ProgressOhio

The deterioration of our politics is shown in today's coverage in the Newark Advocate of a town hall debate in Mt. Vernon joined by Congressman Zack Space's seven potential Republican challengers in this year's 18th district race.

Seven is usually a lucky number but with this bunch, the GOP appears stuck with a rather weak field at a time when Space, a two-term Democrat, has to overcome not only the conservative leanings of his sprawling, mostly rural district but also the bitter partisanship which has spilled out of the health care debate in Washington.

Space was reportedly invited to participate but wisely didn't, since he would have been cast as the pinata.  Naturally, all the GOP hopefuls argued that he (and his fellow Democrats) had to go.  But, as the Advocate reported it, their talking points were exceedingly shallow given the complexity of the issues before Congress right now.  http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20100307/NEWS01/3070337

Clutching for the Far Right, tea-party vote, all seven chimed in on a chorus of lament about big government and high taxes leading the nation to ruin.

• Newark businessman Beau Bromberg's solution was a cut in congressional pay.
• Mt. Vernon farmer and former State Ag Director Fred Dailey would cut social welfare programs.
• Thornville teacher/preacher Dave Daubenmire wants God-fearing folks to reject government aid.
• State Sen. Robert Gibbs, Lakeville, apologized for votes he made to build light rail and increase sales taxes.
• Former State Rep. Ron Hood, Ashville, declared himself "battle tested" and therefore electable.
• Dover pastor Hombre Liggett delared himself not battle tested and therefore electable.
• Ex-Zanesville Judge Jeanette Moll grabbed the flag as pro-gun, pro-life and pro-Constitution.

That's it, the face of the Republican Party in the 18th District: pro-gun, pro-life, pro-God and Constitution and opposed to any expansion (or even maintenance) of civil society through community taxation and/or government programs.

Compare these talking points to those raised by 18th District candidates in the spring of 2006, the last time there was this large a field of candidates in the district.

In April of that year, This Week - Licking County - asked each of the six candidates in the 18th for their views on the Iranian situation, health care reform and the future of Social Security.  With one exception, their answers showed serious thought by serious people.  Looking just at the health care responses:

• Space, a Dover attorney running for the first time, said reform should allow the government to negotiate with the industry to bring down Medicare costs and permit Americans to buy cheaper drugs in Canada. (Alas, neither provision is in the pending reform bill.)
• Rep. Bob Ney, the then-Republican incumbent, said legislation he introduced would extend tax credits to offset rising insurance premiums and "establish a safety net for the uninsured."  (Ney was forced to resign later that year -- and subsequently jailed - for corruption in the Abramoff scandal)
• Zanesville Republican James Harris, a financial analyst, backed tax-free private health accounts and well as importation of cheaper drugs from Canada.
• State School Board Member Jennifer Stewart, a Zanesville Democrat, would have reduced health costs by more use of generic drugs and local health care clinics as well as through government incentives to reduce patient co-pays.
• Chillicothe Mayor Joe Sulzer, a Democrat, wanted the government to negotiate lower Medicare drug prices and permit re-importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and Europe.
• Columbus property manager Ralph Applegate, a Democrat, was a tea-bagger before his time, but he at least admitted to being stumped by the problem: "I do not have an answer to that serious health-care question," he told the newspaper.  "Would you advise me, please?"

Four years later, Space is wrestling with how to vote on the Obama health care plan, Ney is out on parole and the other 2006 candidates in the district have evidently lost their ardor for serving in Congress (and who could blame them?).

Back in 2006, we were all overjoyed to be rid of Ney, whose junkets with and favors for the corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff rained shame on the GOP.  But considering the shallowness of the current Republican talking points, I have to admit a bit of Ney nostalgia is setting in.

With all the partisan preachers hollering up cable TV, who can get angry at those inoffensive, mild-mannered political church mice spreading the news over at public broadcasting?

Me, that's who.

As a political activist and a news junkie, I should worship PBS, especially on Friday evenings when WOSU-'TV (ch. 34) devotes three prime-time hours to news and public affairs programming.  Unfortunately, with the exception of Bill Moyers Journal at 10 p.m., the spectrum of political viewpoints stretches only enough to allow in radical Rightists, Republican party loyalists, middle-of-the-road journalists and slightly left-of-center Democratic liberals.

That's about as fair-and-balanced as Fox News unless you think that all those conservative talkers are balanced by inviting in a few reporters or the occasional representative from a public interest group. 

Tea-baggers and Republicans keep screaming "Socialism!!" but when was the last time you actually saw a socialist on television (other than Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders)?  Let alone, God forbid, a communist.

Back in the 1930s, socialists and others from the radical Left held down important positions (including political columns) at some of the nation's leading newspapers.  But today, despite conservative complaints about the so-called "left-wing media," socialists and real Leftists are almost never invited to pontificate at the pundit parties.

That's why I was so glad to learn last week that Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, has been invited to write a regular column for the Washington Post.  Now I don't know if vanden Heuvel is a socialist, but she's certainly an ardent Leftist who's been getting increasing amounts of face time on MSNBC to give the progressive side of the story.

Memo to PBS and WOSU:  Before you ask me for any more money, see if you can't find a few real left-wing progressives like Katrina to round out your panels on shows like The McLaughlin Group and Columbus On The Record. 

Did you know that:

• Ohio received (and hopefully buried) 21.9 million tons of trash - mostly from New York and New Jersey - during 2008 while exporting only about one million tons to its neighboring states, according to the Akron Beacon-Journal.  http://www.ohio.com/news/83768352.html 

If this is Ohio's new "growth" (or gross) industry, let's be thankful that the mess is covered right now by snow.  And while we're talking about weather:

• Cleveland rates first (and Columbus 8th) in a Forbes magazine ranking of the nation's "worst winter weather cities." (AP) 

Or they're among the "best" winter weather cities if you enjoy the white stuff.

• Congressman John Murtha, D-PA, who died this week, was the first combat veteran from the Vietnam War elected to Congress.  And then he went on again to show his bravery by opposing George Bush's disastrous adventure in Iraq.
• In a complicated series of votes on Feb. 4, both Democratic congressman Zack Space and Republican congressman Pat Tiberi voted NO on increasing the federal debt limit to $13 trillion and change.  Both represent parts of Licking County.

On a related measure, Space the same day voted YES to adopt pay-as-you-go rules barring Congress from approving new spending without offsetting spending cuts or tax increases.  Tiberi voted NO on pay-as-you-go.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=48&chamber=H&congress=1112

Let the congressmen speak for themselves:

Space: http://space.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=20&sectiontree=8,20&itemid=897

Tiberi: http://tiberi.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=169307

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has granted corporations full rights of citizenship under the 1st Amendment, why not grant our corporate brethren full emancipation?

Citizenship involves not just the sweets, such as free speech and now the unfettered right to write corporate checks to influence elections.  But corporate American must accept the sour as well, including personal rather than corporate tax rates, jury duty, registration for the military draft and -- last but not least - full exposure to criminal penalties under the law.

Regarding the latter, amidst all of the angst over the high court's controversial 5-4 decision, Citizens United vs. FEC, I've not heard anyone explain why corporations in this brave new world of artificial person-hood should continue to enjoy immunity for their criminal wrongdoings. 

As Wikipedia explains it, "In the criminal law, corporate liability determines the extent to which a corporation as a fictitious person can be liable for the acts and omissions of the natural persons it employs." (emphasis added)

"A company has no physical existence, so it can only act vicariously through the agency of the human beings it employs. While it is relatively uncontroversial that human beings may commit crimes for which punishment is a just desert, the extent to which the corporation should incur liability is less clear. Obviously, a company cannot be sent to jail...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_liability

Obviously,this is true in the normal sense, no matter how tempting it might be to move the corporate offices of Goldman Sachs to Alcatraz. Still, the idea is tempting since I'm sure President Obama would be glad to waive his pledge to close down Guantanamo Bay if that terrorist compound could be re-incorporated as "The Walls" for Wall Street felons..

But seriously, now that felonious corporations are no longer "fictitious persons" in terms of electoral politics, why shouldn't they also be subject to the same law and order justice the rest of us would have to face if we swindled our fellows, robbed our retirees, attempted murder on our economy?

Maybe you can't lock up Halliburton but you certainly could lock it down: turn off the lights and utilities, padlock the doors, furlough the employees and remove it from the world of commerce for 15 to 25 subject to parole.

And for those Wall Street banks and investment funds which attempted murder on our financial system, why shouldn't there be a Corporate Death Row where butcher businesses are sent to die?  Businesses die all the time, from natural causes.  We'd just be making sure that the "worst of the worst" of these corporate terrorists never get to strike again.

Now I'm not a lawyer and Wikipedia isn't exactly a recognized source for legal research, so if there are attorneys out there who can discuss this idea more intelligently, please chime in by leaving a comment.  Are criminal corporations under terms of the new Supreme Court ruling still too big to jail, too fictitious to impale on the sword of justice?

For an insightful discussion on this ruling, check out this transcript of Friday's edition of Bill Moyers Journal on PBS.  http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01292010/transcript4.html

President Obama must agree with my recent post that it is possible to herd cats.  In any case, he gave it a good try Wednesday night in his first State of the Union address to Congress.

• For the Left, he offered up bank bashing, gays in the military, immigration reform, green jobs, college subsidies, curbs on corporate fat cats, taxes on the rich and - let's not forget - another shot at health care reform.
• For the Right, he extended tax cuts for the middle class, small business loans, nuclear power and "drill-baby-drill," cuts in capital gains taxes, a 3-year partial freeze on federal spending, a budget control commission and a push to increase U.S. exports.
• For the Independents, fiscal restraint, curbs on Wall Street excesses and renewed efforts at bipartisanship to actually get things done in Washington.
• For the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, the back of his hand for last week's disastrous 5-4 decision opening what he called "the floodgates" for corporate cash in political campaigns. 
• For unemployed Americans: jobs, jobs, jobs.
• For the rest of the world, well not so much this time around.  It was 55 minutes into the President's 70-minute address before he even got around to foreign affairs.  And then about the only noteworthy items in this 7-minute segment was a promise to pull all combat troops out of Iraq by August and his cheer leading for American aid to Haiti.

As you might suspect, he didn't exactly get all the cats into the corral - maybe not even most of them.  Only time will tell.

The Republicans in the chamber held back from the "liar-liar" chant which marked last January's congressional address, but tittered and guffawed frequently over Obama's claims of transparency and even-handedness on health care reform.  (The Republican response by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonald was short and clueless but Fox News managed within an hour of the speech to let both ends of the 2008 McCain-Palin ticket take their revenge).

Supreme Court justices endured their rebuke in stony silence.  Even those justices whose dissents agreed with the President's position were as mute as misbehaving kids parked on a bench in the principal's office.

Obama's generals were just as stiff and silent when he vowed to end the occupation of Iraq, although they joined seconds later in the chamber's enthusiastic applause for the veterans chewed up in that war.

Progressives - and that would include me - always enjoy Obama's speeches, and this one was no exception.  Sure, we're lap cats but we still hiss and scratch every time Obama starts up again with that nicey-nice "bipartisan" pandering to Republicans obstructionists in the Congress. But after Wednesday night, he's still got most of us in the corral.

Expecting a sales pitch from Governor Strickland, we got a love letter instead.

To put it in biblical terms, it was as if our governor was channeling the torments of Job: beset by the boils of joblessness, budget crisis and a crippling recession, Strickland in his State of the State address today proclaimed his love for Ohio even as many of his supporters forsake him (at least in the polls) for another,  To quote the governor: 

"I believe in Ohio.

I believe in Ohio because you can’t write the history of the world without us – without flight, without light, without Rock and Roll, without professional football, without John Glenn in space and John Glenn on the Earth, without the tomato, without the underground railroad, without Roy Rogers, without tires and ignition switches, without the humble fly swatter, without the Richter Scale, without Jesse Owens running for gold and for all of us in Berlin, without street lights, without fire departments, without Superman."

http://www.tedstrickland.com/content/pages/state_of_the_state/

Since I'm retired as a journalist, I don't have to recount for you all the details of Strickland's speech.

You can now read it yourself -- on-line. 

In brief, Strickland said we're going through a tough patch but because we're a great state and a great people we'll get through it if we show enough grit.  And, incidentally, look at all the good stuff going on (thanks to my administration) to make that happen.

But what resonated with me was not all his details about programs adopted and promises made and progress achieved, but rather that one simple opening phrase: "I believe in Ohio."

Governor, so do I, even though I'm not a native son.  And that's why I share your optimism.

• Ohio, in 1958, made it possible for me to get a college education that wasn't very affordable back in New Jersey.  Along with thousands of other Jersey boys and girls limited in their options back home, I hopped a bus to the Midwest, ending up spending four glorious years at Bowling Green State University back when out-of-state-fees were still very low.
• It was at BGSU that I met Hummingbird, my bride-to-be, and learned to be not only a writer and scholar but a political activist as well. (Okay, the cause at BGSU in those days was freedom to drink beer and kiss our dates good night in front of the dorm.)
• But after four years I had impressed at least one professor enough to get a recommendation which landed me a $110-a-week reporting job in 1965 at the Columbus Dispatch, despite a near total lack of prior journalistic experience.
• And there I stayed - mostly happily - for nearly 40 years covering stories from the bottom of Ohio coal mines to shuttle launches to the edge of space, from the South Pole to the Arctic Circle, from the classroom to the steel mill, from pollution spills to drive-by homicides.  And, of course, politics: my father, a life-long New Yorker and a one-time newspaperman himself, told me early on that Ohio was the place to be to cover politics and boy, was he right.
• Now retired, I have no enthusiasm for leaving Ohio, even though my daughter and her family deserted to Dixie, outside of Atlanta.  But the South is not for me.  I'd miss the Buckeyes, the blanket of snow softening the world (on days I don't have to drive), the dazzling pageantry of fall colors, the courtesies Ohioans usually show one another even if they despise one's politics (or driving habits).

So yes, I believe in Ohio because even though I am an adopted son, this state has been good to me.

We all should be so lucky, and I'll put my bet on Strickland to help make that happen.

Any chance that a legislative redistricting reform measure would make the May 4 ballot likely has disappeared given the aftershocks from last week's political earthquakes in Massachusetts and Washington. 

Newspaper editorial writers across Ohio have for months been badgering legislative leaders to act by the Feb. 3 filing deadline to place such a constitutional amendment before voters this spring.  Proponents say this is the best - and possibly only - time to bring fairness and equity to the process of redrawing state House and Senate districts since neither party can be assured it will emerge from the 2010 elections with control of the state apportionment board, the panel which redraws the political map on the basis of the 2010 census.

Redistricting reform is all very complicated and hopelessly infected by partisan maneuvering -- but no need to give it much thought now.  

Given the Republican senatorial victory in Massachusetts and the Supreme Court's grant of enormous electoral clout to corporate America, there's no reason to think that either Democratic or Republican party leaders here are left with any appetite for bipartisan cooperation.

Statehouse Republicans opposed such reforms when they were on the ballot in 2005.

They were only showing interest this year because Democrats seemed to be in a strong position to control the reapportionment board after this year's balloting for governor, auditor and secretary of state.  Even then, party support was far from assured - and that was before Republican prospects for this November spiked given the evident public anger at the Obama administration and the predicted flood of corporate cash now unleashed by the high court in favor of Republican candidates.

Democrats - namely party leader Chris Redfern and House Speaker Armond Budish - have been even more skeptical that redistricting reform at this time serves their interests. 

Even before last week's events, Budish was flatly predicting the matter would not be on this year's ballot.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2010/01/12/speaker_budish_redistricting_r.html?cxtype=feedbot

Neither was labor on board.

Reform proponents might now argue that it makes even more sense for Democrats to back redistricting reform and thus minimize the political damage if Republicans do come back strongly this November.  But so far, the Democratic battle plan appear to be to go back on the offense rather than call for a truce.

So much for "leveling the playing field" in 2010.

According to reform proponents, there is no Plan B if the reform measure  isn't on the ballot this year.

Other than to revisit the issue come 2020.

In my younger days as a reporter at the Dispatch, it always irked me that articles which took me (and my colleagues) hours or days or even weeks to bring forth could so casually be cannibalized without credit by our local TV anchors. 

When I saw one of the TV trucks pull up in front of the newspaper each afternoon to snatch up the latest edition from the box outside of 34 S. Third St., I wished somebody would take a picture of this journalistic larceny so that people could see where those well-coiffed talking heads really got their news.

Of course, that never happened because the owners of the Dispatch also owned (among other things) one of the local TV stations most guilty of such theft.

Which brings me to today's lead editorial in yesterday's Dispatch, Best Source, which cites research refuting the notion that newspapers can easily be replaced by blogs, Twitter and other "social media tools" on the Internet. 

"Looking at the Baltimore news market and tracking six big stories during a week in July 2009, Pew found that 61 percent of the original reporting on those stories was done by newspapers and their Web sites. Local TV stations and their Web sites did most other original reporting, at 28 percent.

Radio stations and their sites contributed only 7 percent of new content, and Internet-only outlets did only 4 percent," the editorial states.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/01/19/paperz.ART_ART_01-19-10_A10_V9GBE5P.html?sid=101

The argument certainly is valid, but it's one that should have been made decades ago, when local radio and then television began poaching on print to fill up their newscasts without the expense of building an independent news operation. Over time, readers became viewers and as the newspaper habit wore off, most people didn't mind the loss of detail and depth as long as they got from the Tube the gist of what was going on across the wider world.

Well, we let them get away with it.  And now as the print media stumbles, the flock of low-rent media buzzards feeds on the carcass. 

(To be sure, this blog is just one more bird in the hunt.  But at least we don't pretend LICOPAC.ORG should be anybody's primary news source.  We're a secondary source, one which provides comment on events documented by others, but only occasionally doing basic reporting.)

Should all this be of concern to anybody but journalists?  Probably not, unless you care what happens once the bones of print journalism are picked clean and the news scavengers have to look elsewhere -- to the government, the corporations, the politicians -- for their daily feed.

One alternative - still controversial - is an increase in public subsidies to keep print journalism alive.  The argument is being best made these days by a new book, The Death and Life of American Journalism, by John Nichols and Robert McChesney.  You can find a summary in the cover story in the Jan. 25 issue of The Nation:  Read it here (and then subscribe!):

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100125/nichols_mcchesney

On the other hand, there are those who prefer getting their news electronically instead of having to dig through the brush and slush for the smeared, soaked sling edition of the "Daily Bugle." 

And then there are those, like Henry David Thoreau, who find this daily wad of woeful news just too depressing and too distracting from the simple joys of everyday life.  Note this excerpt Hummingbird retrieved this morning from Thoreau's journal (Jan. 20, 1852):

"You cannot serve two masters. It requires more than a day’s devotion to know and to possess the wealth of a day. To read of things distant and sounding betrays us into slighting these which are then apparently near and small."

More of this heresy at: http://hdt.typepad.com/henrys_blog/

No Sooner had I promised an item on "herding dogs" (see Herding Cats, below) than Dispatch Editor Ben Marrison let loose the hounds.

In his Sunday column, Toxic Rants Taint Online Comments, Marrison bemoaned the racism and hostility embedded in many of the online comments posted in response to Dispatch articles and columns.

Here's what the trade calls "the nut graph:"

"Removing distasteful comments is a daily occurrence. The anonymity of the Web too often brings out the worst in people or reveals their worst flaws."

Predictably, the Marrison column triggered an avalanche of comment, more than 200 postings as of this writing. Even adjusting that count for individuals who logged in multiple times, that's still a lot of readers stirring the broth.

If you have nothing else to do today, log in and read the reactions for yourself.  The sampling I took (who's got the time to read 200 rants?) indicated a lot of criticism of Marrison and the Dispatch but quite a bit of support as well for responsible editing and/or restrictions in the operation of these online forums.

When I was a reporter, before such forums were established, I would have killed to get 200 responses to anything I wrote. Writers need feedback even when it's uncomfortable.  But rarely would a by-line piece generate any more than a half-dozen phone calls, e-mails or letters, and many would disappear without making a splash at all (sort of like my experience writing for LICOPAC!).

But I don't like the way newspapers (the Dispatch, the Advocate) manage these reader forums:

• It's not the poor spelling or grammar I mind, since that at least tells you something about the state of public education in your community.  But the anger and hostility of many of these people is just over the top.  I've canvassed for political candidates and rarely been attacked face-to-face in the way some of these people feel free to do when cloaked by an alias.
• With both newspaper reader forums and blogs, the focus of the original article can soon get lost as responders battle it out, seemingly oblivious to the topic at hand.  There appears to be a community of critics out there who type to tangle and don't much care what forum plays the host.
• In the Age of the Tweet, can't there be length limits imposed on reader comments, as well as limits on the number of postings per forum by any one individual?  Some of the comments are way longer than the original article which, I should note, was written by a reporter operating under severe space constraints.
• Allow use of aliases but cut off those individuals who hide behind that screen to launch attacks they'd never make if their name was used, as it is in the newspaper's letters-to-the-editor column.
• Scrap the "Judge This" type of feature which allows readers to rate one another's comments.  Who - if anybody - pays attention to that?
• If a newspaper is going to provide this feature, it should apply to all staff-written articles and features (except, maybe, the funnies).  I was surprised to learn from comments on the Marrison piece that some columnists can choose not to allow reader comment.  That makes no sense.

And finally, newspapers need to figure out a way to translate this reader enthusiasm for online forums into patronage for their print editions.  Why not print a couple of the best forum comments each day in the next day's edition?

Your comments?

Over the holidays, Republican congressman Pat Tiberi (12th) circulated - on the public dime - a glossy, four-page, thinly disguised campaign ad explaining why he opposes the pending healthcare plan.

"Simply put, this bill isn't the kind of healthcare reform we need," he says.  "In fact, it doesn't fix many of the current problems in our healthcare system.  I believe it only makes them worse."

The mailer includes a list of what the bill does - and doesn't do - according to Tiberi.  Fair enough, except the first examples he cites under both categories are dead wrong.

• "What It Does: Rations mammograms for women under 50 as prescribed by the Preventive Services Task Force."

Tiberi is entitled to his opinion but he should know perfectly well that the pending bill never has rationed mammograms, even this was the partisan leap taken by Republicans after the named government task force made its controversial recommendations on use of mammograms.

 “Opponents of the health care reform bills moving through Congress have seized on the new recommendations as evidence that the government is seeking to put bureaucrats between you and your doctor or that it would ration care by denying coverage for some mammograms that are now covered. There is virtually no chance that any insurers, either public or private, will deny coverage to anyone based on these recommendations. Government and industry officials have said that explicitly and, in fact, every state but Utah requires private insurers to pay for mammograms for women starting in their 40s. 

There is nothing in the reform bills that would change the current Medicare laws, which require that annual mammograms be included among the preventive services covered, an important benefit for more than a million women in their 40s who get Medicare coverage because they are disabled or suffering from end-stage kidney disease.

The only part of the reform bills that could affect mammography would only make them more accessible. Under the legislation, the secretary of health and human services might be given authority to waive Medicare co-payments for prevention services that rank highly in the opinion of this task force. Since the task force gave a low grade to screening women in their 40s, the secretary could not waive cost-sharing for them.”  (NY Times, 11/19/2009)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/opinion/20fri1.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=mammograms+Utah&st=nyt

Don't trust the Times?  How about the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page usually reflects  the GOP line.  In its Nov. 24 editorial, the Journal suspects Democrats have rationing in mind even if it's not stated in the pending legislation.

"In any event, the distinction between cost effectiveness and clinical effectiveness will be moot if ObamaCare passes. The House bill gives the HHS task force the mandate to review "the benefits, effectiveness, appropriateness, and costs of clinical preventive services" in making its de facto insurance coverage rulings. As Mr. Reinhardt notes, "at some point soon the rising cost of American health care actually will force Americans to bring monetary costs into the analysis as well."

What's really going on here is that the left knows its designs will require political rationing of care, but it doesn't want the public to figure this out until ObamaCare passes. Then it will begin the campaign to instruct the rest of us that we must follow the guidance of Princeton professors about what medical care we can receive. Americans will simply have to accept that the price of government-run health care in the name of redistributive justice is that patients and their doctors must bow to the superior wisdom of HHS task forces."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574552320222125990.html

But remember, Tiberi's mailer says mammogram rationing is dictated by the pending bill which is just untrue. The Journal editorial only speculates that's the Democrats' future goal.

• "What It Doesn't Do: Bring Down Healthcare costs."

Wrong again, Pat, at least according to this Congressional Budget Office. December 19 analysis:

"CBO and JCT estimate that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager’s amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period. Of that total amount of deficit reduction, the manager’s amendment accounts for about $2 billion, and the act as originally proposed accounts for the remaining $130 billion.

The estimate includes a projected net cost of $614 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $871 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $149 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $108 billion in net savings from other sources. Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $483 billion and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $264 billion. In total, the legislation would increase outlays by $366 billion and increase revenues by $498 billion between 2010 and 2019."  http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=446

 Again, Tiberi is entitled to his opinion but here we have a clear example of misinformation on a major bill, "prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense" under the guise of "official business."

Bloated and sluggish from too many sweets, too much football, I emerge from my Holiday Hole this week to take on the New Year (and Happy 2010 to all my fellow political groundhogs, by the way).

But first there's a small collection of interesting tidbits laying about my desk that need to be shared before they disappear with the Christmas litter.   Consider these my late gifts to loyal ProgressOhio readers:

• Washington Monthly magazine's cover article this month is The Party of Obama: What are the president's grass roots good for? It asks most of the questions central Ohio Democrats have been asking over the past year about Organizing for America (OFA).  While I can't agree with all of the article's conclusions, it makes points worth consideration going into 2010. (How's that for a dodge?)

• Remember Grover Norquist, the right-winger who heads Americans for Tax Reform (he's the guy who said his mission was to shrink government down to size and then drown it in the bathtub)?  In a recent interview with the web site congress.org, Norquist gave this advise on how to communicate with congressmen more diplomatically (i.e., without threatening drowning or waterboarding).  Hints such as DON'T WRITE ANGRY LETTERS IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS! and if you confront them do it in their home district, not in Washington.  Sort of obvious stuff, but probably new to tea-baggers. http://www.congress.org/news/2009/11/13/five_tips_from_grover_norquist?ref=news

In the held-back mail were survey requests from both the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Democratic National Committee, a coincidence which allows comparison as to how the parties are addressing their base voters going into 2010.

The GOP survey letter is stern to threatening in tone, stating "your immediate attention is required (their emphasis) on a confidential and time-sensitive matter."  The Survey itself describes itself as an "OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN PARTY DOCUMENT - DO NOT DESTROY."  There's also a deadline - 7 days - and a suggestion that the respondent tuck in "your most generous contribution" as well if the country is to be saved from radical liberalism. 

The DNC survey letter, although stamped "DO NOT TAMPER," isn't near as strident, although it does state that Obama is waiting breathlessly for "your immediate response" not to mention "a generous contribution."  (The Democrats suggest $25 to $100, the Republicans $25 to $500.)

Curiously, both surveys claim that only VIP party loyalists are being asked to participate.  "You are part of a select group of regional leaders..." says the DNC.  "You have been selected to represent your local voting district..." says the Republican Senate Survey.  Yet both were addressed to the same member of the Lore household, one whose voting record would in no way indicate a switch hitter.

The survey questions themselves are predictable.  The Republican Senate Leadership Survey wants our opinion on the GOP agenda, which includes stopping tax increases, illegal immigrants, Obama judicial appointments, unions, auto industry bail-outs, healthcare reform and welfare programs.  The DNC survey mainly wants our opinion on Obama's performance, and help with setting Democratic priorities.

Probably the simplest thing to do is fill out both surveys and then send them back -- after switching  envelopes!

At age 69, I’m not quite old enough to qualify for America’s “Greatest Generation” and yet I’m a bit too old to be a Boomer.  But there’s one thing at least most of us geezers have in common these days: we’re the most entitled older generation in our nation’s history.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule.  Retire before 62 (or 65) and you’ll likely find yourself cleaning tables at McDonald’s or greeting customers at Wal-Mart.  And with old age many of us face dependency, ill health and even elder abuse.

“Life expectancy for people who have reached the age of 65 has risen significantly.  America is no longer shamed by elderly Americans suffering for lack of medical care. “Yet although America’s elderly are now cared for, our children are not….(a study suggests) that every year 1,000 children may die because they lack health insurance.”

THE KNOCKOUT  RALLY

The Ohio Democratic Party''s blueprint for victory

Monday, November 23, at 6:30pm
Lincoln Theatre, 769 E. Long St. in Downtown Columbus

At a time when many Democrats are hoping for at least a split decision in 2010, the state party is rolling out an aggressive pugilistic-themed pitch for a sweeping "knockout" victory over Republicans in next year's critical and state and federal elections. In coming weeks, party leaders will rally the troops during campaign warm-ups at 11 cities, including the Columbus rally on Monday.

As with any theatrical (pardon the mixed metaphors!), there was an out-of-town opening to work out the kinks before the premiere on "Broadway" -- in this case Columbus' Lincoln Theatre -- on Monday. 

So about 60 of us showed up last night at a union hall in Cambridge, Ohio, to get an early look at the game plan for holding on to -- and adding on to -- those seats picked up during the Democratic resurgence of 2006 and 2008.

It's certainly not giving away any secrets to report that:

• Party Director Doug Kelly and Deputy director Lauren Groh-Wargo are confident 2010 will again be a Democratic year, despite widespread predictions the GOP elephant will come stomping back given the poor economy and public impatience with government at every level.  "They (the Republicans) won't work with us, they're not working for us, so we just have to knock them out," boomed Kelly.
• The Ohio Democratic Party, with two successful elections under it's belt and 62 staffers on board, is the biggest state party in the nation with a proven strategy for success.  Coming off 2008, Democratic registration is nearly a million voters high than Republican, Kelly said.  (The challenge, of course, is to keep Independents who voted with us last year in the Democratic column while energizing the base even without Obama on the ballot.)
• Actually, both Democrats and Republicans in Ohio will be pursuing pretty much the same strategy this cycle, Kelly said.  This involves focusing on voter targeting and turnout, use of all available media (old and new) and a strong emphasis on neighbor-to-neighbor recruiting.
• If there's a difference, it's a push to begin organizing Democratic activists this winter instead of waiting until next spring.  The party's core message - ie, Democrats will provide responsible leadership, invest in the future and fight for the average family -- is already being fined tuned for early distribution.

It was a good presentation, with sharp and effective graphics and just enough detail to get party activists re-engaged. 

If I have any complaint, it's that the "Knockout" program doesn't include any strategy for attacking total Republican domination of the Ohio Supreme Court.

After all, what good is a strong left hook if the seven ring judges are all Republican?

Before we forgive and forget the Bush administration for its sorry record, consider Daniel Gross' essay in Slate.com tracing how the stagnant economy during the Bush years produced the mess we confront today. 

 http://www.slate.com/id/2235377/

Gross doesn't blame the Bushies for what he calls America's "Lost Decade," 2000-2009, and certainly Democrats (in Congress, and lately in the Obama administration) deserve a share of the blame. But the bottom line remains that W and the Republicans were the guys in charge over most of this decade of decline. 

Obama and the Democrats (including Ted Strickland) are getting hammered in the polls because of the poor economy, an economy which went sour in large part because Bush, Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress didn't believe in government action other than cutting taxes and regulation.  And to this day, the GOP solution is more of the same.

Oh, and Cheney is now accusing Obama of fiddling at the switch, while Bush is out fattening his purse as a motivational speaker!!

Every once in a while this typing exercise has application in the wider world, as it did last night as the U.S. House voted 220-215 to approve the long-delayed health care bill.

We should be especially proud in Licking County that Congressman Zack Space, D-Dover, provided one of the crucial votes making this historic action possible.  This could not have been an easy vote for Space, who represents the normally Republican-leaning 18th District and who faces a tough re-election campaign next year against energized Republicans out to recapture the seat.

And, in fact, this was the second time this year Space has taken one for the team, the first being his vote to support the Obama administration's energy and environment bill.  See:

http://www.licopac.org/licking_county_issue_pac/2009/06/zack-shows-backbone.html

On the health bill, Space has withheld a firm endorsement for months because of concerns he had about the legislation's impact on small business and rural hospitals in his 16-county, largely rural district.

On Nov. 2, he stated on his web site that these would be the factors governing his vote:

"(1) Protecting Ohio’s consumers – With tens of thousands of Ohio consumers without access to quality, affordable health insurance and with insurance premiums rising by 129% since 2000, Congressman Space believes that allowing the status quo to continue is bad for Ohioans, bad for the economy, and bad for our country.

(2) Protecting Ohio’s small business – Our small businesses have seen their premiums increase an average of 18% more than those in larger firms, and any legislation must work to keep these costs down.  Any health reform bill must not saddle Ohio’s small businesses with costly mandates and must provide crucial assistance to our small businesses owners.

(3) Protecting Ohio’s rural health care providers – In any health reform, Space believes that rural hospitals and health care providers must not lose money on patients covered by a new health insurance plan."

See: http://space.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=20&parentid=8&sectiontree=8,20&itemid=834

Space also opposed any provision in the bill extending taxpayer-funded health care benefits to illegal aliens.  See: http://space.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=20&parentid=8&sectiontree=8,20&itemid=835 

Among the bill's many provisions are these, according to the Washington Post:

• It would provide coverage for nearly all Americans and prohibit insurers from denying coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions or limiting lifetime benefits or dropping customers when they became ill.
• It would immediately introduce discounts on prescription drugs for the elderly and reduce (and eventually eliminate) the infamous "donut hole" in drug coverage.
• Uninsured people who can't get coverage could join temporary high-risk insurance pools, and "bridge" coverage would be extended to unemployed workers.

 With the bill now out of the House, attention returns to Senate action in coming months.  Comprehensive health care may yet stumble in the Congress, but this is the closest we've come to achieving it in the last half century.  So we need to thank Space and other House Democrats for making it happen and work to keep them in office next year.  Right now, for example, progressives should be writing letters in support of his position for the Advocate and other Licking County newspapers because we know he's going to get blasted from the Right.

As for the Republicans, they voted NO (with one exception) in the House.  The dissenters, of course, included Licking County's other congressman, Rep. Pat Tiberi, (R-12).  Let's remember that, and work to liberate Tiberi from his own government-run (i.e., Socialist) health coverage benefit after the next election.

Congressman Pat Tiberi's opposition to health care legislation evidently applies as well to legislation to protect the health of the Great Lakes.

Tiberi, according to the Nov. 1 Dispatch report, How Ohioans voted last week, joined most of his Republican colleagues in casting a "No" vote on H.R. 2996, a $32.2 billion spending bill for the U.S. Departments of Interior and Environmental Protection. "It includes $475 million to help clean up the Great Lakes," said the chart. 

Ohio Democrats, except for Rep. Dennis Kucinich, supported the measure.  But among Ohio Republicans, only Sen. George Voinovich and Rep. Steven LaTourette voted "Yes."

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2009/11/01/Vote_1101.ART_ART_11-01-09_A8_3GFHLLI.html

More details were provided by the Cleveland Plain Dealer in an article published today in the Dispatch.

WASHINGTON -- Without fanfare, President Barack Obama has approved a large cash infusion to help clean up the Great Lakes, quietly signing a bill that was years in the making and marks a rare bipartisan milestone......

---

....the news brought cheers yesterday. It will mean about $146 million can be spent in the next year to clean toxic sediment and areas of concern, including the lower Cuyahoga River, while $60 million more can go toward removing zebra mussels, keeping out Asian carp and dealing with other invasive species that threaten marine life, shipping and recreation, according to figures in Obama's budget.

Another $97 million will go to reduce runoff and contamination from entering streams and rivers from farms and industry, while $105 million will help restore habitat and wildlife, including building the populations of lake trout, brook trout, lake sturgeon and piping plover. Finally, the budget has $65 million for accountability and monitoring.

This was a bipartisan accomplishment, set in motion during President George W. Bush's administration when Great Lakes shippers, environmentalists, fishermen and recreational boaters created an ambitious restoration blueprint calling for investments from U.S. and Canadian governments, states and provinces and the private and nonprofit sectors........

----

The spending bill also contains $3.4 billion for drinking water and sewer improvements across the nation. It has an additional $4 million to add 635 acres to the Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Summit County.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/11/03/copy/on_lakes_pd_1103.ART_ART_11-03-09_B8_4PFIBNI.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Although Tiberi likes to portray himself as a moderate Republican who supports bipartisanship in Congress, he regularly votes against any spending bill for EPA or the Department of Interior. 

Once Barack Obama replaced George Bush in the Oval Office, Tiberi became a sudden convert to fiscal responsibility, voting against every Democrat-sponsored appropriation bill unless it was for the military, for veterans or for homeland security.

Where, in the midst of Ohio's ever-deepening "recession," can a down-and-out citizen be guaranteed not only room and board but free medical care, recreational opportunities and maybe even educational classes and/or psychological counseling?

In prison, of course.

And there are tens of thousands of Ohio inmates who are "beneficiaries" of this kind of jailhouse welfare, miscreants on short-term sentences for non-violent crimes who even prison officials say don't really need to remain incarcerated. 

Taxpayers in these hard times are coughing up an average of $24,000 a year to keep these (mostly) men behind bars as the state's prison population approves an all-time high of more than 51,000 felons.  And so far, Ohio legislators don't seem to mind: reform legislation has been stuck in the Senate for months, even as the state's financial situation plummets from bad to worse.

Gary Daniels, associate director of ACLU-Ohio, told Licking County Democrats last night that his organization used to lobby for prison and sentencing reform by citing the need for things like judicial equity, humane treatment and rehabilitation.  Now, he said, ACLU lobbyists just tells legislators that the bills have come due for all those "tough-on-crime" laws the assembly so enthusiastically approved in better times.

"The State of Ohio is broke - there's no other way to put it," he told members of the county Democratic Club.  "So now we just say, 'You just can't afford to do this anymore.' "

Daniels said nobody is promoting the release of thousands of blood-thirsty killers.  Take a closer look, he said, at the demographics of Ohio's prison population:

• Ohio's 32 prisons are badly overcrowded, currently at 132 percent of capacity.
• About half of Ohio inmates are serving sentences of one year or less.  Rather than being dangerous felons, most of these short-termers are just "people we're basically mad at." 
• The largest percentage of non-violent offenders are in for drug-related offenses.
• About 7,000 of all state inmates are older than age 50.
• About 1,700 are in state prison because of parole violations.
• About 800 are in state prison for failure to pay child support.

Last spring, Governor Strickland in his budget recommended measures to reduce the state's prison population by some 6,700 inmates, for an estimated annual saving of $30 million.  When the governor's proposal ran into a buzz saw of opposition from prosecutors and Republican lawmakers, it was removed from the budget and recast and resubmitted as S.B. 22 (Seitz).

S.B. 22 among other things would divert lesser offenders (such as child support cases and parole violators) from state prison, use "good time" credits to shorten sentences for good behavior and bring more equity to drug laws (which penalize "crack" users more harshly than up-scale cocaine users, for example).

"Senate Bill 22 offers solutions that save money, ease crowding in a way that doesn't require building new prisons and might even cut down on repeat offenses," the Dispatch editorialized last April. "Reform is not being soft on crime but being smarter in managing it. This year, the prisons will return about 29,000 convicts to their communities, and the public is better protected if those inmates are better equipped to live within the law."

The bill made it out of a Senate committee but now, according to Daniels, is stuck again because Senate  Republican leaders don't want to risk a controversial floor vote without assurance the bill will be approved by the Democratic House as well. 

But in the House, Democratic Speaker Armond Budish seems ready only to support yet another study of the prison situation, Daniels said.

As for Strickland, he remains "fairly supportive" of reform "but so far has failed to use his bully pulpit to solve the problem,"  said Daniels.

So like it or not, every Ohio taxpayer is contributing to an "Adopt-a-Con" program (without those heart-warming pictures!) which wardens and prison officials admit is not really necessary or effective. 

Meanwhile, reform legislation which could save tens of millions of dollars without eroding public safety remains locked up in the Statehouse because of Ohio's dysfunctional politics.  Really, who's getting "conned" here?

I slapped a “War is not the Answer” bumper sticker on my car years ago and yet until recently I accepted the argument that Afghanistan was one of those “good wars.”

Canvassing door-to-door for John Kerry during the 2006 campaign, I often made the pitch to undecided voters that while George Bush could be excused for Afghanistan, he forfeited his right to be re-elected by launching that “bad war” in Iraq.  War is not the answer, I told myself, except when somebody attacks you.

This month marks the 8th anniversary of the Afghan war, and I’m still conflicted just as are most Americans who have up until now justified our continuing, half-hearted occupation of that ancient battlefield. 

On the one hand, Afghanistan was the launching pad for the 9-11 attacks on the United States, and it continues to harbor terrorists who not only would destroy liberal democracy in their own country but could destabilize neighboring Pakistan as well.  And didn’t progressives cast their lot last November with candidate Barack Obama even as he vowed not only to continue this war but escalate it as necessary?

The Quaker policy group, Friends Committee for National Legislation (FCNL), makes a strong argument that it’s well-past time to bring the troops home and change the focus to training Afghan soldiers and police and redevelopment of the Afghan economy.  Nearly 800 U.S. troops have died in that wretched country since Oct. 7, 2001 and what have we gained, given the revival of the Taliban and the corruption exposed during the recent Afghan elections?  

(Read FCNL’s analysis at http://www.fcnl.org/now/now_item.php?item_id=636 )

And yet – and yet – I know it’s unlikely that the U.S., bogged down by domestic problems, would vigoously support Afghan redevelopment once our boys and girls in uniform are back home.  We are no longer the nation which committed to rebuilding Europe after World War II.  Rather, we’ve become addicted to short term gain and long-term avoidance, a foreign policy which Bush demonstrated when he left Afghanistan in the lurch back in 2003 to carry out his misguided invasion of Iraq.

I hope Obama is as smart as I thought he was when I helped put him in the White House last November, and that he’ll figure a way out of this dreadful impasse.

All I know is that the bumper sticker is right – there is no such thing as a “good war” – and I no longer have the patience or optimism to think this war is any exception.

State Rep. Jay Hottinger, R-Newark, would no doubt have been a big disappointment to former State Sen. Jay Hottinger.

Seems our hometown boy, who campaigns every two years as "watchdog of the treasury," is now playing the same sort of irresponsible political games he decried as a state senator only four years ago.

Rep. Hottinger, chairman of the Ohio House Finance and Appropriations Committee, was first out of the box on Wednesday to take a partisan swing at Governor Strickland for delaying  a scheduled 4.2 percent cut in state income tax rates to plug a $851 million hole in the state budget.  According to the Dispatch,

"The political fallout was instantaneous.  Almost at the exact moment that Strickland announced his plan... state Rep. Jay Hottinger, a Newark Republican, e-mailed a statement blistering the governor for advocating a tax increase."

As it turned out, this didn't sit well with the Dispatch's normally Republican-leaning editorial board which for weeks has been calling for bipartisan cooperation between the governor and legislature to resolve the budget problem.  In its lead editorial today, headlined "Political Games," the newspaper said:

"The budget can be balanced only by cutting spending or increasing revenue. Strickland and legislators already have cut spending drastically, eliminating $2.4 billion, much of it in programs and services on which needy Ohioans depend. Balancing the budget shouldn't fall any harder on the backs of those who can least bear it.

Republicans ought to know this, and that includes Newark Rep. Jay Hottinger, who wasted no time Wednesday cranking out an e-mail blasting Strickland for his "tax increase." That's an easy charge to make, but what would Hottinger and those who agree with him do instead? What else would they cut from the budget?

They aren't saying, but that's no surprise. They're playing politics instead of being statesmen. But Ohio can't afford their gamesmanship."

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2009/10/02/taxted.ART_ART_10-02-09_A14_PMF82IL.html?sid=101

If this all sounds like familiar criticism to Hottinger, it should since he accused Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell of the same tactic back in 2005.

To quote this time from the April 29, 2005 Newark Advocate:

"Blackwell, who addressed the Newark Rotary Club Tuesday...criticized state legislators for the growth in spending in recent years.  During his remarks, Blackwell...said the budget state leaders are currently considering contains $4.2 billion in tax increases and only $1.9 billion in cuts over four years.  It's a claim with which Hottinger takes issue.

"It's a net tax cut," Hottinger said.  "The facts are we're cutting $4.2 billion.  Taxes are being raised $3.3 billion.  I would say to Mr. Blackwell, "You do the math."

(Strickland and Democrats today argue that, likewise, the governor's plan is not a tax increase since state income tax rates are just being frozen at 2008 levels and many families will still see a small net decrease in their income tax because personal exemptions are being raised.)

Hottinger, in 2005, then went on to criticize Blackwell for skewing facts "in order to score points with voters" and for his "rhetoric and recklessness with the facts."

"I think it's irresponsible of a government leader to criticize without offering solutions," Hottinger said, according to the Advocate.  "I think it is incumbent on him as a candidate for governor to spell out where we should have those cuts."

Which is kind of the same cheap shot Rep. Hottinger is being accused of today.  Again, from today's Dispatch:

"Those rapping Strickland's tax plan should offer own solution to budget crisis."

Bottom line: What a difference four years and a switch from the Senate to the House (not to mention the election of a Democrat  as governor) have made in Hottinger's view in what constitutes responsible politics. 

Sure it's all a game, but it's up to the voters to be the umpire and bench those politicians who don't behave.