There’s a poll on NBC’s website asking for public response to the question of whether the motto “In God We Trust” should be removed from US currency & coins. The religious right of both major parties has apparently freeped the poll, which is running at 87% No to 13% Yes.

I don’t know the motivation for the question, since I know of no move to remove the religious statement — sounds like yet another manufactured issue for the grasping-at-straws GOP hard right to stir up its hardline religious base.

Go, vote if you see fit. Let’s help balance the point of view.

Update: As of Sunday morning, the percentages are the same, with over 14 MILLION votes.

Very big turnout. Biggest I’ve seen in a while (and, obviously, without the benefit of a nationwide media push via Fox News playing in every McDonalds, and the associated buzz… not bad at all). Please note that the video is… er… rated ‘R’ for language, in case your kids are nearby.

I took some time today on my lunch break to attend the “Healthcare is a Human Right” rally on the Statehouse Lawn. I was busy running around hobnobbing and such, so I don’t have a lot of details as to who was speaking at what time and so on. It was very well attended, much more than anything else at the Statehouse in quite some time, and unsurprisingly, much more well attended than the tax-day whinefest (although there were a few rather quiet anti-choice protesters in attendance). More photos below the jump.

Even though the day was overcast, there was a good energy in the crowd.

And of course, Bernie was there, giving a rousing speech…

Sixth anniversary

Shall we take a moment to revel in the past glories of the Bush years ?

May 1 2003

“This is the formalization that tells everybody we’re not engaged in combat anymore, we’re prepared for getting out” a senior administration official said.

In a less publicized incident, Rumsfeld also declared an end to major combat operations in Afghanistan  on May 1, a few hours before President Bush’s announcement.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/…

http://www.editorandpublisher….

An idea that the Legislature rejected a year ago has cropped up again in the Fee Bill, one of the big money bills the Legislature has to deal with every year. It was a bad idea a year ago, it's a bad idea now, and the Legislature should kill this before it goes any farther.

You know that Douglas likes to talk about Vermont's affordability crisis, and how hard people who don't have a lot of extra money have it to afford their basic necessities of life. And it must be really hard if your job pays you a very low salary, like $.25 an hour, right?

That's right, $.25 an hour. You could get paid that little if you're employed by Correctional Industries of Vermont. I'm not sure about license plates, but if you spend any time in state office buildings you've probably sat on furniture made by prisoners.

Well, you say, what expenses do prisoners have? Aren't all their needs taken care of? They get housing, they get three hots and a cot, they probably have doctors and dentists and people like that come in to take care of them, right? How about this: the Douglas administration wants to make prisoners pay a $5.00 co-pay whenever they go to the doctor. If you're only getting paid $.25 an hour, even $5.00, which is a pretty low co-pay in the private insurance world, starts to look like a lot of money.

It's part of the Fee Bill, and here's the legislative language (from last year–I haven't seen this year's language, but it's likely to be the same):

Sec. 10 28 V.S.A.§ 801 is amended to read
§ 801. MEDICAL CARE OF INMATES

They're doing it because, in their words, “[T]he costs of medical care could be defrayed, personal responsibility enhanced, and unnecessary usage reduced) (sic) by a modest inmate co-pay per visit.” They also think they'll save $50,000. Out of $130 million.

So in their view, doing this will have the beneficial effect of keeping prisoners from seeing doctors. On the other hand, a study on corrections policy across the country a couple of years ago argues that if we are going to provide decent health care to prisoners, who are, after all, people in the custody of the taxpayers' government, one thing we have to do is get rid of co-pays. 

In a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to evaluate the cause of outbreaks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in correctional facilities in Georgia, California, and Texas between 2001 and 2003, co-payments were singled out as a significant contributor to the spread of these serious and aggressive skin infections because they discouraged prisoners from seeking care (CDC 2003). . . . [I]t is impossible to devise a co-payment
program that does not erect barriers to care that could put the health of individuals n jeopardy, lead to the spread of disease, and cost correctional systems and communities much more in the long run when treatment is delayed.

Now do you know the big health care story of this week? That's right, swine flu. It's bad enough that people are dying of it, and it's spread to the United States. Is this really a smart time to start punishing people for going to the doctor?

 This is an area, one of many, in which Vermont is ahead of the rest of the country. While 33 states have adopted co-pays for prisoners, Vermont doesn't have them, and now the Douglas administration is once again racing to the bottom, trying to abandon one positive, progressive aspect of corrections policy, And it's also self-defeating. You may remember back in the fall of 2007 when the Springfield prison was locked down because of an outbreak of MRSA. How much worse would it have been if the prisoners were avoiding the doctor because they didn't have the five bucks to get into the office?

This provision of the fee bill is going to be discussed by the conference committee. It's in the Senate version of the bill, but there is still a chance if enough people contact their conference committee representatives.

This is big news.

NPR.org, April 30, 2009 · NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the current court term.

The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction.

Souter has recently been referred to as one of the Court's “liberals”. This is a stretch, but it is clear that Souter showed an amazing degree of independence from the Republicans who appointed and supported him. I've always been impressed by his writing and work on the court.

For instance, in this week's oral argument on the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act:

Justice David Souter disputes that the day is all that different, laying out the recent empirical evidence of voting disparities and government misconduct.

It was expected that Obama would have opportunities to make one or more appointments early in his term. Just this week rumors surfaced that Clarence Thomas has floated the idea of retiring if he can reach an accommodation with Obama on a replacement. Whoever is appointed to replace Souter will not change the balance of power on the Court, but it does give Obama a chance to start making an impression on the Court's makeup and direction.

One of the founding goals of DemocracyFest is to produce an event that is affordable for all liberal/progressive activists to participate in. That is why we are probably one the most neurotic Board of Directors out there when it comes to being fiscally conservative with our budget and keeping our ticket prices as low as possible (about 1/4 the cost of attending similar political conferences).

DemocracyFest is a political festival for liberal/progressive activists which features trainings, speakers and entertainment; teaching people how to make a difference and have fun doing it! Prior DemocracyFests have been held in Massachusetts, Texas, California, New Hampshire and Virginia. Over 4,000 activists have been trained to help on campaigns and make a difference in their communities. The 6th Annual DemocracyFest will be held July 17th-19th in Burlington, VT. Full event tickets are only $55 and can be purchased here:

http://www.DemocracyFest.net

However, we realize that no matter how low we can keep our ticket prices, there will always be activists out there who really want to attend, but do not have the financial resources to afford any ticket cost, and that is why we have the DemocracyFest Scholarship Program. If you are in need of a scholarship, please apply here:

http://www.democracyfest.net/s…

DemocracyFest is very proud to say that we have never turned down a scholarship applicant who wants to attend, but can not afford to do so. Making DemocracyFest accessible to activists from all economic standings in life is so important to us that members of our all-volunteer Board of Directors have even used our own personal money to fund these scholarships when necessary. But none of us are rich (far from it!) and we can’t afford to pay for every scholarship applicant ourselves. Can you help? Our direct cost for each scholarship attendee is $100 (includes 2 meals and a shared hotel room). You can contribute $100 to sponsor a scholarship applicant here:

http://www.democracyfest.net/s…

Thank you for supporting DemocracyFest and our Scholarship Program!

Last spring the Vermont Workers’ Center – Jobs With Justice began the campaign Healthcare Is A Human Right.  For the past year they have conducted more than 1,400 interview surveys with Vermonters all across the state.  They’ve held hearings in Brattleboro, Burlington, St. Albans, Lyndonville, Barre, Rutland, and Bennington.

Everywhere they have gone the story has been the same.  People want want and need universal healthcare.

These are challenging times.  We have a new president, a declining economy full of upheaval, and Vermont State Government is facing cuts on every level.  According to the Vermont Workers Center (VWC), it is time to change the paradigm

and save Vermonters tens of millions of dollars by establishing a universal single-payer healthcare system which eliminates the waste and profit of the current insurance financing system.  These are critical times, full of new possibilities and great challenges.

I agree.  It is a time “full of new possibilities”, but only if we have the vision and energy to create change.

Come be part of that change tomorrow, Friday, May 1st for the first major statewide Healthcare Is A Human Right Rally at the Statehouse in Montpelier at 12 noon.

President Obama is talking about a single-payer universal healthcare system, and already the pundits are trying to create scare tactics telling us that we will face healthcare rationing.  Healthcare Blogger Maggie Maher said,

We’ve barely started to discuss the specifics of health insurance reform and already confront a debate among the deaf.  Consider the concerns of the Washington Times, which opines:

“Nationalized health care puts bureaucrats – not doctors – in charge of deciding who needs what medical treatment. Rationing is inevitable under these schemes. That’s one reason Mr. Obama’s universal health care plans must be stopped.”

More below the fold…

I am not a member of the VWC, and I am lucky enough to currently have health insurance, but there have been times when my family and I did not have the health insurance we needed.  I testified at the Burlington Healthcare Hearing and you may read portions of that testimony below.

This past Sunday, I was at an afternoon event and met an insurance businessman, whose whole 40-year career revolved around health insurance.  He said that establishing a single-payer universal healthcare program would save this country billions if not trillions of dollars and give everyone access to better care than they have now.  I was stunned, as I had imagined he would wholeheartedly support the insurance point of view.

I have spoken with numerous friends and colleagues in my age group who want to change jobs, take an early retirement, or begin a new business, but cannot afford to because they would not have access to affordable health care.  Especially during this time of economic crisis and layoffs, it is so important for Vermonters to be able to retire or start new businesses thus opening up existing job positions for those waiting to move into the career marketplace.

Come speak in support of Healthcare Is A Human Right to our Legislators tomorrow at noon at the Statehouse.  Your support is needed.

From my testimony:

“Healthcare is a Human Right”

“Mayor (Bob) Kiss, Rabbi (Joshua) Chasan, Dr. (Ann) Goering, Rev. (Sarah) Flynn, and the other panelists (Jennifer Henry, Rebecca Haslam, Roddy Cleary, Al Robinson, Mohamed Abdi, Hal Colston, Denise Foote), thank you for donating your time to work on behalf of all Vermonters.  Each one of you holds a position in which you see the need for universal healthcare on a daily basis.

…I live in Burlington.  I am lucky that currently I have healthcare, but that has not always been the case…in 1990, we lost our health insurance.  Initially we had COBRA, which, as most of you probably know, enables an individual to extend their original policy for 18 months.  The cost is prohibitive.  Back in 1990, when our family of four faced grave financial circumstances…we shelled out more than $800 each month to keep our family insured.  For a time it was a viable solution, but ultimately, we could not afford to pay that sum every month and canceled our medical insurance.  While my husband was beginning to do some consulting work, my income as a newspaper report was barely enough to support one person, let alone a family of four.  We were lucky in that for the next 12 months we were able to buy a major medical policy for $160 each quarter in case anyone in the family needed hospitalization, and with young children such a policy is critical.  Finally, the newspaper I worked for offered health insurance, and we were covered once again, but the cost was so high, I was left with even less take-home pay from my meager salary.  Our doctors helped us out by treating our children for free or by dramatically reducing their fee.  It was a very challenging time.  

Ultimately we both turned to teaching, and taught for six years in Connecticut before moving to Vermont in 2001, so that Arnie could teach at Burlington High, and I could return to school at Burlington College to become a paralegal.  Our teaching jobs provided medical insurance for us and for our children until they both finished college and began their own careers.

Our son is a web designer in Washington, DC.  The first three years he was building his business from scratch, he went without medical insurance.  It scared us, especially during the early years, when he worked as a bike messenger and bar tender, so that he could pay his bills while developing his business.  No, he is not in Vermont, but his story is pertinent because his small two-person shop has grown to 12 employees, all with medical insurance if they wish it.  And, while he does have basic insurance, it is extremely costly for him, his employees, and his business.  Each policy has such a huge deductible that thus far no one has recouped any of their costs.  Financially, it is a huge drain on his little company.  

Vermont needs more jobs and the opportunity to grow its economy.  Everywhere I turn, I meet people who wish they could change jobs, start their own business, work for a non-profit, work part-time so they could do more volunteer work… their dreams are inspiring.  Yet, most of them stay exactly where they are working, because they cannot afford to change jobs and lose their medical insurance.  Imagine if everyone had health care, all the little companies like my son’s that would provide good jobs and bring businesses and economic growth to Vermont.  

Vermont’s children are lucky that Dr. Dinosaur assures every child of medical insurance, but what happens when those children turn 18-years-old?  I know several of my husband’s former BHS students, who are working or working and attending college part-time, and not one of them has health insurance or receives healthcare because they cannot afford to see a doctor.  Most of them do not even have money for a car, and are at further risk for injury by biking in truly inclement weather.

Our 26-year-old daughter is a paramedic in Charleston, SC, and now that she is with Charleston County EMS, she has complete medical insurance, but that was not true for her first paramedic position in Northern California.  As a fully licensed paramedic, facing all types of illness from exposure to patients and the danger of traveling at a high rate of speed in an ambulance, she was uninsured.  She no longer fell under our insurance coverage, and had a six-month waiting period to qualify for insurance from the ambulance corps.  So here she was doing a critical life saving job, being paid about $9 an hour, and had no medical insurance, and had to pay back school loans as well.  

What are we doing to our young people who need a livable wage, access to healthcare, and access to further education?  

Before moving to her first paramedic job in California, our daughter was employed as an EMT in Fletcher Allen’s Emergency Department, where, time and time again, she took care of people who came to the emergency department because they had nowhere else to go.  Sometimes it was because they just needed basic care and had no money for a doctor.  Other times, they had struggled to maintain their health, and finally had a cut, bruise, break, or illness, that had gotten much worse and now required serious medical intervention because they had no healthcare provider to care for them when their illness was in its early stages.  The cost of such emergency healthcare is staggering, and it must be paid by the rest of the Vermonters who have medical insurance, it comes in the form of higher hospital costs and insurance rates.

My friend Marilyn is in her 70’s.  She has worked her whole life, and her husband has worked his whole life.  Now, they both live on social security and Medicare.  Even though he was employed as a Burlington firefighter for some time, throughout most of his life he worked in the construction trades, and thus has no pension.  Since, Marilyn’s husband is currently in remission from prostate cancer, they must carry supplemental health insurance at a cost of $160 per month.  As costs continue to escalate around them, they are hard put to pay almost $2,000 per year for supplemental care.  At 70-years-old, Marilyn has no choice but to occasionally clean houses in order to make ends meet.

In June, my husband…retired from teaching at BHS.  He will be 60 in January, so we are not eligible to collect social security or Medicare, and as a self-employed paralegal, I relied upon my husband’s BHS medical plan.  We got scared this summer when we began trying to unravel what insurance and medical care we would be able to have for the next 3 years.  

The cost of healthcare, even Catamount, is very high.  Finally, another retired teacher informed us that we were eligible for healthcare through his retirement account, and that is what we are doing.  It means that further down the road, we will have less retirement, but since each one of us has had prior health issues, we believe we had no other option.  My husband had viral pericarditis, an inflammation around the heart, which morphed into post-viral neuropathy, which means at times that he has great pain in his legs.  We are lucky.  We have healthcare, great doctors and care givers, and medical insurance.  

Many, many Vermonters are not so lucky.  I believe that healthcare is a right.  I am asking you on this panel to help get that message to our State Legislature and to our Governor.  Our taxes are paying for a terrible war and a banking and financial debacle of extreme proportion.  It is time that we focused on all Vermonters and provided them with the healthcare each American deserves.  It is our right to receive such care, and I believe it is our moral obligation to provide such care to all Vermonters and all Americans.”

I know many Vermonters who are now without any health insurance and have no possibility of regaining it in the future.  I believe it is time to stop enriching corporate giants or exiting CEO’s, and to use that money make Healthcare A Human Right.

Compromise is a word that often drives some of us lefties crazy. Most of us are rightfully concerned of losing ground (or of not gaining ground) to society’s ills, or just as rightfully concerned that when politicians talk of compromise, they are often disingenuously using the term to placate supporters when, in fact, they only pretend at sharing those supporters’ values.

On the other hand, our political system is predicated on the very notion of compromise. As much as we would like to think otherwise, standing firm on every issue that defines us as “liberal” or “conservative” equals stasis. Representative democracy is designed that way.

So what can we expect from a system with such contradictory forces in play, not simply during the endgame that is the budget season, but in the midst of a rapidly escalating fiscal crisis? Especially given that the opposition (in our state, at any rate) seems to have a hard time playing the game honestly? Douglas is now infamous for throwing out wacky ideas that are impractical or otherwise meaningless, and as such his primary motivation in the political process has simply been to sabotage it (see his ill-timed attempt to shoot down Marriage Equality without appearing to, that of course, blew up in his face) and lay the problems at the Democrats’ feet.

They’ve been so successful at it, and its become so routine, that Republicans aren’t even pretending at being particularly honorable about it anymore. Take this from Hallenbeck Remsen yesterday:

House Republicans called a news conference to chastise Democrats for failing to get busy sooner on budget belt-tightening. House Republican Leader Patti Komline, R-Dorset, said…

They brought out a “master list of reduction ideas” assembled last December, plus a proposal Assistant House Republican Leader Pat McDonald, R-Berlin, developed in early January. McDonald said these were ideas to explore, not ideas the caucus endorsed.

Since House Republicans didn’t have the solution in hand, what were they trying to do?

“We are hoping to inspire them (Democratic leadership, since Democrats have majorities in both the House and Senate) to become a lot bolder,” Komline said.

“Inspire” Democrats? Did anybody in the room even maintain a straight face at that comment?

Clearly they have no ideas, here, and don’t care even to pretend that they do. They just want to tear down the majority for its own sake, good government be damned.

So given all this, I was asked by a lawmaker the other day how I thought the legislature would be judged by grassroots Dems on the budget. Not a simple question.

The nexus between what must be done and what should be done is a subjective one. Lawmakers will never agree with each other on where it lies, let alone with all other Vermonters. This is why the reservoir of trust the majority has been rebuilding with voters is so important. In recent years, the collective legislative majority had lost much of that trust from seeming to place itself above many of the stated concerns of its constituents. Whether that impression sprang from reality, perception and style, or some combination depends on who you ask – but it was real, nonetheless.

Smith and Nease have managed to rebuild some of that trust quickly, and even the previously-maligned Shumlin has bounced back, not simply by benefiting from the work of his House counterparts, but by showing the public his genuine passion and commitment for the explosively controversial marriage equality law.

That trust translates to wiggle room among the base. It makes it easier to swallow a bitter pill if you trust the pharmacist.

Still, the timing is poor for a fiscal crisis. That rebuilt trust is still in a fetal stage, and if leadership moves carelessly, it could easily be stillborn, leaving voters more cynical than before.

The fact is that this legislature will be judged by the Democratic base, by the media, by independents and even by the right on two things: policy priorities and, let’s call it relevance. I’d like to say that the policy half of the equation is more significant than the political, but the real truth is, they’re probably about equal. The legislature needs to show that its every bit the power player that Douglas is – a hard thing to do when your opponent is interested in little more than sabotaging you.

An example of what I mean. I was watching an otherwise lousy episode of Star Trek: TNG the other day. A subplot concerned the android Commander Data’s frustration at losing some weird strategy/speed futuristic board game to some annoying genius alien guy with really bad skin. His solution, in the end, was to stop trying to win, and to simply play to counter all his opponents moves without any other objective. His bad-skinned opponent became so frustrated, he stormed off – and Data won by default.

It’s not precisely equivalent, but Douglas is – more or less – playing Governor under the Data strategy.

So here are some watchwords I would suggest:

Adaptability: I’m not talking fiscal, here – I’m talking political. A small example – I get concerned when I hear this concrete commitment to adjourning by a date certain. That’s painting a target on your head for Jim Douglas, as that’s an easy thing to sabotage and increase frustration and entropy within the majority caucus. Sometimes lines in the sand are not a statement of your power, so much as they are handing power to the other guy. None of this should be construed to mean that I think the end date is a big deal – its not. I just get concerned that our legislature can be as light on its feet as it needs to be.

Plan for the worst. That means – like it or not – you have to expect a veto. Getting the left and the right to stay with the caucus takes different strategies, but it simply has to be done. Despite the fact that its typical in the media to beat up on the left for being non-pragmatic, the fact is that the lefties have a clearer worldview than so-dubbed wise moderates. A such, they can keep their eyes on the big picture, as long as their priorities are respected.

Moderates, on the other hand, will need a gimme. Some specific concession they can hang their hats on.

Both will need to be placated, while at the same time showing the public a clear, forward-thinking set of priorities. Unemployment benefits and health care are more important to more people than business tax breaks and even rest areas.

Revenues – go for it. All the revenue ideas have been vetted in the media and the public. Whatever damage was to come from them has already largely been done, given that they are subtle enough that nobody’s gonna be all that aware of whether or not they get implemented anyway. Go for ’em – and stop worrying about things like offsetting marginal rate cuts. That will neither bring the Governor along (because there’s nothing in that proposal he can claim victory about, so he won’t give a damn as a notion that most recently hit the press by way of Peter Shumlin, he won’t be able to lord it over Dems as a political victory), nor win you any kudos from anybody in the public.

Transparency. Talk, talk, talk. Keep the public in the loop, always.

…and on that veto… whatever the “Plan B” is in the face of a veto – and assuming the worst (that the veto is upheld), make the headline cuts for try #2 (insignificant as they may be) on the Governor’s doorstep. Cut his office, his PR people, first and foremost. Those cuts alone won’t get you where you want to be in terms of policy, but it forces a put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is narrative onto the Governor, and that could help give you leverage to bring in wayward caucus members.

More on this later. Obviously its a big topic.

They did it! The New Hampshire Senate just passed HB 436, the Marraige Equality Bill. The votes were 13 in favor 11 opposed.

The Concord Monitor:

The New Hampshire Senate voted, 13-11, today to allow adult same-sex couples to marry, approving an amended version of a House-passed bill after a vote to kill the legislation altogether failed by the same margin.

The bill passed by the Senate recognizes a distinction between civil and religious marriages and allows religious denominations to decide whether they will conduct religious marriages for gay or lesbian couples. Civil marriages would be available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples under the law. “This bill recognizes the sanctity of religious marriage and the diversity of religious beliefs about marriage while still providing equal access to civil marriage to all New Hampshire citizens,” said Sen. Maggie Hassan, an Exeter Democrat.

The legislation cannot advance to the governor for his signature or veto unless both houses approve the same version.

The bill was SUPPOSED to go to Governor John Lynch’s desk but because this is an amended version, it now goes back to the House AND THEN the Governor’s desk. The House already approved their version of HB 436 not too long ago by a slim margin. I expect the amended version to pass in the House again. Mike Caulfeld of Blue Hampshire expects the House will pass it.

First Vermont, now New Hampshire, next Maine!

More to come.