Merkley: The "Public Option" won't get done with out the grassroots
Senator Jeff Merkley was in town this week doing the get around Oregon town hall thing. I caught up with him after the Intertwine event in downtown Portland and had just a few minutes to talk with the very busy Merkley about the "public option" for health care reform.
Even though Merkley is a very junior Senator, he seems eager to tackle the very complex and often controversial landmines of health care reform. He's been a vocal proponent for reform, including a public health insurance option.
I asked him to talk about what that option would look like.
"There are a number of ways it could look." Merkley said. "There are clues to what the framework could be in what we've done in Oregon." Merkley cited the SAIF program as one way to look at it, but said it would be unlikely the option would follow that exact model.
Merkley also said that the public option would likely need to have a couple of specific characteristics.
First, it would not be subsidized separately by the federal government. "It would need to compete on a level playing field with private insurance," Merkley said. Individuals would receive the same public dollars or credits and have the ability to choose from any plan, both public and private.
Merkley also said it would likely not be managed like medicare rates are currently done. "Some states do fine under medicare if they've had hefty political clout when it was time to set rates", Merkley said. "Unfortunately, many states (including Oregon) haven't". Merkley said that this disparity is felt hard in the states with lower rates and doctors just can't afford to take many medicare patients.
Senator Merkley also stated that one way the public option might work is to allow states who are willing to experiment with the plan to do so. A series of state "laboratories" would be implemented to allow states to try what works best for them. It would be managed and overseen, but it would avoid a "one size fits all" system that has been a key argument in opposition.
No matter how the public option eventually shakes out, Merkley said that it's up to the proponents around the country to turn up the heat to get it done. "The American people must weigh in and organize," Merkley said. "That's why the Frank Lunz thing was so important."
He was of course referring to his Senate floor pushback of Frank Luntz, the GOP pollster and talking points maven who put out a memo on how to kill healthcare reform. He told me that he was surprised at how his calling out of Luntz had resonated with so many people: "I just knew it was important to not let this get out there unchallenged".
|
July 3, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (1 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
WTF: Sarah Palin resigns as Governor of Alaska
Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, says she won't run for her seat again and not only that, she's stepping down at the end of July. Her press conference isn't yet over, but it's all over CNN and MSNBC. Here is what MSNBC has.
Hypothesize away!
|
July 3, 2009 |
Karol Collymore | Comments (43 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Bonnie Tinker, Rest in Peace
Bonnie Tinker, the head of Love Makes a Family and a member of Seriously P’Oed Grannies, was killed today in a bike accident in Virginia, where she had been attending a conference. This is horrible news. More of the story is here.
I met Bonnie Tinker when I was a staff person with a GLBT organization in Portland. She didn’t make much money. She’d been doing the work a lot longer than me. Her office, above the train station, was either really hot or really cold and always crowded. These realities seemed to matter little to her. She worked so very hard, and there was no doubt that she cared deeply, passionately and thoroughly about what she did. She devoted her life to the work of queer rights and peace.
Her death resonates further for me – she was hit and then run over by a huge truck, just as I was nine years ago. I lived. She did not. So many people in Portland (and elsewhere) have experienced serious bicycle accidents or know someone who has. These “accidents” stay with you, and remind you that bicyclists must forever contend with something that is larger, more powerful and more destructive than they are. It is not as it should be.
The loss of Bonnie Tinker is tragic, heartbreaking and will be felt by the progressive, radical, and queer communities for a long time to come. Please honor Bonnie by doing your most envelope-pushing, authority-challenging work to make our community a better place. She deserves it.
|
July 2, 2009 |
Kristin Teigen | Comments (9 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Rock the vote (don't rock the vote, baby)
From Jim Ross, Oregon's latest voter registration numbers:
The Oregon voter file has just been released. Of the 46,710 new registrants since the election, 17,449 have registered Democrat, 10,647 have registered Republican and the remaining 18,614 have registered non-affiliated.
Okay..it's really "Rock the Boat"....but you get the idea. Oh 70's, how I love you.
|
July 2, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (35 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Cartoon: 4th of July with the Oregon Legislature
By Jesse Springer of Eugene, Oregon. Jesse is a long-time political cartoonist and illustrator. Previously, he contributed "Trick or Treat!". See more at Springer Creative.
|
July 2, 2009 |
guest column | Comments (35 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Once more Dear Friends
There's a story out today by Rajiv Chandrasekaran in the Washington Post about the new push by about 4,000 Marines into the Helmand Valley in Afghanistan. Helmand is the opium capitol of the world and a Taliban stronghold.
Like the drug trade everywhere, only a tiny percentage of the population makes any money at it, and in a lot of cases, entire small villages are sharecroppers under a sort of feudal system. Anyhow the Taliban can get a foot soldier for about $5 per day and it ain't about ideology as much as it is about staying alive. Better to be the guy with the gun than otherwise.
About a hundred miles away in Kandahar, the Taliban has been chased out, but there is no functional government. Saw Sarah Chayse sum it up nicely on a recent Rachel Maddow Show :
"....one of my cooperative members was bringing some car parts - he has an auto parts store - in from the border. He had to pay bribes at eight different checkpoints, you know, to the police.
So it‘s like you are afraid of the Taliban and then the government is abusing you, too. And it is this constant navigation of trying to make your way between these two hostile forces in a way."
The Marines seem to have their work cut out for them. We've been messing around in Helmand for years, going at it from the top end of the KBR/Halliburton food chain with various large scale construction projects that wind up as besieged fortresses like the Kajaki Damwhich has a shiny new turbine, but gets attacked and harassed regularly. Meanwhile the farmers downstream don't have wiring in their houses anyway, so the Hearts and Minds thing ain't been going so well.
Obama's big plan is to get the troops out into the villages, run off any random Talibs and sit down with the local elders to run up to-do lists for the immediate betterment of the locals. Obama's wonks seem to get the whole economic problem and the governmental power vacuum, and the Marines have their orders, so we'll hope for the best. I used to work with some guys from this part of the world back in Esfahan Iran in '78, and they haven't had a moment of peace since. They definitely are due for a break. Still it all reminds me of an old Firesign Theater sketch where the U.S Navy is anchored off the coast of Africa, firing (if memory serves) Levis and Nikes into the jungle, once and for all solving all post colonial ills.
|
July 1, 2009 |
Pat Ryan | Comments (17 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Serious wonkery: Al Franken, Mark Hatfield, and Senate Rules
Now that Al Franken is (finally!) poised to become a U.S. Senator, it's time for him to also take his position on Senate committees and on the U.S. Senate seniority ladder.
The first item is easy. Franken will be assigned to the Judiciary Committee, taking a seat that Senator Ron Wyden has been holding for him since January.
(Of course, rather than simply keeping it warm, Wyden's been using the Judiciary seat - combined with his Intelligence seat - to press on issues related to national security and presidential authority.)
It seems likely that Senator Wyden's going to lose his shot at the upcoming confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor. Ah well. But it'll be nice for the country to see Al Franken as a new Senator in that setting.
----
The second item is a bit more complicated. Had Franken been sworn in with the rest of his colleagues on January 6, he'd have ranked right above Senator Jeff Merkley in seniority. (Why? Because Minnesota is bigger than Oregon, and neither had previously served in Congress or the Cabinet, or been a Governor.)
It seems that there's some discussion about whether Franken will slide into that seniority spot - right above Merkley - as he was entitled to on election day, or whether he'll be #100.
On the one hand, the actual date of swearing-in is usually considered the primary factor. Even though everyone knew on election day that there would be open seats in Illinois and Delaware, Senators Roland Burris and Tim Kaufman rank behind the others. (Not that it's going to matter much for either of them, since their careers will be short.)
On the other hand, a ruling issued in 1980 by the Senate Rules Committee -- then led by Oregon's Mark Hatfield and Rhode Island's Claiborne Pell -- held that differences in swearing-in date wouldn't matter when Senators were elected on the same day. (It seems that some outgoing Senators were resigning post-election so their replacements could get a brief head start ahead of their new colleagues.)
And according to the Washington Post, back in January, that ruling may still apply. Of course, that was six months ago - we'll soon find out if Al Franken goes to the bottom of the class, or if he bumps Jeff Merkley down a notch.
Does this all matter? You bet. Years from now, the pecking order will determine silly things like who gets better office space and important things like who gets first pick of committee chairmanships.
Ironically, if Jeff Merkley gets bumped down a notch, it'll be due to a ruling made by Mark Hatfield, his mentor and predecessor.
Here's Wikipedia's chart of current seniority in the U.S. Senate. Wonk yourself out.
|
July 1, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (7 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Ouch: The WW's "The Good, The Bad and The Awful"
I'm not a dedicated Oregon Legislature follower, so reading "The Good, The Bad and The Awful" is like reading US Weekly: Nerd Edition. There are some pretty scathing reviews and I'm not so comfortable with the "brains" rating, but it's worth a read.
Cringe-worthy piece about the "bad" Rod Monroe (truthiness of it is debatable):
D-Portland Overall rating: 6.18 Integrity: 7.12 Brains: 6.23 Effectiveness: 5.19 Looking more like a wax rendering of himself each day, Monroe, 66, soldiers onward for his outer-Southeast Portland constituents, although observers increasingly wonder why he bothers. Monroe first entered the Legislature in 1976, then served on the Metro Council for 12 years before returning to Salem in 2007. “[He’s] the best argument for term limits,” says a critic. “For someone who has been around public policy since before dirt was invented, [I’m] surprised at his lack of knowledge or interest in particulars,” says another. Monroe’s scores bear that out—although he’s in the majority party, he’s tied for lowest effectiveness ranking in the Senate. The Legislature’s only foreign-born member (Canada), Monroe did help resolve a snafu that threatened full-day kindergarten but largely served in obscurity.
*I should add that this is an anonymous survey of Salem lobbyists, staffers and journalists. Mean when no one's watching, eh?
|
July 1, 2009 |
Karol Collymore | Comments (33 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Swallow it down (what a jagged little pill)
As Kari reported yesterday, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided that Al Franken should be certified the winner of the Senate contest in that state. Soon after, Norm Coleman conceded and Governor Tim Pawlenty made it official. Franken is scheduled to be sworn in next week when the Senate returns from this week's recess.
Part of my own fascination with this particular contest stems from the insane rightwing opposition to Franken. Their casting of him as some wild-eyed, crazed malcontent who is just to the left of Chairman Mao seems more a conspiratorial fantasy than anything based on Franken's views.
From my observation, it's unlikely that Franken will be the liberal conscience of the U.S. Senate any time in the near future. The race was extremely close. And Franken likely feels the weight of all those who didn't vote for him as much as those who did. Further, Franken was an early supporter of the War in Iraq. He may have some liberal stripes, but all his stripes don't run that way.
But in the meantime, the whacko rightwing babbles on....
|
July 1, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (20 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Framing a Great Idea
Near the end of the legislative session, the legislature put forward the idea that the law regarding referendums should be changed. That idea was a great one, but it died due in part to poor framing of the issue. In the future, better framing, coupled with objective reporting, can help the idea become law.
First things first. A referendum is not like a referral or an initiative ballot measure. With an initiative, regular citizens put an idea on the ballot. If voters like that idea, they vote yes; if they don't, they vote no. The point is that the idea becomes law -- and the status quo changes -- only if the initiative's backers convince more people to vote for their idea than against it (or not at all). The same is true for referrals, when the legislature puts an idea on the ballot. Again, a yes vote changes the status quo and the law.
Referendums work differently. With a referendum, the legislature has already decided to change the law using the usual legislative process, but certain citizens don't like that change, so they put the change on the ballot. Unlike with an initiative or referral, the status quo with a referendum is change; absent the referendum, the law would change in line with the legislature's wishes. Accordingly, voters who want to reverse the change -- and alter the status quo -- should vote yes to do so. Those who want to keep the change -- and the status quo -- should vote no (or not at all).
Unfortunately, our current system is the opposite when it comes to referendums. Currently, voters who like the legislature's changes must vote yes -- that is, vote for the status quo. Voters who vote no or don't vote at all vote against the legislature's changes -- and the status quo. That is backwards. That is also why the legislature was right to try to allign the yes/no vote protocol with the protocols for initiatives and referrals.
The idea failed, however, in part due to poor framing. Instead of framing the issue as outlined above, the legislature allowed the press and the anti-tax crowd to mischaracterize it in Orwellian terms. So Jeff Mapes of the Oregonian ran a headline stating "Democratic leaders back off 'yes is no' change" and the AP/ Statesman-Journal ran this headline: "Democrats: What does 'yes' or 'no' mean?"
Those characterizations are inaccurate because they set up a superficial straw man and then knock it down by implying a totalitarian motive. No one is trying to say "yes is no." The whole question is whether a yes vote should change the status quo or keep it. With initiatives and referrals, a yes vote says yes to the status quo; that should be its meaning in the referendum context also. Any reporter who continues to mischaracterize the issue as described above may be guilty of biased reporting.
The other problem with the framing is defining what the status quo is with referendums. As I have explained above, the status quo is the legislature's vote to change the law. After all, we live in a representative democracy; ballot measures are the exception to that rule. When the legislature votes to change the law, that law should be changed, unless the people who don't like what their democratically-elected representatives voted for can convince enough of their peers to overide the legislature. The referendum is like a veto; the people who want it should have to vote for it.
Opponents will argue that, because they have collected the signatures to force a referendum, the status quo is not the legislature's vote to change the law, but rather the law before the legislature's vote -- and those who agree with the legislature should bear the burden of convincing voters to enact it. The problem with that argument is that it belies the truth about referendums. Under the current system, those who oppose a legislative vote can stir up the process by gathering signatures to force a referndum and then relying on non-voters to count as "no" votes, thus killing the law without having to campaign for it.
That's cheap. If someone wants to stir the pot, they should have to stir it all the way. I hope the legislature returns to this issue in 2010 and sets the matter straight once and for all.
|
July 1, 2009 |
Cody Hoesly | Comments (20 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
2010: Courtney for Governor? Maybe, maybe not.
There have been lots of rumors that Senate President Peter Courtney has been considering a run for Governor in 2010. He was the #2 Democrat, behind Congressman Peter DeFazio, in my recent roundup of prospective candidates' warchests.
But Jeff Mapes reports that the rumors may be just that:
"I'm not really looking seriously at running for governor," he said, adding that he hasn't exactly been politically correct in his statements. He noted his support for a wide variety of taxes and said: "Do you think I have positioned myself to run for governor?""I'm just not a picture perfect candidate for anything right now," he added.
That's not exactly an ironclad denial, now is it? Stay tuned...
|
June 30, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (15 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Obama: "Whose duck is back there?"
Oh no. Byron Beck is breaking more news on his blog.
It seems that yesterday, President Obama was speaking to a group of some 300 gay rights leaders at the White House, when the following transpired:
(President Obama speaking)....For we know that progress depends not only on changing laws but also changing hearts. And that real, transformative change never begins in Washington.(Cell phone "quacks.")
THE PRESIDENT: Whose duck is back there? (Laughter.)
MRS. OBAMA: It's a duck.
THE PRESIDENT: There's a duck quacking in there somewhere. (Laughter.) Where do you guys get these ring tones, by the way? (Laughter.) I'm just curious. (Laughter.)
In the room, no one admitted to being the culprit.
According to Byron Beck, it wasn't just any duck. It was an Oregon Duck ringtone.
This morning I received an email from my friend, Portland-based gay rights leader Terry Bean. He just so happened to be at the meeting. It's the first time Bean has been back to the White House since the Clinton Adminstration.Bean also happens to be a HUGE fan of the University of Oregon Ducks...
Given that the President's brother-in-law is a coach for the Oregon State Beavers, well, it's no surprise that Bean wouldn't admit to the Oregon Duck ringtone.
|
June 30, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (6 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
