Daily Archives: May 15, 2008

Budget, Health Care

The budget is worse than what you read…

(Cross posted from the Health Access WeBlog)

The news coverage of the budget, if anything, has downplayed the impact of the budget on health care. Let me focus on what we consider is the biggest of the cuts newly announced yesterday, that would impact the most number of people.

The San Francisco Chronicle mentions that the Medi-Cal eligibility cut would mean that “40,000 poor working parents, who now receive comprehensive Medi-Cal coverage, would have their benefits reduced if they earn more than about $12,000 for a family of three.”

Actually, these parents, who would make roughly $10,736-$17,600/year for a family of three, would lose access to Medi-Cal coverage. Some might be eligible for other programs, but many would simply become uninsured.

More to the point, the 39,000 people impacted in the first year is only the beginning. In a few years, after full implementation, the cut would deny coverage to 439,000 Californians.

The Los Angeles Times described it in this way, that the budget would “Deny thousands of impoverished parents healthcare coverage that they now have through the state’s Medi-Cal program. Under the change, a single parent with one child who earns more than $8,540 a year would no longer be eligible.” Tha was correct, but downplayed the massive scale of the cut–that the impact was eventually deny hundreds of thousands of Californians.

The Sacramento Bee has an article that doesn’t go into the specific horror of the cuts.

The sidebar that describes the budget “highlights” doesn’t even mention this cut to Medi-Cal eligibility–even though it is the health cut with the biggest impact in the May Revise. That sidebar does list some of the bad cuts, but also neglects to mention a major-dollar proposed cut from January, that would also eliminate key benefits, like dental, optometry, and podiatry, for millions of adults on coverage. It’s unclear why some cuts were included and other, bigger cuts were not.

Let’s hope that future coverage of the budget goes into the full implications of what is being proposed here. The cuts are bad enough that they don’t need embellishment, but they do need coverage, so Californians can understand the stark choices, and how they would impact our fellow citizens and our health system.

Uncategorized

I hate to see people on strike!

Yes, you read that right.  When workers are striking that means that someone, somewhere is refusing to negotiate health care, a living wage or safe working conditions.  

And even worse, this strike is happening right outside my workplace.  I scanned the flier I received while walking to get my lunch.



That’s not too much to ask, is it?  Orange County, CA is one of the most expensive places to live in the US and the people who work theif forty hours a week should be able to afford to live here!

The dream of sending one’s child to College is an admirable one and it’s something that many parents aspire to.  It’s a basic right that can help lift an entire generation out of poverty and provide the strong work force that not only California needs to move into the 21st Century, but our entire Country.

And guess what?  Because the Governator is cutting Education budgets across the board the California State University system and the University of California system are raising their tuition fees.

Despite angry protests from students that led to 16 arrests at UCLA, California’s two public universities took actions Wednesday to charge higher fees for education in the fall.

The trustees of the Cal State University system voted to raise annual undergraduate student fees 10%, or $276. A key committee of the University of California regents approved a 7.4%, or $490, raise per year for undergraduates that is expected to be endorsed by the full Board of Regents today.

Student expensesThe actions would bring average statewide undergraduate costs to nearly $3,800 at Cal State and to more than $8,000 at UC, not including housing, books and other expenses, which can total $12,000 to $16,000. Graduate students will face even higher increases.

“This is one of the most painful things we do. None of us wants to raise fees,” UC President Robert C. Dynes said at the regents meeting at UCLA. “We’re between a rock and a hard place. The state doesn’t support us the way they should support us.”

LA Times

Why don’t Republicans get it? Affordable education is what will allow people to care for themselves and to lift themselves out of the poverty they were born into, it’s practically the only way to do it.  Should not all our children have this opportunity?

The whole reason we have the CSU system is to allow lower income students the ability to get a higher education.  And the reason we have Unions is so that hard working families can care for their children and their dreams of having something better for themselves.  The Republican way of thinking is absolutely antithetical to their supposed core belief, they are so opposed to tax hikes that they would cut their nose off to spite their face.  

Don’t workers deserve a chance to make their children’s lives better?  Shouldn’t Government be part of that opportunity rather than an impediment to it?  

California’s public universities pay for themselves: For every $1 spent, about $3 comes back to the state as a byproduct.

LA Times

You would think that conservatives would understand the importance of investing?  But they can’t let go of their personal beliefs of “I’ve got mine, screw everyone else”.  That’s what it comes down to.

So you see, I hate to see a strike.  It means that the people who help keep my office clean and workable are being asked to forgo their dreams for the children so that big corporations can have a higher profit margin for the few of the people on their board of directors.  The many must suffer so the few can prosper.

But if you do see a picket line, please take the time to say you support their dreams and you support their needs because in the end, this is about supporting everyone in our soceity and declaring that we all deserve a better life for not only ourselves but our children.  

 

Uncategorized

Let’s keep the Democratic steamroller going! Help me elect Dr. Rita to CA-41!

1 Comment

(cross posted at dailykos.com and downwithtyranny.blogspot.com)

Man, what a time to be a Democrat! After years of rebuilding our party through the netroots, we’re poised to make MAJOR gains this November in what will probably be an even more historic election than 2006. We have an amazingly strong (presumptive) nominee here in CA-41 and nationally, more Senate seats up for grabs than you can count on two hands, three special election victories in deep red territory, and probably tens of new House seats that will flip our way.

But I’m not here to gloat about our election successes so far or prematurely celebrate our prospects in November. I’m writing to you today to introduce you to a woman who has the best chance of unseating the Tom Delay of 2008: Jerry Lewis (R), CA-41. This amazing woman is Dr. Rita Ramirez-Dean. (Follow me after the jump…)

Dr. Rita is a true, lifelong Democrat, unafraid of talking about the progressive values we admire and seek out in a real Democratic candidate. An extremely strong extemporaneous speaker, able to talk from the heart without notes or prepared speeches, Dr. Rita is exactly what this district needs. Dr. Rita doesn’t need to be a Blue Dog Dem in order to win this seat; as a minority woman, she speaks directly to the disenfranchised and encourages them to participate in the democratic process.

There’s a strong desire amongst the voters in the district for someone like her to energize them and bring out the vote, especially in this “red” district where the usual Dems running here are afraid to say what they believe in for fear of being branded a liberal (gasp!). But we need your help to make the voters’ dreams a reality.

Rep Lewis’ name is synonymous with Republican corruption. As the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, he was responsible for directing BILLIONS of dollars to his fellow cronies; anyone who reads this site regularly is aware of his shady dealings. Yet despite a million dollars in his campaign account, and his Teflon coating when faced with investigation after investigation, I have a huge smile on my face today. Why? Because a strong, grassroots supported candidate just won a major seat in a similar district this past Tuesday night. I’m talking about Congressman-elect Childers in Mississippi.

Just like MS-01, CA-41 is heavily red (R+9). But the demographics on the ground show a different picture. There is a large African-American community in the eastern parts of San Bernardino (which will be highly energized in November by Sen. Obama’s campaign), a huge contingent of Latinos (who will rally behind a Latina candidate), and a strong base of Democrats who are more excited than ever to win this seat. Add that to the high numbers of Republicans defecting from their party and Democrats moving east from L.A., and the demographics point to a solid pick up opportunity.

Dr. Rita is the strongest candidate in the Democratic race to capitalize on the shifting demographics and desire for change. But we need your help to make it happen!

This primary election is all about turnout. With most Californians unaware of an election this June (especially after the presidential primary in February), the person who wins will be the person who turns out their base. It won’t take much, but we need about 50 people to help phone bank, and about $5,000 to run radio ads. You’re probably thinking, “$5,000?? That’s not going to do anything!” Well that where Rita’s demographics help her the most. $5,000 is all we need to run two weeks of ads on Latino stations, reminding a core constituency of the election and urging them to get out and vote. Add in some money for targeted ads in print media the week of the election, and our plans for victory will come to fruition.

This isn’t an expensive district. Though Lewis will have millions of dollars to burn, as Mississippi taught us, money doesn’t necessarily buy elections anymore. And Dr. Rita has been touring this HUGE district for well over a year already, laying the groundwork. When she wins the primary, she will already have the infrastructure in place to pose a major threat to Lewis.

Please visit Dr. Rita’s website, www.ritaforcongress.com, to learn more about her. Be sure to listen to the radio interview with Dr. Rita to hear her thoughts on the issues if you have a few minutes. If you believe in her message and want to help, please donate via Act Blue (link on website), or email volunteer (at)ritaforcongress (dot) com to help phone banking.

Thank you all for your support!

-David Corbell

Volunteer Campaign Manager

Uncategorized

Elected Leaders’ Reactions

11 Comments

SF marriage noon celebrationOver the flip, I’ll be posting some legislator’s remarks on the marriage decision.  I’ll only get a few now, so any editors should feel free to add some or throw them in the comments.

Senator Barack Obama:

“Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President.  He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.”

On the issue of constitutional amendments, Senator Obama has been on record for some time: He opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments, state or federal.  That includes the proposed amendments in California and Florida.

Mark Leno:

“Today’s ruling is a supreme affirmation of the sanctity of the love that two people share with one another without regard to their gender, and a victory for all Californians who believe that people should have the opportunity to pursue their dreams on equal footing.

I applaud the Supreme Court today for erasing hundreds of years of unconstitutional discrimination against loving and committed same sex couples. I also congratulate the brave couples who brought the case to court, as well as Mayor Newsom, City Attorney Herrera and the amazing legal team that successfully argued this historic case.

I will continue to review the legal implications of today’s ruling and, if it is determined to be necessary, draft any implementing legislation that may be needed or appropriate.

With the conviction of its highest court and its legislature, California continues to lead the way in favor of the conservative principle that society is best served when loving couples who want to settle down with one another are all able to do so through the civil institution of marriage.”

Lloyd Levine:

“I am absolutely elated by the California Supreme Court’s decision. We live in 2008 and there is no place for discrimination in any way, shape or form,” Assemblymember Lloyd Levine said. “All people in California have equal rights under the law. I look forward to the day when all people can marry the person they love. This is a great day for equality in California.”

Leland Yee:

“Today our state’s supreme court reaffirmed the highest ideals of our republic.  I am proud to be a Californian today as we stand on the right side of history.  This is a victory for all people committed to equal justice and equal opportunity.  For far too long, our nation has unfairly denied fundamental rights to individuals simply because of their sexual orientation.  Today, we finally begin to heal those wounds and end state-sanctioned discrimination.   At last, we fully recognize and honor all loving relationships and all families with the rights, privileges, and joys of marriage.  We also celebrate the perseverance and courage shown by so many in this latest march towards equality, justice and happiness.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

On the California Supreme Court’s decision today to strike the state ban on gay marriage

I welcome the California Supreme Court’s historic decision. I have long fought against discrimination and believe that the State Constitution provides for equal treatment for all of California’s citizens and families, which today’s decision recognizes.

I commend the plaintiffs from San Francisco for their courage and commitment. I encourage California citizens to respect the Court’s decision, and I continue to strongly oppose any ballot measure that would write discrimination into the State Constitution.

Today is a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger:

I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.

Mayor Gavin Newsom:

Today, the California Supreme Court took a bold and important step forward to end discrimination in California. The Court’s ruling to grant same-sex couples the right to marry affirms the very best of what California stands for – and proudly continues our state’s long-standing commitment to equality and justice.

As San Franciscans, we have taken an irrevocable step toward resolving one of the most important civil rights issues of our generation, and the state’s highest court has done the right thing with their ruling. San Francisco is the first government entity in American history to challenge the constitutionality of state marriage laws that discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. I believe that the path San Francisco pursued was not merely right – it was inevitable.  It is America’s path – the road to true freedom and equality.

The rights afforded by California’s Constitution have triumphed, as they must, over laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.  In the late 1940s, California courts were among the nation’s first to strike down laws banning inter-racial marriage.  The state’s Supreme Court has once again distinguished itself as a leading defender of our civil rights.

Budget

Help close the budget gap – gamble more

By Randy Bayne

x-posted from The Bayne of Blog

That seems to be the message we’re getting from Governor Schwarzenegger. He is betting on the lottery to close the budget gap that is pegged at $15.2 billion. Specifically, his plan is to sell bonds (borrow) against future lottery revenues. He is counting on the citizens of California to do their part and place more bets on the lottery which he describes as an “underutilized resource.” In other words, Californians aren’t gambling enough.

This plan is beyond bad. It has no backing that I can see in the legislature and relies on voters passing an initiative to change the lottery in November. Should the voters of California be reasonable and decide not to gamble away our future, Schwarzenegger is ready to increase the state sales tax by a percentage point as punishment for not going along with his gimmick. Steve Wiegand calls the plan, “astounding for its chutzpah and really lame for its reliance on gimmickry.”

Really folks, this has got to be a bad joke. Knowing he can’t lead with taxes as a solution to close the gap, and knowing that cuts only is beyond unrealistic, Schwarzenegger is putting forth a solution that he knows is going nowhere. It is sign that Schwarzenegger has “abandoned his goal of fixing the problem that led to his historic election in 2003,” writes Daniel Weintraub in the Sacramento Bee.

If this is the best solution – and we all know it isn’t – that anyone can come up with, it is going to be one long hot summer.

The people of California deserve serious proposals with serious solutions that will be long term and not be based on the hope that people will gamble more.

There is plenty of reaction to the May Revise:

Daniel Weintraub – Sacramento Bee.

Q and A on the lottery scheme – Sacramento Bee.

Steve Wiegand – Sacramento Bee.

Shane Goldmacher has a compilation of reactions.

Health care cuts – Health Access California.

Education Coalition

Schwarzenegger – The Ultimate Girly-Man from David Dayen at Calitics.

Uncategorized

Gender-Neutral Marriage Decision Announced

33 Comments

(dKos link. Here’s an ActBlue Page to fight against the marriage initiative. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

4-3 DECISION!!   THE GOOD GUYS AND GALS WON!!!!!

The decision can be read here.

The conclusion of the majority is:

in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.  In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

The Court goes on to say: “

Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. 

 Hmmm, “appropriate state official”?  Who might that be?  Oh yeah, Mark Leno!

And a nice little touch concludes the directive: “Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.”  Ha!! Take that bigots!

Justices Baxtar, Corrigan, and Chin dissented.  All of them, however, wrote that they believe that same sex marriages should be recognized.  However, they do not believe that the Constitution mandates such recognition.

The Court holds that “Seperate but  Equal” is not permissive in this context for three reasons:

First:

because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this term describes a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community, there clearly is a considerable and undeniable symbolic importance to this designation. 

Second:

particularly in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term “marriage” is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of second-class citizenship.

Third:

it also is significant that although the meaning of the term “marriage” is well understood by the public generally, the status of domestic partnership is not.  While it is true that this circumstance may change over time, it is difficult to deny that the unfamiliarity of the term “domestic partnership” is likely, for a considerable period of time, to pose significant difficulties and complications for same-sex couples, and perhaps most poignantly for their children, that would not be presented if, like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples were permitted access to the established and well-understood family relationship of marriage. 

 

 

 

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Arnold Again Tries to Kill California Public Transportation

4 Comments

I hate when history repeats itself. This year’s May Revise budget proposal has some ugly similarities with last year’s, particularly when it comes to public transportation cuts. In May 2007 Arnold proposed a $1.3 billion cut to mass transit. Ultimately $700 million was slashed, bringing to a halt transit projects around the state designed to help commuters get out of their cars and avoid the crippling impact of soaring gas prices.

Now, Arnold is proposing to raid public transportation funds again, to avoid tax increases. John Laird’s budget overview makes clear that Arnold intends to cut over $400 million from state assistance to local public transit. This is an act of madness, as Californians are crying out for alternatives to the car. Ridership on local transit systems is soaring, but these systems are also being squeezed financially by rising fuel costs – especially diesel costs (which here in Monterey are just under $5 per gallon).

These proposed cuts are going to make it difficult for local systems to maintain their current levels of service, and will certainly make it hard for them to expand service to meet rising demand. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Arnold wants to drive commuters back into their cars.

Almost exactly a year ago I denounced Arnold’s proposed cuts and, sadly, the words are as true now as they were in 2007:

Underneath the green veneer, Arnold is still the same conservative Republican who seeks to destroy the environment. What explains Arnold’s desire to destroy public transportation? It’s two interrelated factors. The first is that Arnold simply is not an environmentalist. He is fixated on the automobile as a form of transportation. He thinks more freeways are the solution, not more public transportation. The screaming demand of millions of Californians for public transit don’t register with him.

The second is that Arnold is in the pockets of Big Oil. They have donated well over a million dollars to his various funds since November 2006, even though he isn’t eligible for re-election in 2010. As their gouging of Californians continues, the oil companies know that a backlash is coming. They want to prevent that at all costs, want to ensure that they hold the line in California lest they set a trend for the rest of the nation.

If Arnold destroys California’s public transit systems, Californians will not have any alternative but to pay the exorbitant costs at the pump. The middle class will sink further into financial ruin.

Arnold’s public transportation cuts are a catastrophic disaster for the state of California. Not only will they make global warming worse, not only will they make our environment more polluted, more prone to fire, and mired deeper in drought, but his cuts will ruin family budgets, eventually causing lost jobs and further destroying the state’s middle class.

Gas was at $3.50 when I wrote that. We’re now at $4 and climbing fast. Arnold’s attack on public transportation is nothing short of an attack on the California economy and on the wallets of every Californian. It is the height of hypocrisy to claim to protect those wallets by not raising taxes and to then force voters to shell out more money in gas purchases. Higher taxes would help lower the cost of transportation for Californians, growing the economy and leaving more green in family budgets at the end of the month.

Arnold’s budget is flawed in many respects. This seems one of the most obvious – and one of the easiest targets for a counterattack.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Budget, education, Health Care

Schwarzenegger – The Ultimate Girly-Man

7 Comments

(This is a little technique called “using your opponent’s words against them,” not an signal that I think “girly-man” is some kind of devastating or even viable slur, for the record)

Key stakeholders are weighing in on the Governor’s revised budget.  The Education Coalition notes that public education is still shortchanged, primarily through suspending COLA adjustments.  Health Access California sees major cuts to health care, through denying certain Medi-Cal benefits to adults, eliminating coverage for some low-income working parents, and forcing others through loads of paperwork in the hopes that they’ll trip up and forget to check a box so they can be purged from the rolls.  Shane Goldmacher has a pretty comprehensive list of several other reactions.  

But my favorite take – probably because it most mirrors my own – is from Dan Weintraub, whose main point is basically what a coward this Governor is.

The governor’s revised budget would give more to schools and less to health and welfare than he proposed in January, but the real story is his proposal to use lottery revenues to bridge the stubborn gap between spending and tax collections. Schwarzenegger’s press staff is furiously trying to portray the lottery deal as something other than borrowing, but borrowing it is. The state would change the game’s rules in ways designed to attract more business, then lean on private investors for $15 billion in up-front payments. That advance on lottery revenues would be repaid over 30 years from the new proceeds generated by the changes. But the up-front money runs out after three years, and guess what happens then: Yup: the budget deficit reappears, unless there’s an economic miracle between now and then. Ironically, if there were an economic surge and the governor’s revenue-averaging proposal were in place, the state couldn’t spend the new money and would still be left with a shortfall to cover. That persistent shortfall, at least according to the governor’s numbers, is in the range of about $5 billion to $6 billion a year. Fixing that would be the next governor’s problem.

Schwarzenegger started off saying he was going to “blow up the boxes” in Sacramento.  He barely tried.  He said he would be the “Collectinator” and end the state’s donor status with respect to the federal government.  Didn’t happen.  This year he said the time had come for budget reform.  He offered the same answer as he has in previous years.  He’s even trying to shake down the state into accepting his borrow-and-spend proposal with the lottery, by raising the spectre of a regressive across-the-board sales tax if the voters knock it down in November.  

He’s a coward.  He doesn’t want to be responsible for fixing the budget permanently, so he wants to pass off the problem to his successor.  He doesn’t want his legacy besmirched, so he pulled back on the proposal to close parks or suspend Prop. 98.  He just wants to tour the world and appear on magazine covers, without having to do any of that nasty business of governing.  Nobody could be worse for this state at this time of crisis.

Uncategorized

As California Debates Reforms, A Looming Public Pension Crisis Demands Federal Action

On Wednesday the San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board detailed the good and the bad of Proposition B, an effort to deal with unfunded health care promises to city workers that will soon be going to the voters. Amid the debate over whether or not Proposition B goes far enough in confronting the problem, the board hits on a very important point;

Governments at all levels have been ignoring a fiscal time bomb: Their binding promises to provide workers with lifetime health care benefits, without putting away any money to prepare for the cost.

San Francisco is on the hook for $4 billion in unfunded liability, and is not alone. Many local and state governments nationwide are facing similar concerns over this potential crisis.

A Washington Post article from this past weekend focused on a new and alarming threat to public employees: these same underfunded pension plans that have increased five fold from 2000-2006. Underfunded pensions are part of a perfect storm brewing on the horizon, and we can’t afford for the federal government to continue to sit idly and watch as states move closer to the brink of outright bankruptcy.

According to the Washington Post story, the funds that pay public employee pensions are facing a shortfall that could soon run into the trillion dollar range.

…the accounting techniques used by state and local governments to balance their pension books disguise the extent of the crisis facing these retirees and the taxpayers who may ultimately be called on to pay the freight, according to a growing number of leading financial analysts.

State governments alone have reported they are already confronting a deficit of at least $750 billion to cover the cost of the retirement benefits they have promised. But that figure likely underestimates the actual shortfall because of the range of methods they use to make their calculations.

According to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), a funded ratio of 80% or better is considered sound funding for government pensions. The percentage of state and local government pension plans that are funded below 80 percent has jumped to 41.5%, up from only 8.9% in 2000.

As it turns out, the effects of this problem are far reaching, and as Warren Buffet points out

in his 2007 letter to the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway, the incentives for our elected officials to do anything about it are minimal.

Because the fuse on this time bomb is long, politicians flinch from inflicting tax pain, given that problems will only become apparent long after these officials have departed. Promises involving very early retirement – sometimes to those in their low 40s – and generous cost-of-living adjustments are easy for these officials to make. In a world where people are living longer and inflation is certain, those promises will be anything but easy to keep.

Fortunately San Francisco has broken the unsettling trend of lawmakers willing to pass the buck to the next generation in this way, but what really struck me about the Washington Post article was the point at which it discusses the reasons for the cause for concern. Some of them, like the fact that America is living longer and getting older, we cannot help. Other fundamental problems are matters that the federal government has been ignoring for some time.

Retiree costs are soaring…A study by California predicted its retiree health care costs would jump from $4 billion today to $27 billion by 2019.

Nor has the crisis in the housing and debt markets helped matters. Investment returns for most pension funds across the nation turned negative for the first part of this year. State and local governments are also facing budget deficits that are expected to top $30 billion next year, according to Standard & Poor's, making it tough for officials to find more funding for pensions.

(Susan) Urahn, of the Pew Center, called the current environment "a perfect storm" and expressed a concern over whether governments may be tempted to cut their pension contributions.

The federal government’s failure to take action to help states is brewing a perfect storm, and making it increasingly difficult to prevent the looming pension crisis.

So what is the federal government doing? As I posted previously, it has taken the position that bailing out corporations in trouble is more important than helping the states and localities who face similar financial crunches, which doesn’t bode well for California which is facing a budget gap representing 15.4% of its FY2008 General Fund the second largest gap in the country.

And what will the federal government do in the future? It certainly doesn’t seem like it will relieve the pressure states are feeling from soaring retiree healthcare costs and the burdens of the housing crisis. An effort to drive down the cost of medicare prescriptions drugs failed to make its way through Congress when the Medicare Fair Prescription Drug Price Act of 2007 failed to get off Capital Hill – that bill would have allowed the federal government to negotiate with drug companies for lower prescription drug prices.

And this statement made by Secretary Paulson before the National Association of Business Economists shows that help for homeowners is also not on the way.

We know that speculation increased in recent years; a resulting increase in foreclosures is to be expected and does not warrant any relief. People who speculated and bought investment properties in hot markets should take their losses just like day traders who speculated and bought soaring tech stocks in 2000.

The states have been working hard to fix the pension problem. Like California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode Island will all be considering pension reform plans this year, doing what they can within the boundaries that their economic situations will allow. With that in mind, one question still remains: Why is the federal government sitting idly by while national factors prevent the states from ensuring pensions can be paid out? It’s time for the federal government to take action.

Uncategorized

John Kerry Goes After Blackwater

Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

In the continuing battle over Blackwater and America’s soul, Senator John Kerry called for hearings today into the renewal of Blackwater’s State Department contract.  Why? In Kerry’s words:

To learn that Blackwater’s no-bid security contract for Iraq was renewed even as a grand jury investigates the company and the IRS considers its own review of the company’s books, raises serious concerns that merit Senate hearings. How was this decision made? What was the process that concluded there were no alternatives? What was the extent of Blackwater’s lobbying effort?, said Senator Kerry. “Five years into this war, there’s been too much abuse of the contracting process in Iraq and too little oversight, and nowhere do the questions loom larger than in Blackwater’s role and the Administration’s apparent imperviousness to skepticism where this corporation is concerned.

Coincidentally, this news comes on the same day that news broke that Blackwater vehicle prototypes might be on the Defense Department’s shopping list. This is two more fronts in the battle over Blackwater’s legitimacy.  On the one hand, Blackwater continues to seek out new niches to keep itself afloat after we finally leave Iraq, and on the other hand, Democratic leadership continues to step to block Blackwater.  Kerry’s hearings will likely take place in the Middle East Subcommittee in the Foreign Relations Committee. Also serving there is Senator Barbara Boxer.  Now Senator Boxer has earned the benefit of the doubt over her years in the Senate, but this is a huge issue that goes well beyond this aspect of Blackwater or the State Department.  This is a statement about how we as a nation are going to treat organizations like Blackwater.

I have a lot of faith in Barbara Boxer to do the right thing, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t vital that we watch and make sure she helps drive the point home here.  There’s simply never any excuse for Blackwater to be paid with our tax dollars. Until we can lay down a federal level smackdown (Rep. Schakowsky’s Stop Outsourcing Security Act is another great opportunity) on this sort of thing, it’s just gonna be more rounds of whack-a-mole around the country. It’s good to see more leadership in DC on this issue, but now we’ve gotta get the follow-through.