I found the following article in the Washington Post by Ezra Klein that points out some interesting facts about the Health Care Reform legislation the the GOP doesn’t really want people to know.

The six Republican ideas already in the health-care reform bill
By: Ezra Klein, Washington Post

At this point, I don’t think it’s well understood how many of the GOP’s central health-care policy ideas have already been included as compromises in the health-care bill. But one good way is to look at the GOP’s “Solutions for America” homepage, which lays out its health-care plan in some detail. It has four planks. All of them — yes, you read that right — are in the Senate health-care bill.

(1) “Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.” This is a long-running debate between liberals and conservatives. Currently, states regulate insurers. Liberals feel that’s too weak and allows for too much variation, and they want federal regulation of insurers. Conservatives feel that states over-regulate insurers, and they want insurers to be able to cluster in the state with the least regulation and offer policies nationwide, much as credit card companies do today.

To the surprise and dismay of many liberals, the Senate health-care bill included a compromise with the conservative vision for insurance regulation. The relevant policy is in Section 1333, which allows the formation of interstate compacts. Under this provision, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho (for instance) could agree to allow insurers based in any of those states to sell plans in all of them. This prevents a race to the bottom, as Idaho has to be comfortable with Arizona’s regulations, and the policies have to have a minimum level of benefits (something that even Rep. Paul Ryan believes), but it’s a lot closer to the conservative ideal.

(2) “Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.” This is the very purpose of the exchanges, as defined in Section 1312. Insurers are required to pool the risk of all the small businesses and individuals in the new markets rather than treating them as small, single units. That gives the newly pooled consumers bargaining power akin to that of a massive corporation or labor union, just as conservatives want. It also gives insurers reason to compete aggressively for their business, which is key to the conservative vision. Finally, empowering the exchanges to use prudential purchasing maximizes the power and leverage that consumers will now enjoy.

(3) “Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.” Section 1302 of the Senate bill does this directly. The provision is entitled “the Waiver for State Innovation,” and it gives states the power to junk the whole of the health-care plan — that means the individual mandate, the Medicaid expansion, all of it — if they can do it better and cheaper.

(4) “End junk lawsuits.” It’s not entirely clear what this means, as most malpractice lawsuits actually aren’t junk lawsuits. The evidence on this is pretty clear: The malpractice problem is on operating tables, not in court rooms. Which isn’t to deny that our current system is broken for patients and doctors alike. The Senate bill proposes to deal with this in Section 6801, which encourages states to develop new malpractice systems and suggests that Congress fund the most promising experiments. This compromise makes a lot of sense given the GOP’s already-expressed preference for letting states “create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs,” but since what the Republicans actually want is a national system capping damages, I can see how this compromise wouldn’t be to their liking.

(5) To stop there, however, does the conservative vision a disservice. The solutions the GOP has on its Web site are not solutions at all, because Republicans don’t want to be in the position of offering an alternative bill. But when Republicans are feeling bolder — as they were in Bush’s 2007 State of the Union, or John McCain’s plan — they generally take aim at one of the worst distortions in the health-care market: The tax break for employer-sponsored insurance. Bush capped it. McCain repealed it altogether. Democrats usually reject, and attack, both approaches.

Not this year, though. Senate Democrats initially attempted to cap the exclusion, which is what Bush proposed in 2007. There was no Republican support for the move, and Democrats backed off from the proposal. They quickly replaced it, however, with the excise tax, which does virtually the same thing. The excise tax only applies to employer-sponsored insurance above a certain price point, and it essentially erases the preferential tax treatment for every dollar above its threshold.

(6) And finally, we shouldn’t forget the compromises that have been the most painful for Democrats, and the most substantive. This is a private-market plan. Not only is single-payer off the table, but at this point, so too is the public option. The thing that liberals want most in the world has been compromised away.

On Sunday, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell responded to Barack Obama’s summit invitation by demanding Obama scrap the health-care reform bill entirely. This is the context for that demand. What they want isn’t a bill that incorporates their ideas. They’ve already got that. What they want is no bill at all. And that’s a hard position for the White House to compromise with.

I find it interesting that the “Party of No!” continues to lie to the American people about the truth of health reform legislation. The fact that they will go so far as to oppose the very principles they claim to support is truly sad.

The complete story is here, but longtime Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha has died.  He was the first pro-military Democrat to come out against the Iraq War and his efforts helped fuel the anti-war effort as it caught fire.  He was 77.

Murtha died from complications following gall bladder surgery.  From the story:

Murtha died at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Va., surrounded by his family, his office announced. He had been hospitalized for a little more than a week with complications from gallbladder surgery.

Although his turn against the war in 2005 made him a national figure, Murtha was known inside Washington for decades as the consummate behind-the-scenes deal maker, an old-line power broker and physically-imposing figure who unrepentantly delivered billions of federal dollars to his home state.

In his later years, Murtha became a favorite target of critics demanding an end to Congress’ earmarking largesse, a personification of the power of pork. Contractors and lobbyists close to him were the target of federal corruption probes. He, however, was never charged with a crime, nor found to have committed an ethical breach.”

Murtha has been called out by local Congressman John Campbell for the earmarks Murtha delievred to his district.  With federal earmarks accounting for only $16-$18 billion on a federal budget of $3.6 trillion, earmarks are a drop in the pocked and Murtha’s share of this for his direct even less than a drop.  Campbell opposes any earmarks for our local district forcing strapped state, county and city budgets to deliver critical infrastructure projects or relying on the courtesy of others in the OC congressional delegation to deliver for CD-48.

In a February 4, 2010 Op-Ed in the Boston Globe, University of Virginia Professor Daniel Willingham and author of “Why Don’t Students Like School?’’ writes about the issue of “Merit Pay” for teachers as required by The President’s education reform initiative “Race to the Top.” While the majority of Orange County school districts opted out of committing to the California plan to accept Race to the Top funding, the issue of “merit pay isn’t going away.

Turning schools into Registry of Motor Vehicles

In an effort to improve public schools, President Obama wants to hold individual teachers accountable for student test scores; indeed, states that prohibit the practice are ineligible for the “Race to the Top’’ funds.

To a cognitive scientist, this is a strange line to draw in the sand. We do not have good tools to measure teachers, and when you hold people accountable with poor measures, things don’t just fail to improve. They get worse.

The reason is simple: Accountability changes workers’ focus from “do a good job’’ to “do a job that looks good according to the measure.’’

One approach to classroom accountability is to measure children’s learning and let the teacher do whatever they think is best. You simply administer a test in the fall and one in the spring and find the difference. That’s intuitive, but there are a number of conceptual and technical problems.

Obviously, teachers have little incentive to teach any topic that is not tested, or indeed, anything that will not be tested that year; why lay groundwork for improving next year’s scores? If you thought No Child Left Behind led to an overemphasis on testing, wait for the test-prep frenzy that follows linking salaries to test scores.

Another problem: not everything is in the teacher’s hands. Rowdy kids are harder to teach than well-behaved kids. And it’s easier to teach your class if your principal (and parents) are helpful and supportive. Several studies have shown that teacher evaluations based on test scores are unstable. About 25 percent of teachers pegged as terrific or terrible get the opposite designation the next year.

The logic underlying this approach is suspect. It assumes that teachers know what to do but just aren’t doing it or that they will figure out what to do once the pressure is on. It’s the equivalent of the frustrated parent shouting “I don’t care how you do it – just bring home better math grades!’’ No Child Left Behind should have taught us that improving student achievement doesn’t happen simply by mandating it.

So what if you do tell teachers how to improve? A second approach limits accountability to how teachers do their job. You observe teachers in the classroom and see whether they are using what are known to be good teaching practices. The problem is that people then become slavishly devoted to the rules, because it is to the rules that they are accountable. Call it RMV Syndrome.

I once waited in a long line at the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles only to be told that I needed an additional form. I saw the form about two feet from the clerk, but he insisted I wait in a different line for that form. Maddening for me, but perfectly sensible from his point of view. Why should he break the rules and risk punishment, just to save me a wait in line?

Social scientists have a technical term for this type of behavior. It’s called “covering your butt.’’ This type of accountability only works if the list of required behaviors is so intelligently constructed that in covering their butts people end up doing a good job. It can also work when the supervisor is knowledgeable and flexible; the RMV clerk might have known that his supervisor would understand that giving me the form was technically breaking a rule, but contributing to the larger goal of effective service.

There are ways of making accountability work. The two key elements are evaluations that take place over long periods of time, to increase stability, and evaluations that are conducted by people who are knowledgeable and are known by teachers to be knowledgeable. Unfortunately, neither element is part of the Obama administration’s plans.

Advocates of teacher accountability often acknowledge these problems, yet insist it’s better than nothing. Not true. A poor system could make teaching worse and a failed attempt will allow opponents to dismiss accountability as a failed policy. Accountability is a good idea, but we have to get the measures right.

It really isn’t a good idea for us to expand the failures of “No Child Left Behind” by tying teacher pay to their ability to teach students to pass a test, and nothing else. If our testing measures do not test sufficiently on student knowledge related to subjects other than reading, writing, and math, then we fail to teach students as individual people.

By teaching to a test we end up teaching as though we are programming a computer for limited and simple functions rather than teaching students the full spectrum of knowledge necessary to be productive and involved members of society.

Life is not a series of multiple-choice questions and our students are not monkeys trained to use a #2 pencil to fill in bubbles on a sheet of paper.

This came in the other day and burried in a pile of emails. Sorry for the delay posting.

Clerk Recorder Tom Daly

ANAHEIM, February 4, 2010 — Fourth District Supervisor candidate Clerk-Recorder Tom Daly released his initial list of endorsements from local elected officials today. 

“I am humbled to earn the support of so many respected local leaders,” said Daly. “As County Clerk-Recorder and former Mayor of Anaheim, I’ve built a reputation as a strong fiscal conservative and a problem-solver who delivers results. I will bring this common sense approach to the County Board of Supervisors.”

• Fullerton City Councilwoman Pam Keller
• Fullerton City Councilwoman Sharon Quirk
• Buena Park Mayor Art Brown
• Villa Park City Councilman Bill MacAloney
• Anaheim Union High School District Board Member Jordan Brandman
• Anaheim Union High School District Board Member Anna Piercy
• Buena Park School District Board Member Jerry Kong
• Rancho Santiago Community College Board Trustee John Hanna
• North Orange County Community College Board Trustee Leonard Lahtinen
• North Orange County Community College Board Trustee Michael Matsuda
• North Orange County Community College Board Trustee Molly McClanahan
• State Assemblyman Jose Solorio
• State Senator John Lewis (Ret.)
• Orange County Supervisor William G. Steiner (Ret.)
• Orange County Auditor-Controller David Sundstrom
• Orange County Transportation Authority Director (and Past Chair) Peter Buffa

Today’s Super Bowl of course.  What did you think I meant

Since America loves an underdog, there is going to be an enormous about of rooting for the New Orleans Saints.  The Colts are the better team.  But like Super Bowl 42, the Patriots were better than the Giants, right.

While I’m sure Archie Manning is going to be rooting for his son Peyton, there has to be a small part of him and the Colts QB who wore Saints’ uniforms as a child rooting for New Orleans.  My favorite bit of Saint’s Trivia: It’s the only team in NFL history that scored a touchdown on it’s first play; a kickoff return for a TD 42 seasons ago.

Leave your predictions in the comments.

Congressman John Campbell

We have been receiving tons of email in support of the lawsuit we filed in federal court against Art Pedroza and the Orange Juice Blog.  My phone won’t stop ringing with calls of support from Democrats and Republicans alike.  The common theme? “Way to go.” “It’s about time.”  My business website had twice the number of hits it usually does yesterday alone. 

While I’m grateful for the support, some readers have emailed serious concerns about Art’s post on OJ last Thursday night.  While I encouraged them to comment on OJ or on the blog, they won’t.  I wanted to share this letter from a reader who directed their ire towards Rep. John Campbell, but this could easily apply to any of the candidates who have an ad running on Art’s site. 

Of course, Art is convinced the lawsuit is about Beth Krom and/or Janet Nguyen (say…does this make Janet a Krommunist?) and Art will say this post proves his theory.  It’s not. The lawsuit isn’t about Beth Krom, Janet Nguyen or any politician in Orange County; it’s about what he did no matter what he says otherwise. But this letter struck me in such a way that I’m compelled to share it. And the writer has granted me permission to do so.

Dear Congressman Campbell,

After reading Martin Wiskol’s column in the Register today, I went online and read a truly disgusting post on the Orange Juice blog that attacks Beth Krom and disparages the memory of her late son Noah. It is possibly the most offensive thing I have ever seen, given that the author, Art Pedroza seems willing to go to any length to deflect attention from his own transgressions. He then goes on to endorse your campaign and indicates he will be giving you free advertising on his site. If you are a party to this, it shows an incredible lack of character. If you are not, I would strongly encourage you to make a public statement condemning the use of such mean-spirited and offensive posts to attack your opponent. As they say, people are judged by the company they keep — and silence implies consent.

And Steven Choi reported the in-kind donation of advertising on Art’s site on his last financial report.  What’s everyone else’s excuse?

WASHINGTON – In this week’s address, President Barack Obama said that America’s small businesses are key to rebuilding the economy on a new, stronger foundation and creating jobs. He called on Republicans and Democrats in Congress to pass – without delay – a series of proposals that will help American small businesses thrive.  These proposals include using $30 billion in TARP funds to create a new Small Business Lending Fund to provide capital to community banks to increase lending to small businesses, offering a new tax credit for over one million small businesses that hire new workers or raise wages, and providing targeted support for the most innovative small businesses with the potential to export new goods and products.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
Weekly Address
February 6, 2010

Even though our economy is growing again, these are still tough times for America.  Too many businesses are still shuttered.  Too many families can’t make ends meet.  And while yesterday, we learned that the unemployment rate has dropped below ten percent for the first time since summer, it is still unacceptably high – and too many Americans still can’t find work. 

But what we must remember at a time like this is that we are not helpless in the face of our difficulties.  As Americans, we make our own destiny.  We forge our own path.  And I am confident that if we come together and put aside the politics that keeps holding us back, we can do that again.  We can rebuild this economy on a new, stronger foundation that leads to more jobs and greater prosperity.

I believe a key part of that foundation is America’s small businesses – the places where most new jobs begin. 

These companies represent the essence of the American spirit – the promise that anyone can succeed in this country if you have a good idea and the determination to see it through.  And every once in awhile, these ideas don’t just lead to a new business and new jobs, but a new American product that forever changes the world.  After all, Hewlett Packard began in a garage.  Google began as a simple research project. 

Government can’t create these businesses, but it can give entrepreneurs the support they need to open their doors, expand, or hire more workers.  And that’s what we’ve always done in this country.  The folks at Southwest Windpower in Flagstaff, Arizona started their company in a small home.  Since getting a loan from the Small Business Administration, they’ve sold 160,000 wind turbines to about 90 different countries, and are hiring even more workers today.  When Sam Ko walked into one of the SBA’s small business development centers in Illinois, he didn’t have any business experience at all – just a patent for a new metal manufacturing technology.  He was given a loan and a business plan, and today his company is still growing, with offices all over the Midwest. 

Last year, the steps we took supported over 47,000 loans to small businesses and delivered billions in tax relief to small business owners, which helped companies keep their doors open, make payroll, and hire workers.  But we can and must do more.  That’s why I’ve proposed a series of steps this week to support small business owners and the jobs they create – to provide more access to credit, more incentives to hire, and more opportunities to grow and sell products all over the world. 

Because financing remains difficult for good, credit-worthy small businesses across the country, I’ve proposed that we take $30 billion from the TARP fund originally used for Wall Street and create a new Small Business Lending Fund that will provide capital for community banks on Main Street.  These are the small, local banks that will be able to give our small business owners more of the credit they need to stay afloat.  We should also continue to waive fees, increase guarantees, and expand the size of SBA-backed loans for small businesses.  And yesterday, I proposed making it easier for small business owners to refinance their mortgages during these tough times.

To give these companies greater incentives to grow and create jobs, I’ve proposed a new tax credit for more than one million small businesses that hire new workers or raise wages, as well as the elimination of all capital gains taxes on small business investment. 

Finally, we should provide targeted support to the most innovative small businesses – the ones with the greatest potential to export new goods and products all over the world.  A lot of these companies – like the wind turbine manufacturer I mentioned – are the foundation on which we can rebuild our economy to compete in the 21st century.  They just need a little help securing the financing they need to get off the ground.  We have every incentive to help them do that. 

Next week, Congress will start debating many of these proposals.  And if anyone has additional ideas to support small businesses and create jobs, I’m happy to consider them.  My door is always open.  But I urge members of both parties:  do not oppose good ideas just because it’s good politics to do so.  The proposals I’ve outlined are not Democratic or Republican; liberal or conservative.  They are pro-business, they are pro-growth, and they are pro-job.  Leaders in both parties have supported similar ideas in the past.  So let’s come together and pass these measures without delay.  Let’s put more Americans back to work, and let’s give our small business owners the support to do what they’ve always done:  the freedom to pursue their dreams and build our country’s future.  Thanks for listening.

SANTA ANA — Thinking Liberally Media, Inc., dba TheLiberalOC, along with Madison Alexander Public Relations, Inc. and several other parties filed a federal lawsuit today against Art Pedroza and the Orange Juice Blog. The suit alleges several violations of federal law including cybersquatting and copyright infringement.

We are posting a copy of the complaint in order to dispel any misinformation that may be presented by Mr. Pedroza on his blog or elsewhere. We feel it is important that our readers may have access to our actual complaint and thus access to our side of the story. We tried to settle the matter out of court, but were unsuccessful. We will not be arguing our case on this or any other blog; we will reserve that for court. To that end we intend to limit our coverage of this matter as much as possible; focusing instead on political issues of greater interest to the majority of our readers.

Click Here for the complaint.  We’ll post the updated version of the complaint with the timestamp from federal court later today.

Chris Prevatt, Publisher.

And you thought Matt Barkeley was a green freshman behind center for the Trojans last fall.  Yes, I know this is a political blog but some stories just scream for commentary. 

Click here to view the embedded video.

Like this story, which reports that a 13-year old phenom quarterback has already committed to USC for the Fall 2015 season. From the story:

“The next Tiger Woods?  The next Lebron James?  Everyone is always looking for the next phenom. And that’s why you might want to learn the name David Sills.  He is a seventh grader who just gave a verbal commitment to the University of Southern California to be their quarterback – in 2015.

The six-foot-tall 13-year-old is a wunderkind in the eyes of his personal coach Steve Clarkson,  who has mentored top college quarterbacks Jimmy Clausen and current USC star Matt Barkley.”

A lot can happen in five years.  Is USC smart or dumb for making a commitment to a kid barely old enough to shave?