ProgressOhio

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121969145343270091.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today

Published August 26, 2008, by The Wall Street Journal.

Walk into almost any hotel here this week and you can find an odd sight: Liberal Democrats starting their day by lobbying moderate and conservative Democrats.

The lobbyists are members of the Progressive Democrats of America, an activist group working to keep the party true to liberal priorities, and they have been assigned to every hotel housing Democratic convention delegates.

"At breakfast, where they go to get their talking points [from the national party], we will be there," says Tim Carpenter, a veteran of Democratic campaigns and national director of the PDA.

The fact that Mr. Carpenter and his cohorts feel compelled to buttonhole other Democrats to push a liberal agenda is a sign of a quiet tension lurking within the Democratic Party. That tension is a potential complication for Sen. Barack Obama now, and it is certain to be one for him and his party if he is elected president.

Progressives--the term of art for the party's liberal wing--contend, with some justification, that they have provided much of the fuel that could propel the party to win control of the White House and both houses of Congress for the first time in 16 years. They have contributed and raised large amounts of money, fired up their troops on the Internet, and generally are thrilled at the prospect of a Democratic sweep.

Yet they aren't sure the party they think they are leading to victory is really following them. Sen. Obama has been essentially nonideological in his campaign, has made much of his desire to reach across the ideological spectrum to Republicans, and spent several weeks this summer moving away from the left and toward the center on issues ranging from warrantless wiretaps to abortion to gun control.

More than that, liberals realize that if the party expands its control of the House and Senate, it may do so by electing moderate and conservative Democrats who vanquish sitting Republicans. Thus, while Democratic control in Congress could expand, liberal influence may not.

So the progressive wing of the party has gathered in Denver uncertain whether to celebrate or fight for its due.

"The party doesn't get it," says Mr. Carpenter, who worked on the presidential campaigns of Jesse Jackson, former California Gov. Jerry Brown and former President Bill Clinton. "That's why organizations like the PDA have to organize and energize."

The big question, of course, is: Exactly what do progressives want? For many, the short answer is: Quick and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, no parallel buildup in Afghanistan, a reduction in the military budget, a broad rollback of the Bush tax cuts, an increase in corporate taxes and a shift of those funds to social spending, a huge government drive for alternative energy sources, and a much bigger government role in providing health care.

Sen. Obama doesn't exactly oppose any of those impulses, but he hasn't fully bought into all of them, either. He'd roll back some but not all Bush tax cuts, for instance, and is a long way from backing the kind of government-funded universal health-insurance system many progressives want.

Rob Kall, a radio host and editor of liberal Web site OpEdNews, says flatly, "Liberals and progressives don't see him as liberal. Universally among liberals and leftists, they seem him as a centrist."

That may be fine with the Obama campaign, which likely calculates that victory hinges more on the candidate's ability to win over independents and former supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton than the party's liberal base, which figures to go along for the ride. Still, Mr. Kall says some members of his Web site are drifting toward third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney or questioning how hard they want to work this fall.

The most likely campaign effect, though, is continued pressure on Sen. Obama through the fall to move left on key issues.

Here is what PDA has planned in Denver to help further the shift left:

PROGRESSIVE CENTRAL at the DNC CONVENTION

Join PDA and The Nation in the heart of Denver at the Central Presbyterian Church, 1660 Sherman St.--a progressive oasis, where like-minded individuals can meet to network, share ideas, learn from the country's foremost progressives, and help build the progressive movement.

Paid parking is located nearby; but we recommend public transportation, visit http://www.denver.com/transport/masstransit.html

Check back frequently for additions or changes to panels. Panelists are still confirming availability.

To volunteer, contact DNCvolunteers@pdamerica.org.

For more information or to make a hardship request, contact Denver@pdamerica.org.

Progressive Democrats of America-Ohio, a founding member of Citizens Save Our Sewers, a coalition of unions, citizens, and grassroots groups, is working hard to turn back a privatization "scheme" by Akron Democratic Mayor Don Plusquellic.  (PDA-Ohio's Mary Nichols-Rhodes, a rotating chair of SOS meetings, is in the green Citizens SOS t-shirt in the left of the picture). 

The mayor is hiding his intentions behind the smokescreen of providing education, but the smoke is a weak haze to those who follow the national movement to privatize local water and sewer infrastructure to multi-national corporations.  Being the former head of the U.S. Conference of Mayors (http://www.usmayors.org/), the Akron mayor as well as mayors from across the United States are lobbied hard by these multi-national corps to turn over their public assets to them.  The mayor's idea did not come out of a dream in the the middle of the night, though clandestine the way he is working to sell off the city's assets may seem like a night-time job. If anyone looks into the Kalamazoo plan the mayor heralds as an example of succes, he will see that the Mayor's plan is nothing like Kalamazoo's.  The mayor is maybe hoping no one will notice. 

Well, since the mayor uses a baseball analogy in the following article, we have to say that the mayor is flailing at what our coalition is throwing him. Strike one: we worked and got the petition on the ballot. Strike two:  the public is against the transfer, regardless of his smoke and mirrors game.

The voters will throw the third pitch come November. Now our job is to educate the voters as to the truth to our initiative against the confusion the mayor hopes to draw by adding two related initatives of his own on the ballot.

We of PDA thank Progress Ohio from following our work and publicizing it.

See article below:

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/27120384.html

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/victorious-on-platform-progressive-dems.html

Note: Though the list of actions to put an article relating to "healthcare" at the Progress Ohio posting site  has one option, namely "Affordable Healthcare," we of PDA believe the word "affordable" relates directly to involvement of the insurance industry in health care delivery. Being for a "single-payer, doctor-patient run, publicly funded and privately run health care system" we seek the elimination of the grip that the insurance industry has over health care and would prefer that "affordable" be taken out of the posting list and replaced with simply the word "healthcare."  Just a friendly suggestion for accuracies sake.

Impeachment Weekend Update:
Taking Our Message to Denver

Dear Friend of Impeachment,

In case you missed it, Rep. Robert Wexler gave us a great shout out. Here's part of it:

Over the past 7 months, PDA and its members have been true leaders in our campaign to pursue impeachment. Many, many of you have supported my efforts by signing up on WexlerWantsHearings.com, and I am thankful that some of you have kindly contributed to my re-election fight.

I am looking forward to being at Progressive Central in Denver to discuss this subject (and others). If you are in town, I hope you come and join the discussion. 

Reserve your space, here.

Join us for the whole week if you can, otherwise please make plans to join me on Thursday (scroll down) for a special day devoted to oversight, investigations, and impeachment. Rep. Keith Ellison will be joining me on the morning panel, and in the afternoon Rep. Ellison; Leslie Cagan of United for Peace and Justice; Steve Cobble, Institute for Policy Studies Fellow; and The Nation’s John Nichols will continue the discussion on constitutional law.

Your support and encouragement are inspiring. PDA is often under-recognized for its work on many different progressive causes, but many Members of Congress (especially those of us on the Judiciary Committee) are well aware of its contributions and leadership.

The Hill--the top "insider" publication for Members of Congress and staffers--picked up the story and echoed the shout out to us. Read the article here.

See all the details about "Progressive Central" and make your reservations to join us in Denver here.

Contact the national and local media: Demand they cover impeachment.

Show your support for impeachment: Order buttons, bumper stickers, shirts and ImpeachMINTS.

Yours for Accountability,

Tim Carpenter, PDA National Director
Joanne O'Neill, PDA New Jersey State Co-Coordinator
William Crain, PDA Montana State Coordinator
Mike Hersh, PDA National Staff

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/26899979.html

Who supports universal health care? Published on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008  By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON: Before the energy-price crisis, before the mortgage crisis, before the credit crisis and the banking crisis, there was the crisis in health insurance that is in reality a crisis in care. This crisis has deepened in recent years as the number of uninsured has climbed and out-of-pocket costs for those still with insurance have soared. It has become common knowledge that a serious illness — even among those with insurance — can plunge families into bankruptcy.

Though ''problems paying for gas'' topped the financial challenges people listed in the most recent Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll, ''problems paying for health care and health insurance'' ranked third — just behind job concerns but well ahead of paying for food, dealing with credit card debt and paying the mortgage.

So it is downright shocking that there was a tussle over what the 2008 Democratic platform would say about the party's generations-long, bedrock commitment to health care for all Americans. In short, presumptive nominee Barack Obama did not draft a statement keeping that pledge. He presented instead his plan as one that would provide ''access to'' affordable and comprehensive health care.

A coalition of liberal activists and Hillary Clinton supporters managed to negotiate a change so that the platform says the party is ''united behind a commitment that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care.'' Inclusion of the word ''guaranteed'' was the crucial point.

On the surface, this may look like a victory for Clinton supporters or even for the far larger group — that is, millions of Democrats — who have long believed that the promise of guaranteed, universal health care is a fundamental principle of their party.

I am less certain, and it's not because I know that politicians can discard party platforms faster than they rid themselves of scandal-tainted donors.

It is because Obama did not campaign during the primaries on a plan that would achieve universal coverage, and indeed, excoriated Clinton for her proposal to mandate that everyone have it.

In fact, even some of those involved in achieving the small health-care victory take little solace from it. ''I'm not sure that Obama will actually pursue the same kind of idea that we had inserted in the platform,'' says Donna Smith, who lobbied the platform panel as a member of Progressive Democrats of America. ''I think we will have to pursue our congressional representatives to bring legislation forward.''

Smith is not a Clinton delegate, or even a convention delegate. She and her husband, Larry, were featured in the Michael Moore film Sicko because they were forced into bankruptcy and lost their home trying to pay the out-of-pocket costs stemming from her treatment for uterine cancer and his for heart disease. '

'Our purpose was not to attack the party,'' says Smith, who says she wants Obama to be elected and describes herself and her husband as ''good and loyal Democrats.'' But certain lines have to be drawn.

''To say you're going to provide affordable coverage to people is not the same as giving them health care,'' she says. ''Just because you have insurance coverage does not guarantee you access to the care that you and your doctor decide you need. And people with insurance understand that.''

 Most Democrats do, too.

In 1992, the party's platform said everyone should have ''universal'' access to health care ''not as a privilege, but as a right.'' In 1996, a party chastened after the collapse of President Bill Clinton's health care initiative nonetheless committed itself to ''ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, high-quality health care.'' In 2000, the platform noted that ''for 50 years, the Democratic Party has been engaged in a battle to provide the kind of health care a great nation owes its people.'' In 2004, the platform said this: ''We believe that health care is a right and not a privilege.''

Securing that right is as important now as it was four, or even 50, years ago. When gas prices recede, when the housing market stabilizes and fears of imminent job losses ebb, there will still be an unconscionable gap between the glory of American medical science and the ability of millions of people to get the most basic care.

Obama avoided an intra-party brawl over the health platform. The unanswerable question is whether he will be as determined, as president, to take on the much larger — and excruciatingly harder — health-care fight.

Cocco writes for the Washington Post Writers Group. She can be e-mailed at

mariecocco@washpost.com.  

Question:  Do you want the Democratic Party’s platform for 2008 to reflect “real” change we can believe in? 

Question:  Would you like a bit of the audacity of truth to complement that bit of hope? 

Well, in Pittsburgh, PDA is working to make truthful change the center of the Democratic Platform.

Almost 300 Delegates have signed onto the “Guaranteed Healthcare for All” language to be added to the DNC Platform.  Guaranteed, comprehensive healthcare without financial barriers, that allows healthcare providers to make healthcare decisions based on what is best for the patient.  A healthcare platform that represents real reform that progressive Democrats can believe in.

PDA’s Healthcare Not Warfare Co-Chairs Norm Solomon and Donna Smith brought their message to the Cleveland DNC Platform meeting on August 1 and 2nd but were not given time to speak.

And on Saturday, the DNC Platform committee meets for the last time before the Democratic Party Convention in Denver (August 24-28)

Last Question: Will you join us in Pittsburgh at the national-state health care coalition press conference being held before the DNC Platform meeting?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=1028

---------------------------

Progressive Democrats of America are setting up Progressive Central in Denver during the Democratic National Convention.  This is a chance for Progressives to meet and participate in meaningful activities. PDA and Nation Magazine, are presenting the

“Nation Conversation Series”- daily conversations moderated by John Nichols with incredible guests such as Tom Hayden, Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Barbara Lee, Rep.

Lynne Woolsey, and many others.  Every afternoon, panel discussions include people such as Laura Flanders, Jeff Cohen, Norm Solomon, Medea Benjamin (CodePink),

Mimi Kennedy, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and so many more.  Join PDA in Denver August 24-28!

https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/309/donate.asp?formid=meet&c=6468205

Posted by David Himmelstein, MD on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008

Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is pushing a superficially attractive health reform model that has a long record of failure – akin to prescribing a placebo for a serious illness when effective treatment is available. They would offer Americans a new public insurance plan and a menu of private ones, with subsidies for coverage for low income families.

This approach reprises the format of Medicare’s ongoing privatization. Despite promises of strict regulation and a level playing field that would allow the public plan to flourish, private insurers would (as they have done in Medicare) predictably overwhelm regulatory efforts through crafty schemes to selectively recruit profitable, lower-cost patients, and avoid the expensively ill. Like the Medicare Advantage program, originally touted as a market-based strategy to improve Medicare’s efficiency, the HCAN plan would evolve into a multibillion dollar subsidy for private insurers whose massive financial power (amassed largely at government expense) would prove a political roadblock to terminating the failed experiment.

Unfortunately, proposals like HCAN’s that cede a central role to private insurers can only add coverage by adding costs. They promise savings from computerization and chronic disease care management. Yet the Congressional Budget Office has warned that there is little or no evidence for such savings.

The HCAN proposal forgoes most of the $350 billion annually in administrative savings possible under single payer national health insurance (NHI). Administrative waste is a natural byproduct of the private insurance firms that would retain a central role under HCAN’s plan. Private plans’ overhead is 12-fold higher than under NHI; the excess is squandered on marketing, underwriting, utilization reviewers and profits, and for the billions paid to executives. And the multiplicity of insurers envisioned in the plan precludes paying hospitals a global, lump sum budget; such budgets would save additional billions by obviating the need for most hospital billing and much of the internal accounting needed to attribute hospital costs to individual patients and payers.

HCAN’s proposal duplicates key elements of health reforms that have passed (and then failed) in multiple states: Massachusetts in 1988; Oregon in 1989; Tennessee, Minnesota and Vermont in 1992; Washington State in 1993; and Maine in 2003. In each case, rising costs scuttled the reform effort; none had a durable impact on the number of uninsured. The 2006 Massachusetts law, which incorporates many of the features of HCAN’s plan, is already threatened by rising costs, despite offering skimpy coverage and leaving many uninsured. And Massachusetts, with its low rate of uninsurance to begin with, and a large fund devoted to care of the uninsured, offered the optimal conditions for trying such a plan.

HCAN’s proposal tries to avoid a head-on collision with private insurers, but the result is a plan that cannot achieve universal coverage or make care affordable. For physicians, offering a placebo in place of effective treatment is a serious ethical violation. Hence, while we salute the good intentions of the members of the HCAN coalition, we must warn against their proposal.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2008/07/09/a-policy-response-to-health-care-for-america-now/

Introduction by Michael Carano

It seems that our drive for single-payer is being diffused by those pushing to get voters out for the Democratic candidate, Obama. Now electing Obama is a good thing, so don’t get me wrong, but my fear is that the Dems will be using the health care card in 2008 as they did the Irag Occupation card in 2006 in order to get votes.

In the process, as you will see by the two articles I post, one from a Labor Party writer whom I know and respect, and the other from a woman in Florida who has insight into what is going on and how it will confuse voters about what is the best solution for real health care reform (single-payer, specifically Rep, John Conyers H.R. 676) and the fuzzy incremental approaches as put forth by Obama and the new coalition mentioned in the articles.

Let us not be confused as to what the new coalition is proposing, and let us be clear as to why we support single-payer over these wishy-washy plans proposed under the guise of “Universal Health Care” and their real shortcomings, they being bandaids to the real problem that a true universal, single-payer health care plan will cure.

So let's start acting with a bit of honesty in the debate.   Since we tend to lead first then educate when possible, this for your consumption. Our hope is that you will start being honest brokers in the debate and begin dealing fairly with Progressive Democrats of America and quit--like your precursors--as seeing us as a threat.  We only are a threat to the those who will hold back real reform. Thus, this is a kind of request too.  Please don't undermine our work through co-opting it, and reference our lead when applicable, as any honest group would do, as in Rep. Suttons stop-loss work; our being a prime  mover behind of Citizens Save Our Sewers Coalition in Akron, and our consistent and unremitting anti-war work, as in our past March organizing.  We are the good guys, so please quite seeing us a threat.  We understand what you are about. We just expect you to be honest about it. We will always be honest with what we are about.  Thus, on with the education portion of our work:

By Miles Mogulescu
Huffington Post
July 10, 2008

On May 6, 2008, Representative Betty Sutton (Ohio CD-13) introduced a resolution along with nine initial cosponsors, urging our military to end its “stop-loss” program. This much needed and forward-looking resolution succinctly calls for the immediate implementation of “a new stop-loss policy to ensure that no member of the Armed Forces who has completed a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan is subject to a stop-loss order.”

Under current policy, if a soldier is scheduled to deploy within 90 days of the end of his commitment, the Army may issue a stop-loss order to retain the soldier in the military for the length of the deployment and up to another 90 days after the unit returns to its home base. Since September 19, 2001, nearly 45,000 members of the Armed Forces have had their service involuntarily extended by stop-loss orders. The number of soldiers subject to stop-loss orders has risen sharply since the Pentagon extended combat tours from 12 to 15 months last year.

When passed, H. Res. 1177 will go far toward providing genuine support to our men and women patriotically answering America's call to duty. As Rep. Sutton states, “The Army's use of 'stop-loss' orders undermines the voluntary nature of military service and is unfair to our men and women in uniform and their families who have already sacrificed so much for our country.”

With understanding and foresight, Rep. Sutton does not stop there. She adds, “Policies such as stop-loss may enable the Army to maintain the size of its force in the short run, but are harmful to long term recruiting efforts. Instead of involuntarily retaining soldiers, the Army should support policies such as the new GI Bill, which will increase educational benefits for members of the military and be an effective recruitment tool.”

We encourage all throughout the ranks of PDA, and all concerned citizens wishing to correct the grave injustice done to our brave soldiers by the prolonged extension of their tours, to contact their elected congressional representative by mail, phone, and in personal visits in home districts and encourage them to co-sponsor this resolution. Find your representative's contact information here.

If your representative is already one of the bill's nineteen co-sponsors, we encourage you to thank them for their genuine support of our men and women of the Armed Forces. Find the co-sponsors and read the  text of H. Res.1177 here.

Freshman Rep. Sutton not only voted “NO” on the recent appropriation bill that would continue funding of the Iraq War and Occupation into the next president's term, she has also consistently and strongly supported working Americans by voting against the anti-worker FTA's for Peru and Columbia, votes much lauded by PDA and those working in its ranks on economic issues.

www.pdamerica.org

National Anti War Conference in Cleveland June 28, 29

Speakers * Workshops * Proposals for United Action Over 450 endorsers including Progressive Democrats of America, US Labor Against the War, Cindy Sheehan, Howard Zinn, Scott Ritter, David Swanson, Ramsey Clark, Bill Moyer and the Backbone Campaign 

Greetings Ohio Activists,

We write encouraging you to come to Cleveland June 28-29 to unite the anti-war movement. In fact, we need you to come and participate and vote, giving your voice to the direction of the movement at the National Assembly to End the Iraq War and Occupation. Ohio PDA State Leadership has been fortunate to participate on the Coordinating Committee for the National Assembly with activists from coast to coast over the last half-dozen months. You will have the opportunity to hear great speakers, meet activists from around the country, and choose to be a part of the over 12 workshops dealing with numerous issues related to the occupation.(List of workshops at bottom of this page: http://natassembly.org/evtreg/)

Scheduled speakers for the conference include Jonathan Hutto, Navy Petty Officer, author of Anti-War Soldier and co-founder of Appeal for Redress; Donna Dewitt, President, South Carolina AFL-CIO; Cindy Sheehan (by satellite); Leslie Cagan, UFPJ National Coordinator; Fred Mason, President of the Maryland AFL-CIO and a National Co-Convenor of U.S. Labor Against the War; Brian Becker, A.N.S.W.E.R. National Coordinator; and Jeremy Scahill, author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, and more.

At the conference, we of PDA will push for an electoral component to any Mass Mobilizations since we believe all efforts should be comprehensive. This conference will be democratic. All present vote, thus we need you to commit to being there. It isn’t often that Ohio is centerstage for the national event of this scope. Don’t miss this once in a lifetime opportunity. See the following links to find out more about this Assembly: www.natassembly.org

Act quickly if you plan on getting a hotel room for the night of the June 28th since cheaper groups rates are available until May 27th. As many as four can share a room, so bring friends and lessen the cost. When booking mention the group rate: Hotel information can be found at: www.clevelandhotels.crowneplaza.com

This Assembly will prove to be a major event in the effort to end the occupation. Will you be a part of it? We hope the answer is yes. Again, for information about the National Assembly go to: www.natassembly.org

 To register: www.natassembly.org/evtreg/ Please do not hesitate to call or email us if you have any questions whatsoever.

In Peace and Solidarity,

Mike Carano, PDA State Coordinator, Ohio michael_carano@hotmail.com, 330-715-2066

Mary Nichols-Rhodes, PDA Ohio CD Organizer Mac40oh@gmail.com, 330-928-5347