The Health Care Battle Continues

November 23, 2009

Mail Online

By David Gardner

President Obama is facing a bruising battle with moderates in his own party after the Democrats narrowly avoided a humiliating setback in their bid to overhaul America’s healthcare system.
Two women senators took party leaders right down to the wire before finally agreeing to back the bill.
The strictly partisan 60-39 vote allowed the Democrats to squeak through a key procedural hurdle to clear the way for a full debate on the £513 billion health reforms in the US Senate.
The Democrats needed at least 60 votes to overcome a Republican-led ‘filibuster’ – a delaying tactic designed to block consideration of the landmark bill indefinitely.
The White House said last night that President Obama was ‘gratified’ by the vote.
The healthcare plan has been the centrepiece of his domestic agenda since coming to power in January and its success or failure in Congress is likely to define his first term as President.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said:  ‘It brings us one step closer to ending the insurance company abuses, reining in spiralling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance, and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it.’
The bill will extend health insurance to 31 million Americans who are uninsured. But it still faces a rocky road through Congress.
Fears over claims that the new law would effectively nationalise the US health system and subsidise abortions have raised the hackles of centrist Democrats as well as Republicans eager to inflict a body blow on the president.

Democrat congressional leaders, who got a healthcare bill through the House of Representatives a fortnight ago, are struggling to move legislation through the Senate by Christmas.
Both houses must agree on a bill before it can be delivered to Mr Obama to sign into law.
The Senate Democrats only prevailed on Saturday night after tense day of brinkmanship by senators Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu.

Both finally agreed to vote with their Democrat colleagues and two independents only after winning key concessions in the bill.

Senator Landrieu won millions more government money for her home state of Louisiana and Senator Lincoln demanded the removal of the ‘nationalisation’ clause.
Both represent traditionally right-wing Republican states where Mr Obama’s health reforms are unpopular.

They maintained yesterday that their vote at the weekend did not necessarily mean they would be backing the bill after the full Senate debate, which is likely to take up much of next month.
Senator Lincoln said Saturday’s vote would ‘mark the beginning of consideration of this bill by the US Senate, not the end.’
One of the most controversial issues will be a provision for a government-run insurance plan that would compete with traditional private insurance companies.
The House plan included the so-called public option, but it was cut from the Senate bill at Senator Lincoln’s insistence.
Democrats are also nervous over Republican claims that government funding for health insurance will mean state subsidisation for abortions, a hot button issue in the US.
The White House is increasingly wary of any further delays to the passage of the reforms, worrying that they would push it into an election year with Democrats afraid of a voter backlash for a plan that draws decidedly mixed reviews in the polls.
The Senate drama came as it was revealed that Mr Obama is considering setting a provisional target for cutting America’s greenhouse gas emissions.
US officials are said to be seeking agreement from Congress on a figure before next month’s UN global warming summit in Copenhagen.
With China, the US is responsible for 40 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gasses and is the only major developed nation yet to table an emission target.
By agreeing to a provisional target of reducing greenhouse gases by 14-20 per cent over the next decade, Mr Obama would resurrect hopes for a global climate change agreement in Copenhagen.

Click here for the full report

Mutated Form of the Virus Detected in 3 Norwegians

November 23, 2009

Washington Post

By Rob Stein

The level of swine flu activity in the United States appears to be declining, although officials are worried about another increase of cases during the Thanksgiving holiday when many people travel and families gather.

The number of states reporting widespread activity of the H1N1 virus dropped to 43 from 46 in the past week, and activity fell in all 10 regions of the country, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But flu cases are still rising in some states, including Maine and Hawaii, and it is too soon to know whether activity will surge again, said Anne Schuchat, director of the CDC’s Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

“Influenza is unpredictable, and it is so early in the year to have this much disease. We don’t know if these declines will persist, what the slope will be, whether we’ll have a long decline or it will start to go up again,” she said Friday.

The news came as scientists in Norway announced that they had detected a mutated form of the swine flu virus in two patients who died of the flu and in a third who was severely ill. It is the most recent report of mutations in the virus that is being watched closely for any change that could make it more dangerous.

In a statement, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health said the mutation “could possibly make the virus more prone to infect deeper in the airways and thus cause more severe disease,” such as pneumonia.

The institute said that there was no indication that the mutation would hinder the ability of the vaccine to protect people from becoming infected or impair the effectiveness of antiviral drugs in treating people who became infected.

Scientists have been analyzing the H1N1 virus from “a number of patients as part of the surveillance of the pandemic flu virus” and have detected several mutations, the statement said. While the existence of mutations is normal, and most “will probably have little or no importance . . . one mutation has caught special interest.”

The two patients who had the mutation and died were the first swine flu fatalities in Norway. The third patient found to have the mutated form of the virus also became severely ill.

“Based on what we know so far, it seems that the mutated virus does not circulate in the population, but might be a result of spontaneous changes which have occurred in these three patients,” the statement said.

Schuchat said the mutation is no reason for alarm.

“I don’t think it has the public health implications that we would wonder about,” she said, noting that some patients have gotten severely ill, including developing pneumonia, after being infected with strains of the virus without the mutation.

The World Health Organization said viruses with a similar mutation had been detected in several other countries, including Brazil, China, Japan, Mexico, Ukraine and the United States. “No links between the small number of patients infected with the mutated virus have been found and the mutation does not appear to spread,” the WHO said in a statement.

“Influenza is a mutable virus, and changes are to be expected,” said Arnold S. Monto of the University of Michigan in an e-mail. “This is typical early in the spread of a pandemic virus.”

Scientists around the world have been tracking the virus carefully for any signs that it had mutated into a more dangerous form. While a variety of mutations have been detected, most have not appeared to have affected the virus in any significant way. There have been some mutations that make the virus more resistant to antiviral drugs, experts said. But like the mutation that may cause more severe illness, those too seem self-contained.

The CDC is investigating a cluster of four cases of patients at the Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., who were found to be infected with H1N1 virus that was resistant to the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

William Schaffner, a medical professor at Vanderbilt University, said mutations that make episodes of swine flu more severe are most dangerous only if they are “easily transmissible.”

“That would make it a more severe disease. Apparently this has that capacity. But in order for it to become really quote dangerous to the population it also has to be easily transmissible,” he said. “That’s a different characteristic. And apparently that does not appear to have happened to this virus. It does not seem to be spreading in the general population.”

Detection of the mutation should be reassuring, Schaffner said, because it shows the intensity of the global effort to monitor the virus. “The virologists are keeping an eye on H1N1 and this is evidence of that,” he said.

Click here for the full report

Patient Trapped in a 23 Year Coma Was Conscious The Whole Time

November 23, 2009

Mail Online

By Allan Hall

A car crash victim has spoken of the horror he endured for 23 years after he was misdiagnosed as being in a coma when he was conscious the whole time.
Rom Houben, trapped in his paralysed body after a car crash, described his real-life nightmare as he screamed to doctors that he could hear them – but could make no sound.
‘I screamed, but there was nothing to hear,’ said Mr Houben, now 46, who doctors thought was in a persistent vegatative state.
‘I dreamed myself away,’ he added, tapping his tale out with the aid of a computer.

Doctors used a range of coma tests before reluctantly concluding that his consciousness was ‘extinct’.
But three years ago, new hi-tech scans showed his brain was still functioning almost completely normally.
Mr Houben described the moment as ‘my second birth’. Therapy has since

Mr Houben, a former martial arts enthusiast, was paralysed in 1983.

Doctors in Zolder, Belgium, used the internationally accepted Glasgow Coma Scale to assess his eye, verbal and motor responses. But each time he was graded incorrectly.
Only a re-evaluation of his case at the University of Liege discovered that he had lost control of his body but was still fully aware of what was happening.
He is never likely to leave hospital, but as well as his computer he now has a special device above his bed which lets him read books while lying down.
Mr Houben said: ‘I shall never forget the day when they discovered what was truly wrong with me – it was my second birth.
‘I want to read, talk with my friends via the computer and enjoy my life now that people know I am not dead.’
Dr Laureys’s new study claims that patients classed as in a vegetative state are often misdiagnosed.
‘Anyone who bears the stamp of “unconscious” just one time hardly ever gets rid of it again,’ he said.

The doctor, who leads the Coma Science Group and Department of Neurology at Liege University Hospital, found Mr Houben’s brain was still working by using state-of-the-art imaging.
He plans to use the case to highlight what he considers may be similar examples around the world.
Dr Laureys said: ‘In Germany alone each year some 100,000 people suffer from severe traumatic brain injury.
‘About 20,000 are followed by a coma of three weeks or longer. Some of them die, others regain health.
‘But an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 people a year remain trapped in an intermediate stage – they go on living without ever coming back again.’
Supporters of euthanasia and assisted suicide argue that people who have lain in persistent vegetative states for years should be given the opportunity to have crucial medical support withdrawn because of the ‘indignity’ of their condition.

But there have been several cases in which people judged to be in vegetative states or deep comas have recovered.
Twenty years ago, Carrie Coons, an 86-year-old from New York, regained consciousness after a year, took small amounts of food by mouth and engaged in conversation.
Only days before her recovery, a judge had granted her family’s request for the removal of the feeding tube which had been keeping her alive.
In the UK in 1993, doctors switched off the life support system keeping alive Tony Bland, a 22-year- old who had been in a coma for three years following the Hillsborough disaster.
Dr Laureys was not available for comment yesterday and it is not clear why he thought Mr Houben should have the hi-tech screening when so many years had passed.

Click here for the full report

Obama Has Pushed Economy Back Into Recession

November 23, 2009

Counter Punch

By Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St. Clair

Barack Obama has decided to push the economy back into recession, and no one can figure out why. Perhaps the impressionable Obama has come under the spell of the deficit hawks and crystal gazers who see Armageddon around every corner. Or maybe he’s thrown-in with the snappish  Marc Faber whose dire predictions of hyperinflation are about as cheery as Hieronymus Bosch’s vision of Hell. Whatever the reason, the President has done a hasty volte-face and decided that  trimming the deficits in the middle of a severe economic downturn is the way to go. Here’s what Obama said just days ago on his Asia tour: 

  “I think it is important to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.”

Obama is either getting some very bad advice or he’s simply determined to drive a stake into the flickering economy.  All plans for deficit-pruning should be postponed until the economy steadies itself and the jobs picture improves. Raising taxes or slashing spending while the economy is still contracting is crazy. It shows that Obama is being influenced by the Gain through Pain school  who think that mass liquidation and years of bitter retrenchment are the best medicine. They’re wrong. Sensible people look for solutions that don’t involve hair shirts, moving to underground bunkers or living off root-crops for the next millennia.

Obama’s metamorphosis into Ludwig von Mises sends a disturbing message to working people as well as to foreign creditors. It suggests that the commander-in-chief is in the thrall of careworn Jeremiahs. If that’s the case, things could get ugly fast. With the Democrats backing-down on a second round of stimulus, the Fed signaling an end to quantitative easing, and Obama moaning about rising deficits; there’s a good chance that the ailing economy could take another dunk down the elevator chute.

Deficits are not the problem. Deflation is. Bank lending is shrinking, consumer spending is down, housing prices are falling, unemployment is soaring and the wholesale credit markets are in a shambles. Which one of these problems is deficit related? None. This isn’t the time to slash government support in the name of  “fiscal responsibility”.  Obama needs to ignore the alarmists and deficit-psychos.
 
Has Obama perused the jobless figures lately? Has he noticed the Fed shoving more than a $1 trillion under the collapsing housing market with no sign of improvement? Has anyone told our strapping sagamore that the entire financial system is resting on a crumbling foundation of garbage mortgages, toxic paper, and non-performing loans?

Cutting  the deficits now–when we should be expanding them–will lead to a cycle of debt deflation that will push-down asset prices, increase defaults, force more layoffs, slow consumer spending, lower earnings and put the economy into a long-term funk. It’s a suicidal policy that will end in catastrophe.

If Obama wants more proof that the economy is still tanking, he should read Fed chair Ben Bernanke’s speech to the Economic Club of New York delivered earlier this week. The presentation is a sobering snapshot of lingering stagnation with precious few glimmers of light. Here’s an excerpt:

“The flow of credit remains constrained, economic activity weak, and unemployment much too high. Future setbacks are possible….How the economy will evolve in 2010 and beyond is less certain….

 “Access to credit remains strained for borrowers who are particularly dependent on banks, such as households and small businesses. Bank lending has contracted sharply this year, and the Federal Reserve’s Senior Loan Officers Opinion Survey shows that banks continue to tighten the terms on which they extend credit for most kinds of loans…

“Household debt has declined in recent quarters for the first time since 1951. For their part, many small businesses have seen their bank credit lines reduced or eliminated, or they have been able to obtain credit only on significantly more restrictive terms. The fraction of small businesses reporting difficulty in obtaining credit is near a record high, and many of these businesses expect credit conditions to tighten further.

“The demand for credit also has fallen significantly….Because of weakened balance sheets, fewer potential borrowers are creditworthy, even if they are willing to take on more debt. Also, write-downs of bad debt show up on bank balance sheets as reductions in credit outstanding. Nevertheless, it appears that, since the outbreak of the financial crisis, banks have tightened lending standards by more than would have been predicted by the decline in economic activity alone….. Unfortunately, reduced bank lending may well slow the recovery by damping consumer spending, especially on durable goods, and by restricting the ability of some firms to finance their operations.

Click here for the full report

Are Americans Standing Up To Wall Street?

November 23, 2009

Washington’s Blog

Are the American people finally starting to stand up to Wall Street?

Shareholder Revolt

Some of Goldman Sach’s biggest shareholders are demanding that executive compensation be reduced. As the Wall Street Journal notes:
Their complaints in private conversations with the company and at analyst meetings show how anger over its big-money culture is spilling into the ranks of investors who typically shy away from debates over Wall Street pay.

Protests

There were the protests outside of the Bankers Association meeting in Chicago. See this, this, this, this, this and this.

If you don’t think that more – bigger – protests are coming, you haven’t been paying attention.

Debtor’s Revolt

Debtors are revolting against exorbitant interest rates and fees and other aggressive tactics by the too big to fail banks. See this, this, and this.
Congresswoman Kaptur advises her constituents facing foreclosure to demand that the original mortgage papers be produced. She says that – if the bank can’t produce the mortgage papers – then the homeowner can stay in the house.
Portfolio manager and investment advisor Marshall Auerback argues that a debtor’s revolt would be a good thing.

And even popular personal finance advisor Suze Orman is highlighting the debtors revolt phenomenon on her national tv show.

Congress Is Starting to Get the Message
The American people are shouting so loud at their congress members and Senators, that even some of the most pro-Wall Street congressman are starting to get it.

For example, the Congressional Black Caucus has been hearing so much about how congress is failing to address the crisis of unemployment from their constituents, that the CBC delayed Barney Frank’s proposed financial reform.

The House Financial Services Committee received so many phone calls from constituents that it approved the Ron Paul/Alan Grayson bill to audit the Fed and defeated the trojan horse alternate bill written by Mel Watt. Indeed, I have heard from congressional sources that the only calls to support the Watt alternate bill were from the Fed itself. And see this.

The Committee also approved Congressman Grayson’s bill to rein in foreign currency swaps.

Both Geithner and Summers are coming under increasing pressure to resign due to their being in bed with Wall Street.

Even Bernanke’s re-appointment is no longer certain.

And Obama’s approval ratings have now dipped below 50%, largely due to his mishandling of the economic crisis.

As Congressman Peter DeFazio notes:
There were a lot of Democrats who were “upset and nervous with” the handling of the economy by the administration.

“It is pretty embarrassing for a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress to be identified with total attention to Wall Street and nothing for Main Street and jobs,” he said. “There are a lot of Democrats who… want to see something more effective done to create employment.”

DeFazio insisted that President Obama and, by extension, the Democratic Party were hampered by Geithner’s policies for economic recovery. He pointed to the inability of the administration to spur small business lending and the lack of effective TARP oversight as particularly egregious examples of mismanagement. More than anything else, the Oregon Democrat deemed it untenable for the president to continue employing his current economic team given the taint of Wall Street that clings to many of those advisers.

“I have had a number of people say to me, ‘I feel the same way you do but I’m not going to say it.’ People are worried it will rub off on the president who still enjoys popularity,” he said. “I tell them I still support the president. I just think he is being poorly served by his economic team.”

“The truth of the matter,” DeFazio added, “is that we have not changed the way the money is being used. It is not being used for the purpose it was supposed to be used for. We are not creating jobs and we have not aggressively taken on the culture of Wall Street”…

One of his chief concerns was that the president appeared enamored with the lords of finance. “The administration has, thus far, not threaded the needle here,” he said. “They have taken care of Wall Street but not the rest of the country.”

Are the American people are finally starting to awaken?

We’ve been down this road before
Shown worse devils to the door

Throw off our chains of slavery
Now is the time to set ourselves free
And reclaim our liberty …

They bought the politicians and the news
They’ve got all the weapons (which they like to use)

But they are few and we’re billions strong
We are the giant … been sleeping for too long
Time to wake up and sing our victory song
- The Voice

The elites hate to acknowledge it, but when large numbers of ordinary people are moved to action, it changes the narrow political world where the elites call the shots. Inside accounts reveal the extent to which Johnson and Nixon’s conduct of the Vietnam War was constrained by the huge anti-war movement. It was the civil rights movement, not compelling arguments, that convinced members of Congress to end legal racial discrimination.
- PhD Economist Dean Baker

Anger is a great force. If you control it, it can be transmuted into a power which can move the whole world.
- Sivananda

The power of an aroused public is unbeatable.
- Dr. Helen Caldicott

The most powerful weapon on earth is the human soul on fire.
-Ferdinand Foch

In times of danger large groups rise to the highest pitch of enthusiasm, courage and sacrifice . . . Mankind will be refashioned and history rewritten when this law is understood and obeyed.
-Helen Keller

You let one ant stand up to us – then they all might stand up. Those puny little ants outnumber us a 100 to one. And if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life.
- Hopper (a grasshopper who is the leader of the gang of thugs who are stealing from the other bugs, speaking to fellow grasshoppers in the Disney/Pixar movie A Bug’s Life)
Click here for the full report

E-Mails About Climate Change Prompt Skepticism

November 23, 2009

The Wall Street Journal

By Keith Johnson

The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents — posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center — that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.

The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.

Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.

“This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn’t certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.

“The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,” the university said.

Most climate scientists today argue that the earth’s temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views.

A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.

In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call “disinformation” using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.

The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.

The IPCC couldn’t be reached for comment Sunday.

In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was “tempted to beat” up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn’t be reached for comment Sunday.

In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics’ research was unwelcome: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.

Click here for the full report

House OKs Plan to Audit Fed

November 23, 2009

Reuters

By Mark Felsenthal

A U.S. congressional panel on Thursday approved a measure to open the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy decisions to government audits, a surprise blow to the central bank’s efforts to shield its independence and a signal of frustration with the central bank.

The provision, co-sponsored by Republican Representative Ron Paul and Democrat Alan Grayson, would allow a congressional watchdog agency to conduct a broad review of the U.S. central bank’s policy and lending. Fed officials have strongly opposed it, saying it would cast doubt on the central bank’s independence from political pressure.

The House of Representatives Financial Services Committee approved the amendment to broader legislation to revamp financial rules. The panel put off a vote on the broader measure.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, who opposed the Paul-Grayson measure, predicted it would be revisited when financial reform legislation is debated by the House.

“I think it’s going to be seen as weakening the independence of monetary policy with consequent negative implications,” he told reporters after the vote. “I think people will be worried about the impact on the dollar and on interest rates, and I think that one may be revisited when we get to the floor.”

However, Paul’s measure has earned support from more than half of the members of the House.

The amendment is a further congressional slap at the U.S. central bank after a Senate regulatory overhaul proposed stripping the Fed of its regulatory authority. Some lawmakers fault the Fed for failing to anticipate or prevent the financial crisis that pitched the economy into deep recession, while others are angry at its extensive emergency support for financial institutions.

The Fed objected to the provision, saying it could raise financial market questions about its independence and could result in higher long-term interest rates as investors worry about inflation risks.

“History provides numerous examples of non-independent central banks being forced to finance large government budget deficits,” Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said in July. “Such episodes invariably lead to high inflation.”

Paul is an outlier in U.S. politics who advocated abolishing the U.S. central bank well before the financial crisis. He ran for president as a Republican in 2008 and recently published a book called “End the Fed.”

However, the Texas lawmaker was able to tap into widespread congressional frustration with the Fed.

“The Fed currently has no political capital,” conceded Representative Mel Watt, a Democrat who opposed the Paul-Grayson provision. “Everybody would like to beat up on the Fed and call them the bad guy,” Watt said. “(But) are we going to so substantially castrate the Fed so it cannot do what it was set up to do?”

Watt had promoted a compromise amendment that would have allowed audits of the Fed’s balance sheet and lending but would have drawn a clear line at leaving monetary policy alone. Frank, the committee chairman, backed Watt’s proposal.

A Fed representative declined to comment on the vote, and cited earlier comments from senior Fed officials expressing concern that monetary policy audits would undermine the central bank’s independence.

Click here for the full report

Senator Given $100 Million for Home State for Health Care Vote

November 23, 2009

The Washington Post

By Dana Milbank

Staffers on Capitol Hill were calling it the Louisiana Purchase.

On the eve of Saturday’s showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn’t secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.

And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote — and to trumpet the financial “fix” she had arranged for Louisiana. “I am not going to be defensive,” she declared. “And it’s not a $100 million fix. It’s a $300 million fix.”

It was an awkward moment (not least because her figure is 20 times the original Louisiana Purchase price). But it was fairly representative of a Senate debate that seems to be scripted in the Southern Gothic style. The plot was gripping — the bill survived Saturday’s procedural test without a single vote to spare — and it brought out the rank partisanship, the self-absorption and all the other pathologies of modern politics. If that wasn’t enough of a Tennessee Williams story line, the debate even had, playing the lead role, a Southerner named Blanche with a flair for the dramatic.

After Landrieu threw in her support (she asserted that the extra Medicaid funds were “not the reason” for her vote), the lone holdout in the 60-member Democratic caucus was Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Like other Democratic moderates who knew a single vote could kill the bill, she took a streetcar named Opportunism, transferred to one called Wavering and made off with concessions of her own. Indeed, the all-Saturday debate, which ended with an 8 p.m. vote, occurred only because Democratic leaders had yielded to her request for more time.

Even when she finally announced her support, at 2:30 in the afternoon, Lincoln made clear that she still planned to hold out for many more concessions in the debate that will consume the next month. “My decision to vote on the motion to proceed is not my last, nor only, chance to have an impact on health-care reform,” she announced.

Landrieu and Lincoln got the attention because they were the last to decide, but the Senate really has 100 Blanche DuBoises, a full house of characters inclined toward the narcissistic. The health-care debate was worse than most. With all 40 Republicans in lockstep opposition, all 60 members of the Democratic caucus had to vote yes — and that gave each one an opportunity to extract concessions from Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) won a promise from Reid to support his plan to expand eligibility for health insurance. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) got Reid to jettison a provision stripping health insurers of their antitrust exemption. Landrieu got the concessions for her money. And Lincoln won an extended, 72-hour period to study legislation.

And the big shakedown is yet to occur: That will happen when Reid comes back to his caucus in a few weeks to round up 60 votes for the final passage of the health bill.

Republicans also knew that a single defection would kill the bill, so they tried to pressure the holdouts. “That’s what we’ve got to choose today: Do we choose life or do we choose death?” declared Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). “We just need one vote, one vote on the other side.”

But Landrieu had already made up her mind. She went to the floor during the lunch hour to say that she would vote to proceed with the debate — but that she’d be looking for much bigger concessions before she gives her blessing to a final version of the bill.

“My vote today,” she said in a soft Southern accent that masked the hard politics at play, “should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end.” Among the concessions she’ll seek: more tax credits for small business and a removal of the version of the “public option” now in the bill.

That turned all the attention to the usually quiet Lincoln, who emerged from the cloakroom two hours later to announce her decision. Her attire was school-principal prim — blue suit with knee-length skirt, orange silk scarf tied tightly at the neck — and she was clearly uncomfortable in the spotlight. She spoke with the diction of somebody giving a dramatic reading, and she stumbled more than once as she read, botching the crucial line: “I will vote to support, of, the, the, will vote in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill.”

She argued, a bit too strenuously, that “I’m not thinking about my reelection” in 2010. All the same, she made clear that Democratic leaders would have to give more if they want her to vote yes as the health-care debate continues. Specifically, she demanded removal of the public option. “I am opposed to a new government-administered health-care plan,” she warned, further cautioning that “I will not vote in favor of the proposal . . . as it is written.”

By the time this thing is done, the millions for Louisiana will look like a bargain.

Click here for the full report

Debt Repayments Coming For U.S. Government

November 23, 2009

New York Times

By Edmund L. Andrews

The United States government is financing its more than trillion-dollar-a-year borrowing with i.o.u.’s on terms that seem too good to be true.

But that happy situation, aided by ultralow interest rates, may not last much longer.

Treasury officials now face a trifecta of headaches: a mountain of new debt, a balloon of short-term borrowings that come due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are sure to climb back to normal as soon as the Federal Reserve decides that the emergency has passed.

Even as Treasury officials are racing to lock in today’s low rates by exchanging short-term borrowings for long-term bonds, the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages.

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The potential for rapidly escalating interest payouts is just one of the wrenching challenges facing the United States after decades of living beyond its means.

The surge in borrowing over the last year or two is widely judged to have been a necessary response to the financial crisis and the deep recession, and there is still a raging debate over how aggressively to bring down deficits over the next few years. But there is little doubt that the United States’ long-term budget crisis is becoming too big to postpone.

Americans now have to climb out of two deep holes: as debt-loaded consumers, whose personal wealth sank along with housing and stock prices; and as taxpayers, whose government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone, just as costs tied to benefits for retiring baby boomers are set to explode.

The competing demands could deepen political battles over the size and role of the government, the trade-offs between taxes and spending, the choices between helping older generations versus younger ones, and the bottom-line questions about who should ultimately shoulder the burden.

“The government is on teaser rates,” said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates lower deficits. “We’re taking out a huge mortgage right now, but we won’t feel the pain until later.”

So far, the demand for Treasury securities from investors and other governments around the world has remained strong enough to hold down the interest rates that the United States must offer to sell them. Indeed, the government paid less interest on its debt this year than in 2008, even though it added almost $2 trillion in debt.

Click here for the full report

Privacy and Freedom Being Taken Away from Internet in UK

November 23, 2009

Download Squad

By Sebastion Anthony

Often lauded as the ‘CCTV state’ and ‘the most surveilled country in the world’, the UK may soon deliver a killing blow to the Internet as we know it. Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing is reporting some leaked legislation from the UK government that would remove any kind of freedom or privacy that the Internet grants its users.

The proposed amendments to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act would allow the Secretary of State (or ‘Pirate-Finder General’) to alter the law on an ad-hoc basis without approval by Parliament (the UK’s Senate).

Cory goes on to site the potential repercussions of these proposed changes:

1. Immediate remedies for copyright infringement — jail sentences and removal of Internet access can be meted out purely at the discretion of an unelected official (that is most likely under the sway and pay of media lobby groups).

2. The raising of pirate-hunting militia — the Secretary of State could “confer rights” to music labels and movie studios to help them protect their works. It would be within the rights of the copyright owners to compel ISPs, schools and businesses to hand over details of those using their network for ‘nefarious’ purposes.

3. Pirate-hunting duties could be forced upon ISPs — not merely content with perusing ISP records, the Secretary of State could force ISPs to act as gatekeepers. You can imagine how it might impact your surfing experience if a copyright lawyer is forced to peruse each and every one of your emails to check for plagiarism…

Cory goes on to cite other implications, but you should probably just go and read the article itself. And as he says, if you’re a Brit, or even if you know a Brit — this is serious news. You can’t really expect something like this to make it through government… but really… who knows?

Click here for the full report

« Previous Page — Next Page »