Daily Kingfish - Front Page

If Democrats own healthcare, we can own the Governor's Mansion in 2012

Mike Stagg — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:39:25 GMT

(Originally posted at Louisianad2d)

It's not often that Harry Reid and Alan Levine team up on anything, but they did today in laying out the path to Democratic success in Louisiana in the 2011 statewide elections.

That path will be healthcare. Specifically, it will be Governor Bobby Jindal's ideological rigidity on taxes in the face of what will be draconian (criminal?) cuts in healthcare in the state budget over the next two years. With healthcare and higher education still the only funding streams not constitutionally protected and the state facing a billion dollar revenue shortfall, Jindal will force the Legislature to make heavy cuts in both programs.

Last week, the Baton Rouge Advocate carried a story saying the higher education cuts will amount to 60 percent over the next two years. No mention of healthcare, but that's where the bulk of the cuts will be and for two reasons. First, that's where the money is (Medicaid is a $6 billion program). Secondly, no one in the Legislature is lobbying to protect the interests of the poor, the handicapped and those with special needs — the victims of these coming cuts. Oh, the hospitals, nursing homes and doctors will object, but you won't see anything resembling the "Intervention at the Mansion" earlier this year where all of the non-imprisoned former governors got together to tell the Boy Governor that he just could not cut $200 million-plus from higher education.

No notables stood up for Medicaid clients then. And none will do it in the coming session.

They are, in the current world of Louisiana politics, "expendable."

That's what happens when Democrats forget who they are and who they represent and buy into the conceit that they can get elected if they run as 'Republican-lite' candidates. Ultimately, they are not Democrats and their votes show it.

Today, Jindal's DHH Secretary Alan Levine dropped the first of what will be many shoes. According to The Advocate, he announced another round of Medicaid budget cuts made necessary because of rising enrollments in the program and the inability of the department to implement cuts fast enough. Poverty is up in Louisiana. Unemployment is up. The number of companies offering health insurance coverage is falling through the floor.

So, Levine, working within Jindal's "No Taxes for Any Reason" straight jacket, is ordering more cuts. This is, of course, a result of issues in the current fiscal year. This isn't even related to the even bigger cuts that will be needed next year.

Senator Harry Reid handed Louisiana Democrats a gift today by including the Public Option in the bill that the U.S. Senate will debate and vote on in a couple of weeks. Word is that the bill will include an "opt out" clause for states to leave the public option.

Is there any doubt as to which way the Jindal administration and Louisiana Republicans will lurch on this? Levine has been taking part in Louisiana Republican Party workshops talking against healthcare reform. Jindal's path to the national Republican stage requires he follow the party's rejectionist strategy, so he will clearly push to have the state opt out of the public option.

But, here's where it gets interesting.

Depending on the year, anywhere between 17 and 25 percent of working age Louisiana adults are uninsured. In July, the Baton Rouge Business Report quoted a spokesman for BlueCross/BlueShield of Louisiana who said that only 30 percent of Louisiana small businesses offer health insurance to their employees and that the number is falling due to skyrocketing rates.

While no one will speak up for Medicaid patients, surely someone will speak up for the rights of the working uninsured and fight the Jindal administration's expected push to, in fact, opt out of the public option — the path to provide affordable coverage to those working age residents without coverage.

The 2011 statewide elections will be the battle ground where this fight takes place. Jindal, if he follows his current course, will have cut higher education by three-quarters of a billion dollars. He will have cut a billion in healthcare spending, eliminating services, shutting institutions, impacting the families of the disabled, the sick and the infirm.

This election will take place on a re-districted state Legislative map. Every district will be redrawn, and it will be pretty radically different due to post-2005/2008 storm induced population shifts.

Democrats should be easy to distinguish from Republicans. The Republicans will be the ones saying they are sorry for the pain, injury and even deaths their cuts inflicted, but that they had no choice. Democrats will be the candidates motivated by outrage at the callous, depraved disregard for the health and well-being of their fellow citizens.

Jindal will be vulnerable in 2011. He will have revealed that everything said about him in 2003 was true — that his knowledge of numbers is matched only by his inability to see the people behind the numbers in state budgets and programs. The healthcare ads that Kathleen Blanco ran against him in 2003 — those credited with sealing her victory then — will ring prophetic.

This man is devoid of compassion and is blinded by his ambition. Our state is paying — and will pay — a fearful price for his limitations.

But, elections are about changing course.

Harry Reid has just set up Louisiana Democrats to take our state back, to walk it back from the brink.

It will be a hard fight — beating incumbents always is. The Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority (David Vitter's homage to Tom DeLay) did not quite succeed in taking over either house of the Legislature, but they succeeded just enough to give Jindal the ability to defeat tax increases that could stave off some of these cuts. They will also work to ensure that the re-districting process is skewed to favor Republicans.

They, too, are setting him up for defeat — and the members of the House and Senate they sent there to do their ideologically driven work.

The world has shifted. They have not changed. The opportunity to oust them is ripening.

Whittington To Step Aside?

ryan — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:00:00 GMT

John Maginnis, in his LaPolitics Weekly Fax, puts some rumors out there:

Heading into a Senate election year, some Democratic elected officials hope to heal internal leadership division by getting state chairman Chris Whittington to step aside. Several political sources say Whittington has agreed to resign his office if Democrats can come up with a consensus candidate that gain the support of the governing body, the Democratic State Central Committee.

The question is whether the DSCC can come to a consensus on this issue. Stay tuned ...

Vitter's Comment on Bardwell ...

ryan — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:50:02 GMT

So the Sinning Senator, afraid to piss off the voting bloc he's banking his entire re-election campaign on, dispatches his spokesman to say the following about Tangipahoa Parish Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell:

"First, Sen. Vitter thinks that all judges should follow the law as written and not make it up as they go along. Second, it would be amazing for anyone to do a story based on this fringe, left-wing political hack's blog - he's been handcuffed and detained in the past over his guerrilla tactics."

Notice how he can't say anything about Mr. Bardwell's actions? He's sidestepping the issue, afraid to piss off that voting bloc. As for the second point of his spokesman, isn't it amazing that the Opelousas Daily World, the Baton Rouge Advocate, and the Alexandria Town Talk, all conservative newspapers, deigned it important that the Sinning Senator comment on the issue by comdemning Mr. Bardwell's out of step vision for our society.

I'll have more about that voting bloc once I finish a book called The Two Americas by pollster Stanley Greenberg.

Vitter's Silence ...

ryan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:35:11 GMT

By now, y'all have heard about the Tangipahoa Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell's refusal to marry an interracial couple. Here's what Governor Jindal had to say:

"This is a clear violation of constitutional rights and federal and state law. ... Disciplinary action should be taken immediately -- including the revoking of his license."

So Gov. PBJ wants him gone. Here's what Senator Mary Landrieu had to say, via a press release from her office:

"I am deeply disturbed by Justice Bardwell's practices and comments concerning interracial marriages. Not only does his decision directly contradict Supreme Court rulings, it is an example of the ugly bigotry that divided our country for too long. I call upon the Louisiana Judiciary Committee to use its authority to have Justice Bardwell dismissed from his position. He clearly has no intention of administering the law or upholding justice for interracial couples."

And, here, ladies and gentlemen of Louisiana, is what your Sinning Senator, the one up for re-election next fall had to say when questioned by Mike Stark, the blogger behind The Crooked Dope:

You don't think that's the case, Sinning Senator? What, that you're the senior most official from the State of Louisiana NOT TO COMMENT on this? If so, please see the quotes from Governor Jindal and Senator Landrieu above. Or perhaps you're not aware that Mr. Bardwell refused to marry an interracial couple? If so, please click here!

Then again, your silence ain't all that surprising to those who know you best ...

The Myth of Health Care Rationing

TruthAboutReform — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:58:20 GMT

There has been a lot of talk the past few weeks about the false possibility of health care rationing in the current storm of discussions surrounding President Obama's health care reform plan, as well as options put forth by Congressional Democrats such as Senator Max Baucus.

While rationing may be a popular topic - particularly among the conservative and right leaning blogosphere, it is, at its core, a health care myth. Unlike the health care debate in 1994, where Harry and Louise were lamenting government rationing on behalf of the insurance companies, rationing has no place in current health care reform bills.

According to the American Medical Association, "The health reform plans being debated in Congress ensure that health care decisions will be made by you and your doctor - no one else."
Leading newspapers such as The Washington Post and USA Today are also working to dispel the rationing myth by dissecting the issue at the ground level and discussing how health care reform will prevent rationing - not lead to it.

Health Action Now! AARP's health care reform campaign specifically states "Health reform isn't about rationing; it's about giving people the peace of mind of knowing that they will be able to keep their doctors and that they will always have a choice of affordable health plans."

Jumping on the myth bandwagon doesn't help anyone decide if they should support or oppose current health care reform bills. What it does do is encourage false information, fruitless discussions, and, overall, more confusion on what is already a confusing topic. This nation has grown up using debate and democracy as cornerstones for "getting the job done" but with people slinging mud - from both sides of the political spectrum - and creating chatter that isn't true, it only threatens to take us further away from our goal of affordable, quality care for all Americans.

Obama's "Tinkle-Stop Tour" of NOLA

Louisiana 1976 — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:59:25 GMT

Today Obama will be making an extremely short stop in New Orleans. Or what my favorite NOLA blogger calls a "tinkle-stop tour." In New Orleans, he'll be visiting a charter school and participating in a town hall meeting in the Lower 9th Ward.

In contrast, his next stop will be San Francisco, where he'll be spending four times as much time--16 hours. This has caused Harry Shearer to say,

Total elapsed time in SF: sixteen hours. They must have experienced a hell of a federal disaster there. Four times worse, you figure?

But the four hours Obama is spending in New Orleans means he won't:

*Be seeing any of the rest of of New Orleans' devastated areas--more of that city was damaged by the Federal Flood than merely the Lower 9th;

*Be checking out the work on New Orleans' levees--considered vitally important by New Orleanians and anyone else concerned about New Orleans' safety from future flooding. This is something he should keep abreast of as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers;

*Be flying over Louisiana's disappearing coast, which has been washing away at a rate of a football field every half hour;

*Be visiting Mississippi and the Louisiana areas still struggling to recover from Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike--an omission which has been one of the most controversial things about the briefness of Obama's visit. Stan Tiner even goes so far as to ask,

Is the Mississippi Coast invisible?

Indeed, Obama's "Tinkle-Stop Tour" is being compared to Bush's "fly-over" trip when he couldn't be bothered with visiting the disaster zone.

Some may blow what I have to say off by saying Obama as a Senator and a candidate made five visits to New Orleans--but nothing can match the prestige of a meaningful presidential visit with its symbolism of a presidential commitment to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.

It is a shame that while Bush of that first fly-over and his empty promises managed to visit Louisiana and Mississippi 13 times and made it to all three 8/29 anniversaries in both states, Obama is just making this "Tinkle-Stop Tour" after not having made it to the anniversary of Katrina and the federal flood. And the fact that Teddy Kennedy's funeral happened to take place on that day is immaterial--the point is that even had it not taken place, Obama had made no plans at all to visit New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, instead planning to stay at Martha's Vineyard where he was on vacation.

So, he owes New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Region one--and it's time for him to get some skin in the game and live up to his promises there

Doing a Vitter #9

ryan — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:59:23 GMT

The Sinning Senator has some 'splainin' to do to the women of Louisiana:

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court." Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Franken said:

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law ... And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. ... The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen.

Why should the Sinning Senator have some 'splainin' to do?

It's not enough that he treated women as property in his past. It's not enough that he voted against the Ledbetter Equal Pay Bill, which mandates equal pay for equal work in the workplace. It's not enough that he voted against an amendment that would have expanded access to preventive health care services and education programs that help reduce the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and reduce unintended pregnancy. No ... he has to go and vote against this amendment which will give women their day in court against their attackers, and their defense contractor employers for letting it happen.

Hey Lege, This is How to Raise Your Pay

ryan — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:34:41 GMT

The New Orleans City Council voted 4-3 this afternoon to raise its pay from $42,500 to $83,507, effective when the new City Council is sworn in next May.

While the increase is rather high, the City Council has not seen a pay increase since 1986, and if New Orleanians want to see the quality of their City Council increase, a pay raise is necessary.

But what really earns my support ... (pay attention here, Louisiana legislators) is the fact that pay raise does not go into effect until the new City Council is sworn in.

This way, with 5 of the council members running for re-election, they will face the voters prior to the pay raise going into effect. In effect, the voters will have a say in whether or not the council members deserve a pay raise.

Of course, the Mayor has a say as well ... and at press time, there had been no comment from Mr. Nagin about his stance on a pay raise for the Council.

LA-04: Where's Your Health Care Bill, Congressman?

ryan — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:14:03 GMT

Last year, Republican candidate Dr. John Fleming campaigned on his medical credentials, often telling his audiences that when he got elected, he'd introduce a health care reform bill to Congress for its consideration. Don't believe me? Check out his campaign website:

If you can't read that second to last paragraph, it states:

When elected, I will submit to Congress a plan that includes the option for private insurance for all Americans that includes portability, large risk pools, health savings accounts, competition between providers to control costs and reforms that allow patients to become wise consumers.

Well, you've had more than 9 months now, Congressman. Where's that bill?

Where's Vitty?

ryan — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:43:10 GMT

Two days after CREW filed a smack-down, official complaint to the Louisiana Bar Association asking them to investigate whether the Sinning Senator violated Rule 8.4(b) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct, there is nary a sound to be heard from the Sinning Senator's office, nor the Louisiana Republican Party apparatus.

Perhaps we, the people of Louisiana, should take matters into our own hands, as this wildly entertaining YouTube video asks us to:

Hmmm ... let's call the Sinning Senator's office in Washington, and ask them if he's got a response. The phone number is:

(202) 224-4623

Sinning Senator Facing Bar Complaint

ryan — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:04:07 GMT

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed a bar complaint against the Sinning Senator David Vitter for his admitted, and repeated "serious sins" on Canal Street and up in Washington, D.C.: (pdf alert)

Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) provides it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act especially one that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." By his own admission, Sen. Vitter solicited for prostitution in the District of Columbia -- apparently on numerous occasions -- and the evidence strongly suggests he had a pattern of committing the same violations in Louisiana. Because soliciting prostitutes is a crime, Sen. Vitter clearly violated Rule 8.4(b).

While I am surprised it took CREW this long to figure out that the Sinning Senator is a member of the Louisiana Bar, I'm not surprised it's happening now, particularly in light of the Sinning Senator's vendetta against ACORN. As CREW's Executive Director states:

"Sen. Vitter's zeal to see ACORN criminally investigated for offering advice in setting up a prostitution ring reminded me he has yet to be held accountable for his own role in a prostitution ring. While ACORN's conduct is indefensible, so is Sen. Vitter's, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander."

Notwithstanding the reasons for this complaint, this is a serious charge, and should result in at least the Sinning Senator's suspension from the Louisiana Bar Association. Why do I make that claim? Because former President Clinton cut a deal that resulted in his being suspended from the Arkansas Bar for five years back in 2001 for lying to the special counsel investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Soliciting a crime - prostitution - should merit a similar response from the Louisiana Bar Association.

If you want to help put pressure on the Louisiana Bar, y'all should click here to sign the petition to DEFUND VITTER, like he's pushing for the federal government to defund ACORN. Need more convincing? Watch below:

Geaux sign that petition, y'all!

Governor PBJ's Been Cautious About Endorsing Republicans?

ryan — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:48:22 GMT

Politico has this tidbit about Governor PBJ's public distancing from the Sinning Senator:

And in a sign that he is keeping a close eye on his own political standing, both in Baton Rouge and beyond, the governor pointedly declined to offer his endorsement of Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who could face a serious reelection battle next year in the wake of his appearance on a Washington madam's client list and his subsequent admission of an undefined "very serious sin."

"We'll make a decision whether we'll get involved in that race once we get closer. We haven't made that decision yet," said Jindal, who has been cautious in the past about his endorsements. While allowing that Vitter was doing well in polls and fundraising, Jindal noted it's still "very early in that election cycle" and that many average voters aren't yet paying attention.

Cautious in his endorsements? Are ya kidding? Let's take a look at PBJ's greatest endorsement hits over the last year:

Jindal endorses failed GOP Senate candidate John "Wanna Be" Kennedy

Jindal endorses failed GOP State Senate candidate Lee Domingue

Jindal endorses failed GOP State Senate candidate Brent Callais

And he's also endorsed Jimmy Faircloth, the doer of "unethical, unscrupulous and substantially injurious acts and misdeeds" (pdf alert ... according to this lawsuit filed by a Texas law firm - hat tip to We Saw That) who is running the for the open Supreme Court seat:

Katrina Shorthand vs. the Federal Flood: Why This Matters

Louisiana 1976 — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:48:32 GMT

Often when people including those in government and the mainstream media who should know better refer to the events of 8/29, it is merely as "Katrina" or "Hurricane Katrina".

There were actually two catastrophes that happened that day: the storm, which passed to the east of New Orleans, devastating the Mississippi and eastern Louisiana Gulf Coasts, which was a NATURAL disaster, and the falling apart of New Orleans' federally-built and maintained levees, which was a MANMADE disaster due to poor engineering.

While the use of Katrina as shorthand to cover the two events is easy (I've even done that at times) it's misleading because of the implication that the flooding of New Orleans was a natural disaster. And this matters--more below the fold.
In fact, there is a blog, On Levee Failures & a Weather Event, devoted to finding examples of the use of Katrina shorthand. Its author writes letters to the editor whenever a reporter by referring to "Katrina" seemingly forgets that the flood had been caused by levee breaches in an attempt to set them straight. Because the media often need reminding that the hurricane and the catastrophic engineering failure are two separate events.

And as for government officials here's an example: Recently Joe Biden .compared Georgia's flooding to "Katrina" when talking to a flood survivor there.

And here's why this distinction makes a difference. It's not mere semantics or nit-picking. I prefer the term "Federal Flood," which the NOLA bloggers use. Whether or not the New Orleans disaster is seen as manmade matters because of the allocation of federal responsibility, not to mention funding. Because if the flood is seen as merely natural, that makes it easy for the federal government to blow off its financial obligations to those who lost homes and businesses. And for the Army Corps of Engineers to do what it's supposed to be doing here at home instead of being busy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's time for the media, politicians, and other officials to get in the habit of framing the Federal Flood as the MANMADE disaster that it was. Maybe were they to start doing this, the rebuilding of New Orleans' devastated areas, providing affordable housing for those in the diaspora who want to return but can't afford to, and above all improving New Orleans' levees and restoring Louisiana's coastline would be higher priorities than they are now.

Doing a Vitter #8, Part One

ryan — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:07:13 GMT

This Eighth Part of the Doing a Vitter series is going to focus on the Sinning Senator's penchant for breaking with the values of his purported faith - Christianity.

The Sinning Senator ran in 2004 on a family values platform, replete with commercials using his children as props. Then came the revelation that he was committed a "serious sin" in breaking the Seventh Commandment of his purported religious faith - Christianity:

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Unfortunately for the Sinning Senator, (as well as the rest of us), he just started breaking the Eighth or Ninth Commandment (depending on whether you're reading the Catholic Bible or the Catechism) to make up for not breaking the Seventh:

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You might be wondering what neighbor of the Sinning Senator's that I'm talking about ... it is ACORN, which the Sinning Senator has decided is the biggest threat to our Republic since the British invaded Washington D.C. all the way back in 1812. After all, no reputable a news agency as ABC News says of the Sinning Senator:

And then there's man who bills himself as "the Senate's most outspoken critic of ACORN ..."

Let's get the facts straight about ACORN: (hat tip to Anonymous Liberal):

First, let's take a step back and consider just what ACORN is. It is a non-profit organization whose mission is to empower and improve the lives of poor people. As with many other organizations, ACORN has a number of legally distinct parts, each of which has different sources of funding and engages in different kinds of activities (ACORN's conservative enemies routinely conflate these various parts to imply that ACORN is using federal money for improper political purposes). Since its founding the 70s, ACORN and its employees and volunteers have fought successfully to, among other things, increase minimum wages across the country, increase the quality of public education in poor areas, and protect people from predatory lending practices. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, ACORN helped rebuild thousands of homes and assisted victims in relocating and finding housing outside of New Orleans. The ACORN activity that has drawn the most conservative ire is its voter registration efforts which, consistent with ACORN's mission, are primarily aimed at low-income voters (who tend to vote Democratic).

See a pattern yet? ACORN helped low income folks in New Orleans, the Democratic stronghold of Louisiana, resettle and/or move back home. Plus, they took it upon themselves to register thousands of working poor Americans in the run-ups to the 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections, and common sense dictates that they'd likely do so again in New Orleans for the 2010 elections - which include the city government elections in the spring, as well as the Sinning Senator's re-election campaign in the fall. Gee ... no wonder the Sinning Senator wants to destroy ACORN. After all, empowering low income Americans that might vote Democratic next year just doesn't fit in the Sinning Senator's Get Out The Vote operation.

Now, you may be wondering where the Sinning Senator has been bearing false witness. It's here:

"After months of beating the drum and continued news reports of criminal investigations, the president and his administration are finally starting to distance themselves from ACORN. The Census dropping ACORN as a partner is a good, common sense move. Now we must go one step further and support my simple and direct amendment, which declares that no federal funds should go ACORN."

Criminal investigations? Pray tell, what criminal investigations, as ACORN has yet to be charged with a single thing. Perhaps the right wing echo chamber, prodded on by the Sinning Senator, has been bearing false witness against ACORN because they don't like the idea of empowering low-income Americans? This video from Media Matters seems to show that Fox News is simply throwing the kitchen sink against ACORN, hoping to make something stick ...

Unfortunately ... the ACORN organizer was messing with them:

"They were not believable", said Ms. Kaelke of the two actors. "Somewhat entertaining, but they weren't even good actors. I didn't know what to make of them. They were clearly playing with me. I decided to shock them as much as they were shocking me. Like Stephen Colbert does - saying the most outrageous things with a straightface." While her sense of humor might not be funny to many people, the fact is that she spun false scenario afterfalse scenario and the videographer ate them up.
For example, in response to the set-up by the filmmakers in which they say they are trying get the young woman away from her abusive pimp, she responds that she was abused by her former husband as well (true) and that she shot and killed him (false). He is very much alive and living near Barstow, CA.

Perhaps the Sinning Senator and his allies ought to check their facts prior to bearing false witness.

ACTION: Rally for Health Care Reform

ryan — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:54:53 GMT

Big insurance gets richer by rationing and denying health care. Our elected officials are paying homage to big insurance rather than to us. We cannot afford to wait. We must demand NOW the American Plan which includes the public option. The public option is the only thing large enough and ready enough to bring down health care costs while creating competition for unfettered big insurance. In Louisiana, 2 companies control 74% of the market and everyday Louisianians have no say-so.

Please join us Wed, Sept 23 from 6 to 7 PM to show the nation and our elected officials that we want substantial health care reform NOW. Let's keep the momentum going! Please sign up for this gathering right away!

Click here to register.

The event details are:

Big Insurance--Sick of It
Poydras and Magazine, The Hale Boggs Federal Building, outside Senator Landrieu's office
500 Poydras Street
New Orleans, LA 70003
Wednesday, 23 Sep 2009, 6:00 PM

The Sinning Senator Wants You to Join a Dating Service?

ryan — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:31:33 GMT

Hat Tip to The Hill's In The Know:

Text messaging services are now a staple of well-run political campaigns, and they will be coming to Louisiana for the 2010 elections, as evidenced by the post linked to above from The Hill's In the Know. As with all new technology, pols shouldn't do it on the cheap, lest they endure embarrassing gaffes:

Hence the snickers when a political operative recently received a text message from the campaign of Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), he of Deborah Jeane Palfrey fame. Vitter's camp went with a cheap service, and his message included an ad for ... what else? A dating service.
"Is it true love?" asks the ad. The accompanying link guides users to a website where they can find out if their "crush" feels the same way about them; we're told "David" and "Deborah" is a match.

The Sinning Senator just can't escape the snickers about his sexual peccadilloes.

Where's This Mary Landrieu Been on Health Care Reform?

ryan — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:07:08 GMT

Hat Tip to Lamar for finding this video:

The transcript is below the jump for those on dial-up.

Now I want to turn to a new topic and I wish to speak against an amendment offered by my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, that will be considered tomorrow. I will not be here to vote against this amendment but will submit a statement for the Record. I strongly oppose that amendment--amendment number 2359, which will be voted on tomorrow.
This is an amendment I oppose for two reasons. No. 1, it is bad policy. The other reason I am against it is because this amendment only deals with public housing residents and other HUD-housing assistance recipients in the city of New Orleans. It doesn't address the problems of public housing residents right here in the District of Columbia, nor public housing residents in Chicago or New York, nor Baton Rouge, nor Lafayette. Only in New Orleans.
That is perplexing to me, that it is focused on only one city in our State and only one city in the whole country. That is one reason to vote against the amendment, no matter what it says, because it does not include other communities.
But the real reason to vote against the amendment is because it is mean-spirited and counterproductive. What this amendment basically says is that you can be evicted from public housing if anyone in your family commits a crime or gets in trouble with the law.
I understand family members. I am one of nine siblings. I am married and now have two children. I have many brothers and sisters and 38 cousins in our extended family and two wonderful parents. The Presiding Officer has met many members of my family. I like to try to take responsibility for everyone in my family. But parents, no matter how hard they try, sometimes somebody in your family does something that is wrong. Should the entire family become homeless? That is what the Vitter amendment will do. It is such poor policy. It is so mean-spirited. It is so counterproductive. It will mean an increase in homelessness for a city that has already seen our homeless population quadruple.
More than that, the nature of this amendment is so punitive. It penalizes grandmothers or great aunts or moms and dads, or siblings who are trying to do the best they can with very little. Children sometimes do very bad things. Sometimes you will have a family of five children. Four are wonderful and straight-A students. Then you have one child who gets in trouble with drugs or becomes an alcoholic, and causes trouble for the family. Senator Vitter has put in an amendment which he will ask this body to support that would do this: when one member of the family gets in trouble with the law, the whole family gets thrown out on the street.
If this amendment passes, I would like for him to have to go to the sister in fourth grade, because, let's say, the teenage son who is 17 is the one who is causing the problems. I don't want people to think I just pick on boys, but I think people understand we have lots of trouble with this age group of all genders. I would like maybe for my colleague to be the one who has to knock on the front door and tell the mother and the fourth grade little girl, who got an A on her test, performed in the band and has straight A's, that she can pack her bags and spend the night on the street. If I could modify this amendment to make him have to do that, I would. This is not compassionate conservatism. This is mean, and it is nonsense. It needs to be voted down.
To repeat the number, for my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, it is amendment No. 2359, only for New Orleans and only for people in public housing. I hope Members will vote no.
Let me say one other thing about this. Unfortunately, my colleague and some people supported tearing down all the public housing units in New Orleans after the storm because some of them were destroyed. Some people took this as an opportunity to say: We never liked them anyway. They [Page: S9422] weren't run very well. Which was often true. So let's knock them all down and too bad for the people who used to live there, even though most of those people worked. I am going to remind my colleague and others, they don't live there for free. Under the law, they pay 30 percent of their income to live in that housing. He wanted to knock them all down.
Some of us fought back and said: OK, we want to reform them. We want to build better communities. We will work with you here. So because I stepped in and a bunch of others stepped in, Catholic Charities and many activists from all walks of life, including the business community, we said: We are going to rebuild these communities. Well here is the most amazing thing about it: it is working. Shawn Donovan, our Housing Secretary, was just there. We had standing room only, with people from every different race and walk of life. We are patting ourselves on the back saying: It was bad 10 years ago. It was bad 5 years ago. But now we are all working together in the spirit of unity in a city that has been absolutely brought to its knees by flooding and by political bickering and bomb throwing. And we made things better. Then this amendment has to hit the floor. It is a disgrace. I urge my colleagues to vote no on amendment 2359.
While I am here, I will say a word about another amendment that has been agreed to this afternoon by 73 votes, unfortunately. It was another Vitter amendment. It was amendment No. 2376. I voted no. There were 26 of us who voted no, but 73 Senators voted yes. I know I am in the minority, but that is what the Senate is about, giving the minority a voice. I wish to say something about this. This amendment reinstated a law that says that if you live in public housing, you have to do 8 hours of community service. That sounds pretty good. People think, we are providing housing for people. They should be grateful. The least they can do is community service.
I am a big supporter of community service. I try to do it when I can. I support community service and I support calling all of our citizens to community service. What I don't support is making poor people and mostly minorities do community service, while other people sit on the sideline and never are required to do it, even though the largesse they receive from our government is much greater than a resident of public housing could ever hope to get even if they lived there for 50 years.
If you lived in public housing for 50 years, you could not possibly benefit as much from the General Treasury as if you would if you were the executive of AIG to whom we gave a gazillion dollars. Did we ask them to do 8 hours of community service? We didn't even ask him to pay the money back. Somebody has to wake up in this Chamber.
I am not fussing at my colleagues because I know people have a different view about this. But if we want to require law students to do 8 hours of community service for the loans they get, fine. But don't just pick on the poor because they can't fight back, and they don't have any lobbyists up here for them.
Those are the two amendments my colleague could come up with today. I can't wait to see what he comes up with tomorrow.
I yield the floor.

Carter: For many whites, Obama guilty of PWB (Presiding While Black)

Mike Stagg — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:50:17 GMT

Former President Jimmy Carter has earned a reputation of being brutally honest, particularly since he's left the White House.

He does nothing to diminish that reputation in this interview with NBC News:

That's right, white racism is at the core of much of the criticism of President Obama is racially motivated.

Let me put it another way, for many whites, President Obama is guilty of Presiding While Black (PWB). Clearly there is evidence that something is causing many of his opponents to become unhinged from reality. Think about all the claims believed about this president which have absolutely no basis in fact: Birthers. Tenthers. Socialized medicine. Hitler. Muslim (with the radical Christian minister). Death Panels.

It is no coincidence that older white people are the believers of these lies.

What could possibly be causing the people who believe these things to become so separated from reality? To be so willing to believe these lies?

Racism is Carter's answer. And mine.

Racism has a long history in the South and this country. It has been called this country's original sin. Although public expressions of racism have been out of favor since the successes of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, Republicans have based a considerable portion of their political appeal in the South on coded racist messages dating back to the 1960s. The Southern Strategy has been in the Republican play book since Richard Nixon's campaign implemented it in 1968.

The strategy was always based on appealing to the racism of Southern whites without having to resort to overtly racist overtures, although when necessary, it was not rejected (think Willie Horton). Subtle was the preferred approach.

The election of Barack Obama as president represents the unacceptible, the unbelievable, the apocalyptic development for the people who have been the targets of these coded messages over the past 40 years.

In short, their heads have exploded. Their wiring has shorted. Their world has been turned upside down.

If this election can happen, then (in their view) any lie about the president (the "other") is also believable. His election represents the end of the world as they have known it.

Racism in the U.S. has never been confined to the South. It is clear, though, that it has deeper cultural roots here than in other parts of the country. Read this book to learn just how deep those roots run and how relatively recently some of the most virulent expressions of those roots have been a fact of life here.

The history of this country — including its progress — cannot be separated from our history of race relations. Want proof? Check out the most virulent opponents of our sitting president.

LA-Sen: The Big Sleazy: Vitter's Health Care Fear-Mongering

Senate Guru — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:41:46 GMT

{First, a cheap plug for my blog Senate Guru.}

The always-resplendent Rachel Maddow lampoons Sinning Senator David Vitter's fear-mongering and misleading Louisiana voters on health care reform:

After watching Rachel's report on Vitter's dishonest scare tactics, wouldn't you like to see him lose his job? You can help bounce the Sinning Senator from the U.S. Senate with a contribution to his Democratic opponent, Congressman Charlie Melancon, via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page.

Boustany's FOURTH Lie

ryan — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 03:55:57 GMT

~~Congressman~~ Lord Boustany stated in his Republican response tonight:

"We need to establish tough liability reform standards, encourage speedy resolution of claims, and deter junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care."

Well, there's a smidgen of truth in that ... for medical providers. Texas passed medical tort liability reform back in 2003, and the insurance premiums for Texas medical providers have decreased, at least for those associated with the Texas Medical Liability Trust:

"TMLT has now reduced rates for Texas physicians six consecutive years since the passage of House Bill 4 and Proposition 12 in 2003," said Bob Fields, president and CEO of TMLT. For the first five years, rates were reduced across the board for all specialties: 12% in 2004; 5% in 2005; 5% in 2006; 7.5% in 2007; 6.5% in 2008. For 2009, all specialties will receive a rate decrease but the reduction will vary by specialty and territory with an average decrease of 4.7%. According to Fields, the cumulative premium savings realized by policyholders will exceed $275 million since January 2004.

Hmmmm ... no wonder ~~Congressman~~ Lord Boustany likes medical liability reform. After all, he was sued for medical malpractice himself three times. But the proponents of medical liability reform are missing the point of health care reform ... health care reform is to lower the costs of medical care for patients, not the malpractice insurance costs for medical providers.

While the medical malpractice insurance premiums may have gone down for some medical providers, thanks to medical liability tort "reform" passed by state legislatures, the cost of health insurance for us common folk has risen across the nation, as well as in Texas.

Then again, no wonder the Republicans are pushing this classic bait-and-switch ... as the Republicans traditionally raise more money from health professionals than do the Democrats, although that has changed with the ascendance of the Democratic Party, and the shameless fundraising prowess of the Blue Dogs over the last few years.