The Senate may actually be on the verge of creating a health care reform bill that should be killed.  AP reports:

WASHINGTON — Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean argued Wednesday that the health care overhaul bill taking shape in the Senate further empowers private insurers at the expense of consumer choice.

"You will be forced to buy insurance. If you don't, you'll pay a fine," said Dean, a physician. "It's an insurance company bailout." Interviewed on ABC's "Good Morning America," he said the bill has some good provisions, "but there has to be a line beyond which you think the bill is bad for the country."

"This is an insurance company's dream," the former Democratic presidential candidate said. "This is the Washington scramble, and it's a shame."

Dean asserted that the Senate's health care bill would not prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions and he also said it would allow the industry to charge older people far more than others for premiums.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., a prominent House liberal, protested the absence of any government-run insurance option in the Senate bill.

"We can't let the perfect be enemy of the good," Weiner said on CBS' "Early Show," "but we are reaching a tipping point."

 - Coverage for all people 

 - Access regardless of ability to pay 

 - A full set of comprehensive benefits 

 - A choice of physicians and other providers 

- Elimination of racial and ethnic and other health care disparities 

- Waiver of pre-existing condition exclusions without age limits 

 - A robust public health insurance option

The Senate bill - thanks in large part to Joe Lieberman and BIll Nelson - fails to meet many of these goals.  It may be so watered down as to not be real reform.

Take this moment to send one last message to the Senate asking for meaningful reform.

Related Link:  Letter to President Obama On The Public Option

This afternoon the White House held a reception that they very kindly invited me to. Both the President and Mrs. Obama were there. President Obama made a few brief remarks about the spirit of the season. He acknowledged the difficulties being faced by the country (two wars and an economic collapse) but also pointed to some of the progress that has occurred since he took office. He specifically cited the passage of Hate Crimes legislation and the fight for health care. The president didn’t take credit for those accomplishments. Instead he offered thanks to the American people for our collective efforts both in Washington and across the country to bring real and lasting change to the United States. In the spirit of the season, he asked the American people to remember the needs of the “least of these.”

It was a great honor for me to shake the hands of both President and Mrs. Obama and to exchange a few words.

The first time that I visited the White House was in 1984 as a student at Meadow Park Junior High in Beaverton, Oregon. A group of ninth graders from Meadow Park were on a field trip to Washington, DC. My second visit was in 1993 on the day President Clinton was inaugurated. All I did that day was walk through a security entrance to take my seat on what was called the “President’s Row” to watch the parade. 

Today was quite a different experience. Photo ID was required at three different check points before you even went through a security scan. Once inside the White House a Marine in a dress uniform greeted you and Navy stewards directed traffic and acted as tour guides. As you might imagine, there was a spectacular spread of food. There was live music – including a full choir – in several rooms. This was one of dozens of holiday parties being held at the White House this year. Many religious leaders were in attendance and it was disappointing to me that I wasn’t able to meet all the folks I had hoped to talk with. There was just too much going on to connect with everyone. 

However, I did get the chance to speak with The Rev. Geoffrey Black, the new general minister and president of the United Church of Christ. Also in attendance was Joshua DuBois, special assistant to the president and executive director of the White House Office on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and Paul Monteiro, who works in the White House Office of Public Engagement. I got to know these two during the 2008 campaign and we’ve kept in touch since. But this was the first time I’d had the chance to speak with them face-to-face since the election. You have to marvel at the quality of people who work for the president.  Meeting and talking with The Most Rev. Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America was another highpoint of the afternoon for me. 

Before heading over to the White House I visited a very different place: the offices of the National Coalition for the Homeless. This gave me a chance to meet their new executive director and to reconnect with old friends. I served on the NCH board for several years in the 1990s. Like the staff at the White House, the folks at NCH are deeply committed to making our nation a better place. During a time of growing poverty and homelessness they are doing all they can to address this moral crisis. When you make gifts this year please consider supporting their important work.

Above Photos:  The First Lady and the President, me hanging out in the Diplomatic Room,and The Rev. Geoffrey Black, the new general minister and president of the United Church of Christ.

Standing with The Most Rev. Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

 Choir performing in the East Room

White House Ginger Bread House (complete with the First Lady's garden and Bo, the presidential dog.

The official portrait of President Kennedy that hangs in the White House.

The invitation sent to me by the White House.

Related Post: Hanging Out With Barack Obama (2007)

Related Post:  Hanging Out With Barack Obama and Bill Richardson (2008)

34Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” 37Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” 40And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,* you did it to me.”

- Matthew 25:34-39 (NRSV)

The Portland Tribune published an article this morning about how the City of Portland and Multnomah County are approaching churches to help shelter families this winter. A central argument made in the article is that churches are not doing enough to help those who are homeless (a point helped along with unfortunate comments from Jean DeMaster of Human Solutions that lack context). And while I agree that communities of faith can and should do more the article lacks many examples of where churches are active and how the faith community is in the planning stages of a major new effort to address the needs of homeless families and homeless students in public school. First, some excerpts from the paper:

Two weeks ago, as winter began to take hold in the city, Portland City Commissioner Nick Fish, in charge of the city’s housing bureau, and county Commissioner Deborah Kafoury sent an unusual letter to 239 Portland area churches (and one synagogue). Typically, city officials writing to private institutions, even religious ones, are making demands. This letter was more in the form of a plea — to help house homeless families. 

As of last week, neither Fish nor Kafoury had heard from any churches willing to answer their plea. If history is any guide, they aren’t likely to... 

But this is not the first time Portland’s churches have been approached. Jean DeMaster, executive director of Human Solutions, which runs the Daybreak program, has been trying to add to her nine participating churches for years. In fact, DeMaster says, she and her staff have called 200 churches asking them to provide basement or classroom space for the homeless families served by Daybreak. All of those churches, many the same ones written to by Fish and Kafoury, said no.

What those comments ignore is that many churches are already involved.  The Goose Hollow Family Shelter at First United Methodist Church, that I helped to start and later served as the executive director at, draws support from over 20 different congregations.  The Daybreak shelter itself has support from nearly 20 congregations (a point mentioned late in the article).  First Congregational United Church of Christ in downtown Portland, my home congregation and where I was ordained, operated a shelter for homeless youth for seven years until a permanent facility could be built.  Last year evangelical churches raised over $100,000 to support homeless programs in the Metro area.  Transition Projects, the largest provider of services to homeless single adults in Portland, was started by the faith community, and continues to rely on churches and others for meals and financial support.  JOIN has recently started a partnership with Trinity Episcopal Cathedral and a Greek Orthodox congregation.  First Unitarian Church of Portland recently opened a day shelter for homeless families.  Churches in East Multnomah County started Snow-Cap and continue to provide the bulk of their support and volunteers.  In recent years the Interfaith Committee on Homelessness in Washington County has engaged dozens of churches to work on homeless issues.  Many churches also provide volunteer support and financial gifts.  This is true state-wide.

The faith community is also planning a summit meeting on homeless families and homeless children in public schools to be held early next year.  Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon is spearheading the project (I sit on their public policy committee).  The aim of the summit is to address the needs of the 18,000 homeless students now being served by Oregon's public schools.  Our hope is to bring together Oregon's interfaith community, elected officials, educators and business leaders to discuss how we can help schools serve these children and to talk about ways to end family homelessness. 

To be fair, the journalist who wrote the article did give me the chance to express some of this:

...opening their doors is not that easy for many churches, says Chuck Currie, a United Church of Christ minister and longtime homeless advocate. Many Portland churches, he points out, have suffered declining membership for years, and almost all do some sort of social outreach work already.

“I think it’s fair for Deb (Kafoury) and Nick (Fish) to ask churches to become involved,” Currie says. “Being involved is central to our missions. It’s absolutely fair. But at the same time, winter is not an emergency. It happens every year at the same time. And their letter, while appropriate, probably should have been sent six months ago.”

Currie says he doesn’t expect churches to respond positively to the letter from Fish and Kafoury because most churches can’t act that quickly.

“I’m not saying churches can’t do more, and there are some communities of faith that aren’t doing enough,” Currie says. “But there are churches that are doing a lot, and they have been doing a lot for a long time.”

What the article missed - and this was a point that I stressed - is that it isn't the job of the faith community to take care of all those who are homeless.  Frankly, churches don't have the capacity in terms of volunteers or money to do so.  Ending homelessness will only occur when we build enough housing, provide universal health care, offer living wage jobs, and open enough treatment programs for those suffering from mental health issues and addictions. 

As I told the author, Kafoury and Fish should follow-up with a letter to the business community asking them to support Measures 66 and 67, on the ballot this January.  Right now many in the business community are opposing these measures that would modestly increase taxes on business.  Many multi-million corporations get away with paying a $10.00 (yep, ten dollar) minimum tax in Oregon.  Measures 66 and 67 would slightly increase that fee.  Without the increase we'll see further cuts that will lead to reduced services and increased homelessness and poverty.  Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon and many in the faith community strongly support these two measures.  When I mentioned this to The Portland Tribune I was told there wasn't room in the article to talk about taxes.  But homelessness is an economic crisis and in ignoring the economics of homelessness The Portland Tribune missed covering the real story.

Homelessness is a moral crisis and I'd like to see the faith community more engaged.  But to point the finger at churches isn't fair, it doesn't tell the real story, and it ignores that government and business are not doing enough to actually end homelessness,  In fact, government and business do a lot to cause homelessness.     

Abortion, the Church and Health Care Reform

As Congress debates health care reform the most divisive issue is not the public option or a single payer style health care system. Unfortunately, abortion has become the defining issue. 

People of faith are as divided as the politicians. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has pushed for new restrictions on abortion but not all Christians are of the same mind. Most mainline Christian denominations have argued in favor of a woman’s right to make her own reproductive health care choices for decades. The General Synod of the United Church of Christ, for example, has said that “access to safe and legal abortion is consistent with a woman’s right to follow the dictates of her own faith and beliefs in determining when and if she should have children, and it has supported comprehensive sexuality education as one measure to prevent unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, and to create healthy and responsible sexual persons and relationships.” 

The 16th General Synod of the United Church of Christ adopted a resolution in 1987 that “affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular” and that “encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or releasing the child for adoption, before abortion.” 

As the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice notes, while there are some mentions concerning the termination of pregnancies in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament there are no prohibitions against abortion despite the fact that it was practiced in ancient times (without the benefit of modern medical care and often to the detriment of the health of the woman). 

Modern Christians are forced to look beyond Scripture alone for guidance on this and many other issues. Charles Wesley, the founder of Methodism, can be our guide. He argued that Christians should rely on Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience as we seek to be guided by the Holy Spirit in important matters. Unfortunately, the tradition of the church has nearly always been to subjugate women to the wishes of men. It is to the collective benefit of the church universal that women’s voices are now being heard more clearly as ordained ministers and leaders. 

Is there room for error in using a Wesleyan theological model for approaching difficult modern social issues? Yes. But there is also clearly room for error in applying Scripture to issues that were not addressed in Scripture. Our modern existence is fraught with such dilemmas and that is why personal choice becomes so important. 

The United Methodist Church stated in 2008 that: “Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child. We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.” 

None of this matters, however, to those who see abortion as the taking of a life. Frankly, I can respect those who take this position. It is particularly easy to respect such voices when they apply a consistent “ethic of life” that applies not only to abortion but also to the death penalty and war. Former U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield, a longtime Republican from Oregon who retired from office in 1997, is a Baptist whose experiences as a solider during World War II left him deeply committed to the respect of life. As such, he led efforts in the senate to oppose military spending, to fight the death penalty and to oppose abortion. He earned my vote during his final campaign because I believed in the sincerity of his principles even as I differed with his conclusions regarding abortion. 

While I strongly disagree with the attempts by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to inject abortion into the health care reform debate I respect their right to do so and know that they have taken such steps only after prayerful consideration. At the urging of the bishops and others, an amendment to the health care reform bill now under debate by the senate would add further restrictions against legal abortion. Pro-choice religious leaders countered with a statement today that noted that the “Senate bill is already abortion neutral, an appropriate reflection of the fact that it is intended to serve Americans of many diverse religious and moral views. The bill includes compromise language that maintains current law, prohibiting federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services, while still allowing women the option to use their own private funds to pay for abortion care.” Hopefully, a majority in Congress will support a health care reform bill that rejects any efforts to further restrict access to abortion. 

Before this flair up there was progress made regarding so-called “common ground” proposals that would limit the need for abortion. Just this summer the “Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Pregnant Women and Parents Act" was introduced in the House. This act, which would make “progress toward the shared goal of reducing the need for abortion by preventing unintended pregnancies and supporting pregnant women and families” has support from leading pro-life and pro-choice advocates in the faith community. After all, if a woman feels that she is forced into having an abortion because of economic factors that isn’t really a choice. We should do all that we can as a nation to help women and families. That’s a conversation I want to return to once health care reform has been completed.

I wanted to make you aware of this health care vigil set to occur in downtown Portland this coming Tuesday at 5:30 pm. As you know, the Senate is debating health care reform right now. Please pass this information around to your friends, family, congregation members, and contacts. I've been asked to be one of the two speakers at this event - the other will be a representative from Senator Merkley's office - and would love to see you there. 

Here's the info from MoveOn.org:

Get this: A decisive majority of Americans—including 86% of Democrats—want a public option in health care this year, according to a new poll.¹

But a tiny group of conservative Democratic senators is days away from gutting the Senate bill's public option—the core of progressive health care reform.²

So we're fighting back: On Tuesday, we're mobilizing hundreds of emergency health care vigils nationwide.

Tens of thousands of us gathering coast to coast will be a powerful, visceral reminder to Congress that America wants a public option—no matter what conservative obstructionists and their Big Insurance friends say.  

There's a vigil in Portland on Tuesday at 5:30 PM—can you come? Click here for details and to RSVP:

Yes, I'll be there on Tuesday at 5:30 PM

Sorry, I can't make it 

With these vigils, we'll remind Congress that Americans need real reform now. Every day, 2,500 people go bankrupt because of medical costs and 14,000 lose their insurance, while millions more struggle with no coverage at all. It's an untenable situation and we need a solution immediately. 

But four senators—who represent 4% of America—could succeed in denying the vast majority of us the health care reform we want and need. It's ridiculous.

So on Tuesday, thousands will gather at vigils where we'll hear stories from regular Americans who are hurting under our broken system, community leaders fighting for real reform, and progressive lawmakers working with us to win. Vigils like these are a great way to make an impact as this debate intensifies. We'll also invite the media, so our message gets across far and wide. 

Can you come to the vigil in Portland on Tuesday? The more of us who gather, the louder our message. We need as many people there as possible. 

Tonight President Obama out lined his plans to send an additional 30,000 troops to stop the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. He also stated his desire to remove all U.S. forces starting in mid-2011. As the president noted in his address to the nation from West Point, Afghanistan was largely ignored after American forces first invaded after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 in favor of the war in Iraq: 

After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces. 

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people. 

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. 

Religious leaders sent a petition to the president in recent weeks asking for something more than a surge in American troops.  I was one of those who signed it.  The petition was produced by the folks at Sojourners and read in part: 

We are concerned that the discussion in Washington, D.C., is far too narrow. We respectfully and prayerfully suggest that you pursue a strategy built on a humanitarian and development surge. 

Massive humanitarian assistance and sustainable development can rebuild a broken nation, inspire confidence, trust, and hope among its people, and undermine the appeal of terrorism. And it costs less - far less - than continued war. 

Lead with economic development, starting in areas that are secure, and grow from there - providing only the security necessary to protect the strategic rebuilding of the country. Do not make aid and development another weapon of war by tying it so closely to the military; rather, provide the security needed for development work to succeed. This kind of peacekeeping security might better attract the international involvement we so desperately need, both from Europe and Arab and Muslim countries. 

Pursue political and diplomatic solutions by promoting stable governance in Afghanistan and Pakistan; seeking political integration of those elements of the Taliban that are willing to cooperate; engaging with the United Nations and regional states to stabilize the region and promote economic development; and investing in international policing to prevent the spread of extremists and the use of terror. 

During his remarks tonight the president directly addressed the Afghan people: 

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron. 

But I heard no strategy for rebuilding the country and unless we are able to do that in partnership with the Afghan people and the world community there will never be real peace in that part of the globe. The modern equivalent of a Marshall Plan is needed for both Iraq and Afghanistan but such a plan did not seem central to the president’s vision. 

At the same time, the president made a good case tonight that a swift withdrawal of the United States would do nothing to serve either the security needs of the American or Afghan people. 

But will additional forces really make any long-term difference? 

In 2006, the National Council of Churches in Christ in the USA released a statement regarding Iraq that applies to the situation in Afghanistan as well: 

… we call upon the U.S. Government to recognize that the continued presence of occupying forces has not provided meaningful security for Iraqi citizens and only exacerbates escalating violence, and begin an immediate phased withdrawal of American and coalition forces from Iraq with a timetable that provides for an expeditious final troop withdrawal. And we further call upon our government to link this withdrawal plan to benchmarks for rebuilding Iraqi society, since the reconstruction of infrastructure, the restoration of essential services, and a foundation for economic growth are necessary to nurture Iraqi hopes for a stable future, and to steps to meet the security concerns of all Iraqis, including the more vulnerable, smaller ethnic and religious communities. 

The U.S. should take no action that further harms the Afghan people. Any withdrawal here also needs to be linked to benchmarks. 

President Obama should be commended for his thoughtful approach to this mess that was inherited from the Bush Administration. But as The New York Times said tonight in an editorial, a lot of questions remain unanswered this evening: 

We are eager to see American troops come home. We don’t know whether Mr. Obama will be able to meet his July 2011 deadline to start drawing down forces. 

For that to happen, there will have to be a lot more success at training Afghan forces and improving the government’s effectiveness. 

Still, setting a deadline — so long as it is not set in stone — is a sound idea. Mr. Karzai and his aides need to know that America’s commitment is not open-ended. Mr. Obama’s generals and diplomats also need to know that their work will be closely monitored and reviewed. 

Otherwise, Mr. Obama will be hard pressed to keep his promise that this war, already the longest in American history, will not go on forever. 

It’s not clear how we will even pay for this war to continue. 

Congress needs to have an open and fair debate over these issues and America’s diverse religious communities in cooperation with the world faith community should seek to offer guidance both to U.S. officials and the public over how to best bring peace to the destabilized nation of Afghanistan. 

Little was said by the president tonight that offers me confidence that we are on the right course in the long-term.

From the folks at Portland's Providence St. Vincent Hospital.