I was actually looking at this Robert Novak column for another reason, but this is a bit worth mentioning.  Seems that our post-partisan governor toed the party line, when push came to shove.

While 19 of 22 Republican governors once favored the Democratic bill expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), only two signed a Tuesday letter to President Bush urging him to sign the measure.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, a former governor of Utah, helped bring around his former colleagues. Even California’s Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a presumed supporter of the SCHIP bill, joined his fellow Republicans. The only GOP governors signing the letter were Connecticut’s Jodi Rell and Utah’s Jon Huntsman (following the lead of his state’s Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch).

So the governor of UTAH has more courage of his convictions than our Arnold.  Classy move.

My post about Jane Harman’s remarks at a town hall meeting yesterday about the secret “torture memos” revealed this week by the New York Times is up at Think Progress, submitted through their Blog Fellows Program, which I can’t recommend enough.  Let me contextualize those remarks a bit more, and add some of the other interesting things Rep. Harman had to say.

I asked the question to Harman about the secret memos.  Earlier this week, the White House claimed that all relevant members of Congress had been fully briefed on the classified program sanctioning harsh interrogation techniques by the CIA.  At the time of the memos, Harman was a member of the “Gang Of Eight” routinely briefed on intelligence matters.  Harman was shaking her head as I asked the question if she was fully briefed, chuckling almost in disbelief.  Her answer:

We were not fully briefed. We were told about operational details but not these memos. Jay Rockefeller said the same thing, and I associate myself with his remarks. And we want to see these memos.

over…

Harman is now the third member of the Gang of Eight, joining Jay Rockefeller and Nancy Pelosi, to reject the White House’s claim that they were fully briefed about these memos.  The Administration is lying, again, and it is now incumbent upon Congress to make every effort to obtain those memos and to enshrine into law a full repudiation of the arguments therein described.  The follow-up question I wanted to ask Rep. Harman, but could not, was how she would go about pressuring the White House to get those documents.  Obviously the vehicle for this is through the confirmation of Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey.  Considering that these memos came out of the Justice Department, there should simply be no movement on his confirmation without an exchange of the memos.

Let me add some additional information about the town hall.  I wrote in my Think Progress post this tidbit:

Harman later revealed that she was speaking with an unidentified Republican in her office, who told her that if President Bush were to attack Iran, then even he would vote for impeachment.

You have to understand the environment of this town hall meeting.  The audience included the hardcore progressives that made up the core of the Marcy Winograd primary challenge to Harman in 2006; in fact, Winograd was on a panel right before Harman’s arrival.  These people were SCREAMING for impeachment; the first two questions were about this issue.  And Harman could do nothing but reiterate that Nancy Pelosi, not her, had taken impeachment off the table.  She went on to describe her no votes against the Clinton impeachment and how MoveOn.org was born out of the impeachment debate (odd of her to approvingly cite MoveOn, considering she voted to condemn their remarks in the “General Betrayus” ad).  But when she brought up Iran, she said “this little anecdote should make you smile,” and mentioned the above exchange.

Here are some of the other notable tidbits in Harman’s meeting.

• She recommended Jack Goldsmith’s “The Terror Presidency” as the best source for understanding how the Bush Administration attempted to expand executive power through neutering the Office of Legal Counsel.  She had the book with her.

• She reiterated that “intelligence was politicized again” on the FISA bill, referring to the fake terror attack hyped by the White House designed to get wavering Democrats to sanction warrantless surveillance.  It was a cold-blooded tactic, and it should be heavily publicized.  I thanked Rep. Harman for speaking out on this, and I hope that she’ll continue as well as encourage other members to corroborate her allegations.  Harman said she is working to change the new FISA bill, which will “probably be introduced this week.”  The goals are that any surveillance must be done through the FISA court, with a warrant, and with minimization protocols if a US national is involved.

• Harman spoke about her legislation to close Guantanamo, restore habeas corpus, and end the use of national security letters outside their initial purpose.  She spoke glowingly about the vote this week to put Blackwater contractors under the auspices of US law, and thanked both Rep. Waxman and Rick Jacobs, who produced Iraq for Sale, with their efforts to get the word out about Blackwater’s numerous abuses and how they fell into the “legal black hole” regarding their activities.

• She recommended the Seymour Hersh article about developments with respect to Iran, and said that she has invited him to speak to the Congress.  Harman was adamant in saying that “targeted sanctions are working” with Iran, and that the government should “stop the saber rattling” that could lead us to another catastrophic war.

• She trumpeted her contribution to the House energy bill, a measure to retire the incandescent light bulb by 2012.

• On trade, she made a disappointing statement.  Despite voting against NAFTA and CAFTA and claiming that she was proven right on those votes, she said that some trade deals are admissable with proper labor and environmental standards as well as trade adjustment assistance, and referring to the current Peruvian Free Trade Agreement that will come up for vote in a couple weeks, she said that “It was approved by Charlie Rangel.”  Uh-oh.  We know that this bill, crafted in the dead of night to appease corporate interests, does not go nearly far enough to ensure labor and environmental standards, and would be nothing more than NAFTA-light.

• Someone asked Rep. Harman about the Walt-Mearshimer book “The Israel Lobby” and AIPAC’s support for endless war, including war with Iran.  Harman, who has been linked in the past to lobbies like AIPAC, said “I’m not a member of AIPAC… I support a two-state solution where Palestine can thrive economically with borders that are defensible to Israel.”  She pretty much dodged the question.

• On the still-unresolved EPA waiver that would allow California to make their own rules on tailpipe emissions that contribute to global warming, Harman said that she signed on to a letter protesting the slow-rolling from the EPA and the Department of Transportation, and she added that Gov. Schwarzenegger should work harder to get DoT to “back off” (they’ve been accused of lobbying lawmakers to pressure the EPA to block the California law).

• Finally, Harman asked for education activists to call her office and tell her about the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.  While she said that Rep. Miller has claimed to her it has been improved, she said “I am prepared to oppose it” if the changes are not satisfactory.

So out of the “magic fax” in Sacramento where all bills without authors are created comes new “legislative language” on a compromise health care proposal, language that nobody has claimed as their own and that everyone is disavowing, but which looks mysteriously like the Governor’s handiwork.  You can take a look at this language yourself here.

We are disappointed that we seem to back to square one with something very similar to the Governor’s January proposal, with only a few of our comments and concerns raised over the course of the year addressed. While we would have preferred having the Governor’s language much earlier in the year, we do appreciate having the language to seriously respond and react to–if that is what it takes to move the conversation forward.

It’s like when you work really hard on a document, but then the computer crashed, and you have to reboot and start again. It’s frustrating, but the goal doesn’t change.

over…

This could have played out over the regular session if the governor would have distributed this and negotiated at that time.  But as he jets off to China, this gets dropped in everyone’s lap – and look what’s in there:

• The elimination of quarterly complaint and greivance reporting for HMOs, which seems to remove an important oversight over insurers.

• The apparent increase in the permissible premium, for those making 150-200%FPL (federal poverty level), at a level that is still too high–5%, which does not include out-of-pocket costs.

• The lack of any standards for out-of-pocket costs in the subsidized pool. Given that one can drive the cost of a premium down by raising deductibles and cost-sharing, the limit of premiums provides small comfort.

• An exemption from the minimum level of coverage for any and all employer plans. The draft still has, as a placeholder, an unacceptable $5,000 deductible (and $10,000 out-of-pocket max) plan as a minimum level of coverage under the individual mandate… but that even that low minimum does not apply to individuals who take up employer-based coverage, meaning they could have coverage with very skimpy benefits, or no out-of-pocket maximum.

• A weak definition of the minimum Medical Loss Ratio (the amount spent on patient care rather than administration and profit), so that it applies to an insurers’ entire portfolio of business, meaning this rule would no longer provide assurance that any specific product is of good actuarial value. A limit that was product-by-product, or even market-by-market, would be more helpful to consumers.

• The Healthy Action benefit seems to be less than advertised as well, since it only requires an insurer to offer such a product, but does not include smoking cessation or obesity programs as a mandated benefit. With no requirement, the policy seems more likely to be a way for insurers to identify risk, rather than a viable new benefit for consumers. If this is truly a priority, it needs to be a mandated benefit.

• And most concerning, the guaranteed issue protections in the individual market seem hollow with the new details. Only a few high-deductible, low-benefit products will be guaranteed issue to begin with–so those with “pre-existing conditions” will only have access to the coverage in the market that is least suited to them. There would be little assurance that we would ever get to a second phase of having the full market guaranteed issue. Insurers will be able to use benefit design, marketing, and pricing to avoid those California customers that have health risks and needs. In particular, we believe older Californians will simply be priced out of the individual market, and the guaranteed access an illusion.

I can live with an individual mandate if it included guaranteed issue and significant cost controls, in addition to a baseline of coverage for the insured and a cap on prices.  But this proposal seeks to eliminate practically all of those checks on the insurance companies while maintaining the individual mandate.  This is nothing but a license to print money for the insurers.

Since nobody will claim this document, it’s hard to know whether or not this is the result of any negotiation or if it’s the Governor’s response to AB8.  Therefore, it’s hard to know whether or not the end result will be something in the middle, or something pretty close to this orphan document.  If the latter is the case, health reform should be torpedoed in the special session without delay.  These terms are unacceptable.

Today the Joint Economic Committee, composed of Senators Webb and Schumer along with New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney, held a hearing on certainly the most underappreciated issue facing America – our prison crisis.  Here’s part of Rep. Maloney’s statement:

The United States has the highest incarceration rates in the world, with more than 2 million Americans currently in jails or prisons. Clearly, imprisonment benefits society and is an important public safety measure. But faced with an unprecedented increase in incarceration, we must ask ourselves whether we are striking the right balance between the costs and benefits of imprisonment. 

Putting more resources into creating economic opportunities that provide alternatives to crime would pay dividends in reducing crime and incarceration, while also strengthening families and communities.

We all know that in the long run crime doesn’t pay, but it sure is costly. The average annual cost of incarceration for one federal prisoner exceeds $20,000 – far more than the average annual cost of $3,700 for a youth program, $6,000 for a job training program or the $13,000 for tuition at public universities. 

There is no question that crime rates have dropped in the U.S. over the past decade. Researchers agree that the increase in incarceration rates have been driven by tougher sentences for repeat offenders and drug offenders, mandatory minimums, and a more punitive approach to post-release supervision, rather than an increase in crime.

These are precisely the problems that California faces, due to a complete failure of legislative leadership and a panoply of thousands of tougher sentencing laws.  Today Dan Weintraub reports on the stirrings of a long-overdue reform of the system, before it’s too late.

The Schwarzenegger administration, which has been cautious to a fault when it comes to prison reform, is tiptoeing back toward the idea of loosening restrictions on parolees who are good bets to stay out of trouble.

The program is starting with a trial run in Orange County, where ex-cons who are considered the lowest risks and then meet a series of benchmarks will be cut loose from state super- vision after six months instead of three years.

The idea is to give those parolees an incentive to get their lives back on stable ground shortly after they leave prison, which is when most felons return to a life of crime. Then, by letting them off parole early, the state figures it will be able to concentrate more resources on more-dangerous felons who need the most attention.

Parole reform is to prison reform as S-CHIP is to the broader health care issue.  It’s a baby step on the road to really making those tough decisions.  But it’s taken so long to get to this point, and change is being forced only through a crisis and a potential capping of the prison population, that I guess we have to be happy for what we get.  There’s going to be major pushback on this from the right (it’s already happening on the Flush Report) so it’s important that this under-the-radar issue gets attention and support.

Frank Russo has so far had the best coverage of Rudy Giuliani’s involvement in the Dirty Tricks campaign to steal a bunch of California’s electoral votes.  It appears that practically everyone associated with this campaign had a tie to Rudy Giuliani in some form or another.  We already knew that the lone funder, laundered through a hastily assembled LLC in Missouri called “Take Initiative America,” was actually the chair of Giuliani’s northeast funding operation named Paul Singer.  What we didn’t know was that this laundering, crafted to skirt the strict election laws in California, was part of a pattern of interlocking front groups that would hide who was behind this whole thing – perhaps even the candidate himself.  This quote is from Chris Lehane, who was running the opposition to the Dirty Tricks campaign and was in a position to delve pretty deeply into what was going on here. (I know not everyone here’s a fan of Lehane, but this sounds genuine)

“Virtually everyone who was involved in this at every level had a Giuliani connection, and no real connection to the other Republican candidates. Two of the partners at the law firm at the law firm that was responsible for this were Giuliani contributors, including Charles Bell who contributed $1300 days before the initiative was filed and he’s the deputy treasurer. You have Charles V. Hurth III, who does not have a history of political giving–I believe he had given a hundred dollars to a state senator prior to this and he gave $2,000 to Giuliani. You have John Wilcox, who was the spokesperson for Hurth, who comes out of the Bill Simon organization. Bill Simon is a Co-Chair in California for the Giuliani campaign as well as a policy advisor. Kevin Eckerly, the spokesperson for the effort is someone who has been quoted in the press being supportive of Giuliani and the Giuliani campaign. And again, when you went through all of these folks, each and every time, virtually every road ultimately led back to Giuliani.

“And, you know, I’ve said before, I’m originally from the state of Maine. You to bed at night, there’s no snow on the ground, you wake up and there’s snow on the ground. You can pretty safely conclude that it snowed. In an effort like this if everyone who is involved are connected to one Presidential campaign and they continue to gather signatures and you wake up the next day and find out that the person who in fact was funding it was indeed from the Giuliani campaign, I think one conclusion that one can safely draw is that it was the Giuliani campaign that was ultimately behind this.

“When you have a series of shadowy Nixonian front groups that are created to directly impact who the next President of the United States is going to be, then that’s something that is a cause for concern, not only of voters here in California, but all across the country.

I think it’s safe to say that the string-pullers in the Republican Party would be happy with Giuliani as a nominee, mainly because of his faux-moderate stances that play well outside the base, and his willingness to play as dirty as anybody this side of Karl Rove.  “Nixonian” is the key word.  This decade has been filled with ratfucking and voter suppression and all sorts of attempts to influence state and national elections.  The Republicans have time and again seized on the creakiness of the election systems, which vary from state to state, and used everything at their disposal to turn the system against Democrats and toward their own candidates. 

You can absolutely see that Giuliani’s core message that he wants played in the media is that he’s electable.  His strategy memo specifically lists California as one of the states which would suddenly become competitive were he the nominee:

More importantly, the Mayor puts blue states like Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, California, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington in play. Pat Toomey, President of the Club for Growth, states that “If Giuliani wins the nomination, he would be a fascinating candidate in that he really re-draws the map.” Toomey points out that Giuliani could carry New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania ‘”so he changes the political calculus of the Electoral College dramatically.”9 And Mayor Giuliani may be the only Republican candidate that can now compete and win in Ohio against Hillary Clinton.

If that were the case, he wouldn’t need to finance a dirty trick from behind the scenes that would deliver 20-odd electoral votes to him.  If the states were truly in play, he would play by the rules.  No, this is an attempt to put this map-changing bug in the ear of the media so they’re not surprised by a victory in some blue state, whether it came about legally or not.  It’s the classic strategy of an ultra-confidence public veneer, combined with manipulating results behind the scenes.

There’s already an FEC complaint filed, along with a request to refer the matter to the US Justice Department.  But those investigations will go nowhere, even in the off chance that they are initiated.  This is something that will have to be investigated and dug up.  Take Initiative America was created in one day and suddenly received a $175,000 infusion of cash from a Giuliani fundraiser (and the date of this transaction was – and this is precious – September 11).  Considering that this initiative would impact the Presidential election, no agent of a campaign could contribute more than $2,300.  Furthermore, he violated disclosure requirements.  Here’s some highlights from the press conference following the formal FEC complaint.

So we would very much like the FEC to look into this, to determine what Mr. Giuliani knew, when he knew it, what conversations he and Mr. Singer had about the contribution, about Take Initiative America; how Take Initiative America was created, whose idea was it? Did Mr. Hurth talk to Mr. Singer? How did it come about that $175,000 was transferred the day that the corporation was established? There had to be some coordination there and we’d like the FEC to into it.

The other thing we’d like the FEC to ask is: Where did the $175,000 come from? Did it come from Mr. Singer personally” Or did it come from a corporation that he controls?

If it came from a corporation that he controls, then that too would be impermissible because Federal candidates prohibited under Federal law from soliciting or accepting a contribution from a corporation.

We’re also concerned that there may have been coordination between the Giuliani campaign and Californians for Equal Representation. In fact, Marty Wilson, the chief fundraiser for Equal Representation, who resigned just last week, was quoted in the press as saying that he had “heard” that the Giuliani people were interested in the effort in California, and that they were praying that it would commit–it obviously refers to the money.

This feels like one of those things that starts small and just balloons.  Paul Singer has a colorful past; he’s known as a “vulture,” someone who buys up debt from poor countries and demands payment at a substantial markup.  I’m certain more can be gleaned about this guy, his connection to the Giuliani campaign, and what Rudy himself may have known about his involvement with the Dirty Tricks campaign in California.  These are the kind of things that take down political careers.