New Nebraska Network - Front Page

Will Fortenberry, Terry, & Smith Really Say "No" To Health Care Reform?

Kyle Michaelis — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:31:28 GMT

This weekend, the U.S. House of Representatives will hold a historic vote on H.R. 3962, The Affordable Health Care for America Act. The passage of this bill will bring us one step closer to finally fulfilling the decades-old promise of real health care reform.

Unfortunately, right now, it looks as if all three of our Republican Congressmen here in Nebraska will march lock-step with their party leaders defending the status quo and putting insurance company profits before the people they represent. As provided by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, here is what our Congressmen will be saying "No" to if they vote against this historic legislation:

In Rep. Jeff Fortenberry's district (NE-01), the Affordable Health Care for America Act will:? Provide coverage for 28,000 uninsured residents.
? Protect up to 1,000 families each year from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.
? Reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers by $98 million.
? Ensure 7,500 individuals with pre-existing medical conditions will be able to purchase affordable coverage.
? Improve Medicare for 91,000 beneficiaries, including closing the prescription drug donut hole for 10,600 seniors.
? Allow 16,200 small businesses to obtain affordable health care coverage and provide tax credits to help reduce health insurance costs for up to 14,700 small businesses.
? Only require the 370 richest households to pay a new income tax surcharge. The surcharge will not affect 99.87% of taxpayers in the district.
In Rep. Lee Terry's district (NE-02), the Affordable Health Care for America Act will:? Provide coverage for 36,000 uninsured residents.
? Protect up to 1,200 families each year from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.
? Reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers by $64 million.
? Ensure 8,600 individuals with pre-existing medical conditions will be able to purchase affordable coverage.
? Improve Medicare for 76,000 beneficiaries, including closing the prescription drug donut hole for 7,300 seniors.
? Allow 16,800 small businesses to obtain affordable health care coverage and provide tax credits to help reduce health insurance costs for up to 14,700 small businesses.
? Only require the 840 richest households to pay a new income tax surcharge. The surcharge will not affect 99.70% of taxpayers in the district.
In Rep. Adrian Smith's district (NE-03), the Affordable Health Care for America Act will:? Provide coverage for 39,000 uninsured residents.
? Protect up to 800 families each year from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.
? Reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers by $179 million.
? Ensure 8,200 individuals with pre-existing medical conditions will be able to purchase affordable coverage.
? Improve Medicare for 105,000 beneficiaries, including closing the prescription drug donut hole for 13,600 seniors.
? Allow 17,700 small businesses to obtain affordable health care coverage and provide tax credits to help reduce health insurance costs for up to 16,800 small businesses.
? Only require the 250 richest households to pay a new income tax surcharge. The surcharge will not affect 99.90% of taxpayers in the district.

After so much fear-mongering and so many years of inaction, it's hard to believe that this vote is actually going to happen. Although it's probably an unreasonable hope, there is still time for our Republican Congressmen to rise to this challenge and do what's right for the people of Nebraska by finally standing on their own two feet and supporting real health care reform.

We've seen what this legislation will mean for each of Nebraska's Congressional districts. For more on what this legislation will mean for you and your family, here's a great resource from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:

Please, Congressmen Fortenberry, Terry, and Smith - don't be blinded by partisanship and right-wing ideology. We can no longer afford excuses. We can no longer afford inaction. We can no longer afford piecemeal reforms. Nebraska needs the The Affordable Health Care for America Act.

198

Darwin — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:01:11 GMT

That is how many Nebraskans will die next year because they do not have health insurance. Almost 200 of our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, aunts, uncles, friends and neighbors will die because they do not have access to basic, life sustaining care. And that is not just next year, but every year after that until something is done to stop it.

Last night, on the floor of the House, Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) gave a speech in which he cited, for each of the country's Republican congressional districts, the number of people expected to die next year because they do not have health insurance. The numbers came from combining a Harvard study estimating the number of people dying annually because they lack health insurance and an Urban Institute study estimating the number of uninsured in each congressional district.

The breakdown for Nebraska is:

CD-1 Fortenberry 61 deaths
CD-2 Terry 68 deaths
CD-3 Smith 69 deaths

It is inconceivable how we as a people could allow this to happen. Imagine if a terrorist attack in Nebraska claimed 198 lives. I cannot believe we would allow such a tragedy to befall our state year after year and do nothing about it. Yet that is exactly what we do when we turn a blind eye to the inequities in our health care system. Congressmen Fortenberry, Terry and Smith, Senators Nelson and Johanns, Governor Heineman you should all be ashamed, not just for your inaction on this issue, but for the deaths that have been and will be caused by your inaction.
Here is Congressman Grayson's floor speech, broken down into 4 parts. The first part contains a masterful introduction followed by a recitation of the expected dead in Republican districts. Nebraska comes up about seven and a half minutes into the second video.

Special Session: Heineman Lies To Protect $230 Million 'Ted Turner Entitlement'

Kyle Michaelis — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:42:44 GMT

State Senators face some difficult choices in the budget-cutting special session of the Nebraska Legislature beginning this Wednesday, November 4th. With the magnitude of the $334 million shortfall in the state budget, I've held off from offering any easy solutions - understanding that there is nothing of the sort. I've even waited for Governor Dave Heineman to offer up his own proposal for cutting the state budget before really jumping into the fray.

Well, Heineman finally unveiled his proposal on Monday afternoon - just 48 hours before the legislative special session is set to begin. I'm not afraid to say that there are some parts of Heineman's plan with which I completely agree. For starters, he's absolutely right to insist that the state maintain a strong cash reserve. The state is already relying on $250 million from the so-called 'rainy day fund' in the current budget - with every forecast for the next two years indicating more rain than we're prepared to handle. The remaining cash reserve of $325 million may sound like a lot of money that is sure to invite temptations to avoid the most painful budget cuts. However, this figure already falls well short of the projected $568 million defecit in the state's next biennial budget (FY 2012 - 2013).

The time for wishful thinking and putting off tough choices has passed. Heineman and the legislature already fell victim to a false sense of security earlier this year when they passed a budget that relied so heavily on one-time stimulus dollars and cash reserves to fund continuing obligations. At this point, even taking a sidelong glance at the remaining cash reserves would be an act of foolishness and self-destructiveness.

Heineman has also proposed eliminating planned increases and maintaining the current funding level for public school education in the second year of the biennium. Although certain to put the crunch on school districts in the face of rising costs, this appears to be a reasonable - perhaps even necessary - adjustment. Yes, the chickens are coming home to roost early, and school districts thought they'd have more time to prepare for the inevitable. But, attempting to hold the line on spending between one year and the next should prove a very good trial run for the total and complete disaster public schools could be seeing in lost state funding just two years down the road.

One of the essential questions before any education funds are cut must be how they might affect eligibility for present and future stimulus dollars. It appears Heineman has already given the state's stimulus fund obligations some thought in slightly reducing the impact of across the board cuts on higher education - at least, as a matter of percentages. But, legislators will have to go over plans with a fine toothed comb to ensure people are aware of how our choices might handicap the state in terms of potential matching dollars and lost opportunities.

There's a world of nit-picking to be done on the other points and priorities revealed in Heineman's plan. However, one glaring defect reigns supreme in defying all reason and any sense of accountability. This is Heineman's unsurprising but incredibily cynical resistance to any changes in the two year-old property tax credit program - which was passed in 2007 on the promise that it would be "temporary" and - according to Speaker of the Legislature Mike Flood - "subject to the ups and downs of the economy."

Well, guess what, the economy has long since taken a downward turn, and the state can no longer afford this program's annual costs of $115 million. That's an added $230 million burden during the two years of the biennium. In other words, roughly two-thirds of the total shortfall in the state budget would be eliminated by the Legislature simply keeping its word and striking this horrendously flawed property tax credit program.

The real insult underlying this program is in Heineman's deceitful defense of his plan to maintain it:

"My proposal was developed with middle class Nebraska families in mind," Gov. Heineman said. "When family income is down, families reduce spending. When business income is down, businesses reduce spending. When state revenues are down, state government should reduce its spending"....
The Governor's budget...maintains tax relief programs enacted during the past four years and continues the property tax credit program begun two years ago. In FY 2010 and 2011, the program will provide $230 million in tax credits to property owners.
Gov. Heineman said, "Many Nebraska families are struggling in the current economy and failing to fund this program would be a property tax increase on Nebraska's homeowners. In an economic downturn, increasing property taxes on middle class families, seniors living on fixed incomes, small businesses, and farmers and ranchers is unacceptable. I will oppose any attempt to increase taxes on Nebraska's middle class families."

Dave Heineman is a liar. He is lying through his teeth to the people of Nebraska by acting as if this property tax credit does a damn thing to help "Nebraska homeowners" or "middle class families." This is giveaway to the largest landowners and the wealthiest corporations in the state - pure and simple.

Nowhere is this more clear than in the example of billionaire Ted Turner. Under Heineman's property tax credit, Ted Turner receives more than $73,000 a year. His annual tax credit is far greater than the income of Nebraska's average middle class family. Adding insult to injury, it's the income and sales taxes paid to the state by Nebraska's middle class families that are then being used to pay Ted Turner's property taxes.

In Dave Heineman's 2007 Inaugural Address, he declared, "our efforts at the state level to address local property taxes are a tax shift, not a tax cut and each one increases state spending." Of course, Heineman's singing a different tune now protecting this $230 million "Ted Turner entitlement" and pretending that eliminating it (as promised) would be a tax increase. But, the simple fact remains that what we're talking about is a tax shift - from a billionaire landowner who doesn't even live in the state directly onto the backs of the people of Nebraska.

Sure, Nebraska homeowners do see a tiny pittance from this tax credit. The average Nebraska homeowner gets about $85 annually - a little more than $7 a month. Contrast that with the estimated three quarters of a million dollars in state money that's going towards covering Union Pacific's local property taxes. Again, that money is collected from income and sales taxes paid for by the people of Nebraska. That's a tax shift that should have every Nebraska homeowner and middle-class family up in arms, calling for the heads of Heineman and any other political leaders who willfully perpetuate such blatant fraud.

The people of Nebraska have a choice. They can continue paying for Ted Turner and Union Pacific's property taxes or they can call their state senators, write their local newspapers, and demand that this outrageous tax shift onto the middle class finally be killed. This alone would take care of two-thirds of our state budget shortfall while erasing one of the grossest inequities imaginable in state tax policy.

Heineman promises to "oppose any attempt to increase taxes on Nebraska's middle class families." In reality, all that means is protecting a status quo in which middle class families are paying Ted Turner's property taxes. It was bad enough when this program was first passed on a temporary basis. Now, Heineman's doing everything in his power to make it a permanent Ted Turner entitlement.

If that's not the Nebraska you believe in, then this special sesson is the time to fight back - perhaps your last chance before it really is too late.

Lee Terry's Idea Of Health Care Reform Is No Reform At All

Kyle Michaelis — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:23:08 GMT

On Tuesday, endangered 2nd District Republican Congressman Lee Terry finally introduced his long-promised plan for health care reform - HR 3937, the Simple Universal Healthcare Act of 2009. Terry's been talking about this legislation for more than three months, misleading voters that entire time about where it stands and what it would do. Now that the bill is actually available, it's safe to say that it wouldn't do much at all besides make a complete mockery of Terry's promise of "Universal Healthcare."

The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., introduced his version of health care legislation on Tuesday. Terry's bill would create a health insurance system similar to the health benefits program that covers members of Congress and federal workers, but the new system would be open for anyone to purchase insurance through it.
Terry described the new system as an identical twin to the existing benefits program, although there is at least one major difference. Members of Congress and federal employees have most of their premiums paid for by the government, just like many private sector employers do for their workers. Members of the public who went out and purchased their own insurance through the new program would have to cover the full cost of the premiums.....

NNN had first noted this weakness of Terry's proposal back in July when he first began pretending that he had a "simple and affordable plan for healthcare reform." In Nebraska, the premiums for a standard Blue Cross Blue Shield family policy under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan are more than $1,100 per month. That may be affordable when the federal government is picking up 75% of the cost, but it's a telling sign of Terry's complete lack of solutions that he'd suggest the average Nebraska family could possibly afford to spend more than $13,000 per year just on health insurance.

It's also worth nothing that, in 2010, the average premium increase for plans in the FEHBP will be 7.4 percent. In the standard Blue Cross family plan, federal employees are seeing a 12.4 percent hike in their own share of the premium. If this is the model Terry's holding up as his ideal, are we to assume he finds these annual rate increases acceptable - not to mention sustainable?

But, wait, it gets worse:

Terry has talked previously about providing federal subsidies to help people on the margins who can't afford the premiums in the new program that would be established, but ultimately decided to leave those out of the bill introduced Tuesday.
"That could be the next phase that we deal with," Terry said in an interview.

Terry's idea for "Universal Healthcare" was already a joke because premiums would be so far beyond the means of the average Nebraska family. Now, he backtracks from earlier promises of low-income subsidies that might do something to expand coverage because that would mean he'd have to offer some actual ideas on how to pay for them.

Terry's plan wouldn't expand coverage. It wouldn't control costs. In fact, it wouldn't do anything at all except open a one year window during which people with pre-existing conditions could buy into a plan. And - guess what - if Terry's bill had any chance at all of passing, you could be damn sure insurance companies would recognize this high-risk pool of customers and drive up prices accordingly.

Terry's idea of reform is no reform at all. It's the broken status quo - our so-called free market - repackaged under the auspices of the federal government. Terry estimates that this would only cost $15 million a year, but that would be $15 million completely wasted.

For those who want to read the complete text of Terry's legislation, I've posted it below the fold. In the World-Herald, Terry brags that his plan would be "far simpler and far cheaper than the Democrats' health care proposals that are moving through Congress." That's nothing to brag about when his plan offers practically nothing - certainly nothing that could be considered real reform - at the low cost of just a couple million dollars.

Simple Universal Healthcare Act of 2009 - H. R. 3937
A BILL To establish a health benefits program, based on the Federal employees health benefits program, to provide health insurance coverage for the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, and citizens not eligible for coverage under the Federal employees health benefits program.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Simple Universal Healthcare Act of 2009'.
(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents of this Act is as follows....
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF CITIZENS CONGRESSIONAL HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM (CCHBP).
(a) In General- The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall establish a program (to be known as the `Citizen's Congressional Health Benefits Program') to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage to--
(1) Federal elected officials (including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress); and
(2) residents of the United States who are not covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).
(b) Similar to FEHBP- The coverage shall be provided in a manner similar to the manner in which coverage has been provided to Members of Congress and Federal Government employees and retirees and their dependents under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).
SEC. 3. CONTRACTS WITH ENTITIES TO OFFER QUALIFIED CCHBP HEALTH PLANS.
(a) In General- The Director shall enter into contracts with entities for the offering of qualified CCHBP health plans in accordance with this Act. Such contracts shall be entered into in a manner similar to the process by which the Director is authorized to enter into contracts with entities offering health benefits plans under FEHBP.
(b) Requirements for Entities Offering Plans- The Director may only enter into a contract under subsection (a) with an entity that is--
(1) licensed--
(A) as a health maintenance organization in the State in which the entity will offer the qualified CCHBP health plan; or
(B) to sell group health insurance coverage in such State;
(2) meets such requirements, similar to requirements under FEHBP, as the Director may establish, relating to solvency, adequacy of plan benefits (subject to section 4), organization, structure, governance, access, and quality; and
(3) agrees to participate in the high-risk reinsurance fund described in section 8.
(c) FEHBP Plans- Any health plan offered under FEHBP shall be treated as a qualified CCHBP health plan for purposes of this Act.
(d) Preemption of State Law- The requirements of section 4, with respect to the scope and type of benefits required to be provided by a CCHBP health plan, shall supersede any and all State laws.
SEC. 4. SCOPE OF BENEFITS AND COVERAGE.
(a) Comprehensive Benefits-
(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), qualified CCHBP health plans shall provide for the same scope and type of benefits that are provided under FEHBP, including--
(A) the types of benefits described in section 8904 of title 5, United States Code; and
(B) benefits required by regulation or guidance under FEHBP.
(2) PREVENTIVE BENEFITS AND MENTAL HEALTH PARITY- Qualified CCHBP health plans shall provide a minimum level of preventive benefits determined by the Director, in consultation with the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force, which shall include vaccines for both children and adults, an annual physical, cancer screening (including mammographies for women of an appropriate age), and mental health parity.
(b) No Exclusion for Pre-Existing Conditions- Subject to section 6(b)(2), qualified CCHBP health plans shall not impose pre-existing condition exclusions or otherwise discriminate against any individual based on the health status of such individual (including genetic information relating to such enrollee, or any disease or condition).
(c) Annual and Lifetime Out-Of-Pocket Limit Information- An entity offering a qualified CCHBP health plan must provide notice to any individual covered by such plan of any benefit or service that is not included in the calculation of the annual or lifetime out-of-pocket limit under such plan.
SEC. 5. ELIGIBILITY.
(a) In General- An individual is eligible to enroll in a qualified CCHBP health plan if--
(1) the individual resides in the United States; and
(2) the individual is--
(A) a citizen or national of the United States;
(B) an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence;
(C) an alien admitted into the United States under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (relating to refugees);
(D) an alien otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law (as specified by the Director); or
(E) an alien with the status of a nonimmigrant who is within a class of long-term nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act that the Director determines, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to be appropriate.
(b) Exceptions- The following individuals are not eligible to enroll in a qualified CCHBP health plan:
(1) INDIVIDUALS ENROLLED UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS- An individual who is enrolled under the Federal employees health benefits program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code (except for a member of Congress, as defined by section 2106 of title 5, United States Code; or the President); the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act; the Medicaid program under title XIX of such Act; the Children's Health Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act; or Tricare under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code.
(2) INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS- An individual who is incarcerated (as specified by the Director).
(c) Treatment of Elected Officials- A member of Congress (as defined under section 2106 of title 5, United States Code) or the President may enroll in either a qualified CCHBP health plan under this Act or an FEHBP plan under title 5, United States Code, but may not be enrolled in both types of plans at the same time.
(d) Confirmation of Immigration Status- The Director, in consultation with each entity offering a qualified CCHBP plan, shall promulgate regulations for the use of the automated system known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, as provided for by section 404 of the Illegal Immigrations Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3009-664) to verify the legal presence of the status of an individual, other than a United States citizen, who seeks to enroll in a qualified CCHBP plan.
(e) Employer Option-
(1) IN GENERAL- An employer may choose to participate in CCHBP and offer qualified CCHBP health plans to employees of such employer as employer-sponsored health insurance.
(2) NOTICE- The employer shall inform the Director that the employer is taking such option in a form and manner determined by the Director.
(3) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REQUIRED- An employer who provides notice under paragraph (2) must pay the percentage of the cost of the premium, as determined under section 7, for each employee that enrolls in a qualified CCHBP health plan, that is the same as the percentage of the cost of the premium of the health insurance plan that such employer offered to its employees before the employer provided notice under paragraph (2).
(4) TAX TREATMENT- For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a qualified CCHBP health plan offered by an employer under this subsection shall not fail to be treated as employer-provided coverage solely because such employer provides such plan through the CCHBP.
SEC. 6. ENROLLMENT.
(a) Enrollment Process- The Director shall establish a process to enroll eligible individuals and their families in qualified CCHBP health plans. Such process shall be conducted in a manner that is similar to the manner enrollment is conducted under FEHBP. To the extent consistent with eligibility under section 3, the Director shall provide rules similar to the rules under FEHBP for the enrollment of family members who are CCHBP-eligible individuals in the same plan.
(b) Enrollment Period-
(1) ENROLLMENT UPON INITIAL ELIGIBILITY-
(A) IN GENERAL- An eligible individual may enroll in a qualified CCHBP health plan--
(i) at any time during the 1-year period beginning on the date that the Citizen's Congressional Health Benefits Program begins to operate; or, if later,
(ii) at any time during the 3-month period beginning on the date that such individual becomes eligible to enroll in any qualified CCHBP health plan.
(B) TREATMENT OF PREEXISTING CONDITIONS- An individual who enrolls during the periods under paragraph (1) shall not be subject to exclusions or additional costs due to any preexisting conditions that such individual developed before the date such individual enrolled in a qualified CCHBP plan.
(2) ANNUAL ENROLLMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- An eligible individual who does not enroll in a qualified CCHBP health plan under paragraph (1) may enroll in such a plan during an annual enrollment period of not more than 1 month, as determined by the Director.
(B) TREATMENT OF PREEXISTING CONDITIONS- Subject to rules developed by the Director, the entity offering the qualified CCHBP health plan may exclude such individual from enrolling in such a plan under this paragraph due to any preexisting condition which such individual develops before the date of such annual enrollment period. Upon excluding such individual, the entity offering the qualified CCHBP health plan shall provide such individual with notice of such exclusion and information about enrolling in a high risk pool.
(c) Changes in Enrollment- The Director shall establish enrollment procedures that include an annual open season of at least 1 month and permit changes in enrollment with qualified health plans at other times (such as by reason of changes in marital or dependent status or eligibility). Such procedures shall be based on the enrollment procedures established under FEHBP. The Director shall provide for termination of such enrollment for an individual at the time the individual is no longer an eligible individual.
(d) Enrollment of Employees- Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2), the employees of an employer that provides notice to the Director under section 5(e)(2) may enroll in a qualified CCHBP health plan during either the 3-month period beginning on the date that such employer provides such notice or the 3-month period beginning on the date that such employee begins working for such employer, whichever is later. Such employee shall not be subject to any costs related to such employee's pre-existing conditions if so enrolled during such period.
(e) Enrollment Guides- The Director shall provide for the broad dissemination of information on qualified CCHBP health plans offered under this title. Such information shall be provided in a comparative manner, similar to that used under FEHBP, and shall include information, collected through surveys of enrollees, on measures of enrollee satisfaction with the different plans.
SEC. 7. PREMIUMS.
The premiums established for a qualified CCHBP health plan under this Act for individual or family coverage--
(1) based on the rating system used under FEHBP; and
(2) shall not vary based on age, gender, health status (including genetic information), or other factors.
SEC. 8. HIGH-RISK REINSURANCE FUND.
The Director shall establish an arrangement among the entities offering qualified health plans under which such entities contribute in an equitable manner (as determined by the Director) into a fund that provides payment to plans for a percentage (specified by the Director and not to exceed 90 percent) of the costs that they incur for enrollees beyond a predetermined threshold specified by the Director. Such fund shall be funded exclusively by such entities.
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term `CCHBP-eligible individual' means an individual described in section 5.
(2) The term `Director' means the Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
(3) The term `FEHBP' means the program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
(4) The term `qualified CCHBP health plan' means a fee-for-service plan, health maintenance organization plan, high deductible health insurance plan, or other health insurance plan that meets the requirements for a health insurance plan under FEHBP and is offered through the CCHBP under this Act by an entity that is qualified to offer such plans.
SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TREATMENT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.
(a) Effective Date- Benefits shall first be made available under this title for items and services furnished on or after the last day of the 9-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Non-Preemption of Existing Collective Bargaining Agreements- Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preempting any collective bargaining agreement that is in effect as of the date of the enactment of this Act, during the period in which such agreement is in effect (without regard to any extension of such agreement effected as of such date of enactment).

Senator Jeremy Nordquist Wants Your Voice Heard In State Budget Crisis

Kyle Michaelis — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:00:47 GMT

Omaha State Senator Jeremy Nordquist has emerged as one of Nebraska's strongest progressive voices after his first year in the Unicameral. Because of his prior experience as a legislative staffer, Nordquist started well ahead of the curve among his fellow freshman lawmakers despite his being the youngest senator in the entire body. Still, it's been in the months since adjournment that Nordquist has really distinguished himself as a powerful voice for common people all across the state.

Particularly in the debate over health care reform, Nordquist deserves credit for leading the way when few others have been willing to dare. Recognizing the issue as a moral crisis from which our state and our nation can no longer look away, Nordquist has been a bold and dependable voice for change, giving Nebraskans an honest alternative to those defenders of the status quo that otherwise dominate in state government and in our Congressional delegation.

With Nebraska now facing another crisis - an estimated $335.5 million shortfall in the biennial budget - it shouldn't surprise that Nordquist has again distinguished himself by empowering regular people to make themselves heard. Yesterday, Nordquist unveiled a new website - NebraskaBudget.com - that gives every Nebraskan the opportunity to share their ideas and their priorities with Governor Dave Heineman and members of the Appropriations Committee.

This sort of contact directly with our elected officials couldn't be more important as we approach an early November start date for what's likely to be a very painful special session of the Nebraska Legislature. Readers of every political stripe should definitely take advantage of this great resource.

Senator Nordquist has our thanks for keeping the interests of the people so close to his heart. NNN salutes Nordquist's innovative approach to government and the great example he's setting for our state's next generation of progressive leadership.

Nebraska Needs Ben Nelson As A Full Partner In Health Care Reform

Kyle Michaelis — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 05:15:45 GMT

With the Senate Finance Committee advancing its own health care reform package last week, the intense media spotlight that has followed this debate for so many months is now focused - as best it can be - on the mostly behind-the-scenes negotiations over the legislation's direction as it starts making its way to the floors of both houses of Congress.

Without a seat on the relevant committees, Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson has yet to cast a single vote on health care reform. Yet, half a year has gone by with Nelson's every word on the subject making headlines and fueling debate over his true loyalties and motivations. It's all been in anticipation of this moment. While history will ultimately judge Nelson and his Congressional colleagues by all those votes looming just over the horizon, it's the work being done right now that will set expectations and truly set that history into motion.

As has always been expected, Nelson is a key player and a crucial vote. That stands in stark contrast to the rest of Nebraska's Congressional delegation - all lock-step Republicans who've forsaken any pretense of leadership in service to their party's efforts to kill health care reform and to kill the promise of change that carried President Barack Obama into the White House in last year's election.

By comparison, Nelson has been a vision of reasonableness and statesmanship. Of course, that's very faint praise - especially after his demanding a few weeks ago that "health care legislation should be bipartisan and supported by at least 65 senators." That statement actually earned Nelson a featured spot on Newsweek's "Indignity Index" for dubious public behavior. It went beyond raising the bar. In light of the Republican Party's politically calculated approach to this entire issue, it was practically an aspiration to the impossible that could only be stated foolishly, in jest, or with the intent of undermining the reform effort.

Thankfully, the most recent news reports offer hope that a better side of Ben Nelson is shining through in these current negotiations with his Congressional colleagues. The Washington Post reports:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has discussed various provisions with [Sen. Majority Leader Harry] Reid this week, including the public option. He said a mechanism that would create a public option if private insurers do not offer affordable coverage "is not a deal-killer." And Nelson said he is intrigued by an approach advocated by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that would let states opt out of a public plan.
"There's a balance here that has to be created, and the leader, I know, is doing his level best to find that balance," Nelson said.

Nelson declaring a public option trigger "not a deal-killer" shows he's still coming at this debate a long ways off from the many progressives and liberals who find it a plainly insufficient alternative. Of course, President Obama has suggested such a trigger wouldn't be a deal-killer for him either - but that's coming from a wholly different perspective and neither offers any real support for the concept. Nelson's apparent openness to a public plan that would allow states to opt out is far more encouraging - even if it would open the door for our own state and its citizens to miss out on the many benefits such competition would provide.

If nothing else, this article shows that Nelson is working constructively, "doing his level best" to craft a reform package he can vote for that will serve the interests of the people of Nebraska. At this point, that's exactly what Nelson should be doing. There are many on the left who'd just like to see Nelson shut up, oppose any attempts at a filibuster, and vote however he damn well pleases on the final legislation. But, no, the people of Nebraska do deserve to be heard in this debate.

As Nebraska's only representative in Washington D.C. with a shred of credibility or influence, we are counting on Ben Nelson to be our voice. We need him to be a full partner in health care reform, helping to craft this legislation that's so many decades-in-the-making and to finally put it on President Obama's desk before the end of the year.

Mike Johanns Fights Against Nebraska Taxpayers By Objecting To Roads Funding

Kyle Michaelis — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:19:54 GMT

Just 18 months after the Nebraska Legislature voted to raise the gas tax by 1.2 cents per gallon, the state is still facing a serious crisis in its roads funding. Last month, director of the Nebraska Department of Roads, Monty Fredrickson, told the Legislature's Transportation and Telecommunications Committee that, by 2010, the state will only collect enough money for the preservation of existing roads. This leaves only two real options for new projects and highway expansions - look for funding by the federal government or place those costs directly on the backs of Nebraska taxpayers.

Of course, the money comes out of taxpayers' pockets in either event. But, the federal government invests in the nation's infrastructure for very good reasons, and Nebraskans should be able to count on our Congressional representatives to stand up for our interests and fight for our share of that funding. Sadly, rather than representing the people of Nebraska, Sen. Mike Johanns has sold us down the river, single-handedly slamming the door shut on the possibility of $64.8 million in federal roads funding for our state.

The Lincoln Journal-Star reports:

Sen. Mike Johanns singlehandedly stopped $300 million in federal highway funds from moving forward during a U.S. Senate debate in late September. Nebraska would have received $64.8 million for highway and street construction and maintenance from those funds, including more than $4.5 million for Lincoln streets and $11.2 million for Omaha.
But Johanns says that even without his objection, the funding was dead because the House "wasn't going to approve the funding anyway...."This was never going to happen. It wasn't a serious attempt," he said of the Sept. 30 move by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., for unanimous consent to put $300 million in federal highway funding into the budget....
Johanns objected to the inclusion of the $300 million during Senate debate on the issue as a unanimous consent request, meaning a single objection stopped the item from moving forward. Johanns supplied that objection, although he said he was speaking on behalf of Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who wasn't present. Boxer's goal was to replenish the highway trust fund with money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was intended to bail out banks.

To justify his standing in the way of this $64.8 million in federal roads funding for Nebraska, Johanns suggests that he was acting on another Senator's behalf. But, that's complete nonsense. Johanns was elected by the people of Nebraska to represent the people of Nebraska - not to represent Louisiana or cast place-holding votes for his fellow Republicans.

Johanns also claims that this funding never would have gotten through the House. Well, he just made damn sure of that while preventing the people of Nebraska from even having a place at the negotiating table.

This was $64.8 million that would have gone towards our state's infrastructure. 98 Senators had different ideas for how that money should be spent, but they didn't need Mike Johanns to fight their battles for them. The people of Nebraska - who understand the economic importance of a good transportation system - did need Johanns to fight for them, but he turned his back on us completely.

Because of Mike Johanns, our state will lose economic opportunities. And, because of Mike Johanns, we will be paying for multi-million dollar roads projects all by ourselves that were otherwise in line to receive federal funding. Johanns sold us out. It's as simple as that. And, it will be just as simple when Nebraska taxpayers are asked to make up that lost revenue in the next state budget.

Sadly, without even reporting on Johanns' costly move against Nebraska taxpayers, the Omaha World-Herald excused his actions in its Sunday editorial:

[I]t's curious that U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns is being criticized in some circles for blocking a proposal in the Senate to use $300 million in federal "TARP" funds for highway projects around the country. The current highway funding has run out, it's true. But what was TARP - the Troubled Asset Relief Program - set up for? To bail out the big banks and prevent a worsening of the financial meltdown. Using TARP funds for road work may strike some Americans as sound, but it's a dreadful approah to public policy. In fact, it's just such opportunism and budgetary sleight of hand that erode the public's confidence in Congress's abilty to handle the public's money.

Of course, Johanns claims to oppose the use of TARP funding for its original purpose. He's also criticized the federal stimulus package for not doing enough to create jobs and stimulate the economy. But, here Johanns is, in the middle of a recession, standing in the way of that TARP money being pumped directly into stimulating the economy. Because of Johanns, that $64.8 million is going to remain available to all those banks that are "too big to fail" rather than creating jobs and building roads right here in Nebraska.

Worst of all, what the World-Herald and the Johanns staffers who walked them through this editorial fail to mention is that this "dreadful approach to public policy" would have reduced the budget deficit by billions of dollars. As Sen. James Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Public Works Committee, explained from the floor of the U.S. Senate after Johanns' objection killed this funding:

Senator Boxer and I brokered a bipartisan agreement to use the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, as an offset [to prevent adding to the budget deficit].
What this meant is that we would reduce TARP authority by $8.7 billion, which would reduce the deficit by $4.35 billion dollars according to the CBO. Putting aside politics, penciling this out, shows that $4.35 billion in deficit reduction minus the cost of the rescission, $500 million, means a deficit savings of just under $4 billion. I thought this was a good thing. We would preserve up to 17,000 jobs and reduce the deficit.
Clearly a win-win solution....As I just pointed out, the compromise Senator Boxer and I were pushing would have resulted in a net reduction to the deficit of about $4 billion dollars. Even as I say this, I honestly don't understand their opposition.

If Inhofe doesn't understand Johanns' opposition, he should try looking at the situation from a Nebraska voter's perspective. Inhofe was fighting for $18 million and 1,350 jobs in the state of Oklahoma. Meanwhile, Johanns was turning his back on more than three times that funding and probably three times as many jobs for the state of Nebraska. Representation like that is worse than no representation at all.

If we had no infrastructure needs, Johanns' move might have been one of principle. But, Nebraska does have needs for new roads projects and we'll all be paying for them in the next state budget because of Johanns' betrayal.

That should be more than enough to "erode the public's confidence" in Nebraska's Republican Senator - not to mention the Omaha World-Herald for putting defending Johanns from critics ahead of defending the state's best interests.

Republican Bluster Can't Hide Fear Of Tom White's Fundraising Numbers

Kyle Michaelis — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:33:15 GMT

On October 1st, at the close of the third quarter fundraising period in Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District race, the Omaha World-Herald reported:

Democrat Tom White hopes to become Republican U.S. Rep. Lee Terry's first million-dollar challenger. For his part, Terry hopes to duplicate his fundraising efforts of 2008, when he raised a personal record of $1.8 million to keep his seat.....
White said his early fundraising efforts give him reason to believe he'll hit the $1 million mark, although he says he has no intention of matching Terry dollar for dollar.
"I do intend to raise in excess of $1 million," said White. "(But) I don't have to match him. In this district, a million will get the message across."

In this article, White was absolutely right in his approach. And, two weeks later, with campaign fundraising totals now publicly reported to the Federal Election Commission, we see that Tom White is doing everything he needs to do to defeat Lee Terry in the 2010 election.

Their third quarter FEC reports show that White raised $203,986.25, compared to Terry's $226,365.15. It's important to note that, although White had begun fundraising earlier in the summer, he didn't officially declare his candidacy until September 9th. So, White brought more than $200,000 into what was really only a three-week old campaign. With thirteen months to go, White is well on his way to raising a million dollars and has already proven he's every bit the challenger that Lee Terry and the Republican Party feared he would be.

Of course, Republicans have been laughably transparent in their attempts to dismiss White's numbers. Mark Fahleson, State Chair of the Nebraska Republican Party, wrote on Twitter about White's "embarassingly low fundraising", declaring it "all low hanging fruit." Meanwhile, the anonymous hordes at Leavenworth Street fell all over each other trying to spin the numbers for Terry. An incumbent six-term Congressman outraising a challenger by $20,000 is certainly nothing to brag about, so they instead highlight Terry's advantages in total fundraising for the year and cash on hand. But, the debt he carried into this cycle only leaves Terry with $135,000 more in the bank than his opponent - again, nothing to brag about for a six-term incumbent.

In the comments to an earlier post, my friend Lisa Hannah noted an important distinction between where the money is coming from in these most recent reports. Almost 60% of Terry's contributions are from Political Action Committees. At the same time, nearly 75% of White's contributions are coming directly from individual donors. That's a damn good sign for where the actual people who will decide this race are investing their resources and their passion in the early stages of this campaign.

Where White really stands out, though, is in comparison to previous Democratic candidates. No other challenger Terry has faced has even come close to putting up these kind of fundraising numbers - especially this early in the campaign. At this point, when a young Jim Esch was first hitting the campaign trail in 2005, he'd only taken in $53,645.00 - with most of that coming from the candidate himself. In fact, throughout the entire 2006 campaign, Esch raised less than $264,000 that wasn't his own money. White will have topped that easily before his next quarterly report. Meanwhile, at this point in Esch's second challenge to Terry, he was still carrying debt from the previous campaign and wouldn't even start raising money for another four months.

Yes, those were different election years in which Terry was still able to squeak by with narrowing victories. But, White is also a different sort of challenger who's already on the national radar and who's just established himself as the strongest Democratic candidate Lee Terry has ever faced. White's met his first benchmark. His campaign is where it needs to be. And, you can be damn sure Terry is scared as hell about his political future - no matter how hard his Republican cheerleaders might pretend otherwise.

NFP Annual Peace Conference - Saturday, Oct. 24 in Grand Island

Kyle Michaelis — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:19:35 GMT

Since adopting a community format more than two years ago, New Nebraska Network has never achieved its potential in building a stronger and more unified voice for progressives in Nebraska politics.

Maybe this reflects a simple lack of outreach and effort. Maybe this just reflects the inherent limitations in terms of interest and audience for what began and essentially remains a blog about local politics. Then, of course, there's always the possibility that I am the problem. It would be unfortunate but understandable that my oft-challenged credibility as a truly "progressive" voice - or, at least, the perception that NNN is not sufficiently liberal in its approach - would undermine whatever potential the site has for online community-building.

Well, there's not a lot I can do about who I am, what I stand for, and how I write. Also, my own time is limited and will never single-handedly allow NNN to be much more than it is today. The diaries and the event calendar are available to any registered user to help shape the site and move it in the direction they see fit. I'm also always more than happy to welcome suggestions from readers on how to improve NNN at kyle@newnebraska.net.

For now, the one thing I can do is use the little platform afforded to me by readers to promote a great organization - Nebraskans For Peace - and an important event they'll be hosting next Saturday in Grand Island. In years past, NNN has taken issue with some of NFP's positions and particularly their focus (1, 2, 3, 4). But, it's always been with a deep appreciation for the organization's decades of leadership as a voice of conscience in matters of economic and social justice. They will be continuing that legacy at their 2009 Annual Peace Conference.

As you can see from the flyer above, this year's keynote is dedicated to U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world - not exactly where NNN devotes most of its attention. But, the schedule for the event lists a number of other sesssions on topics of immediate relevance that should definitely be of interest to readers. These include: The Hidden Massacre at Whiteclay, What It's Like To Be an Immigrant in America Today, Putting Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency on Nebraska's Legislative Agenda, The Future of the Death Penalty in Nebraska, and Ending Coal's Dominance in Nebraska's Energy Portfolio.

I expect some really great discussions on these issues and am only sorry that I won't be able to participate in each and every one. It's been a few years since I've attended one of NFP's Peace Conferences, but I've just mailed in my registration for this year's and am really looking forward to it. I invite readers to join me. Just click on the flyer above for more information and for details on reserving your place at the event.

Hope to see you in Grand Island next weekend as we come together in support of peace and, dare I say, a new Nebraska!

Mike Johanns Can't Defend Vote Against Anti-Rape Amendment

Brian T. Osborn — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:30:41 GMT

Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns took a deep dive into the cesspool of partisan politics again. It wasn't bad enough that he ran around with his hair on fire about an imaginary nationwide conspiracy by ACORN; now he has joined a pack of Republican supporters of the military industrial complex in an attempt to deep six Sen. Al Franken's amendment which would require all defense contractors to respect the rights of its workers. The case in point being a young woman that was denied the right to sue KBR (Halliburton) for the gang rape she suffered at the hands of her co-workers in Iraq.

Jon Stewart nailed Johanns, and his fellow turners of blind eyes, for their ignominious vote on his Daily Show.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Rape-Nuts

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Ron Paul Interview

Sen. Johanns' office attempted a very lame defense of his indefensible vote on NTV. Here's what they had to say:

The Senator has always been a strong supporter of stricter penalties for violent crimes, including sexual assault, and worked hard to increase services for victims as both Mayor and Governor.
Senator Johanns strongly supports targeted responses to ensure violent crimes overseas are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which this amendment failed to do.
The Franken Amendment doesn't strengthen federal laws to protect Americans from violence. Instead, it bans contractors who have dispute resolution agreements with their employees from doing business with the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, this measure would prohibit a useful and efficient method for workers to have their grievances addressed.
It is incorrect that this amendment would have helped (the victim),* a victim referenced in the amendment. The facts surrounding her case were found to be outside of her employment agreement and the 5th Circuit ruled that (the victim)* will be permitted to have her day in court. Thus, this amendment simply missed the mark.

SORRY SENATOR!

You have officially pegged my BULLSHIT METER!!

Why Are Newspapers Exaggerating Nebraska's Educational Gains?

Kyle Michaelis — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:55:41 GMT

A lot of small town newspapers essentially exist to publicize events and promote their communities. That which would paint the town or its leaders in a bad light is usually self-censored or given a positive spin if it's even reported at all.

While such an approach has its benefits in encouraging harmony and a superficial understanding of town affairs, it's not particularly conducive to good government, an informed populace, or anything close to true accountability. These trade-offs are pretty well understood and accepted at the local level. But, it's a real problem when the largest newspapers in the state adopt a similar approach, especially when reporting on an issue so important as Nebraska's educational performance.

What else could explain the following? The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Gains in math by black students have helped Nebraska shrug off an unflattering national ranking. The math achievement gap between black and white eighth-graders has narrowed since 2007, when it ranked widest among the 50 states, according to national test scores released this morning.
"We closed the gap more significantly than any other state but West Virginia," said Ted Larson, Nebraska's coordinator for the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
The state's math gap for eighth-graders is now fifth-widest behind Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and California. It's moving in the right direction, Larson said. "This is tremendously good news for Nebraska."
White eighth-grade students scored an average of 291 on the 500-point test. Blacks scored 253, and Hispanics 262. The Nebraska average was 284, two points higher than the nation and the same as two years ago.

Of course, I'm overjoyed that Nebraska's embarrassing racial disparity in education appears to have slightly diminished over the last two years. But, there's not a whole lot to celebrate in a report that shows black students performing better but the state's average numbers otherwise staying the same. This means everyone else actually performed worse - which is, by no means, "tremendously good news for Nebraska."

A similar example of this approach was seen in last week's Lincoln Journal-Star. In an article titled "State Report Card Shows Continued Student Improvement", you had to read 2/3rds through the story to find:

In contrast to the state test results, Nebraska students' performance dipped several percentile points on national standardized tests.
In reading, the number of students performing above the national average dipped from 68 percent to 65 percent in elementary, 62 to 60 percent in middle school and 61 to 60 percent in high school.
In math, the number of students performing above the national average dropped from 69 percent to 67 percent in elementary, 64 percent to 61 percent in middle school and 61 to 60 percent in high school.

For some reason, these statistics aren't reported until after State Education Commissioner Roger Breed's declaration that "Nebraska teachers and students are succeeding at raising the achievement levels."

Even if Nebraska students are still firmly "above average," improvement against ourselves is no improvement whatsoever when it means losing ground to the rest of the nation. That may be Roger Breed's idea of "succeeding," but don't be fooled by the headlines. This is better known as failure - even if our newspapers refuse to admit it and fail their readers in the process.

Plenty To Fear At Adrian Smith's Paranoid Panhandle Tea Party

Kyle Michaelis — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:24:24 GMT

On Saturday, September 26th, two-term Republican Congressman Adrian Smith was the featured speaker for the WyoBraska Tea Party at the Five Rocks Amphitheater in Scottsbluff.

Although many have been quick to dismiss events such as this as manufactured dissent being promoted by powerful corporate interests to protect their hold on power, it's clear that Smith takes them very seriously and is even embracing such right-wing fringe groups as his political base. On health care reform and climate change, Smith proved particularly eager to tell this estimated crowd of 200 precisely what they wanted to hear.

The Gering Courier reports:

[3rd District Congressman Adrian] Smith said those [who] oppose major changes in health care are winning the debate right now. He also said there a lot of good things to say about health care in the USA but that's being ignored in a stampede to trash the entire system.
If changes are needed, the free market will take care of them, Smith said, drawing an "amen" from someone in the crowd.
He said he opposes capping health care costs and controlling salaries. "I get really nervous when the government says some people make too much money," he said.
At the same time, Smith said he was opposed to the "obscene" salaries some health care CEOs and officials are paid. But he said it's not time for sweeping reform, especially since the American people are not in favor of it. He said if health care reforms that are being discussed are adopted, only one thing will occur: health care will be rationed.....

I generally respect the tradition of sensible conservatism that has dominated in central and Western Nebraska. There's also such a thing as a healthy distrust of too much government. But, here, Smith is just shamelessly pandering to anti-government fears. And, guess what, it only got worse:

Smith said he wasn't convinced global warming was a reality....Smith said while the terms have shifted from global warming to climate change, he now hears talk about "ocean acidification" as some people seem determined to find a way to limit industry and human consumption.
"There's a pattern you see developing," Smith said. He said he didn't want to sound paranoid about conspiracies, but [a few people] shouted out that he needed to be paranoid now.

It's worth noting that Adrian Smith is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives' Science and Technology Committee. In fact, he's the ranking Republican on its Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation. Two years ago, he took a trip to Antarctica paid for by American taxpayers to speak with experts about global warming. After that trip, Smith admitted, "Our climate is changing. The question now needs to be what is the human impact and what we can do to lessen that impact."

Smith's remarkable shift in tone when talking to this Tea Party - suddenly promoting global warming conspiracy theories - reveals just how depraved the modern Republican Party has become, jeopardizing the future of our planet for cheap political advantage.

I do appreciate that, for one brief shining moment, common sense made an appearance at this Tea Party:

One man, who said he was a Republican, asked if the party had a solution for the health care problems in the country. "I don't see any way it can survive out of its current funding system," he said.
The crowd grew quiet at his comments and Smith didn't offer a detailed answer....

Sadly, this revealing moment - putting the spotlight on Adrian Smith and the Republican Party's lack of solutions and failures of leadership - failed to overcome something darker and more sinister about the Tea Party movement that receives far too little attention:

[President] Obama, one Tea Party attendee said, was "going too fast" and needed to slow down and consider his options. "We need to stop him," a woman cried out.....
An AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, the same rifle that a man carried to an Obama rally in Minnesota last month, was auctioned off and scores of tickets were sold, raising about $2,300...

There is nothing coincidental in cries of "We need to stop him" while a semiautomatic rifle is being raffled as a fundraiser - especially when that rifle's notorious appearance at an Obama rally is being celebrated by the crowd. There is something very ugly at work here - which Adrian Smith and the Republican Party have been only too happy to feed at every opportunity.

Do they fail to grasp the consequences of what it is they're encouraging? Or, do they simply fail to care? What sort of tragedy must we suffer as a nation before they'll break from this dangerous and destructive course and plead with other to do the same?