Northeast MICHIGAN Progressive DEMOCRAT

BLUEPRINT: A Michigan That Works for Everyone

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 13:57:00 +0000

BLUEPRINT: A Michigan That Works for Everyone

Download the Jobs Plan [PDF]

HERE IN MICHIGAN, we had our own unique version of the American Dream. This Michigan Dream was built on a set of shared values: the belief that a quality education and economic opportunity were available to anyone willing to work for it, pride in making our communities a great place to raise our families, and the opportunity for each of us to escape to and enjoy our beautiful lakes, rivers, forests and parks. We put the world on wheels. We built the finest public education system and public college and university system in the world. We invented the 40- hour work week and built the middle class. We lived in a Michigan that worked for everyone.

In Michigan, our own history has shown that the best way to create jobs and grow the economy is from the bottom up and the middle out, not from the top down. A strong economy is built on a strong middle class that has the economic security to afford a safe home, reliable car, a kids’ college fund and an occasional family vacation.

Unfortunately, after nearly four years on the job, Republican Governor Rick Snyder has shown that he puts big corporations and the wealthy ahead of regular people. At the same time, he has put the Michigan Dream at risk, dismantling our public education system, making college unaffordable for many, cutting money for vital services like police and fire departments that keep our communities safe, and removing key protections for our Great Lakes and our other natural assets.

Snyder cut over $1 billion from education, raising class sizes, hurting school quality and making it harder for our children to compete for the jobs of the future. And Snyder’s unfair tax on retirement income and property tax hike on seniors are hurting retirees who have worked hard and played by the rules.

A nerd should know that’s no way to build a strong economy.

Snyder’s policies work for the wealthy, but they’re not working for the rest of Michigan. We’re 49th in projected job growth and ranked among the five worst state economies in the nation. Job growth and personal income growth are well below the national averages. We are better than that here in Michigan.

I grew up in a middle class family in Livingston County. My dad was a high school science teacher and my mom was a nurse. I saw the difference they made. They showed me that the key to a good job is a good education, and that if you worked hard and played by the rules, you could live the Michigan Dream.

To move Michigan forward, we need to build an economy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy. That’s what this plan is all about – creating good jobs, helping our kids compete for high-wage, high- skill jobs, helping Michigan businesses compete and building ladders to the middle class.

It’s time to get our priorities straight. We need to reverse Rick Snyder’s $1 billion cuts to education and make education our top economic priority. We should give companies tax incentives to come to Michigan, but hold them accountable for creating jobs here. If they send jobs overseas or don’t create jobs in Michigan, they should lose their tax breaks. We must fix our roads and our communities. And we should invest in high-tech research to attract new jobs to Michigan. It is time for us to rebuild the Michigan Dream, to create a new era of economic opportunity for all of our citizens.

This is the blueprint I’ll use to lead as Michigan’s next Governor, and I want to hear your ideas and feedback so we can improve this plan along the way. I want to hear from moms, dads, students, workers, small business owners, community leaders and seniors so we can hit the ground running on Day One.

Let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work.

-Mark Schauer

EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW:

Invest in Education to Compete for Good Jobs — Education is the best investment we can make for Michigan’s future. To prepare Michiganders for 21st century jobs, we must reverse Governor Snyder’s cuts to our K-12 classrooms and universities. We must also ensure all children have access to quality teachers and smaller class sizes. Additionally, we should make college more affordable by increasing need-based financial aid, and we should invest in community colleges and technical and skilled trades training programs to help students get the skills they need to compete for good jobs. READ MORE

Grow the Economy from the Middle Out — To promote economic fairness and create ladders to the middle class, we must work to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, not from the top down. We should cut taxes for the middle class by restoring the Child Tax Credit, increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, restoring the Homestead Property Tax Credit for seniors and eliminating the Snyder Retirement Tax. To ensure big corporations start paying their fair share, we must end tax breaks for companies that outsource Michigan jobs. READ MORE

Help Small Businesses & Manufacturers Create High-Tech Jobs — Michigan needs to build on its strengths by investing in automotive research and advanced manufacturing. Our automotive industry has provided a legacy of outstanding R&D laboratories, superb engineering prowess and leadership in materials science. These areas of expertise translate well to the design, manufacturing and production of advanced technologies and the creation of high-tech jobs. We need to leverage our strengths to spur growth and capture new opportunities for Michigan businesses and a promising future for the next generation of Michigan workers. To promote a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation, the state should eliminate arcane barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and provide small businesses with tax credits to create good middle class jobs. Additionally, we should expand access to start- up capital and small business lending to spark the next generation of workers, innovators and job creators right here in Michigan. READ MORE

Build Vibrant, Healthy Communities — Michigan needs vibrant, healthy, dynamic and livable communities to attract and retain young people and the talented workers needed to contribute to a new, stronger economic future. The state should prioritize public safety in our communities and leverage all available resources to remove blighted properties, and build quality infrastructure and modern transportation systems. We must create job opportunities through a “Learn and Earn” program to train young workers so they can get the skills they need to compete for good paying jobs. READ MORE

Fix Michigan’s Infrastructure — Michigan’s crumbling roads are an embarrassment and cost motorists $2.5 billion a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs. To fix our roads, we should: fight to get more of our tax dollars back from Washington and end our status as a donor state; audit state government and cut wasteful spending on poor oversight of contractors; develop a bipartisan solution that requires corporations that received a $1.8 billion tax break to pay their fair share without unfairly burdening the middle class and those struggling to reach the middle class. READ MORE

Protect Our Environment – The Essence of Pure Michigan — As the Great Lakes State, Michigan’s economic strength, our tourism industry and our citizens’ health rely on clean water. The state must get tough on polluters like Enbridge and require it to replace its aging pipelines like Line 5 under the Straits of Mackinac, to ensure pipeline safety and prevent future oil spills. Moreover, we must work to protect our Great Lakes shoreline and dunes, and prevent invasive species such as Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes, which would have a devastating impact on our economy. READ MORE

Securing Michigan’s Energy Future — Instead of spending $24 billion each year to import our energy from other states and countries, we must keep more of our energy dollars in Michigan. It’s time to set an aggressive, achievable goal for clean energy by raising Michigan’s Renewable Energy Standard to require 30 percent of the state’s electricity to come from clean, renewable sources like wind and solar by 2035. This will create thousands of good manufacturing and construction jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We must also improve Michigan’s Energy Efficiency Standard from one percent to two percent a year to reduce energy costs for homeowners and businesses. READ MORE

Focus on the Right Budget Priorities — A budget is a reflection of our priorities as a state. To fuel economic growth, our top budget priorities should be jobs, K-12 education, preschool, higher education and job training. We must make government more efficient and more effective by banning special deals for elected officials’ family and friends, capping pay raises for administration officials, and ending contracts with incompetent firms that deliver substandard services in Michigan prisons and the Grand Rapids Home for Veterans. The state should cut taxpayer spending on office furniture and cut gubernatorial political appointees. Additionally, the state should adopt tougher “Buy Michigan First” policies to ensure our tax dollars support Michigan businesses and Michigan jobs. READ MORE

Improve Government Transparency and Accountability — To restore faith in state government, we should require political funds to publicly disclose all contributors on a quarterly basis; require personal financial disclosure for elected officials and top appointees; ban lobbyist gifts to public officials; and close the revolving door between the legislature and the lobby corps. To ensure voters’ voices are heard in Lansing, we must ban partisan gerrymandering by establishing a nonpartisan redistricting commission to draw fair and truly representative legislative districts. Additionally, we must strengthen voting rights by allowing no-reason absentee voting, and expanding early voting. READ MORE

Make Michigan’s Economy Work for Women & Families — It’s time to make Michigan’s economy work for women and families. We should cut taxes for parents raising kids by restoring the Child Tax Credit. Michigan must ensure women earn equal pay for equal work by strengthening equal pay laws and creating stiffer penalties for wage discrimination based on gender. The state should expand paid sick leave, establish job protections for pregnancy-related disability, and protect women’s access to health care by repealing the so- called “rape insurance” law. READ MORE

ADDITIONAL ISSUES:

Protect Michigan’s Wildlife: As Governor, Mark will support common-sense policies to protect animals from cruelty and abuse, such as allowing the inclusion of pets in protective orders to better protect victims of domestic violence; prohibiting bans on specific dog breeds; and restricting the continuous outdoor chaining of dogs. Mark also supports legislation to end the use of gas chambers to euthanize shelter pets; to provide standards of animal care at large-scale commercial puppy mills; and to increase penalties for cruelty to companion animals. Snyder also signed legislation to end-run Michigan voters and undermine a citizen referendum on whether wolves should be classified as a game species. Regardless of where people stand on wolf hunting, Mark believes that all voters have a right to have a say on the issue, and lawmakers should not undermine a fair election by the people. As Governor, Mark will appoint members of the Natural Resources Commission who are experts on wildlife management and represent the diverse interests and values of all Michiganders.

One Lying Nerd: Proof That Snyder Cut School Funding

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:17:00 +0000

Up North Progressive

One Lying Nerd: Proof That Snyder Cut School Funding

Thursday , 12, June 2014 upnorthprogressive@gmail.com Nerd Problems, Section 16 Leave a comment

The Senate Fiscal Agency released their report on school funding in Michigan. The proof that the Governor is lying about cutting money for schools is in black and white. Nearly every public school in Michigan had significant cuts in their per-pupil tuition in 2011, and the current spending levels per student this year are still lower than they were in 2006.

In his $400,000 Superbowl ad Rick Snyder claims he increased spending on education. If that’s true, then how did the Senate Fiscal Agency not show that in their report? Because Snyder’s lying, that’s why. Shuffling money around into different funds (For example, teacher pensions) to make it appear there was more money for education doesn’t mean there was an increase in public school funding. It means the governor tried to hide his tracks. Smart people didn’t fall for it then, and now there is evidence to back up what has been a fact since 2011 when Snyder took office. There’s less money for schools with no plans to try and bring funding to a level that would match the rate of inflation.

School districts all over Northern Michigan showed the same numbers for per-student funding. The high point came in 2010-2011, the last school year Jennifer Granholm was governor. The amount for that school year was $7,316. After 2011, the amount per student dropped to $6,846. By 2013, the amount spent per student was at 7,026. That may seem like an increase, but in fact it is still a serious cut from previous years’ levels. The report is broken down by county with amounts for every school district, including charter schools and the EAA. Kalkaska, Forest Park, Hale, Calumet, Traverse City, Cadillac, every school in Northern Michigan faced deep cuts which resulted in lost money to run districts. Schools have cut staff, closed school buildings, and in the case of Mecosta-Osceola County ISD, eliminated vital special education services due to lack of funds. All part of Snyder’s “shared sacrifice” to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Educating children is an investment with a very important payoff. After graduation new graduates will consider the option of joining the work force or going to college. We educate our children so they can find work, have a career and contribute to the economy and their community. Rick Snyder doesn’t understand that, he only sees Michigan’s children as a drain on state funds that could be given to his rich friends and corporations. In 2010 Snyder promised to make Michigan a leader in transparency and Ethics. He has done neither. He fudged numbers and lied about cutting school funding, and our school children are suffering for his lies.

One Lying Nerd, do you smell smoke?

MI-Sen: Terri Lynn Land (R), "Unlimited Dark Campaign Money Is The American Way"

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:02:00 +0000

Daily Kos

Well, at least she said something honest:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

While Peters is disappointed in the recent Supreme Court rulings lifting the spending for organizations and businesses, Land says they protect free speech.
Land mentioned her time working on the re-election campaign for President Gerald R. Ford.

"Back then there were all sorts of different ways they communicated messages, different groups did," Land said in an interview with MLive. "And I think that’s the American way, that’s what's great about our country, is everyone gets to have a voice and they can talk about the issues that are important to them. As candidates we need to talk about the issues that are important to the voters and that’s what we are doing."

Land is the beneficiary of at least $4.6 million from outside spending from groups that do not disclose their donors, according to the Michigan Campaign Finance Network. And the vast majority of that money comes from Americans for Porsperity, which has spent $3.6 million on Land's behalf. - Huffington Post, 6/9/14

With Land getting a lot of money from the Kochs, it really shouldn't surprising that she would be all about unlimited campaign cash. However, being that she's getting a lot of money from big time polluters like the Kochs who's Koch Carbon is polluting Detroit's air, it's hard for me to take her seriously on this issue:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Speaking out against the Environmental Protection Agency's new rules curbing carbon emissions from power plants, Land said she believes in "protecting [Michigan] from climate change," but not at the cost of jobs:

Her tweets come after a spokesperson for Land told the Washington Post's Greg Sargent in May that while "there should be a healthy and educated debate on the impact of human activity on our environment," Land herself "does not agree with radical liberals like Tom Steyer and Congressman [Gary] Peters on the extent of the effect of human behavior on our climate."
Steyer's super PAC NextGen Climate, is targeting Land and seven other GOP candidates in their election bids this year. - Huffington Post, 6/4/14

Peters has a more legit response on this issue:

http://www.detroitnews.com/...

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Gary Peters offered conditional support Wednesday for President Barack Obama’s new plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions, two days after his GOP opponent called the proposal a job-killer for Michigan.
Peters, a third-term member of Congress from Bloomfield Township, said he supports setting new standards to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants but is concerned the draft Environmental Protection Agency rule released Monday “imposes a more stringent standard on Michigan than surrounding Midwestern states.”

“We must take action to address climate change,” Peters said in statement, “but we must do so in a way that works for Michigan families, manufacturers, and our emerging clean energy sector.”

The Obama administration Monday released its proposal to reduce carbon emissions 30 percent nationwide from 2005 levels. To get there by 2030, the plan gives states targets to meet and flexibility on the mix of ways to reach the goal, such as reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants and increasing renewable fuel.

Peters, who has campaigned on addressing climate change and has the support of California billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, said he intends to work with stakeholders on improving the rule for Michigan. - The Detroit News, 6/4/14

One thing's for sure, climate change is becoming a big issue in this race:

http://grist.org/...

“Michigan is on the front lines of climate change with our Great Lakes and economic system,” Peters told Greg Sargent of the Washington Post. “The Great Lakes are incredibly important for Michigan. This is something elected officials should be talking about — we have to be concerned about it.”
What has brought this concern about? Trouble, mostly. The rupture of Enbridge Line No. 6 into the Kalamazoo River, also known as the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history, provided an involuntary civic education in contemporary crude extraction and transportation. So has the three-story high pile of petroleum coke that the Koch brothers left on the shores of the Detroit River (it’s since disappeared), and this year’s refinery spill on the other side of Lake Michigan.

Given how much pre-existing pipeline infrastructure runs along the Great Lakes, Michigan is at high risk of being a site for future oil spills, while the lakes themselves are beginning to show signs of being affected by climate change.

But this concern also looks like some good-old-fashioned political maneuvering. Peters, who has served three terms in the House of Representatives, was thought to be a shoo-in for this election. Then, back in January, attack ads against Peters began to air – about $1 million worth. The ads were funded by Americans for Prosperity, one of the political nonprofits controlled by the Koch brothers. Was Michigan now one of the battlegrounds chosen by Republican donors intent on gaining a majority in the Senate? Sure looked that way. Meanwhile, Washington pundits noted that Terri Lynn Land had already raised more money for her campaign than Peters and declared that she now had the edge in the race.

But if the Koch brothers are boosting Land’s campaign, they’re also the guys behind that three-story high pile of petroleum coke, and a whole lot of bad climate change policy, including pressuring senators and representatives to sign a pledge not to spend any money to fight climate change without an equivalent amount of tax cuts. - Grist, 6/6/14

And while there's a lot at stake in this race, at least the ads are starting to become more entertaining:

http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/...

And in the latest jab, the Democrats have released a 2 minute, 21 second Seinfeld parody video mocking Republican Senate candidate Terri Lynn Land.

The video begins with the theme music from the Seinfeld show and someone pretending to be Terri Lynn Land meeting two guys pretending to be the Koch brothers at a diner. The Koch brothers have been bankrolling anti-Gary Peterson commercials.

"What is the theme of your campaign? What is it about?" asks one of the Koch brothers.

A bubbly Land bursts out: "It's about nothing! Forget the theme, it's about nothing."

She repeated uses the word nothing.

The video is a takeoff of an episode in which Jerry Seinfeld and George Costanza pitch a show to NBC and George keeps saying the show is about "nothing." - Deadline Detroit, 6/5/14

Funny. But all joking aside, the Kochs want this seat and they will spend big to get it. Please do click here to donate and get involved with Peters' campaign:

http://www.petersformichigan.com/...

ORIGINALLY POSTED TO PDC ON MON JUN 09, 2014 AT 07:26 PM PDT.

ALSO REPUBLISHED BY CLIMATE HAWKS, CLIMATE CHANGE SOS, THE DEMOCRATIC WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, MOTOR CITY KOSSACKS, AND MICHIGAN, MY MICHIGAN.

The Five Worst Education Governors: Guess Who’s Number One?

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:26:00 +0000

@edvotes Rate The Five Worst Education Governors: Guess Who’s Number One?

Monday , 9, June 2014 upnorthprogressive@gmail.com Nerd Problems Leave a comment

When it comes to Republican governors only caring about corporate interests and the people who write the biggest checks to get what they want, there are plenty who are more than happy to sell themselves to the highest bidder. Many Republican Governors have gutted essential safety net programs in their states while giving corporations and the rich big tax cuts. Education Votes took a look at the Republicans holding the office of governor and their education record. Of the five most terrible Republican governors who have really made gutting public education in their states a priority, no one does it better than Michigan Governor Rick Snyder; which is why he was chosen as the number one worst in the nation.

What did Snyder do to win the award for worst of the worst? After all, he beat Rick Scott of Florida, Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback and even Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Or very own Nerd in Chief cut over one billion dollars from the state education budget and then tried to shuffle some numbers around between K-12 education and higher ed to make it look like he put more money in. He really didn’t. Robbing kids of funding for a good education wasn’t enough, so next he raised taxes on poor people and old people so they could share in the suffering with Michigan’s school children. All of this, which he called ‘shared sacrifice’, so he could write bigger corporate welfare checks to large corporations and the wealthy in Michigan. What did they do with that money? Anyone from Michigan can tell you they didn’t use it to create more jobs.

Congratulations to Michigan’s One Horrible Nerd, Rick Snyder.

You’re number one … for being the worst governor in the United States when it comes to education.

Dem Gary Peters Puts Terri Lynn Land On The Defensive Over Bailout Opposition

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Wed, 05 Mar 2014 04:33:00 +0000

CBS Detroit

Local

Dem Gary Peters Puts Terri Lynn Land On The Defensive Over Bailout Opposition

March 3, 2014 4:40 PM

Terri Lynn Land

Get Breaking News First

Receive News, Politics, and Entertainment Headlines Each Morning.

DAVID EGGERT, Associated Press

LANSING (AP) — Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Gary Peters sought to put his Republican opponent, Terri Land, on the defensive Monday by highlighting her 2012 opposition to the federal auto bailout, which is credited with saving the industry and is popular with Michigan voters.

The third-term congressman and other Democrats drew attention to statements Land made at a Republican National Convention event two years ago in which she backed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s anti-bailout position. Asked about Romney and the bailout, she said “I’m with him on that” and noted that Ford survived without the rescue package that went to General Motors and Chrysler.

“Michiganders deserve to know the truth — that when the rest of the country and plenty of politicians wanted to turn their back on us and let our auto industry and our middle class fail, Ms. Terri Lynn Land sided with them instead of standing up for us,” Peters said in a news release. He also played up Land’s opposition to the bailout at a campaign event with the United Auto Workers in Sterling Heights on Monday.

After writing a 2008 newspaper column with the fateful “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” headline, Romney, who supported a “managed bankruptcy,” struggled to gain a footing in the industrial Midwest where auto manufacturing is crucial. In Michigan, which has more auto industry-related jobs than any other state, Democrats are hoping Land pays a similar price in the tight race to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Carl Levin — a contest that will factor into which party controls the Senate.

The comments by Land, a former Michigan secretary of state, flew under the radar until now.

Land spokeswoman Heather Swift said Monday that she knows how important the auto industry is to Michigan.

“Terri has always believed that something needed to be done to address the auto crisis, but was not convinced on the specific plan that was proposed,” Swift said. “Thanks to the resiliency of the American worker and a stronger global economy, our autos are back.”

In her 2012 comments, Land said Ford’s executive chairman, Bill Ford, “got a loan … so people know that could have been done,” adding that GM was known as “Government Motors.” President Barack Obama and others have said Romney’s approach would never have worked because no private capital was available to keep GM and Chrysler afloat.

Michigan Rep. Sander Levin said Land’s comment should disqualify her as a candidate and added that Ford got a loan before the financial crisis.
“This was a matter, a moment, of supreme importance for this state,” he said. “She said this a few years after the survival of the state in terms of its economy.”
Five years have passed since the bailout was authorized under both the Bush and Obama administrations during the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009. But Levin said voters’ memories won’t fade about a “basic economic issue” that saved jobs.

Republicans and the conservative group Americans for Prosperity have relentlessly blamed Peters for his support of the federal health care law, which resulted in the cancellation of policies for people whose plans didn’t meet the law’s standards. Peters decided to more actively confront Land himself and hinted he’ll do it again on other issues soon.

According to a survey of 600 likely Michigan voters conducted Feb. 5-11 by EPIC-MRA, 41 percent of respondents supported Land, 38 percent backed Peters and 21 percent were undecided. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

In an exit poll conducted for The Associated Press and television networks in 2012, about three in five Michigan voters approved of the Obama administration’s aid to the U.S. auto industry, and they overwhelmingly backed the president.

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

No Cuts to Snap: Food Stamp Program Restored

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 23:34:00 +0000

Thank you for sharing your concerns about provisions affecting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps) in the 2014 Farm Bill. I hope this letter will clear up any questions you might have.

I care deeply about protecting nutrition assistance programs, and I am very proud that the final version of the Farm Bill ensures that no one will be removed from SNAP and that all families will get 100 percent of the assistance they are intended to receive under the current program. In fact, the 2014 Farm Bill saves the program from the devastating $133 billion in cuts in the budget passed by the House of Representatives and the $40 billion in cuts passed in the House Farm Bill.

During our negotiations on a final bill, every time House members offered amendments to gut food assistance or kick families off of SNAP, I led the charge and beat them back. I know that for struggling families, food assistance is a lifeline. Nearly half of those who receive these benefits are children!

And that ' s why it ' s so important to me that we defend the integrity of the system. In order to protect benefits for 46 million families, our Farm Bill tackles fraud and misuse to make sure every dollar goes to families who truly need it.

For example, you may have heard about lottery winners in Michigan who stayed on food assistance after collecting substantial cash prizes. Obviously the program was not intended to provide benefits to someone with a million dollars in the bank.

Sometimes states also misuse the program. SNAP benefits are based on a family ' s income and expenses. A handful of states have been providing $1 or less per year in home heating assistance to people who may not even have a heating bill, so that they can qualify for a standard utility deduction and additional food assistance above and beyond the benefits they are intended to receive.

While I understand the desire to provide additional food help, by misusing the SNAP connection to the heating assistance program these states are undermining the SNAP benefits as a whole and jeopardizing heating assistance for people who have the greatest need. This only gives ammunition to those who oppose the food assistance program entirely. In fact, The Washington Post wrote that this loophole "... looks like a political gift to SNAP's perennial opponents. "

The reality is we stopped tens of billions in cuts and, instead, achieved $8 billion in savings by eliminating fraud and misuse without changing any standard benefits or eligibility for anyone on food assistance. In this challenging economy, we should be increasing food help not cutting it!

I'm proud we were able to pass a bipartisan Farm Bill that substantially cuts big farm subsidies for the first time in decades, makes conservation programs more effective, strengthens access to healthy local foods, and confronts misuse in food assistance programs while protecting critical food assistance for families in need.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please don't hesitate to do so again if my office can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator

Bill Schuette Is From The Government. And He’s Not Here To Help

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 20:41:00 +0000

Bill Schuette Is From The Government. And He’s Not Here To Help

This post was written by AG for US

Who is Bill Schuette?

He’s the 53^rd attorney general of Michigan, elected during the Republican wave of 2010. With a warm smile and looks that would make him a natural for the role of “Politician #1” in any movie, Bill Schuette might be mistaken for being a harmless, mild-mannered bureaucrat.

Don’t be fooled.

The attorney general is supposed to be the lawyer for all 10 million citizens of Michigan. But Bill Schuette doesn’t see things that way. He’s a lifelong Republican born into the Dow Chemical fortune.

The AG makes $112,000 a year, but his 2012 income was padded by $518,000 from investments. And Schuette, who’s only 59, has $38,000 in pension income. Being a career politician pays off. The average Detroit city retiree has a $20,000 annual pension, and probably will lose it with Detroit’s bankruptcy.

Schuette was elected by cozying up to the far-right Tea Party, which has just shut down the federal government and delayed the Medicaid expansion in Michigan so 470,000 people can get health care coverage. Gov. Rick Snyder is a Republican, but his administration admits the delay is costing the state $630 million. But Schuette still opposes the Medicaid expansion, even though Michigan taxpayers are losing more than a half-billion dollars.

Bill Schuette has been the most partisan attorney general in the history of Michigan. Here’s how:

Schuette wants to know what you’re doing in the bedroom. The AG has decided that the state has an interest in “regulating sexual relationships,” which sounds like something out of a bad sci-fi show. Schuette made that intrusive argument in a brief he filed in September defending Michigan’s ban on gay marriage.
Schuette continued futile lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), wasting thousands of taxpayer dollars. In June 2012, the conservative U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law.
Schuette has joined the War on Women. Even after Obamacare was upheld, he signed on to another lawsuit to fight part of the law that requires employers to cover certain preventative health care services for women. Even though 90% of Americans support contraception, Schuette wants to block women’s choices.
Schuette has been a one-man wrecking crew against Michigan’s medical marijuana act, which passed in 2008 with the support of 63% of voters. Schuette led the campaign against the MMA to jump start his AG bid, even though he admitted to using marijuana himself. He’s since used the power of his office once to shut down dispensaries and go after patients and caregivers.
Schuette has used taxpayer dollars to stop workers from organizing at the University of Michigan. Even though only 300 of 2,000 graduate research assistants didn’t want to be in a union, Schuette didn’t believe in majority rule – the basic principle of democracy. As AG, he successfully fought to keep the grad assistants from forming a union.

And that’s just for starters.
Bill Schuette is running for re-election next year, even though he doesn’t do his job very well. But don’t expect him to stop there. It’s no secret that he wants to be governor. Many Republicans expect him to run for president.
Those of us in Michigan know who Bill Schuette really is. It’s up to us to spread the word.

Beware of false prophets

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 20:27:00 +0000

Beware of false prophets

No corporate money. Defend working families and power progress in Michigan

After getting trounced at the polls in 2013, Republicans commissioned an autopsy report to figure out why and recommend strategies that could help lead them out of the political wilderness. As you’d expect, the report recommended expanding the Republican Party’s tent by “softening” their stance on immigration reform and supporting LGBT rights.

Almost a year later and the Republican Party’s tent isn’t any bigger – and it’s not for lack of opportunities. Last year, Dave Agema – one of Michigan’s two Republican National Committeemen – made headlines when he claimed LGBT individuals lead a “filthy” lifestyle and account for more than half the murders in large cities.

While the public outcry was swift, Gov. Snyder and Michigan Republicans refused to call for Dave Agema’s resignation, insisting his views didn’t represent the Republican Party. A few weeks later, Dave Agema’s amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman was overwhelmingly approved by the Republican National Committee, thereby making it party policy. Just this week, Dave Agema praised Russia’s anti-LGBT propaganda law, calling it “common sense.”

And if defining marriage as between one man and one woman isn’t clear enough, former State Rep. Jack Hoogendyk lambasted the unfair persecution of Dave Agema, calling him “a prophet.”

A prophet? You’d think conservatives who justify their bigoted opposition to marriage equality by citing the Bible would be more well versed in the Good Book, but these are the same folks who think Jesus would support cutting food-stamps.

If Republicans want to emerge from the political wilderness anytime soon, then they’d better remove folks like Dave Agema from leadership positions. But don’t take our word for it, the Book of Matthew (King James Version) verse 7:15-20 says it best:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Dave Camp's (R-Mich.) Rise to Power

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:26:00 +0000

Washington Post

Politics

Dave Camp (R-Mich.)

U.S. Representative (since January 1991)

Why He Matters

In nearly two decades in the House, Camp has quietly but steadily risen in the GOP ranks. In December 2008, he beat back a spirited campaign by Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.) to become the ranking Republican on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. In the GOP-led 112th Congress, Camp was appointed as chairman.

As the panel's senior GOP lawmaker, Camp played a prominent role in the 2010 health-care debate, sponsoring the lead Republican alternative. Though he built a conservative record in Congress, he occupied what Congressional Quarterly termed a "one-man Republican faction" as the only member of both the conservative Republican Steering Committee and the moderate Main Street Partnership.

Camp was first elected to his seat in central Michigan in 1990. He is known for keeping a close connection to his constituents and boasts of personally signing more than 30,000 pieces of constituent mail each year.

Camp ranked as a rising star in the Republican Party early in his tenure and was influential in drafting the welfare reform bill that President Bill Clinton eventually signed in 1996.

In Their Own Words

"A government plan would eliminate the current coverage for 120 million Americans who get it from their employers,” Camp said of a potential government-provided health-care plan. “I am sure most Americans get their health care this way, and taking that away from you is unacceptable."

Career History: Michigan representative(1988-1990); Aide to Rep. Bill Schuette (R-Mich.) (1984-1987); Michigan Assistant state attorney general (1980-1984)
Birthday: July 9, 1953
Hometown: Midland, Mich.
Alma Mater: Albion College, B.A. 1975; University of San Diego, J.D. 1978
Spouse: Nancy Camp
Religion: Catholic

Committees: Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee (since January 2011)
DC Office: 137 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515(202) 225-3561
District Office: Midland, 989-631-2552; Traverse City, 231-929-4711
Email
Website

Born in 1953, Camp grew up in Midland, a central Michigan industrial town where he and his wife and three children still reside. He attended local schools before graduating from Michigan's Albion College in 1975.

After earning his law degree from the University of San Diego in 1978, Camp returned to Michigan to practice law and later served as a special assistant to the Michigan attorney general during the early 1980s. He became active in local Republican politics and managed the winning congressional campaign of his boyhood friend Bill Schuette in 1984. Camp then worked as an aide to Schuette for four years before beginning his own electoral career with a successful run for a seat in the Michigan House in 1988.

Though he has kept one foot in the moderate bloc through his participation in the Main Street Partnership, Camp has generally voted as a conservative and along party lines in the House. He sided with Republicans 93.7 percent of the time during the 111th Congress.

The American Conservative Union gives him a lifetime rating of 89 percent,though his score with the Club for Growth is considerably lower.

"I'm a conservative on fiscal policy, but I'm a moderate on some other issues," he told Congressional Quarterly in 2006, though he told National Review the following year that he feels "more at home" with the conservative Republican Steering Committee.

Camp opposes abortion rights and same-sex marriage. He voted twice for President George W. Bush's tax cuts, and he supports their full extension. He has pushed for private accounts for Social Security and supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

On foreign policy, Camp supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he backed - with some reservations - President Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq in earlier 2007.

The Economy

Camp supported the $700 billion Wall Street bailout in the fall of 2008, a position that drew criticism from Andy Concannon, his Democratic opponent for reelection. "This is not something that anyone really wanted to do, but it was something that had to be done because the risk of (doing) nothing was far too great," Camp said in defending his vote. "This is a stop-gap measure. It is not going to fix all our economic problems."

Camp's post as ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee earned him a spot on the House-Senate conference committee that reconciled the $787 billion economic stimulus bill in February 2009. But the invitation to the negotiating table didn't change his opposition to the package. Camp said the legislation contained "far too much spending, and the tax relief is the not right kind of tax relief to create jobs."

He also complained that Republicans were "frozen out" of the process by the Congressional Democratic leadership. He helped draft a GOP alternative stimulus package that focused heavily on tax cuts and aid to small businesses, homeowners, and the unemployed.

While Camp has praised President Obama for reaching out to Republicans, he broadly criticized his 2010 budget for excessive spending and taxation. Its spending and borrowing, he said, would make the current generation of Americans the first to fail to improve the nation's prosperity.

Health Care

Camp played a leading Republican role in the debate over a health-care overhaul at the center of President Obama's domestic agenda.

In November 2009, Camp introduced the chief Republican alternative to the Democrats' bill called the "Common Sense Health Care Reform and Accountability Act," which Republicans said would lower costs by allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, permit small businesses access to combine and form pools; and prevent insurance companies from denying insurance to those with preexisting conditions.

The chief obstacle to a consensus, Camp suggested, was the push by many Democrats for the creation of a public-health plan to compete with private insurers.

"A government plan would eliminate the current coverage for 120 million Americans who get it from their employers," the congressman said in a statement prior to a Ways and Means Committee hearing on health care in April. "I am sure most Americans get their health care this way, and taking that away from you is unacceptable."

The public plan option, he has said, is a "bright line" dividing Democrats and Republicans who are open to reform.

Camp strongly opposed the ultimate legislation, enacted in March 2010, arguing that it implemented a variety of new tax increases and didn't comply with "pay-as-you-go" budget rules.

Over the years Camp has spoken out on other areas of the health-care debate. In 2003, he championed a provision in the Medicare prescription-drug bill that would protect nurse training programs, warning that to scrap the initiative would exacerbate a nationwide nursing shortage. He also pushed legislation expanding coverage of cholesterol screenings and aid for patients with kidney disease.

At the same time, Camp steadfastly opposed legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. He called the bill, which was enacted under President Obama after vetoes by President Bush, "woefully flawed" and said it inappropriately covers children of families with high incomes.

Trade

A longtime supporter of free trade, Camp voted for both the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
In February 2009, he hailed a bipartisan agreement to expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, praising the new inclusion of service workers in the initiative and calling it "a coherent, rational, accountable, and cost-effective system for training trade-affected workers and putting them back to work quickly and at better jobs."

Welfare Reform

Camp's first real brush with the Washington spotlight came in 1996 during the intense negotiations on a bill to overhaul the nation's welfare system. Camp partnered with then-Rep. John Ensign (R-Nev.) to lobby a reluctant GOP leadership to strip out provisions making significant changes to Medicaid, the inclusion of which was sure to draw a veto from President Clinton.

The move quickly garnered support from the Republican rank-and-file in the House, and it was later cited as the "decisive breakthrough" in the bill that Clinton eventually signed.

Camp was an early supporter of Mitt Romney 's campaign for president in 2008, serving as a congressional liaison for the former Massachusetts governor. He would be a natural ally for Romney as he stays in the national limelight in advance of a potential second run for the White House in 2012.

Camp was also a top supporter of former House speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), managing the Republican's campaign for that post in 1998.

Read more

Camp House web site
Wayne, Alex, "Health Care Factions Loom on Hill," Congressional Quarterly Today, March 13, 2009.
American Conservative Union
Barber, Barrie, "Camp: No to Stimulus Push," The Saginaw News, Jan. 28, 2009.
Camp House web site
Camp House web site
Church, George J., "Ripping Up Welfare," Time Magazine, Aug. 12, 1996.
Miller, John J., "Republican from Michigan - Dave Camp is a Quiet But Effective Congressman," National Review, Dec. 3, 2007.
Camp House web site
Barber, Barrie, "Candidates: Economy No. 1," The Saginaw News, Oct. 12, 2008.
Eversley, Melanie, "Camp Working to Make Hastert Speaker," Detroit Free Press, Dec. 21, 1998.
Ota, Alan K., "House Republican is Moderate Today, Conservative Tomorrow," Congressional Quarterly Today, March 10, 2006.
Camp press release, November 2009
Struglinski, Suzanne, "Romney Recruits 3 House Members as Eyes, Ears," Deseret Morning News, Jan. 21, 2007.
Washington Post Votes Database
Camp House web site
Almanac of American Politics, 2008 edition.
Camp House web site
Camp press release, March 24, 2010
David Camp's official biography
Club for Growth scorecard

Debbie Stabenow Pledges To Oppose Monsanto Protection Act Extension Without Full Debate

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 15:08:00 +0000

Ryan Grim Become a fan

ryan@huffingtonpost.com

Debbie Stabenow Pledges To Oppose Monsanto Protection Act Extension Without Full Debate

Posted: 06/06/2013 11:41 am EDT | Updated: 06/06/2013 5:52 pm EDT

Follow:

Video, Jeff Merkley, Roy Blunt , Roy Blunt Monsanto, Debbie Stabenow, Debbie Stabenow Monsanto, Debbie Stabenow Monsanto Protection Act, Jeff Merkley Monsanto, Jeff Merkley Monsanto Protection Act, Monsanto Protection Act, Roy Blunt Monsanto Protection Act, Politics News

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), the chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, pledged to oppose the extension of the so-called the Monsanto Protection Act, a victory for advocates who have been pressing for its repeal.

Stabenow made her pledge in a conversation with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who has been pushing the Senate to vote on an amendment to the farm bill that would repeal the provision. That vote was blocked by Republicans and on Thursday morning the Senate voted to end debate and move to final passage.
When two senators have a pre-arranged public conversation on the Senate floor, it's known as a colloquy and is typically the bow that ties up a deal struck beforehand. While Merkley was unable to get a repeal vote, the colloquy is a significant win for him, with Stabenow promising she will oppose any attempt to extend the Monsanto Protection Act in backroom negotiations.

Monsanto is a global seed and herbicide company that specializes in genetically modified crops. The MPA prevents judges from enforcing injunctions on genetically modified seeds even if they are deemed unsafe. Monsanto has argued that it is unfair to single the company out in the nickname for the law, which is technically known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, when other major agribusiness players also support it.

The measure was originally enacted into law by being inserted into an unrelated spending bill and is set to expire later this year. "The Monsanto Protection Act refers to a policy rider the House slipped into the recently passed continuing resolution and sent over to the Senate," Merkley noted on the floor. "Because of the time-urgent consideration of this must-pass legislation -- necessary to avert a government shutdown -- this policy rider slipped through without examination or debate."

"I wish to assure my friend that I think it would be inappropriate for that language to be adopted in a conference committee or otherwise adopted in a manner designed to bypass open debate in the relevant committees and this chamber," Stabenow told Merkley. "I will do my best to oppose any effort to add this kind of extension in the conference committee on this farm bill or to otherwise extend it without appropriate legislative examination."

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Sen Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) made the case for the MPA, arguing that the measure aimed to protect farmers who had already purchased seeds that were later deemed unsafe. "I was raised -- my mom and dad were dairy farmers -- once you've made a decision to plant a crop for that year, you can't go back and undo that decision," he said. Requiring Monsanto or other seed companies to compensate the farmer for lost income wasn't a viable strategy, he said, if the seeds had previously been okayed before the court ruling. "You can't sue them for selling a crop that the federal government said is okay to plant," he said.

The measure enables the secretary of the Department of Agriculture to block a judicial injunction and allow the planting of a seed. The USDA, he said, called the provision redundant. "All that did was repeat authority that the secretary in a hearing the other day ... said he already had," Blunt said. "And it didn't require the secretary to do anything that the secretary thought was the wrong thing to do. Which is one of the reasons I thought it was fine."

US Senator Sabenow on GM Foods

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 02:53:00 +0000

Dear [Bear Market Economics] ,

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding genetically modified (GM) food. I understand your concerns about the need for a robust, secure supply of a range of foods, including organics.

Agriculture is Michigan's second largest industry, employing one out of four people in our state, and that is due in large part to the strength of family farms. Our farms have the most crop diversity in the country, beside California, and provide healthy, affordable food to our communities. As the Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am mindful that we have almost seven billion mouths to feed around the globe and that we need American leadership, innovation, and increased efficiency to feed the world. To foster that innovation, we need a regulatory system that is science-based and efficient. I support increased research on the safety and effectiveness of GM crops, and I will continue to monitor this issue and will make sure that the regulation of GM foods is based on sound science.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed about issues of concern to you and your family.

Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator

U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow
The United States Senate • Washington, DC 20510
stabenow.senate.gov

Survey: Michigan Officials Shun Citizen Input

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:21:00 +0000

Democracy Tree

Watchdog Commentary on All Three Branches of Government

Survey: Michigan Officials Shun Citizen Input

Posted on June 2, 2013 by admin

Are Michigan’s elected leaders open to citizen input? If the Republican-led legislature and the governor are any indication, the answer is a resounding “NO!”

Starting with the Emergency Manager law of 2011, and its equally evil successor, the tone was set on the topic of citizen input — Michigan was no longer a “government by the people” state. Close on the heels of the rough-shod rush to re-legislate the EM law in defiance of the sucessful referendum to repeal it, Michigan workers were next attacked with an unwanted Right-to-Work law, then a wolf hunt law was passed in the face of overwhelming lack of citizen support, and most recently we see these same petty lawmakers claiming they are so damned principled that they are willing to deny healthcare to the working poor.

At eye-level on the door to my township hall is a decal that says “Citizen Driven” — it’s the first thing you see upon entering the building. It was placed there by the previous township supervisor, who was truly dedicated to a government by the people. He demonstrated his commitment to open democracy by forming citizen’s advisory committees to address key concerns in the community. Robust public input was a hallmark of his time in office. At times, the business community kicked and screamed when they didn’t automatically get their way through their routine bullying and intimidation, but our leaders understood they were there to serve those residents that elected them.

Our little community stood in stark contrast to what was happening across the state, as the residents of the cities of Flint, Pontiac, Benton Harbor and Detroit, and the school districts of Muskegon Heights, Highland Park and Detroit lost all say in their governance under the forced brutality of emergency management.
Yet, towns and cities don’t necessarily need an Emergency Manager to lose sight of the democratic process. At a recent Traverse City Council meeting, Mayor Estes threatened a citizen speaker with arrest, and then recessed the meeting to prevent her from further expressing her opinion. He claimed she was off-topic, but the video record begs to differ.

How prevalent is this kind of anti-input attitude? Much more so than one would think…

The Michigan Public Policy Institute just published their findings in part 2 of their research series on citizen involvement in government. The report is based on the results of a statewide survey of local government leaders taken in the Fall of 2012. Among the key findings are:

Most local leaders in Michigan believe citizens should provide input to the policy making process, though relatively few think citizens should be deeply involved. Overall, 17 % of local leaders say citizens should simply stay informed about policy issues, while 64% say citizens should provide some input. Few see deeper roles for citizens, whether by identifying policy options from which officials would choose (7%), by recommending specific policy choices (9%), or actually making decisions on behalf of the local government (1%).

(Yes, that adds up to only 98 percent, because 2 percent of elected officials actually answered “don’t know”.)

In short, a whopping 81 percent believe in limited or no citizen input.

So, what then is the best way to be heard on local policy decisions? Besides standing-up at the public comment portion of a meeting, it is best to send both a snail-mail and an email to all elected officials. Request that your letter be included in their meeting’s agenda packet under “correspondence”. On the letter, list all recipients copied. Send a similar letter to the editor of your local paper expressing your policy concerns.

In policymaking matters, much like with voting, bitching rights are tied to your level of involvement.

Amy Kerr Hardin
In loving memory of our young friend Owen, whom at the age of 17, we lost unexpectedly last Friday. He is loved by so many, and missed by all. https://www.facebook.com/#!/OwenWilliamsonInLovingMemory?fref=ts

The World According to Stupak

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 01:42:00 +0000

Health Care Policy

The World According to Stupak

By Jessica Arons

March 2, 2010

President Obama's healthcare proposal adopts language on abortion from the Senate health reform bill that requires insurers to segregate public and private premiums and use only private money to pay for abortion services. But Representative Bart Stupak will have none of it, claiming that the legislation still allows public funding of the abortion. In fact, the legislation very clearly prohibits direct government funding of abortion. But Stupak also objects to "indirect" funding, refusing to vote for a reform bill unless it prohibits taxpayer money from "subsidizing" health plans that cover abortion care.

The amendment Stupak sponsored, which is currently part of the House bill, does bar so-called indirect funding. It forbids insurers from selling plans that include abortion coverage to any people who receive help from the government in paying their premiums--a restriction that would apply to approximately 85 percent of customers in the new health insurance exchange and thus virtually eliminate abortion coverage from the exchange.

An analysis of Stupak's opposition to indirect funding, however, reveals implications that go well beyond the fight over abortion.

Money in Stupak's world is "fungible," or interchangeable, meaning whatever money the government gives you frees up private money for you to use on something else. So every dollar the government pays toward your health insurance premium allows you and the insurer to spend private funds in that plan that you might not otherwise have had on abortion. To Stupak, that subsidization is the equivalent of a direct payment.

But by that token, every government benefit a woman receives, whether monetary or in-kind, whether for healthcare or for something else, could be seen as subsidizing an abortion if she has one.

If everyone thought like Bart Stupak, a woman seeking an abortion:

(1) would not be able to take a public bus or commuter train to an abortion clinic, even if she paid her own fare;

(2) would not be able to drive on public roads to a clinic, even if she drove her own car and paid for her own gas;

(3) would not be able to walk on public sidewalks to the clinic, even though she paid property taxes;

(4) would not be able to put her child in childcare while she was at the clinic if she received a tax credit that offset the cost of childcare;

(5) would not be able to take medicine at the clinic that was researched or developed by the government, even if she paid for the medicine herself.

Would anyone argue that the government is "subsidizing abortion" by building roads and sidewalks, offering public transportation, developing medicine and providing childcare? Similarly, making healthcare premiums more affordable, even for plans that include abortion coverage, would not mean that the government would be paying for abortion.

Our society recognizes the distinction between direct and indirect funding all the time. Indeed, if we did not, our government probably could not function. Religious organizations receive tax money to provide direct social services but are strictly prohibited from using that money for sectarian purposes. Nonprofit organizations obtain government grants that can be used for charitable activities but not for electioneering. And we already have a precedent with respect to abortion: family planning clinics get public funding to provide contraception that cannot be spent on abortion. No reasonable person sees this funding as subsidizing activities that have been deemed ineligible for government spending or views the accounting practices used to segregate funds as illegitimate or inadequate.

No transaction in our modern society is completely free of government involvement. The food we eat costs less because of farm subsidies. Students attend private universities with the help of Pell Grants and Stafford loans. Our churches and temples can afford to operate in part because they are tax-exempt. And employers who offer health insurance do so because of tax incentives. Stupak's reasoning, taken to its logical extreme, would mean that virtually every activity in which we engage is government funded, regardless of whether it is condoned or condemned.

Either there is no such thing as indirect funding or everything receives indirect funding, but there is no in between. Either the government pays for abortion or it does not. Stupak, who until recently lived in the "C Street House"--a townhouse owned by a religiously affiliated organization that receives a tax exemption--cannot accept indirect subsidies in one area but reject them in others.

For these reasons, segregation requirements alone should have been sufficient for those who object to taxpayer-funded abortion. But Senator Ben Nelson also managed to wrangle a last-minute deal that goes even further, making customers write two checks each month--one for the abortion coverage and one for everything else--even though both checks would come from private, not public, sources.

Last week the White House chose to go with the Senate solution, in part because Democrats must now use the reconciliation process to pass comprehensive healthcare reform. Because this process can address only items that affect the budget and the abortion provisions do not change government spending levels, they probably can no longer be modified. Therefore, the White House may have had no option but to endorse the Senate's version.

Moreover, prochoice legislators and advocates refuse to accept the Stupak Amendment and have vowed to block it at every turn. And though they also oppose Nelson's language because it imposes unprecedented restrictions on private abortion coverage, they recognize that it is the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile, Stupak claims that he too has enough votes to stop health reform in its tracks.

But Stupak's line of thinking goes way too far. He and the House members who voted for his amendment ought to accept the Senate language that already prohibits government money from being spent on abortion, put the issue to rest and take this historic opportunity to extend health coverage to millions of Americans.

About Jessica Arons

Jessica Arons is the Director of the Women's Health & Rights Program at the Center for American Progress.

Dept. rules against native rights, says Eagle Rock isn’t sacred

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:59:00 +0000

Intercontinental Cry

Dept. rules against native rights, says Eagle Rock isn’t sacred

Posted by Ahni on January 21, 2010 at 10:04am 0 comments 305 views

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, has shamelessly and underhandedly given its final approval for Kennecott’s proposed Eagle Mine project, a nickel and copper sulfide mine on the Yellow Dog Plains.

In issuing the approval, the MDEQ overstepped the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community’s treaty rights, and dismissed a 2009 ruling by Administrative Law Judge Richard Patterson, who found that Eagle Rock is a place of spiritual importance to Keweenaw Bay Community and should be protected.

Judge Patterson, in his ruling, stated that both Kennecott and the MDEQ “did not properly address the impact on the sacred rock outcrop known as Eagle Rock” and suggested that they move the mine’s entry point somewhere “away from the rock”.

The MDEQ unilaterally decided that the judge’s ruling was unnecessary “…because it pertained to Eagle Rock as a place of worship. They believe that a place of worship must be a building and therefore negates comments that were not in favor of the mining company,” explains the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, who works along side the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and others opposed to the mine.

However, the MDEQ did much more than dismiss the ruling and deny the sacredness of Eagle Rock. First, it handed the matter down to a Senior Policy Advisor, who made the decision on his own and just two days before the MDEQ was formally dissolved.

Cynthia Pryor, Campaign Director for the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, comments:

“What just happened here? The DEQ, as party to a State of Michigan Administrative Contested Case process, just unilaterally bypassed both the legal process and Administrative Law Judge Patterson in making a sweeping declaration and finding of law. This sweeping “judgment” was made not by Judge Patterson, not by past DEQ Director Stephen Chester, not by the interim DEQ Director Jim Sygo, but by a Senior Policy Advisor within the DEQ. This was done as a final DEQ action on the matter – on the day before the DEQ was to be dissolved and the new DNRE Director was to take office.

“How blatant can this be? This is the dramatic action of a DEQ that hopes as a last ditch effort to resolve the Kennecott issue and allow this mine on the Yellow Dog Plains – before their authority is superseded by a new agency. Delegation of DEQ Director ‘final decision’ on the matter, was given to Senior Policy Advisor Frank J. Ruswick, Jr. two weeks ago. There was no known correspondence from Judge Patterson to the DEQ, Kennecott or the petitioners during this time frame. But out of the blue, a day before DEQ dissolution, this DEQ policy advisor made a judgment, ruling and order granting Kennecott both a Part 632 mining permit and a ground water discharge permit AND vacating a remand order made by then Director Stephen Chester concerning Eagle Rock as a “place of worship”. A policy advisor of the DEQ became a Judge and a DEQ Director and has so ruled – and we must accept that?

This is an egregious act that now will absolutely require appeal to a higher court and should require an appeal to the new DNRE Director Rebecca Humphries and the Governor of this state. We should not sit by and accept such action as the accepted mode of “lawfulness” in this state.

For more information, please visit: http://savethewildup.org, http://lakesuperiorminingnews.net, http://yellowdogwatershed.org

What You Can Do

To lodge a complaint against the MDEQ’s shameful move, contact Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm:

Governor Jennifer M. Granholm
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, Michigan 48909

PHONE: (517) 373-3400
PHONE: (517) 335-7858 – Constituent Services
FAX:(517) 335-6863
EMAIL: http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-21995-65331–,00.html

The Huron Mountain Club, National Wildlife Federation, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community have long opposed the project because of some major environmental concerns, and because the mine would adversely effect the Keweenaw Bay Community’s treaty rights and Spiritual practices.

In 2009, Judge Richard Patterson issued a ruling that partly–and only partly—favored Keweenaw Bay

ignoring Judge Richard Patterson ruling that Eagle Rock be honored as a Native American sacred site.

Kennecott the final permit for the Eagle Mine project on the Yellow Dog Plains, ignoring Judge Richard Patterson ruling that Eagle Rock be honored as a Native American sacred site.

concluding that only buildings may be considered “places of worship.”

tatement was issued giving “final approval” of mining permits that were being contested by Huron Mountain Club, National Wildlife Federation, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, and Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. The approval was given before the administrative law judge had submitted a clarification of his ruling. The MDEQ stated the judge’s ruling was not needed since it pertained to Eagle Rock as a place of worship. They believe that a place of worship must be a building and therefore negates comments that were not in favor of the mining company.

Whitmer: State must protect its consumers

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:51:00 +0000

MISenDems (via Twitter)

Whitmer: State must protect its consumers

New law needed to put teeth into enforcement

As Michigan residents hit the stores this holiday season, they shop with confidence assuming they will be dealt with fairly and honestly. That may be true at the mall or most retail stores, but unfortunately, there are many other instances where consumers could be at risk of being taken advantage of. The state's economic woes have caused an increase in scams and other bad business practices.

At the same time, Michigan's Consumer Protection Act - once revered as the most powerful in the country - continues to be watered down by politicians and their special interests.

The Michigan Consumer Protection Act was a bipartisan agreement instituted in 1976 that banned 29 unfair, deceptive or unconscionable business practices in the sale of goods and services and empowered the state attorney general to go to court to stop such conduct.

But over the last decade, it has been gutted by a Republican majority in the Michigan Supreme Court installed by Gov. John Engler. In two cases, the first in 1999 and the second in 2007, the court ruled to exempt most, if not all, businesses regulated by state or federal law, such as home improvement contractors, mortgage companies and plumbers.

These rulings broke 23 years of enforcement that the attorney general and consumer advocates relied on to hold businesses accountable for deceptive and unfair practices.

Many consumers are already struggling to make ends meet and support their families. Dishonest merchants can currently take advantage of customers in nearly every industry including credit and finance; gasoline, fuel and energy; and telecommunications, satellite and cable TV. With no teeth left in the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, there is nothing to keep businesses from taking advantage of Michigan citizens and leaves consumers with few options to defend themselves. We must properly hold deceitful businesses accountable for their practices.

That's why Michigan needs to restore the original intent of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and I have introduced legislation in the Senate to do just that.

My bill, Senate Bill 573, will not only restore the act's true intent of consumer protection, but also help Michigan businesses compete on a level playing field instead of enabling companies to obtain a competitive edge by engaging in deceptive or unfair practices.

The Legislature no longer can sit idly by and allow Michigan's consumer protection law to continue to cater to unscrupulous businesses more than our citizens.

Too many of our state laws have been tinkered with to give more power to big business than the people, and now more than ever we should be putting our consumers first and keep Michigan's upstanding businesses competing fairly.

Passing my legislation and bolstering the Consumer Protection Act can help restore our reputation as a state that stands up for its citizens, and I hope my colleagues see its importance and address it soon.

Is Bart Stupak a Democrat?

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:17:00 +0000

Northeast Michigan Democrat

Aside from "not voting" on many issues, Rep. Stupak votes with the Republicans on occassion according to the U.S. Congress Votes Database. He certainly does not stand firm with the Democratic National Platform:

THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL PLATFORM

RENEWING AMERICA’S PROMISE

Choice

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right
to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all
efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family
planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed
choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education
help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for
abortions.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring
access to and availability of programs for pre-and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Copyright © 2008 by the 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee, Inc.
For more information, contact: Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol St., SE
Washington, DC 20003
202-863-8000
www.democrats.org

Stop Abortion Coverage Ban

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:09:00 +0000

Stop Abortion Coverage Ban

The House of Representatives passed health-reform legislation that included an anti-choice amendment that will seriously jeopardize women's access to abortion – making it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new health system to offer abortion coverage to women.

This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal, private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system.

We must stop health-care reform from being enacted with this ban!

Sign our petition calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to stand firm against a ban on abortion coverage for women in the new health system.

Bob Fertik

Dear Activist,

The House passed an anti-choice measure that would essentially eliminate insurance coverage for abortion in the new system.

Help us fight back and stop the ban on women's insurance coverage for abortion.

Add your name to our petition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid by 12 noon (EST) on Friday, November 13.

Anti-choice politics shouldn't trump women's health in Congress. It's unacceptable.

Yet that's what happened when the House passed the last-minute anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment to its health-reform bill.

We cannot let this attack stand in the Senate.

Sign our petition calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to save abortion coverage and ensure that the same ban is not included in the Senate's bill.

I can't stress this strongly enough: we must win in the Senate to keep millions of women from losing their private insurance coverage for abortion in the new health-care system.

A vote to ban insurance coverage for abortion in the new system will come down to the wire, so we must call on Majority Leader Reid to stand strong against this attack from the outset.

We need to deliver our petitions to Majority Leader Reid by the end of the week before the bill is brought to the floor, so add your name by 12 noon (EST) on Friday, November 13.

Here is what will happen if the Senate adopts the same Stupak-Pitts amendment that passed in the House bill:

It will be virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women.
This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal, private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private insurance plans cover abortion services.

We must win in the Senate. That's why we need to fight back today.

Stand up for women's access to abortion and sign our petition to Majority Leader Reid.

Thank you for standing with us during this fight.

My best,

Nancy Keenan
President, NARAL Pro-Choice America

You are subscribed to Democrats.com Activist Alerts.

Unhealthy Trend: House Action On Abortion Showcases Power Of Bishops’ Lobby

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:30:00 +0000

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Unhealthy Trend: House Action On Abortion Showcases Power Of Bishops’ Lobby

November 10, 2009

There’s at least a possibility that health-care reform will be scuttled thanks to the machinations of a powerful church that is determined to use the power of government to foist its dogma on all of us.

When political pundits talk about the power of religious groups to affect public policy in Washington, most tend to focus on the Religious Right.

Indeed, during the presidency of George W. Bush, Religious Right groups flexed a lot of political muscle and won numerous victories on Capitol Hill.

But the Religious Right has an Achilles’ heel: Its leaders and activists are so closely identified with the Republican Party that when Democrats are in charge, these groups have a much more difficult time advancing their agenda.

That’s not the case with the nation’s other prominent religious lobby – the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Lobbyists representing the Catholic bishops are careful to work in both parties and as a result are often successful no matter which party is in charge.

Consider the recent flap over health-care reform. The bill passed by the House of Representatives on Saturday contains a stunning provision: It states that low-income women who receive tax credits to buy health insurance won’t be permitted to enroll in any plan that covers abortion.

This language goes far beyond measures we’ve seen in other bills that bar direct tax funding to support abortion. The net effect of this language, many analysts believe, will be to force insurance providers to drop abortion coverage.

Any insurers who cover the procedure, after all, will be in effect ineligible from participating in the insurance exchange the bill creates. Most insurance firms are going to want to be part of that system, since it represents a lucrative new pool of customers. To get in it, they’ll simply drop abortion coverage.

How did this restrictive language get in the bill? As National Public Radio pointed out, lobbyists for the Catholic bishops aggressively worked both sides of the political aisle in a bid to bring the bill into conformity with church doctrine. In addition, Catholic priests across the nation were ordered to sermonize about the issue during weekly services.

“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops actively lobbied for the amendment, offered by Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan and Republican Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania,” reported NPR. “The Catholic Church, though opposed to abortion funding, has long advocated for universal health care as a fundamental human right and essential to the common good. Stupak was among 19 Democrats who in midsummer vowed to oppose any health overhaul plan that didn’t specifically prevent taxpayer money from being used for abortions.”

Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn told NPR he is “horrified” by what happened.

“What we saw over the weekend was an act of unparalleled arrogance on the part of church officials,” Lynn said. “Basically, they were claiming they would kill health care for the sick and the poor if the Democrats didn’t give them the votes to impose religious doctrine into law. It’s scandalous that this religious group has such extraordinary control over the fate of women’s lives in this country.”

I should point out that most American Catholics don’t support the position taken by the church hierarchy and its army of lobbyists. A recent poll taken by Catholics for Choice shows that most Catholics support abortion coverage in health care reform, especially in cases of rape, incest and fetal abnormality.

Furthermore, 68 percent of Catholics say the church would be wrong to oppose the entire health-care reform plan merely because it includes coverage for abortion.

Efforts are under way to strip the language from the bill (which is on its way to the Senate), and religious leaders who oppose the bishops’ move are speaking out. Yesterday, four prominent leaders signed a joint letter opposing the Stupak language.

Others are mounting a lobbying counter-offensive on Capitol Hill.

How will this shake out?

It’s too early to tell, but there’s at least a possibility that health-care reform – a goal many in this country have sought since the days of Theodore Roosevelt – will be scuttled thanks to the machinations of a powerful church that is determined to use the power of government to foist its dogma on all of us.

Remember this the next time you see some right-winger on the television or in a newspaper whining that religious groups are shut out of the public debate.

By Rob Boston

STUPIFYING How bad is the Stupak amendment?

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:58:00 +0000

STUPIFYING

How bad is the Stupak amendment?

What the Stupak-Pitts Coathanger Amendment Does

by mcjoan

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:20:02 AM PST

Here's what it says:

The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.

There's been a lot of debate around here about what that exactly means. Here's what it means. Millions of women will not have access to a legal medical procedure. Remember that, the legal part?

What's the harm, some say? It only makes sure that federal funding doesn't go to providing abortion, right? Wrong. Here's Jessica Arons, Director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at American Progress.

It effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange: In addition to prohibiting direct government funding for abortion, it also prohibits public money from being spent on any plan that covers abortion even if paid for entirely with private premiums. Therefore, no plan that covers abortion services can operate in the Exchange unless its subscribers can afford to pay 100% of their premiums with no assistance from government "affordability credits." As the vast majority of Americans in the Exchange will need to use some of these credits, it is highly unlikely any plan will want to offer abortion coverage (unless they decide to use it as a convenient proxy to discriminate against low- and moderate-income Americans who tend to have more health care needs and incur higher costs).

2. It includes only extremely narrow exceptions: Plans in the Exchange can only cover abortions in the case of rape or incest or "where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death." Given insurance companies’ dexterity in denying claims, we can predict what they’ll do with that language. Cases that are excluded: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion.

3. It allows for a useless abortion "rider": Stupak and his allies claim his Amendment doesn’t ban abortion from the Exchange because it allows plans to offer and women to purchase extra, stand-alone insurance known as a rider to cover abortion services. Hopefully the irony of this is immediately apparent: Stupak wants women to plan for a completely unexpected event.

4. It allows for discrimination against abortion providers: Previously, the health care bill included an evenhanded provision that prohibited discrimination against any health care provider or facility "because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions." Now, it only protects those who are unwilling to provide such services.

Once again, just like in the pre-Roe days, the wealthy will have access to abortion, those who can't scrape several hundred dollars together won't. Because of how the exchange is structured, most of people covered through it will be receiving credits or subsidies. Therefore, most of the participants will not have access to a legal medical procedure. Additionally, the reality, as Arons says, is that the insurers participating in the exchange won't offer it at all, and the question remains whether they'll continue to offer it for women in employer-based programs outside the exchange, or whether it would just be easier for administrative and overhead purposes to stop covering it at all. Right now, nearly 90 percent of private, employer-based plans cover abortion services. This legislation could result in many of those plans dropping it, to make administration of plans simpler and more cost-effective. We know how critical the bottom line is to them.

And take another look at those exclusions: "where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion." Even planned pregnancies are regularly terminated--legally--because of the health of the mother or severe fetal abnormalities. Forcing women to carry these pregnancies to term is dangerous and cruel. Forcing low- and moderate-income women to have to make hard financial decisions to try to come up with the money for the procedure is cruel. It's also diametrically opposed to the very principles of healthcare reform. This legislation is supposed to be freeing Americans from having to make horrible financial choices between basic necessities and medical care.

Consider this real-life example:

By broadly writing in that insurers can chose whether or not to cover "abortion services," pro-life amendments don't just affect their intended victims -- women seeking a way out of an unwanted or medically harmful pregnancy. They also affect another group of victims -- women whose pregnancies have already ended but have not yet miscarried.

I'm one of those women, and this past Halloween I had what the hospital officially termed an "abortion."

....

I had learned the day before that the baby I thought was nearly 12 weeks old had no heartbeat, and had actually died at 8 weeks. I was given three options: wait for a miscarriage to occur on its own, something I was told my body had no intention of doing anytime soon, take medication that would expel the fetus, passing it in my own home (classified a "chemical abortion") or come in for a D&C to remove the fetal materials.

As much as I struggled with the sudden realization that the pregnancy was over, I also found myself trying to decide financially what I was willing to do. A chemical abortion would cost $40, but I would be alone, bleeding, and it could still be incomplete and I would require a D&C anyway, since my pregnancy was so advanced. Surgery would be quick, total, and under controlled circumstances, but would likely be our full maxed insurance amount of $1500. And of course, there was the free option of waiting for my body to finally realize I wasn't pregnant, but after 4 weeks the risk of infection was steadily climbing, increasing my chances of future miscarriage, infertility, or even death. With a toddler at home, and still nursing hopes for extending our family some day, this was not an option.

I chose the quick and total route of the D&C, despite the costs, prioritizing my health and the health of possible future children. I was lucky, and could afford to make that choice, because currently, my insurance cannot chose to refuse to cover what the hospital as termed an abortion.

This is the most expansive restriction on access to abortion Congress has passed. It goes well beyond Hyde, which has never been codified and which only governs federal, public plans. It's particularly galling that it comes under the umbrella of healthcare "reform."

Remember the promises? Reform was about expanding choices, not allowing government to come between you and your doctor, no one will lose their coverage, and if you like your current plan you get to keep it. Apparently being female is a preexisting condition that exempts us from the promises, too.

Tags: Stupak-Pitts Amendment, abortion, healthcare reform (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

The Stupak Stupor

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:24:00 +0000

Published on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 by The Nation

The Stupak Stupor

by Emily Douglas

We know that the House healthcare reform bill passed after an eleventh-hour compromise (you might say betrayal) on abortion access. We know the compromise, the Stupak-Pitts amendment, is bad. But do we know exactly how it's bad for women (and their partners)? Here's a quick primer on what the amendment actually means for any woman accessing healthcare through the newly-created health insurance exchange.

Over the summer, legislators struck an agreement on abortion funding in which private plans offered through the health insurance exchange couldn't use federal dollars to cover abortion care. They could, however, cover abortion care with funds from individuals' premiums, and the agreement, the Capps Amendment, required at least one plan in every region to offer abortion care, and at least one not to. As many observers predicted, the Capps Amendment didn't mollify anti-abortion crusaders, namely the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which commands an outsize role in the debate over healthcare reform.

So what we ended up with was drastically worse. After the initial compromise fell apart, Rep. Bart Stupak introduced the eponymous amendment, under which any plan purchased with any federal subsidy cannot cover abortion services--even with private funds. Plus, the public plan won't cover abortion care. While plans participating in the health insurance exchange are legally permitted to offer a version of the plan that does cover abortion--enrollment limited to those who pay for the entire plan without any subsidy--it's unlikely plans will go the extra mile to offer that coverage, Planned Parenthood's Laurie Rubiner said this morning on the Brian Lehrer Show. That would be "awfully complex," Rubiner explained. Because the majority of Americans purchasing insurance through the exchange would be using affordability credits, the plan without abortion coverage will become the "standard plan." Rubiner also cited privacy concerns over purchasing abortion-inclusive coverage. The Wall Street Journal observed, "Insurers may be reluctant to [set up abortion-inclusive plans] because it could complicate how they pool risk and force them to label policies in a way that could draw attention from abortion opponents."

At Change.org, Jen Nedeau pointed out that even women who currently have employer-based insurance that does cover abortion care (and 87 percent of employer-based plans do) may ultimately be affected. "Since the plan for the uninsured is designed to open up to everyone over time, including large employers, it is likely that women will lose access to abortion coverage as part of any health insurance plan available for purchase," Nedeau explains.

In defending his amendment, Stupak made one misleading and one outright false claim. He argued that women could purchase "abortion riders" on top of their insurance, much like they might purchase a dental or vision rider. Such an abortion rider doesn't exist now, and the legislation does not provide for its creation. Rubiner pointed out that in states where private coverage of abortion care is outlawed, riders don't exist either. Besides, they defy logic: "Women would have to plan for their unplanned pregnancy," Rubiner added. "It's illogical to think they would look for a plan that includes abortion."

And for the falsehood: Stupak claimed that his amendment "goes no farther than Hyde," the amendment banning federal Medicaid funding for abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the woman's life. In fact, the amendment goes farther than Hyde in stipulating what kind of coverage a woman can purchase with private dollars. "It's the equivalent of arguing that women who receive abortions should not use public buses or highways to travel to the abortion clinic," Igor Volsky at Wonk Room points out.

In the Stupak amendment, the exceptions to the coverage ban read as follows: rape, incest or "where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death." The Center for American Progress's Jessica Arons writes, "Given insurance companies' dexterity in denying claims, we can predict what they'll do with that language." And in case you wonder what that leaves out entirely: "Cases that are excluded: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion."

Emily Douglas is the web editor at The Nation. Formerly an editor at RH Reality Check, she has written on reproductive health, LGBT issues, women's rights and the law for The American Prospect, The Nation, RH Reality Check, and other publications. She was a spring 2007 intern at The Nation and graduated from Harvard College.

Let Bart Stupak Know What You are Thinking

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:46:00 +0000

HAPPENING

If you are having trouble viewing this e-Newsletter, click here.

Visit Website | Unsubscribe | Forward to a Friend | Web Version

Stupak To Hold Escanaba Town Hall Meeting

For answers to commonly asked questions and other information on health care reform, please click here.

November 10, 2009

Dear Friends,

I invite you to attend the upcoming town hall meeting I will be holding on November 11th to discuss current national issues.

This meeting will provide an opportunity for you to directly tell me what is on your mind as well as allow me to provide you with an account of what is going on in Congress. Following are the details:

Wednesday, November 11, 2009
5:30 PM – 7:00 PM (EST)
Bay de Noc Community College
Besse Center
2001 North Lincoln Rd
Escanaba, MI
[ map it ]

Any change in the time of event will be announced by the local media.

Again, please join your neighbors and me on November 11. I look forward to listening to your ideas and comments.

Sincerely,

Bart Stupak
Member of Congress

Washington Office
2268 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225 4735
Fax: (202) 225 4744

Stupak denies knowledge of connections to mysterious ‘C Street’ house he lives in

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:03:00 +0000

Yet Rep. Bart Stupak carries out the agenda of The Family in Congress.

Stupak denies knowledge of connections to mysterious ‘C Street’ house he lives in

'I don’t know what you’re talking about, [The] Family and all this other stuff.'

By Ed Brayton 7/23/09 3:26 PM

Despite weeks of media attention paid to the now-infamous “C Street” house owned by The Family, a secretive Christian group, U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak — who lives at the house near the U.S. Capitol — denied any knowledge of the nature of the mysterious Washington, D.C., rowhouse and any involvement with the organization that owns it and uses as a seat of influence on Capitol Hill.

U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (Creative Commons photo by Brian Rendel via Flickr)

During a conference call with reporters Thursday morning, Michigan Messenger asked Stupak, a Menominee Democrat, about the house where he has lived for many years and his connections to the shadowy organization that owns it. The longtime Upper Peninsula legislator claimed to have “no affiliation” with the group, which is known as The Family or The Fellowship.

“I don’t belong to any such group,” Stupak said. “I rent a room at a house in ‘C Street.’ I do not belong to any such group. I don’t know what you’re talking about, [The] Family and all this other stuff.”

The C Street house, a former convent, is still listed on official tax documents as a church but it functions largely as a boarding house, with six to eight members of the U.S. House and Senate living there at any given time. Current residents include Stupak, Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), and Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.).

The house has become the focus of much attention after the public admissions of adultery by Ensign and Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. It has been widely reported that Coburn and other residents of the house knew of Ensign’s affair long before it became public and helped him negotiate his way through it. Sanford likewise mentioned in the press conference where he admitted his infidelity that he had been receiving spiritual counseling at the C Street house.

When asked if there were any ethical concerns created by living in a house inaccurately listed as a church in order to evade property taxes, Stupak replied: “I don’t own the building, I don’t know how the landlord has it listed. I pay rent for a room. I sleep there. I have a room.”

Jeff Sharlet, contributing editor at Harper’s magazine and the author of “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power,” lived for a time at Ivanwald, another boarding house owned by the group in Arlington, Va., this one for younger men without political power.

Sharlet said that Stupak’s denial of any knowledge of The Family or its activities is false. “When I lived with The Family at Ivanwald, a house for younger men being groomed for leadership, I was told that Stupak was a regular visitor to the Cedars,” Sharlet said. The Cedars is yet another compound owned by The Family, one that hosts weekly prayer events led by former Reagan-era Attorney General Ed Meese.

Sharlet said that Stupak had much greater involvement with the group than he is admitting, noting that the congressman was “a Family-assigned mentor to one of my brothers at Ivanwald.” That Ivanwald resident, Sharlet said, “regularly left for what he and others described as mentoring sessions.”

Another reason to doubt Stupak’s denials, Sharlet said, is that members of the organization and those who live at the C Street house are sworn to secrecy about what goes on there, as fellow resident Zach Wamp admitted to the Knoxville News in the wake of the recent scandals. That makes such denials less credible, Sharlet said.

“The bottom line here is that Stupak is either being dishonest or confessing dangerous ignorance,” Sharlet said. “The house’s function has been public knowledge since the [Associated Press] wrote about it 7 years ago. Multiple mainstream media outlets have reported on the house’s role as in effect, a lobby in all but name, led by a man who is on video and audio record citing the leadership lessons of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.”

Sharlet’s book describes The Family as a kind of shadow multi-national government, operating in secret through small prayer groups called “cells” and modeled after the organization of mafia and terrorist groups. Doug Coe, the leader of the group, frequently refers to the leadership lessons of Hitler and the example of the mafia as a model for how the group operates.

How far-reaching is The Family’s influence? David Kuo, a high-ranking official in the Bush administration who oversaw the White House’s office of faith-based initiatives, wrote in a recent book: “The Fellowship’s reach into governments around the world is almost impossible to overstate or even grasp.”

When contacted for a reaction to Sharlet’s accusations and for follow-up questions about his involvement in the organization and his residency at C Street, Stupak’s spokesman, Nick Choate, replied: “The congressman will not have any further comment on the matter.”

Correction: This article originally listed Rep. Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania as a resident of the C street house, which has been widely reported elsewhere. But we have been informed by his spokesperson that the congressman does not reside at the C street house, nor has he ever resided there. We apologize for the error.

Michigan Chapter, Sierra Club Update, Early November 2009

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:50:00 +0000

		Michigan Chapter Update Early November 2009: Get Outside with Sierra Club's Groups; Ratepayers ask Consumers Energy to Give Them a Break; Re-combining DEQ and DNR - what's it mean?; Become an Evergreen Supporter of the Michigan Chapter! Get Outside this Fall and Winter! Michigan is home to some of the most beautiful places on earth, as Outing Leaders from Sierra Club Michigan Chapter Groups can tell from first hand experience! You can enjoy Michigan's fall and winter more by getting outside with people who know some of the best kept secrets about our state's gorgeous outdoors! Find out about hikes, cross-country skiing adventures, and canoe trips, just to name a few! Check back regularly as the Outings and Events calendar is updated with new exciting outings and programs. Want to find out more? Contact your local Group Outing leader here or Chapter Outings Chair Lorne Beatty. Ratepayers Tell Consumers Energy to Give Us a Break! Consumers Energy's parent company CMS announced their profits last week, but the company continues pushing for a new, unneeded $2.6 billion coal plant, even though customers are using less electricity. More than 100 coal plants have been cancelled nationwide since 2002, mainly because of financial risks, but under Michigan law ratepayers will pay for a new power plant, not shareholders. Sierra Club joined with faith and community groups to call for CMS to invest in jobs and a clean energy future for Michigan instead of coal. "Michigan’s working families have been hit hard by this recession and can’t afford to pick up the tab for an expensive and dirty coal-fired power plant," said Patty Gillis from Voices for Earth Justice. "We need a break, and CMS Energy should put more of those earnings into energy efficiency to help businesses and homes cut electric bills and pollution at the same time." The full story is here. Find out how you can get involved in moving Michigan Beyond Coal -- it will be good for your family, Michigan's future and everyone's pocketbooks! Re-combining DEQ and DNR - what's it mean? Big changes are coming on January 17. Almost a decade and a half after they were split, Governor Granholm has ordered the recombination of the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Natural Resources. With budget woes and a plan to reduce the total number of state departments announced early this year, the recombination is not a surprise, but critical details are still up in the air. A transition team is to complete its recommendations by December 23 on what the new Department of Natural Resources and Environment will look like, but Sierra Club isn't waiting to weigh in. Sierra Club is working with environmental and conservation groups to demand protection of the interests of all Michiganders by assuring an emphasis on public health and sustaining our state's tremendous natural resources as these changes occur. Let us know your thoughts, and sign up to keep informed about the fast moving changes by sending an email to michigan.chapter@sierraclub.org. *Become an Evergreen Supporter* of the Michigan Chapter! Be part of the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter's Evergreen program by supporting the issues you care most about all year long: Keeping our Great Lakes healthy; building a clean energy future; protecting our public forests and wild heritage; and involving more people in democracy. Find out more about how you can be part of the Michigan Chapter Evergreen program here or contact Jan O'Connell with your questions! Support the Michigan Chapter's work by clicking here! Not a Sierra Club member yet? Join here!**

Michigan Chapter | 109 E. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48906 | P:(517) 484-2372 | Contact Us

Envisioning a Sustainable Future for Northeast Michigan

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:22:00 +0000

Envisioning a Sustainable Future for Northeast Michigan

Known for many years as the “sunrise side,” Michigan’s northeast coastal region is rich in natural resources and home to many significant historic and cultural sites. Residents and visitors alike enjoy the region’s long stretches of undeveloped shoreline for hunting and fishing, visit the area’s network of historic lighthouses, and dive the many shipwrecks preserved in Thunder Bay.

Capitalizing on these regional assets while maintaining a sense of place and community character was the focus of the Northeast Michigan Integrated Assessment (NEMIA), a collaborative project supported by Michigan Sea Grant. The goal of the region-wide effort was to examine ways to enhance sustainable tourism and economic opportunity in the three-county region that includes Presque Isle, Alpena and Alcona counties.

“Our goal was to work with the region in developing strategic and research-based opportunities to leverage these coastal resources for their tourism and economic values,” explains Michigan Sea Grant Extension Educator Brandon Schroeder, “while considering how we can plan for and protect the integrity of these resources and our local quality of life that is defined by these important coastal resources.”

Coastal Access, Tourism and Economic Development

The past few decades have been economically challenging for the northeast region due to a combination of factors including high unemployment attributed in part to lost jobs in mining, manufacturing and agriculture, as well as the closure of a U.S. Air Force base. In recent years, some of the traditional hunting and angling tourism base has also fallen.

To address these challenges, representatives from 32 local and regional organizations met regularly as part of the NEMIA project, which began in 2005. The meetings were convened by Northeast Michigan Council of Governments (NEMCOG) and held at Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in Alpena.

Together, participants agreed to frame the assessment around the following policy question: How can coastal access be designed, in a regional context, for sustainable tourism that stimulates economic development while maintaining the integrity of natural and cultural resources, and quality of life?

To provide baseline information, collaborating researchers conducted five technical assessments to characterize the status of life in northeast Michigan. Assessments include socioeconomic, ecological, cultural, planning and zoning, and sustainable design. The sustainable design assessment was one of eight projects chosen nationwide to be conducted by the American Institute of Architects’ Center for Communities by Design.

Additional research collaborators included Michigan State University Extension, University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, UM Department of Urban and Regional Planning, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Sanctuary Program, and The Nature Conservancy.

Identifying Priorities

Complementing the research, NEMIA stakeholders explored several case studies, two from the United States and one from Australia, where similar challenges and opportunities have played out. They also provided input to collectively develop a vision for the region. Several policy theme areas, with a suite of potential actions identified with each theme, emerged as priorities:

Preserving a sense of place and community character
Natural/cultural/maritime heritage and resources tourism
Growing an entrepreneurial community and attracting business interests
Government coordination and communication
Incorporating modern technologies

These guiding principles helped provide a framework for the technical assessments, which are undergoing peer-review. Following peer-review, the assessments will be incorporated into a final document presenting policy options, potential actions, or legislative tools that will help the region realize its vision for a sustainable future.

New partnerships and collaborations have already emerged as a result of the NEMIA process. The following activities are among the highlights.

State Parks Planning Process
NEMIA served as a catalyst for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to develop regionally coordinated management plans for Negwegon, Rockport, and Thompson’s Harbor state parks. In addition to developing individual management plans for each park, the MDNR will develop a regional plan for all three properties with input from a newly formed citizen advisory committee made up of local residents. “NEMIA encouraged us to look at planning beyond the individual park basis,” notes Paul Curtis of the MDNR. “It made sense in this instance and has led to similar planning for three parks in southwest Michigan.”

Creating Entrepreneurial Communities (CEC) Initiative
NEMIA helped position a team from northeast Michigan to be selected as a CEC Pilot Community, a regional economic development opportunity supported by Michigan State University Extension and the MSU Product Center. Economic development consultant Bethany Styer was among the four people chosen to represent the three-county region in intensive five-day training focused on energizing entrepreneurs. Now certified to train others, Styer says the NEMIA process emphasized the positive benefits of thinking on a regional level. “It brought the three counties together to help take a look at the needs, to broaden our focus and realize that what we have in common is greater than what separates us,” says Styer.

Huron Blueways Project
NEMIA provided a grass roots process that led to successful MDEQ Coastal Management Program funding of a project coordinated by NEMCOG to identify coastal access points, water routes and other amenities from Mackinac to Harrisville in an effort to enhance recreational opportunities for paddlers along northern Lake Huron.

“NEMIA brought more recognition to this large coastal area to try to build upon but not spoil what’s there,” notes Richard Deuell of NEMCOG. “Anytime we can bring communities together to interact and discuss a common resource is always a plus.”

Regional Coastal Tourism Survey
Marine Sanctuary staff and NEMCOG are partnering with other NEMIA work group members to conduct a study to gather tourism data that are current, specific and relevant to northeast Michigan. Some of the ongoing initiatives in the northeast region include the US 23 Heritage Route Initiative, Huron Greenways, Sweetwater Trails, and development of Northeast Michigan as a Maritime Heritage Tourism Destination through the Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries.

Great Lakes Stewardship Initiative Funding
The northeast region received $5,000 in funding from the Great Lakes Fishery Trust to support Great Lakes place-based education. This initiative engages schools and student learning through projects that provide coastal resources stewardship and community benefit. The NEMIA work group supported this proposal, and several work group members offered to help schools and students engage in coastal projects identified through NEMIA discussions.

Coastal Tourism Business Support Website
In its own commitment to implement the prioritized actions identified through the NEMIA process, Michigan Sea Grant is investing funding to develop a web-based clearinghouse or “toolbox” designed to provide targeted support to emerging entrepreneurs interested in eco- or cultural coastal tourism in the region. Businesses will have access to regionally relevant economic development and business start-up tools, tourism development and marketing products, agency resource protection strategies and plans, and “best practices” examples from existing coastal businesses successfully operating within
the region.

See: www.miseagrant.umich.edu/nemia

Rural Communities Need Health Care Reform More Than Anyone

noreply@blogger.com (NOTES FROM THE WILDSIDE) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:46:00 +0000

Rural Communities Need Health Care Reform More Than Anyone

Posted by: Deepak Bhargava . Thursday, Oct 01, 2009

(originally published in the Huffington Post)

The lie that health care reform would hurt rural communities has been one to which progressives and moderates have been slow to respond, perhaps because there have been so many myths and distortions to keep us busy. The extreme right clearly believes that the only way they can win the health care reform debate and stop change in its tracks is tell one whopper after another. From 1950-esque claims of socialism to the mythological death panels, they've shown no remorse in simply scaring people with out-and-out falsehoods.

In no case has this been more obvious than the fairytale that somehow health care reform would be bad for people who live in rural areas. Quite the contrary, rural areas have the highest proportion of both uninsured and under-insured. The numbers are discussed in an excellent Los Angeles Times article:

"The states that tend to be more conservative have a higher rate of people who are uninsured," said Ron Pollack, executive director of FamiliesUSA, which backs a health care overhaul. As a result, health care reform is going to provide a disproportionate amount of resources to those states."

In Wyoming, for example, nearly one in three people younger than 65 went without health insurance at some point during the last two years, according to Pollack's group. A huge majority of the uninsured have jobs, but work for employers who don't provide coverage.

It's rural America that stands to benefit the most from a public option. Not merely because universal access will disproportionately benefit such areas, but because many rural states simply have no competitive market for health insurance. A recent report illustrated that 94 percent of the health insurance markets in the United States are "highly concentrated." Where is the problem the worst? In small and rural states. Lack of competition means higher premiums, and it also means larger numbers of people being frozen out of access to health care. If you live in a region with only one major provider of insurance, you have no place to go when you get turned down for a preexisting condition.

A group of videographers recently traveled to state fairs around rural America to record the health care stories of ordinary Americans. Their simple, heartfelt stories stand in sharp contrast to the outrageous and insurance lobby-orchestrated extremism at town halls that has captured the imagination of the mainstream media. How different the debate might be if the media was interested in facts rather than antics. For instance, how many American's have heard stories like these:

Ronda Hilker from Nebraska had this to say:

My husband and I are honest, hardworking, tax paying, land owning, US citizens who used to have what we thought to be "good health coverage." We had paid our premiums faithfully on time every month for nearly 17 years, to later learn our hospital claims were denied! We are left with massive medical debt, and this was with insurance. Yes, we thought we had great insurance up until the time we actually needed it for a farm-related accident! Something must be done to hold these companies, doctors and hospitals accountable. People are literally dying from health related accidents/illness that could have been prevented with prompt, caring and adequate health care.

The huge need for real health care reform that contains a public insurance option for all Americans makes it all the sadder that rural state senators like Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, have essentially given up on bi-partisan health care reform negotiations. Instead, many have chosen to spread falsehoods about the President's plan. They need to hear more from the real people in this debate who have much to benefit from reform. For now, it seems they are preoccupied with counting the money they have received from health insurance industry lobbyists. A reality that is made clear in this advertisement:

The extreme right and big health insurance lobbies are coming together in an effort to tear us apart. Their strategy is to sow fear and divide rural from urban, black from white and low income from high income. We face a critical moment: we can either give in to the old politics of fear and division, or we can rededicate ourselves to renewing America by moving forward together as one nation. Unless we stand up to the "No We Can't Coalition," all of the hope and possibility of President Obama's election will disappear before our eyes.

Get involved and make yourself heard!

Northeast MICHIGAN Progressive DEMOCRAT

BLUEPRINT: A Michigan That Works for Everyone

BLUEPRINT: A Michigan That Works for Everyone

One Lying Nerd: Proof That Snyder Cut School Funding

MI-Sen: Terri Lynn Land (R), "Unlimited Dark Campaign Money Is The American Way"

ORIGINALLY POSTED TO PDC ON MON JUN 09, 2014 AT 07:26 PM PDT.

ALSO REPUBLISHED BY CLIMATE HAWKS, CLIMATE CHANGE SOS, THE DEMOCRATIC WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, MOTOR CITY KOSSACKS, AND MICHIGAN, MY MICHIGAN.

TAGS

The Five Worst Education Governors: Guess Who’s Number One?

Dem Gary Peters Puts Terri Lynn Land On The Defensive Over Bailout Opposition

CBS Detroit

Local

Related Tags:

Get Breaking News First

No Cuts to Snap: Food Stamp Program Restored

Bill Schuette Is From The Government. And He’s Not Here To Help

Beware of false prophets

Dave Camp's (R-Mich.) Rise to Power

Why He Matters

Debbie Stabenow Pledges To Oppose Monsanto Protection Act Extension Without Full Debate

US Senator Sabenow on GM Foods

Survey: Michigan Officials Shun Citizen Input

The World According to Stupak

March 2, 2010

About Jessica Arons

Dept. rules against native rights, says Eagle Rock isn’t sacred

What You Can Do

Whitmer: State must protect its consumers

New law needed to put teeth into enforcement

Is Bart Stupak a Democrat?

Stop Abortion Coverage Ban

Unhealthy Trend: House Action On Abortion Showcases Power Of Bishops’ Lobby

STUPIFYING How bad is the Stupak amendment?

by mcjoan

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:20:02 AM PST

The Stupak Stupor

The Stupak Stupor

Let Bart Stupak Know What You are Thinking

Stupak To Hold Escanaba Town Hall Meeting

Stupak denies knowledge of connections to mysterious ‘C Street’ house he lives in

'I don’t know what you’re talking about, [The] Family and all this other stuff.'

Michigan Chapter, Sierra Club Update, Early November 2009

Envisioning a Sustainable Future for Northeast Michigan

Rural Communities Need Health Care Reform More Than Anyone