beast is starving. Now what? That’s the question confronting Republicans. But they’re refusing to answer, or even to engage in any serious discussion about what to do.
For readers who don’t know what I’m talking about: ever since Reagan, the G.O.P. has been run by people who want a much smaller government. In the famous words of the activist Grover Norquist, conservatives want to get the government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
But there has always been a political problem with this agenda. Voters may say that they oppose big government, but the programs that actually dominate federal spending — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — are very popular. So how can the public be persuaded to accept large spending cuts?
The conservative answer, which evolved in the late 1970s, would be dubbed “starving the beast” during the Reagan years. The idea — propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan Greenspan to Irving Kristol — was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait and switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit.
And the deficit came. True, more than half of this year’s budget deficit is the result of the Great Recession, which has both depressed revenues and required a temporary surge in spending to contain the damage. But even when the crisis is over, the budget will remain deeply in the red, largely as a result of Bush-era tax cuts (and Bush-era unfunded wars). And the combination of an aging population and rising medical costs will, unless something is done, lead to explosive debt growth after 2020.
So the beast is starving, as planned. It should be time, then, for conservatives to explain which parts of the beast they want to cut. And President Obama has, in effect, invited them to do just that, by calling for a bipartisan deficit commission.
Many progressives were deeply worried by this proposal, fearing that it would turn into a kind of Trojan horse — in particular, that the commission would end up reviving the long-standing Republican goal of gutting Social Security. But they needn’t have worried: Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted against legislation that would have created a commission with some actual power, and it is unlikely that anything meaningful will come from the much weaker commission Mr. Obama established by executive order.
Why are Republicans reluctant to sit down and talk? Because they would then be forced to put up or shut up. Since they’re adamantly opposed to reducing the deficit with tax increases, they would have to explain what spending they want to cut. And guess what? After three decades of preparing the ground for this moment, they’re still not willing to do that.
In fact, conservatives have backed away from spending cuts they themselves proposed in the past. In the 1990s, for example, Republicans in Congress tried to force through sharp cuts in Medicare. But now they have made opposition to any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely the core of their campaign against health care reform (death panels!). And presidential hopefuls say things like this, from Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota: “I don’t think anybody’s gonna go back now and say, Let’s abolish, or reduce, Medicare and Medicaid.”
What about Social Security? Five years ago the Bush administration proposed limiting future payments to upper- and middle-income workers, in effect means-testing retirement benefits. But in December, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page denounced any such means-testing, because “middle- and upper-middle-class (i.e., G.O.P.) voters would get less than they were promised in return for a lifetime of payroll taxes.” (Hmm. Since when do conservatives openly admit that the G.O.P. is the party of the affluent?)
At this point, then, Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power.
But there is a kind of logic to the current Republican position: in effect, the party is doubling down on starve-the-beast. Depriving the government of revenue, it turns out, wasn’t enough to push politicians into dismantling the welfare state. So now the de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we are in the midst of a fiscal catastrophe. You read it here first.
Tax Status Of Lawmakers' Religious Refuge Disputed
by Peter Overby | February 24, 2010 | NPR | Link
Charles Baccus provided this article/link.
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."
A Progressive Democrat In Need Of A Little Financial Help
Derrick: I heard this guy on a progressive radio talk show. He’s a strong progressive veteran running against a corporate funded Republican in Florida. He got 30% of the vote in 2008 with a small, self-financed (credit card) campaign.
Please visit his web site, and, if possible, chip in a little to his campaign via his web site (PayPal), or via ActBlue-JinBryan.
From his web site (http://www.bryanforcongress.org/):
We must
• repair our economy
• fix our broken health care and educational systems
• lead in the global conversion to clean, safe, earth- and climate-friendly sources of energy
• rebuild our military and use it ethically
• repudiate the Bush doctrine of preemptive war
• stop all use of torture
• reaffirm habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial as fundamental human rights
• dismantle our programs of domestic spying
• return to the rule of law
• make ours once again a government of, by, and for the people – not a government of, by, and for the corporations.
Just For Fun: Britain's Got Talent: "A Dog Meowing" (VIDEO)
Dick Quinn provided this article/link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O88k4i6pF1A
Thank You for Subscribing to Derrick's Progressive News
Feel free to forward this email…
Contact Derrick at Derrick@Duehren.com to subscribe for free or to unsubscribe. Please put “Newsletter” in the subject line.
|
Publisher/Editor |
||
|
|
Derrick Duehren www.Duehren.com By day, I’m a technical writer/human factors Specialist for a local telecommunications company; by night, I’m a fire-breathing defender of liberal social policies. I’m a news hound and share with you stories and videos that I feel are worth sharing with you all (510 as of Feb 2010). I do not share my mailing list and all newsletters go out as blind copies, so everyone gets their own individual copy. |
~ YES WE ARE ~
Making single payer happen
one person one phone call/Fax
~ at a time ~ Regina Dobson |
Get information, resources, and more at our web site: SinglePayUSA.com.
Contact Congress Daily: Send a Free E-Fax at www.1payer.net/faxapp/.
Other Good Sites for Single Payer Information:
www.healthcareforalloregon..org
www.vancouverhealthcarenow..org
Where can I buy a bumper sticker that says "Anthony Weiner for President in 2012"?
--
Peace to you,
Sally D.
Recent comments
3 weeks 3 days ago
3 weeks 6 days ago
11 weeks 3 days ago
25 weeks 1 day ago
26 weeks 2 days ago
29 weeks 3 days ago
29 weeks 3 days ago
29 weeks 3 days ago
32 weeks 5 days ago
32 weeks 5 days ago