Buried in last week's White House news dump was a set of new restrictions on children's health care coverage that the Bush administration wants to impose on states using the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).(I meant to write this up earlier this week but didn't have time.)
20% of poor children in CT, and 21% in the US are uninsured. 8% of all children in CT are uninsured. (source: Kaiser Foundation fact sheet). The SCHIP program was formulated to help states get coverage for children in poor families (with incomes up to 100% of the federal poverty limit) and near-poor families (up to 200%). As you can see, the program has had success in reducing the number of uninsured children:
However the program is up for re-authorization in 2007 and Bush has been obstinate in trying to block it. The need for re-authorization is clear (PDF link) :
Adequate financing and fiscal incentives are central to boost state efforts to increase coverage. When SCHIP was implemented, states had federal financing available, an enhanced matching rate as an incentive for states to expand coverage and funds dedicated for outreach. As programs matured, enrollment grew and health costs continued to rise, more states began to spend more than their current year federal allotments. States relied on carry-over funds from prior years to fill the financing gaps. During the fiscal downturn from 2001 to 2004, many states implemented policies that dampened enrollment and funds for outreach dried up. In FY 2007 , 14 states faced a federal funding shortfall and Congress allocated supplemental funds to help these states maintain their programs. The amount of funding available in SCHIP reauthorization will determine how far states can go to reach more uninsured children.
The Bush administration is making noises that the program is a "big government" approach that's single-payer in disguise and would be inefficient.
A diarist over at Daily Kos recounted what happened on that day in Portland, here. I was astonished more people didn't remember it as a seminal event but perhaps it wasn't covered by the corporate media as it ought to have been, a truly outrageous moment in what has become an outrageous era.
On August 22, 2002, George W. Bush came to Portland, Oregon to raise money for Gordon Smith's Senate re-election campaign.
The day before, the Portland Police Bureau informed potential protesters that they would be allowed to parade and then protest one-half block from the Portland downtown Hilton, located at SW 5th Avenue and SW Taylor Street.
Hundreds of protesters marched from the North Park Blocks in Portland, eventually stopping at a barricade on SW Taylor Street halfway between SW 5th and 6th Avenues.
What happened next was typical of Bush's America and the DINOs in charge of many major cities whenever political protests occur.
Without warning, Sgt. Lawrence Baird of the Portland police attacked the crowd with pepper spray for reasons unknown. No objects were thrown by the crowd, and no people attempted to cross the barricades.
In the aftermath
On October 25, 2002, 9 people injured in the protest (including the parents and siblings of the 10-month-old infant) filed suit against the City of Portland, Mayor Katz as Police Commissioner, and the officers involved. This lawsuit was combined with 3 plaintiffs attacked by police during anti-war protests in March 2003, and discovery continued throughout 2003 and 2004.
On November 30, 2004, after three settlement conferences presided over by Senior 9th Circuit Judge Edward Leavy, the City of Portland settled both lawsuits for a total of $300,000 ($25,000 per plaintiff), plus $585,000 in attorneys' fees.
One of my (many) rant subjects about the Bush Administration is that they don't appear to have a) studied any history or b) learned any lessons from it. In this month's Vanity Fair, there's a great article by the late David Halberstam (for whom I still mourn - they don't seem to make journalists like him anymore) about the misuse of historical comparisons by the Bushies.
The dirty unwashed masses who populate our juries are fit to judge each other, but evidently not the ruling class. David Broder can breathe a sigh of relief that People Like Him are safe from those overly zealous US Attorneys who might want to hold them accountable to the same absurd standards that the little people must live by. How quaint.
The White House has turned off their phone lines. Evidently they don’t want to hear what you think. There will still be phones tomorrow, and I don’t imagine anyone who cared enough to drop Dubya a line is going to forget.
They have literally shut down the phone lines and refuse to listen to American citizens that are mad as fuck. (h/t Crooks and Liars)
The Chairman's responsibilities and Jurisdictions will include real oversight concerning failures of the Bush administration in providing security to our nation during times of war, illegal invasions, ongoing occupations, and natural disasters, as well as overseeing the bloated budget and operations of the largest branch of government ever to be created in the US governments' history through legislation authored under the Republican controlled Senate and House, and signed by the Republican pResident of the time.
Your main and immidiate responsibilities will include holding the needed hearings, directing sub-commitees and legislation needed to avoid repeating the previous disasters, corrupt practices, and failures that will be found with the propper direction and oversight of a NON-PARTISAN and ethical Senate leader.
(1)Minorities such as moderate Republicans having no ties to far-right-wing radical organizations like the Neoconservative movement, the American Enterprise Instute, The Heritage Foundation, Energy Corporations, or the Bush administrations most recent policy proposals that are doomed to failure, are encouraged to apply to Senator Harry Reid for any consideration concerning this soon to be available position.
(2)Note to applicants: Please mark the subject of the Email as "Homeland Security" and refer to this x-posted Blog diary in the opening paragragh of the application. You will be contacted shortly before I post an "I told you so!" diary covering the flawed positons, election statement lies, and propaganda of the far-right-wing radical Neoconservative Joe Lieberman.
A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.
It's really true!
"The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soliders to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviwing the documents.
"The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soliders would become gay," explained Hammond.
Hammond said the government records he obtained suggest the military gave the plan much stronger consideration than it has acknowledged.
And what does this have to do with Lieberman?
I am POSITIVE that Lieberman must have toured the Ohio plant for a photo op and was exposed to the chemical. How else could you explain his absolute love affair and devotion to neocons? How else could you explain a Democrat falling madly in love with "Little Boots" and abandoning his party principles?
When former Vice President Al Gore hosted "Saturday Night Live" in December 2002 he appeared in a skit that compared his vice presidential selection process from two years before to the dating reality TV show "The Bachelor." In one scene Gore appeared in a hot tub with a faux Joe Lieberman, both of them shirtless, drinking champagne, arms locked, romance in the air. Anyone then looking for clues to see if Gore would run for president in 2004 probably had no trouble discerning that an exploratory committee was not in the cards.
Almost five years later, Gore still says he has no plans to run for president, but his latest book, "The Assault On Reason," is so searingly critical of the Bush administration it's hard to discern what his plans may be.
On the one hand, Gore has written an un-nostalgic look back at the previous six years that lays out his case as to how the world might look today had the chads fallen another way -- a world where U.S. troops would not be fighting in Iraq, Abu Ghraib would just be a town's name and the nation would have been better prepared for Hurricane Katrina, global warming, and, yes, perhaps even Sept. 11.
But on the other hand, "The Assault On Reason" is an assault on President Bush, 308 pages of professorially rendered, liberal red meat that shuns the cautious language employed by any politician standing to the right of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and the left of Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
SNIP
Guess Gore won't be supporting Lieberman much any more...
"History will surely judge America's decision to invade and occupy (Iraq)…as a decision that was not only tragic but absurd," Gore writes.
Wonder what ex-Dem Holy Joe has to say about Gore's critique of the decision to invade Iraq?
Joe's 'progress'-ive behavior
Lieberman presented himself as a moderate during his re-election bid and won. He claimed he wanted to end the war and said we were making "progress."
That however was last year, well before the "surge" became our new foreign policy. Then he said it again last week, that we are finally making "progress."
What happened to last year's progress?
What was not commonly known during the election was that the major contributors of his campaign are the same people who organized and funded the Scooter Libby Defense Fund. Lieberman then appeared uninvited at a Senate hearing to speak on behalf of Sam Fox for ambassador. Fox is a major Republican donor who gave $50,000 to the Swift Boat disinformation campaign against Lieberman's then-fellow Democrat and friend, John Kerry.
Shortly after that Lieberman voted with President Bush against a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. And just last week he accused the Democrats of harassing the president and endorsed Susan Collins, Republican senator from Maine, for re-election. His PAC even gave her $5,000.
I know why most Republicans voted for Lieberman. Although they will protest otherwise - claiming bipartisanship and other high moral reasons - it was just an opportunity to poke the Democratic Party in the eye.
I would like to ask the moderate Democrats and Independents who voted for Joe Lieberman: Do you feel foolish yet? Well, if you do, at least now you are paying attention.
Peter Hargett
Meriden
The U.S. House of Representatives today voted to pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1592, in a vote of 237 to 180. The proposed legislation, which has the endorsement of 230 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations and the support of 73 percent of the American people, was introduced in March by Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., along with more than 100 other members of Congress. The Senate will soon consider an identical companion bill called the Matthew Shepard Act.
HRC President Joe Solmonese; Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn.; and Judy Shepard walking to the Capitol before the U.S. House of Representatives voted on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
"I am personally grateful to the United States House for recognizing the grave reality of hate crimes in America," said Judy Shepard, executive director of the Matthew Shepard Foundation.
Each year, thousands of Americans are violently attacked just because they are black, female, Christian or gay. According to the FBI, 25 Americans each day are victims of hate crimes - that means approximately one hate crime is committed every hour. One in six hate crimes are motivated by the victim's sexual orientation.
Specifically, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would strengthen the ability of federal, state and local governments to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity.
Read about the whole bill and it ensuring equal application of the law: http://www.hrc.org/T...
Why is it party line and not common sense?
Democratic: Yes: 212 No: 14
Republican: Yes: 25 No: 166
And of course, Little Boots is threatening to veto it. From the Washington Post: http://www.washingto...
The House voted Thursday to expand federal hate crime categories to include violent attacks against gays and people targeted because of gender, acting just hours after the White House threatened a veto.
Republicans, in a parliamentary move that would have effectively killed the bill, tried to add seniors and the military to those qualifying for hate crimes protection. It was defeated on a mainly party-line vote.
"The White House, in a statement, said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the crimes defined by the bill and 'there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement.' It also questioned the constitutionality of federalizing the acts of violence barred by the bill and said that if it reaches the president's desk 'his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.'"
Excellent video from HRC showing the misinformation that is being spread by the far right. This should be watched by Everyone!
I think this one works. I'm usually loathe to say anything good about political ads which "pull at the heartstrings" but they've stripped this one down to the bare bones. The people in it look dead serious and not full of sanctimony for a change.
Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling said US generals had failed to prepare their troops properly and had misled Congress about the resources needed for the war.
Writing in the Armed Forces Journal, he said the US had repeated the mistakes of Vietnam and so faced defeat in Iraq."
More excerpts BELOW... But I suggest you read the entire thing here at the Armed Forces Journal instead of the BBC "Readers Digest" version.
(Maine turns Sour-Joe lemons into lemonade: this is how to make an endorsement you're never going to get work to your advantage. - promoted by mattw)
From CongressDailyPM: Maine Dems Welcome Lieberman Endorsement Of Collins
Maine Democrats say the endorsement of Republican Sen. Susan Collins by Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman underscores a central argument in their challenge of the two-term senator next year: the war in Iraq. A political adviser for Democratic Rep. Tom Allen -- an unannounced but likely candidate against Collins -- said Lieberman's support for the war and Collins' support for the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., tie her to the Bush administration's politically unpopular war policy. "I think the Lieberman endorsement is significant. For us, it's a gift," the Allen adviser said. "It paints a picture of Susan Collins with people like Lieberman and McCain, who support the war."
Joe, you are a complete asshole below:
Collins raised $837,000 in the first quarter, including a $5,000 donation from Lieberman's leadership PAC, and ended March with $1.2 million on hand.
And from Steve Abbott, chief of staff for Collins:
Collins' productive working relationship with Lieberman on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is a model of bipartisanship and demonstrates her moderate positions.
After reading the above, I laughed when I read the first comment:
Lieberman will be a big help. They improved Homeland Security by having Republicans and Democrats sit boy-girl dinner-party style instead of across the aisle from one another.
Gee, the next comment is from someone named Dan who was a Lieberman voter:
Lieberman needs to remember what state he "represents." He has not been home (that I know of) since the election, and has no represented the views of my state at all. I voted for him, believing his lies. Now, I'm going to go public with a little bit of a scandal: that Joe doesn't have a real address in Connecticut.
It has become pretty darn obvious that the White House has been breaking laws out the ying-yang in order to hide their "hard work" at the taxpayers expense. Below the foldDan Froomkin lays out the basics and I wonder when Fitzgerald will start looking for more...
This Washington Post article was in the Hartford Courant this morning but ATRIOS decided to give it the very funny heading of "The Perfect Man For The Job. Joe Lieberman, your nation, and your BFF needs you.
The Washington Post reports that the White House is casting about for a "high-powered czar" who would have authority over both military and civilian operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only problem is, no one wants the job:
At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.
Absolutely I agree with Atrios' recommendation of Joe. Get him out of Congress and into the arms of his man.
Chris Shays is off to Iraq yet again. After his last trip in August, 2006, coming just days after anti-war candidate Ned Lamont defeated pro-war senator Joe Lieberman, Shays announced that he was reversing his previous opposition to a timeline, and endorsing a timeline for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. Indeed, he told the Washington Post that "most of the withdrawal could take place (in 2007)." Yet last month, when presented with the opportunity to vote for precisely the sort of timeline he told voters he supported, he reversed himself: Shays voted against the Democratic proposal for a timeline that would have withdrawn American combat troops by the first quarter of 2008, or September 2008 at the latest. It wasn't Shays' first flip-flop on Iraq since the election. After first calling it "a mistake," he endorsed the Bush administration's escalation of the war that is sending an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq, and in February voted against the Democrats' non-binding "anti-surge" resolution. And while he insists that he supports the recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group (ISG), he conveniently declines to mention that he opposes the ISG's crucial recommendation that most American combat troops be withdrawn by the first quarter of 2008. How does Shays justify his flip-flop on timelines? He says that he does support a timeline for withdrawal, but only if President Bush sets it, not Congress. Of course, it is blindingly obvious that Bush will never announce a timeline for withdrawing American troops. So once again, Shays has it both ways: he tells voters he supports a timeline, but only if it comes from the one person who will never issue one. Slick, no?
MLN is powered by