(Bumped. Could the Herald be leaning toward Cahill, or The Candidate Whose Name the GOP Dare Not Speak, Mihos. - promoted by Bob Neer)
Governor Patrick's current winning streak -- an impressive series of policy and political extra-base hits that includes an unexpected vote of confidence from the business group Associated Industries of MA -- continued yesterday and today with two hard-hitting pieces in ... the Herald!? That's right: the Herald yesterday hammered Charlie Baker for watching his salary at Harvard Pilgrim triple (from about $550,000 when he started to $1.7 million when he left), while the insurance premiums it charged skyrocketed. (That's yesterday's front page on the right.) And today it followed up with a piece repeating the basic info about salary and premiums, and including Lt. Gov. Murray's (predictably) outraged reaction.
From yesterday's story:
As Republican Charles Baker seeks to capture the independent vote that bolstered U.S. Sen. Scott Brown's win, a Herald review shows Harvard Pilgrim tripled the former CEO's annual salary as it hit consumers with a 150 percent increase in premiums. Brown rode to victory as an independent voice on health care, a position critics say Baker will have a tough time following with those numbers.... Baker's salary as CEO of Harvard Pilgrim surged from $548,351 in 1999 to a high of $1.7 million in 2008. He earned $1.3 million in seven months in 2009 before he resigned to run for governor last summer, filings with the state Attorney General show.
Over the same period, premiums at Harvard Pilgrim went up by 100 to 200 percent.
When Baker took the reins in 1999, rates on Harvard Pilgrim's most popular plans ranged from about $166 to $187 a month per member. Those rates soared to $425 to $483 a month, as of April, according to filings with the Massachusetts Division of Insurance.
And today, here's the Lt. Gov.:
"If he was serious about helping consumers, helping small businesses have more affordable premiums, he wouldn't be jacking his own pay at a time you're hammering small businesses, cities and towns and families with these double-digit premium increases," Murray said. "(Premium) rates have been a job-killer while they're raising pay. It's outrageous."
Good strategy. The more closely the Patrick/Murray campaign can tie high health insurance premiums to the difficulties small businesses are having, the better. That's particularly the case because Baker seems to profoundly not get it. Here he is in yesterday's Herald, accusing the Gov of changing the subject:
"This probably beats talking about spending and taxes and unemployment if you're him," Baker said.
Ah, but Charlie, this is talking about unemployment. There is actually a connection between skyrocketing health insurance premiums and businesses laying off or not hiring employees. Welcome to the real world.
(From the comments: Boston's "Mini Katrina." Does that make the MBTA FEMA? - promoted by Bob Neer)
MBTA officials are working feverishly to protect the newly-rebuilt Kenmore station from flooding. The Muddy River threatens a repeat of the 1996 disaster that disrupted Green Line operations for months.
The flooding of the Muddy River — and the huge cost it threatens to impose — exemplifies the catastrophic impact of decades of short-sighted greed disguised as public policy.
The Muddy River floods because of the immense damage we have done to the watershed that surrounds it. We see the same impact on Route 1 in Topsfield, caused by the similar damage we've caused to the Ipswich River watershed.
Just how bad does it have to get before we learn just how costly these failed tax policies actually are?
(BMG's education writers weigh in in the comments. - promoted by Bob Neer)
Last Thursday, Globe readers awoke stunned to find that a staff columnist had actually dared cross the line on education policy, just a few days after the Globe's editorial writer had expressed deep regret at the inescapable need to publicly execute an entire high school faculty in Central Falls, R.I.
Incredibly, Joan Vennochi dared to question whether this mass firing was really such a good idea, particularly in the absence of evaluations. She even wondered whether the poor performance of the students could fairly be blamed on teachers, given the poverty of that area. She also asked an important question: would this punitive approach in fact discourage others from wanting to teach such challenged kids.
There was a short item in the Globe over the weekend about complaints from "several minority officers" in the Boston Police Department regarding the content of "Pax Centurion," the newspaper published every other month by the Boston police union. Just for context, here's one of the items mentioned in the Globe story, from the January/February 2010 issue (PDF - it's on page C3). (Click for larger image.)
Now, as a 5-second Google search quickly reveals by bringing up the excellent explanation at snopes.com, this image is a fake -- despite the photoshopping in which the creator moved the Obamas' wedding rings and flipped the President's suit buttons and lapel pin. Here, borrowed from snopes.com, is the real photograph from which the doctored one was taken. Note that in this image, the First Lady's hair is parted on the left, as it is in every other real photograph of her (but is not in the one shown above).
Pretty disappointing that a Boston police officer would go to the trouble of reprinting such an obvious fake; profess to believe that it's real; and then take the appalling next step of questioning whether the President and First Lady of the United States "are really Americans." And also disappointing that the newspaper put out by the union would print this kind of garbage without doing even the most cursory investigation into it.
(Excellent questions. -- David. Bumped. - promoted by Bob Neer)
Just as Liberty Mutual's $50 million city/state tax break package comes up for votes at City Council (3/24) and the state Economic Assistance Coordinating Council (3/31), the Boston Globe reveals these "business incentives" as no more than waste, fraud and abuse, the real purpose of which is to give politicians a chance to brag of "doing something" about economic development (and to recruit corporate campaign donors). Economists have long documented that subsidies don't sway important business decisions, and Deval Patrick, when he was first campaigning, said that a business relying on subsidies is a business going out of business. Yet the state corporate gravy train has continued and accelerated. Boston Mayor Menino, hair on fire over Hynes/Vornado's admission of "blight creation" to get public subsidies, has, with the usual help from the Boston Redevelopment Authority, created blight on paper for LibMu, to qualify the project for tax breaks.
Question: Why don't all the the library, park and school advocates pay attention to this? Why don't they organize to protest this bleeding of the public treasury? Every group losing services will only beg and weep over their own loss, and none will pay attention to the root cause of their problems. The tax-break lobby is taking hundreds of millions of dollars from us and the citizenry is, for some reason, unable to organize opposition, even when the information is revealed. Can anyone help me understand this syndrome?
(Unemployment peaked in 1933 at 24.9 percent during the Great Depression as the full impact of Republican economic management hit the country. In 1934, after the Democrats took power in 1933, it began to drop and never reached that level again. - promoted by Bob Neer)
For some categories of workers, the current economy is a Depression, not a recession.
The ratio of the unemployed to job vacancies varied from lows of 1.8 in professional/technical occupations and 3.2 to 3.8 in sales and services occuptions to highs of 23 in blue collar production occupations and 107 in construction and extraction occupations. There were more than 100 unemployed construction trades workers for every job opening in the state.
The whole article makes clear that means 100 unemployed workers to apply for every constuction job that opens up, and 23 for every manufacturing job that opens up. This translates to an unemployment rate of over 20% in construction work.
The other group with unemployment at a Depression era height is young workers, those age 17-35. Youth unemployment
Andrew Sum, a labor economist at Northeastern University in Boston, reckons about 50 percent of the 7.7 million jobs lost over the past two years have been absorbed by those under 30.
Within that group, about 62 percent of these job losses have been incurred by young men.
Those aged 16 to 19 have seen a 23 percent decline in jobs -- by far the sharpest decline of any age category. In October to November 2007, almost 5.9 million people in this group were employed either full or part time, according to Sum. By October of this year only 4.5 million were.
Now, in the professional and financial sectors the labor surplus is still real - maybe 2 workers for every job. So that may be why for many who read this site, it is still hard to believe just how bad this economy is for the young and especially blue collar.
The labor situation has been especially hard for the working class and Sum estimates the recession has taken 17 percent of America's blue-collar jobs over the past two years.
"It is the most uneven recession ever. It's all young and working class for the most part ... In the labor and youth markets, I would call it a Great Depression," Sum told Reuters.
This reality has to be addressed, and should be treated as an emergency. While extending unemployment is necessary triage, it is not a cure and had a negative impact all its own. Again, according to Sum's analysis:
Our nation's main strategy thus far has been to extend the length of their unemployment benefits with little to no efforts to create new job prospects for them. Long unemployment spells have adverse physical and mental health effects on these jobless workers that can lead to their exit from the labor force.
(Scott Brown, bitter Republican. - promoted by Bob Neer)
There are white lies, black lies, and now, Brown lies. In his response to President Obama's weekly radio address, Senator Scott Brown jettisoned any semblance of independence and revved up the Republican talking points, almost every one of them untrue.
Lie #1. The legislation before the Congress would "completely transform America's health care system," and create "federally controlled health care." Actually, it makes incremental changes in health insurance, principally by covering millions of presently uninsured Americans. Health insurance and health care are not the same things. Health care would, as at present, be principally provided by the same private parties. In fact, Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran's Administration, and other government programs already pay for half of health care costs.
Lie #2. Health care reform has been 'bitter" and "destructive." True only because of implacable Republican opposition, to which Brown adheres. So, a lie.
Lie #3 The bill before the Congress "raises taxes by a half trillion dollars and costs a trillion dollars or more to implement." It will "leave America trillions of dollars deeper in debt." The Congressional Budget Office documents that the bill will substantially reduce the deficit. It's not passing the bill that will leave America deeper in debt.
Lie #4. "Americans aren't buying it, and for good reason." National surveys have consistently shown support for health reform along the lines of the bill before Congress. Indeed, many Americans support more vigorous reforms, such as a robust public option. If some Americans are scared or confused about what's at stake, it is indeed "for good reason." It's because of the relentless campaign of disinformation of which Scott Brown's radio address is a perfect example.
Lie #5. "...they have resorted to bending the rules, and they now intend to seize control of health care in America on a strict party line vote." No, it won't be a strict party line vote. All Republicans will vote "no" and most Democrats will vote yes. And, as we all know, majority rule is the slippery slope to dictatorship.
Of course, Scott Brown, as spokesman for his party, had to follow the party line and lie about health care reform, didn't he? Well, no. He really didn't need more face time. He's had a ton lately. But in this address, Brown is throwing in his lot with the far right. He could have sought another forum where he would have had the chance to make a nuanced critique. Instead he chose the low road. Some independence.
(In which the Texans won the Battle of the Alamo, the Lone Star Republic was a successful country, and George W. Bush was a respected president. - promoted by Bob Neer)
After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers' commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.
The vote was 10 to 5 along party lines(why should this stop just in Washington DC), with all the Republicans on the board voting for it.
Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons "the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others."
I will admit to being a terrible cynic at times, but nothing prepared me for the Patrick's Administration's "treatment" of Tufts Dental at Fernald. It was announced today that Tufts Dental, a pioneer in providing specialized dental care to people with developmental disabilities and providing preventative care and treatment for for 2,100 community living and campus living residents will be closing. Not relocated. Closing. Although Tufts officials had tried desperately to relocate these services to the Massachusetts Hospital School in Canton, the Governor's budget failed to provide sufficient funds for relocation.
(The police union is a blustering joke. They can continue to hassle the governor over the construction details, but like Obi-Wan, it will only make him stronger. - promoted by Charley on the MTA)
I've always thought much is being over blown about the rift between Patrick and organized labor. Certainly there will be strains during the deepest economic recession in a generation. Much has been made about the recent dust up in Plymouth with the leaders of the AFL CIO picketing their own conference because their invited guest, Deval Patrick, accepts an invitation to come. How absurd was that? I bet it speaks more to the dysfunction of the Mass AFL-CIO then to anything else.
Apparently, not all unions are pissed at the Governor. And if that article is to be believed, unions have actually grown in Mass during the great recession. If that is true, then shouldn't the AFL-CIO be happy?
(An interesting and important subject. - promoted by David)
The House will soon be taking up a sentencing reform bill. One issue cries out for attention - our failed drug sentencing laws. Massachusetts could save millions and improve public safety at the same time by reforming "mandatory minimum" sentencing laws for drug offenses.
Each year hundreds of drug offenders receive fixed and often lengthy mandatory minimum sentences - 950 men and women in 2008 alone. Long gone are the days when the courts could hand down sentences that fit the crime. Instead, judges are required to impose one-size-fits-all sentences. Low level, non-violent drug offenders are routinely sentenced to 10 or 15 years in prison - even longer. Those on the lowest rungs of the drug trade, including many substance abusers and addicts, receive the same lengthy sentences intended for drug kingpins, even as first-time offenders. They often serve longer sentences than violent criminals.
Buyer beware.
It costs $47,000 a year for each state prisoner and about $35,000 a year for each county prisoner. Lengthy sentences create a growing population of aging prisoners who are even more expensive to house, given their medical needs.
(Krugman has more on the essentially fraudulent nature of Rep. Ryan's "plan." - promoted by David)
The Economist explains how Paul Ryan's health care plan saves all that money. It's easy if you eliminate Medicare!
The first [idea], put forward by Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the budget committee, is the "Roadmap for America's Future" budget proposal and it credibly claims to put America's federal budget in surplus by 2080. The CBO agrees. How does it do that?
Simple, it slashes Medicare. It slashes Medicare so deeply that the Democrats' proposal for $500 billion in savings over ten years, which Republicans demonised, looks like child's play. Ryan's proposal, starting in 2021, Medicare would be gradually eliminated.
A widening child sexual abuse inquiry in Europe has landed at the doorstep of Pope Benedict XVI, as a senior church official acknowledged Friday that a German archdiocese made "serious mistakes" in handling an abuse case while the pope served as its archbishop.
"He admits to groping, fondling, and tickling. And I'm thinking, well, why isn't this guy governor of New York?" -David Letterman
"Former New York congressman Eric Massa admitted to tickling a staffer until he couldn't breathe. Dick Dick Cheney said, 'We should have tried that at Gitmo.'" -David Letterman
"Record ratings for the Oscars. Kathryn Bigelow won best director for her film about the Iraq war. But in her speech, she forgot to thank the two people without whom this film could never have been made -- Bush and Cheney." -Jay Leno
"I find it strange that Sarah Palin would be shopping a reality show considering the fact that she hasn't shown much interest in reality." -Jimmy Kimmel
"And in an interview in Time magazine, former Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York -- I love this -- he said that having sex with hookers is not nearly as bad as having an affair. Guys, let me tell you something. Don't try this excuse at home, O.K. Eliot Spitzer is a politician. He is a trained professional liar. You will get killed!" -Jay Leno
"Former President Bush announced today he is writing a book on how he made decisions while in the White House. The book will be divided into the two chapters, 'Heads' and 'Tails.'" -Jay Leno
(Patrick's primary opponent weighs in. - promoted by David)
I am the only candidate who has actually worked on legislation that expanded health coverage over the last couple of decades. Governor Patrick's shot at Baker and Cahill yesterday only served to highlight his own inaction.
For those of us who have worked for years to a real solution to our healthcare problems in Massachusetts, we knew that the Massachusetts' plan as it is known could not work long term. The crisis has always been two-pronged: cost-control and access to care.
Yesterday, Governor Patrick complained about inaction on cost control. I have spent a significant amount of time in the last three years working on cost control measures.
(Context -- here's the whole letter. - promoted by Charley on the MTA)
March 11, 2010
Dear Friends,
For over a year, Congress and the President have been working to craft comprehensive health care reform. For me, throughout this process, I have focused on how to make health care available to all Americans without damaging the quality of care in Massachusetts. I do believe we achieved that goal in the bill passed by the House. I have not yet reached a final conclusion about the bill passed by the Senate last year because it would have, in the usual course of legislative business, undergone changes in conference committee before coming to the House for a vote.
As I am sure you are aware, there was no conference committee established for this bill. House Members will now likely be asked to vote on the Senate bill without changes, making it available to the President for his signature. Congress will then vote on amendments to that legislation through a process known as reconciliation. At this writing, it is not at all clear what legislative changes will be made to the final bill. Reconciliation is a complicated and dangerous process. In this instance, it requires the House ouseto adopt the Senate bill and then trust that the Senate will pass, and the President will sign the reconciled bill that "fixes" any problems in the existing Senate bill. There is great risk in this course of action. If one or both parties refuse to commit to this approach; the Senate bill could be signed by the President as the final bill. This recent New York Times article provides a good snapshot on current thinking regarding reconciliation in the Senate: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03... Therefore, I have been focusing on how exactly the Senate bill affects Massachusetts before I decide how much I will leave to "trusting" the reconciliation process. Trust is hard to find in Washington these days and I will have to make that decision myself.
I am also struggling with some of the larger questions related to the Senate bill, such as the lack of a public option and how we should pay for health care. Additionally, I have some concerns that are of specific importance to me as someone who represents Massachusetts.
Described below are the most pressing concerns I have with aspects of the Senate bill that directly impact Massachusetts. As I have done throughout this process, I reached out for a wide range of opinions on the issues described below - from hospitals, community health centers and other knowledgeable sources. I am seeking their comments on the following aspects of the Senate bill and I am currently awaiting their responses. As always, I also want to hear from you. I thank you for the many thoughtful comments you have shared with me over the past year and I look forward to hearing any additional comments you'd like to share:
(This is as good a place as any to discuss a rising issue: should progressives vote against a health care reform package that does not include a public option. I agree some of the language in this post is inflammatory (for the version without hot sauce, see below), but the issue is clearly stated. Markos says vote for Obamacare. Kucinich says kill the bill and try again later. I'm with Markos. Oops, promoted this over Charley's bump of Lanugo's post. Switchboards are lighting up here at BMG folks ... - promoted by Bob Neer)
Just when it seems that the Democrats might actually be able to stand for something and take a major step toward curbing insurance industry abuses and making certain that tens of millions of Americans gain health insurance out comes Representative Capuano prepared to stab President Obama in the back with a strong suggestion that mighty Mike will vote against HCR.
Just a quick word from the ground in the MA-8th. I called the office a couple of hours ago, and it sounded as though they were pretty busy...I got put on hold five times in the course of our conversation. When I did manage to register my profound disappointment in anything other than a strong "yes" vote for HCR, they said thank you and hung up. My co-worked called five minutes ago, though, and when he got through they made a point to say that Rep. Capuano isn't actually voting no, just "leaning" towards a no vote. So they're definitely hedging, and this may be an opportunity for democracy to act...I'm calling all my friends to call the district office, and get the sense this will rightfully be a lead balloon in our district.
Putting it mildly. Keep calling. - promoted by Charley on the MTA)
Just picked this up over at Talking Points Memo - saying my main man Mike is wary of voting yes for the Senate bill because he's afraid it can't get fixed. Gives some sound reasons but still I think he has to keep the eye on the prize.
I guess he emailed supporters saying this:
House Members will now likely be asked to vote on the Senate bill without changes, making it available to the President for his signature.
Congress will then vote on amendments to that legislation through a process known as reconciliation. At this writing, it is not at all clear what legislative changes will be made to the final bill. Reconciliation is a complicated and dangerous process. In this instance, it requires the House to adopt the Senate bill and then trust that the Senate will pass, and the President will sign the reconciled bill that "fixes" any problems in the existing Senate bill. There is great risk in this course of action.
Maybe this is a negotiating tactic. Caps is tight with Pelosi and I can't see him letting her down come game time. But to be sure, it probably is time to get on the phones to his office.
They have come this far and have to get it done. If it requires the House taking a leap of faith that the Senate does what needs doing on reconciliation then its a leap worth taking.
In testimony this afternoon, and in a press availability immediately afterward, Governor Patrick strongly urged the legislature to pass his jobs bill that would (among other things) control health insurance premium hikes and provider costs -- and called out Charlie Baker and Tim Cahill for failing to propose anything constructive on these crucial issues. In case you missed it, the Gov's bill would control insurance premiums and provider costs by conferring enhanced authority on the Commissioner of Insurance (who actually already has the authority to disapprove premium hikes) and the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy (which would be given new authority over providers). Rate increases that exceed benchmarks based on the rate of inflation for medical services would be presumptively disapproved.
First, the video of the presser, in which the Gov explains some of what his bill does; why it's needed now; and who isn't offering any constructive solutions (hint: their names rhyme with "faker" and "mayhill"):
Excellent. "The challengers are missing in action." Anyway, the Gov's testimony is here. Here are highlights of what the bill does (from a Gov's office press release):
Governor Patrick's current winning streak -- an impressive 
