The same day the email from Jane and I went out to Vermonters, letting Bernie know that we (or many of us, at any rate) still recognize how dangerous this health care bill is (regardless of the juicy extras that were slipped into the bill to win him over), a glowing, downright gushing post went up on the Prog Blog praising Bernie for being such a champion, despite caving to the pressure from Reid and Obama. The post, entitled Bernie Sanders – Tonic for the Politically Depressed (do you feel healed yet, JD?) was penned by former Representative Chris Pearson, and in response to a bit of progressive pushback in the comments, Pearson responded:

Would doing the “right thing” have been standing with the Republicans to support the filibuster? That was really his only choice and as much as this bill is a disappointment I don’t think that would have advanced the cause or satisfied many of the left in this country.

Once that choice is made then Bernie could only make the bill as strong as possible… it doesn’t make much sense to me to include Bernie with the group of leaders that sold us out to the industry (again).

What’s Bernie supposed to do? Vote against it even though it’s a done deal? Especially if he can squeeze some good out of it?

That’s funny, because it’s apparently how Pearson himself felt back during the hearings on the Catamount Health Plan – Vermont’s own attempt at health care reform back in 2006. Pearson “stood with Republicans” and voted against the bill. In fact, he seemed fairly uninterested in the nuances he now incredulously demands folks consider in regards to Bernie:

…health care is simply a yes or no question. Are we going to cover everyone?

Now in fairness, there’s a big difference between the Catamount Health Bill and the US Senate health bill. The difference? Despite being a “band aid” for a broken system, Catamount was clearly going to help a lot of people (and it has). Not only did Catamount meet the more good that harm test, it didn’t really do any harm at all, on its own merits – which is precisely why, unlike Pearson, I supported it myself at the time. The Senate Bill, on the other hand, is a massive insurance company giveaway with no meaningful safeguards on corporate abuse, that could easily do more harm than good. Apparently the former merited a “no” vote, but Bernie’s “yes” vote on the latter is to be lauded.

Gawd.

Although this may be inconsistent on its face, it is consistent in another way. Despite the fact that he caucuses with the Dems, attends Dem fundraisers and the Dem party conventions, Progs still consider Bernie Sanders one of their own, and as one of their own, he is subject to the one absolute rule among the old-line Progressive intelligensia that transcends all others – including stances on policy; no fellow Progressive must ever be criticized. Even under the most extreme circumstances. Until and unless they learn to follow the example of newer Progs (like Jessica in the comments below…. bravo JF), get over that particular hang up and embrace honest, open, even rollicking self-examination and criticism, the Progs will always resemble something more akin to an exclusive political club than a healthy, functional political party in a democratic society.

Be a true progressive. Join your voice with those in the national Nurses Union. Click here to sign the petition – stop the Senate bill.

Objective data show that the only moral and economic solution to our health care crisis is a transformation from the current market-based multi-payer health insurance system to a single-payer system (Medicare for All). Hundreds of billions of dollars would be saved annually due to decreased administrative costs ($300-400 billion); better drug price leveraging ($100 billion); improved preventive care, quality, and choice; and elimination of ‘uninsured’ costs ($40 billion). A single-payer system would result in universal medical and dental coverage, cost-effectiveness, improved quality, enhanced choice and career flexibility, elimination of an overhead stranglehold on business competitiveness, a stimulus to our economy, and job creation.

Anti-fraud and tort reform should be included, each potentially saving $40-50 billion; the latter would neutralize legitimate charges that its omission is hypocritical in a bill touted as comprehensive reform.
 
Why the business community and Congress have not embraced single-payer reform is mystifying because it is a win-win for all (except for insurance and pharmaceutical companies). One would expect that Republicans and Democratic voters more concerned about fiscal responsibility and access, respectively, should support it. In the absence of leadership teaching about the issue, ideology bias clouded Republican judgment, and perception of idealistic unrealism led to Democratic giving up. For Congressional representatives, more cynical explanations may be more accurate because they should know better. Objective assessment of the evidence cannot be reasonably expected in the face of conflicts of interest from acceptance of significant PAC funding.
 
There are positive aspects to the proposed bills, including expansion of coverage via Medicaid and subsidies, and community rating precluding adverse risk selection for ‘pre-existing conditions’. These should be enacted rapidly in concert with anti-fraud and tort reform and with funding by removing the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance for high income earners.

This deficit neutral strategy would allow breathing room to tackle transformational reform, because on balance, the negatives outweigh the positives in the current bills: Expansion of coverage and universal community rating do not go into effect for years after which millions will remain uninsured and more without dental care; Medicare funding for safety-net hospitals is diverted to insurance companies also gifted a mandate bonanza of millions of healthy young customers; funding is inequitable because of taxation of Cadillac policies rather than high-income earners; and accounting gimmicks are likely to lead to unrealized fiscal assumptions.

The Public Option considerations, deleted from the Senate bill, would have addressed few Americans and transferred costs for sicker enrollees to the public. As state programs have not led to economically sustainable universal coverage, these would probably not ‘bend the curve’ nationally either. That Vermont received special consideration, in the company of Nebraska, does not validate the virtues of the proposed bills nor should it lead to the lauding of our representatives’ ingenuity. Most notably, enactment of the bills will usurp real reform, resulting in investment of additional hundreds of billions of dollars in a failed system. We will have ‘won a battle’ but ‘lost the war’.
 
In early December, Senator Sanders submitted Senate Amendment 2837, proposing to replace most of the Senate bill with language from his previous single-payer bill (Medicare for All) (S. 703). The Amendment was scheduled for a floor debate but was withdrawn after negligible Democratic support. In the absence of co-sponsorship, I presume Senator Leahy would not have supported it.

I believe Vermonters should request that Senator Leahy: (1) explain why he did not co-sponsor Senator Sanders’ Amendment; (2) inform Senate leadership he will vote against the current bills, forcing consideration of true reform (including Medicare for All); and (3) explain how representatives’ acceptance of PAC funds does not cloud objectivity, create a conflict of interest, and professionally necessitate recusal from voting (unless funds were ‘returned to sender’).

This was a missed opportunity for promoting Vermont values of fairness and reasonableness, securing a legacy of enlightened leadership, and marginalization of industry special interests. But it is not too late because each Senator currently has effective veto power. Rather than relinquishing the Vermont representation’s power to lead by automatic caucusing and putting Party ahead of Country, Senator Leahy can force leadership back to the drawing table, providing an opportunity for truly transformational reform to be debated.

History would judge such courage generously.

( – promoted by odum)

Candle Light Vigil remembers and mourns “Invisible Life and Death” of Oveth Santis Cruz and calls for Immediate Immigrant Rights in Vermont.

On December 22, 2009 on a bone chilling winter afternoon in Fairfield, Vermont on Howrigan dairy farm 17 year old Oveth Santis Cruz from the town of Las Margaritas, Chiapas, Mexico was killed in a tragic farming accident. The death was confirmed by his co-workers and family members last night as concern and sadness spread throughout the migrant farm worker community mourning the young migrant farm workers’ death. Oveth is survived by roughly 80 extended family and community members who currently live and work on Vermont dairy farms.

Although, Oveth Santis Cruz’s family members might like to gather together as a family and community here in Vermont to mourn this tragic death they expressed fears that doing so would mean risking deportation—they are not free to do so. As Vermont resident Brendan O’Neill, a family friend, migrant farm worker advocate, ESL teacher, and member of the VT Workers’ Center, who was in touch last night with relatives who survive Oveth, commented, “Sadly, here in Vermont and throughout the United States migrant farm workers cannot even gather as a community and mourn family members deaths without fearing deportation.

Family members have expressed concern to ensure that Oveth’s body is respectfully and swiftly returned to his family in Chiapas, Mexico.” 

Today, Wednesday December 23, 2009 Vermonters are invited to gather for a silent and solemn candle light vigil organized by O’Neill and hosted by the Vermont Workers’ Center that will begin at 5 p.m at 294 N. Winooski Avenue in Burlington at the Vermont Workers Center to honor the hard work, sacrifice and tragic death of migrant farm worker Oveth Santis Cruz.

The candlelight vigil procession will leave from the VT Workers’ Center at 6pm and make its way through the streets of Burlington to continue the vigil in front of the UU Church on Church St. O’Neill adds, “Oveth Santis Cruz is one of approximately 2,000 migrant farm workers who have come to the aid of our Vermont Dairy Farms in crisis and yet despite their essential contributions to Vermont due to an unjust, broken and oppressive U.S. immigration system they are forced to live and in this case die in fear, silence and in the shadows.” He added, “In the state of Vermont and throughout the United States the invisible hands that milk so many of our cows and pick so many of our vegetables, which literally puts the food on the table, live and die invisibly without the dignity and respect that all human beings deserve.”

The vigil is dedicated to the life of Oveth Santis Cruz and calls upon Vermonters to commit themselves to work for real immigration reform that recognizes and respects the basic needs, dignity and human rights of all immigrants.

Another legislative death, just a day after Ira Trombley.

WCAXis reporting that Rick Hube, a Republican from Londonderry, reportedly died from an aortic aneurism while visiting his family for Christmas in Florida.

Hube had served in the Legislature since 1999.

The Manchester Journal has more details about his life and political career.

Hube took stances that surprised other lawmakers. He was one of only five Republicans to vote this year for same-sex marriage.

You regulars may or may not have noticed me being rather scarce in these GMD parts over the past six months or so. Without getting into a sob story, it's been a challenging year for me on the personal front, with both the loss of my job after 15 years and a rather sudden and unexpected divorce.

Needless to say, it's distracted me a bit, and so I chalked my decreased presence here up to my personal foibles, which was true at the time. But, over the past few months, my life has improved dramatically. And I still don't show up here too often, so instead of making excuses, I'll just say what it is: outrage fatigue. It's to the point where my expressions usually come out in rather obnoxious, somewhat flatulent rude bursts, more appropriate for my own space on the net than over here at GMD. Yet this latest capitulation from the DC Dems seems to have triggered a bit of reflective soul-searching on the part of some of the FP'ers here, so here I go, if I may be so bold.

Hop below the jump for more musings, should you be so kind…

Now, I never bought into the hope/change nonsense about Obama like many did (and continue to do). My vote for him was probably 75% based in McCain/Palin prevention, and perhaps the other 25% was the fact that he seemed like a decent, highly intelligent guy, something one doesn't see too often in White House, even more dramatic after dealing with that braindead moron we've had to deal with in the last eight years.

My political awakening started in 1994, after that whole “Contract on America” b.s. I was primarily motivated by the reckless assault on the environment, more than anything else. And so, after over a decade of playing half-assed defense, the Dems retook the House and Senate and then the WH, as the GOP couldn't hide how deranged they were anymore. Of course, being a sentient being, I had no false expectations that things would change all that much; capitulation and timididty seem to be written into the Dem party platform, albeit in invisible ink. I was also very put off by Obama's “play nice/bipartisan” schtick, in that I don't think that negotiating with the criminally insane is very productive, nor is it wise or moral. I had (and have) no qualms about railroading the GOP like they did the Dems all those years, with one difference: Don't make shit up.

Alas, disappointment after disappointment, and hence the fatigue. One can only get mad so often before burnout sets in. Now, that's not to say there hasn't been a few good things; there most certainly has, even enough to convince me that the “both parties are exactly the same” bullshit is indeed that: bullshit. But I can't really find much worth defending at this point in regards to the DC Dems. They are thoroughly unworthy and incapable of governance, with few exceptions.

That presents another problem, is that your typical, independent low-information voter typically and reflexively, when unhappy with the party in power, votes for the other one, which is what I strongly feel will happen in 2010. Yes, people will vote to put back in the people who were primarily responsible for the mess we're in. And so the outrage fatigue increases, my eyes glaze over, and perhaps drooling is not too far away. We are all Sarah Palin now. Or at least a lot of us are.

Where am I going with this? It's time to start screaming for leadership.  What got my gears going was this fantastic op-ed over at HuffPo by Drew Western, Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator. 

It's a great read, but what struck me more than anything else was this, which pretty much sums up the DC Dems, not just Obama:

What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting….

Consider the president's leadership style, which has now become clear: deliver a moving speech, move on, and when push comes to shove, leave it to others to decide what to do if there's a conflict, because if there's a conflict, he doesn't want to be anywhere near it.

Indeed. When I hear those on our side say how this current HCR turd is “the best we could've hoped for” or something like that, all I can think of is how different the game might have been had Obama started it off with a simple statement: “I will simply not sign anything that makes it to my desk that does not have a strong public option. Period.” That's leading, it's not some overarching, courageous thing to do. If his leadership skills were half as good as his lofty rhetoric, we'd already be a much better country, only a year into his presidency.

We are in between a rock and a hard place, and the behavior of the Obamabots out there compounds it, as they pretty much defer to Obama the way the knuckledraggers deferred to Bush. We most certainly have idiots on our side, too; they may not be as mean or as evil as the right, but they're idiots, nonetheless. 

So what is to be done? I still hear that “marching in the streets” canard all the time, yet it's always either hamstrung by an absolutist pacifism, disorganization, or most importantly, a lack of will to really go with it. Like the Indians did in the Salt Satygraha in 1930. One of the things that happened was Indians lining up and marching right into the batons of the policemen, one after another – and every blow and crushed skull was a pivotal blow to the British Empire that led the way to independence.

Now, I can't say that I've got the temerity do that; pain hurts. But it can be done, and I like to think there are people out there with the gumption to do it. Just marching, singing “Imagine” and yelling “Nader!” just ain't gonna cut it. Been there, done that, too many times. It most certainly gives one a feeling of empowerment, but it's just that: a feeling. It's not real power. It means one is out of ideas as to what to do. I can relate; so am I.

Demanding leadership means being creative, stepping out of our comfort zone, and pissing people off (oh, if the prez would only take my advice). Some people may take it very far. Perhaps that may be necessary, as well; I'll leave that between you and your consciences.

So, I'm hardly done around here, by any means. If anything, the continued incompetence in the congress and the WH is making the need to do things in Vermont all that more important and necessary. Although I don't see it coming, I'd love for someone to primary Obama in '12, regardless of what else he does, if nothing more than to send a message that nothing should be taken for granted, especially the citizens of this country. I'm going to support whatever gubernatorial candidate is going to work hard to change things, and with that, there's an expectation of real change, not just talking about it, which is all Obama ever seems to be capable of. Like Bobby Byrd said, sayin' it and doin' it are two different things (apologies for an obscure but appropriate funk reference).

I just need a vacation from the outrage. 

And so the HCR debate continues… Those of you following this closely are aware of Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher's campaign to prevent the passage of the Senate version of the bill in it's current form, which Bernie Sanders has agreed to support.

Anyways, our own Odum has teamed up with Jane to get a petition going to put some pressure on Bernie. The petition can be found here.

Go below the jump for the complete email letter that went out today.

UPDATE FROM odum: Some serious Bernie pushback today. Guess we're hittin' a nerve.

Sign our petition to Bernie Sanders “If you're going after progressive votes, you better cast a tough one in the Senate first.” Sign our petition and tell Bernie Sanders to kill the Senate bill. The Senate is trying to force a dangerous health care bill to passage by Christmas. Some of our strongest allies — statesmen who touted the progressive line aggressively at first — have definitively turned their backs on us. Bernie Sanders is the latest “progressive” to fall in line as a supporter. It's ironic, since he's always been identified as left-of-Dean. It's no surprise, then, that Vermonters who know this may wonder: why is Sanders' one-time “centrist” foil Howard Dean now more progressive than he is? Join us in bringing the voices of Vermont to Bernie Sanders: You were elected based on your progressive values. Kill the Senate bill.

Just last week, we watched Bernie Sanders shout from the Senate floor, slamming his fist on the podium, demanding real and comprehensive reform for all Americans. He stood before the chamber in support of helping Americans currently enmeshed in the crisis of our disintegrating health care system. He stood in opposition to the Senate bill in its current form. Now he supports the very same bill, thereby supporting the annihilation of choice for the citizens of this country. He now supports the insurance industry by supporting the anti-choice individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase private plans or face IRS penalties.

Dean knows this is dangerous. Sanders, a true “progressive,” should too. Sign our petition to Bernie Sanders: If you're going after progressive votes, you better cast the toughest ones in the Senate first.

Thanks for all you do. Jane Hamsher John Odum FDL Action PAC/Green Mountain Daily

According to Vermont education commissioner Vilaseca (on the Mark Johnson Show, 12/22/09) the answer to local control is to simply redefine “local” to encompass a larger area … so local ain’t local anymore!

When one is dedicated to centralizing command and control over our (for now) local school systems, redefinition of “local” seems quite logical I suppose.

Times Argus says

FairPoint Communications Inc., the embattled company that runs the state's landline telephone system, has hired former top Douglas administration staffer Mike Smith to be its point man in Vermont.

Not too long back, I heard Mr. Smith on VPR talking about his young geezer sports and outdoor activities website group. He sounded quite fond of being part of the younger retired demographic. Now it appears FairPoint has created a new job position for Governor Douglas’s former Secretary for Administration. FairPoint is in the midst of filing for bankruptcy and is wrangling with regulatory boards and legislators in three states. It appears he has been hired to polish FairPoint’s sometimes rocky relationship with legislators and regulatory boards in Vermont. At least they saved him from his brief encounter with early retirement.

Although retired from the Douglas administration in 2008 he must still have some skills FairPoint wishes to exploit and maybe a few connections that FairPoint needs.  

Smith, who served as Secretary of Administration for Douglas, will assume the newly created position of Vermont State President and will represent the company before regulators and lawmakers and with business and community groups, FairPoint President Peter Nixon said Monday.

Representative Ira Trombley of Grand Isle died yesterday. The release from the VDP office said only that his passing was “unexpected.” Trombley, who was 57, is survived by his wife and three children.

I didn't know Ira well at all. I was still working for the coordinated campaign when he was first voted into office, and that's where I met him. I haven't seen him very often at all in recent years, although he would occasionally drop me a postcard when he read something on GMD he liked.

Ira always struck me as friendly, intelligent – and above all, a very, very good man. That last adjective may sound trite or uninspired, but believe me when I say that, in my book at least, there is no higher praise.

But more than simply being good, Ira made a difference. He became a lawmaker and put his ideals into action. Every good thing the legislature has done (and in the case of something like marriage equality, historic thing) is a part of his legacy, every bit as much as the less public parts of his life. In ways big and small, he made the world a better place than it was when he came into it.

So I suppose there was some higher praise after all.

I get it. I really do. I’m not being snarky, I’m 100% serious.

It’s the hope for something better.

Under the mandate, the hope is that 30 million people will be insured that wouldn’t otherwise be insured. Hopefully the private insurance plans will be structured such that working and low-middle income families won’t be forced to plow through 10% or 20% of their income for basic care. Hope that families living that tight can find enough extra money – perhaps in an upturned economy – to make it work, rather than face IRS penalties.

Hope that the skyrocketing costs of health care will be slowed down enough so that working families won’t be further forced into that scenario by private insurers looking to squeeze out as many dollars as possible from the consumer. Even though these companies won’t be constrained by antitrust laws or the need to stay competitive with a robust public option of some sort that could be fine-tuned by the feds to meet Americans’ needs, maybe they won’t leap in and maximize profits, out of fear of pushing the system into collapse. Or maybe the same Congress that rejected such meaningful, systemic checks on costs will loosen up a bit when the heat comes down and vote to expand one of the cost control pilots in the bill. Maybe concerns about the effectiveness of those mechanisms will prove unwarranted. Maybe the Independent Medicare Advisory Board will live up to its theoretical potential and impact the very way health care is priced.

Hope that the tax on benefits won’t force many employers to cut back on existing health care plans, thus putting increased costs onto a middle class already reeling from recession. Perhaps employers will feel committed enough to their employees and to an understanding of the positive potential of an improved insurance system to bite the bullet on behalf of those employees.

Hope that states will be up to the task of enforcing the bill’s demanded changes to insurance company behavior.

Hope that insurance companies won’t continue to use loose, unrestrained and heartless definitions of “pre-existing conditions” to increase as many premiums as possible to the maximum allowable, above and beyond the base limits.

Hope that the extra money for Community Health Centers thet Bernie Sanders pushed into the final agreement will be enough to help those that fall between the cracks, or make so little money they are exempted from the individual mandate.

Hope that millions of women won’t find their abortion coverage stripped away from them, making it an out of pocket expense that effectively takes away choice for working class women.

And finally hope that if all those (and other) best-case scenarios don’t come to pass, that somebody – somewhere – will do something to step in and fix it in some way that isn’t spelled out in the Senate legislation at this point. Maybe legislators will be eager to take up health care reform again. Maybe the rejected Medicare buy-in can be revisited – this time without resistance from the Insurance Industry, who may feel magnanimous after getting so much of what they wanted.

Maybe the economy will turn up and improve everyone’s lot enough to make this work, one way or another. Obama is a good man, maybe he can just do something as President if the worst of what could happen becomes manifest.

Maybe, if the right combination of economic circumstance, patience and just-enough-goodwill-or-cooperation from the insurance companies come together, this could make everything better – not perfect – just better.

I get it. I really do. For most, supporting this Senate bill is a statement of optimism – and who can possibly be against optimism? Without it, what are we?

But based on personal experience, observation, and our understanding of the way our institutions work, many of us don’t share that optimism in regards to this half-a-reform. And without it, unlike with the also-disappointing Catamount Health Plan (which I supported and continue to support) – its too easy to see everything getting worse if this becomes the law of the land.

So for us, especially those of us who have banged our heads against the wall on this issue for decades, now – our optimism becomes manifest in fighting to the very, very last – as hard as we can – to improve this bill.

And who can possibly be against optimism, after all?

(CLICK HERE to sign the FDL petition to stop the Senate bill from becoming the law)