All four members of Maine's Congressional Delegation are asking President Barack Obama to conduct and in-debth examination of China's alleged subsidization of its domestic paper industry.
Senator Olympia Snowe, who led the letter with Ron Wyden (D-OR) in the Senate, and Congressman Michaud, who led the letter with Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) in the House, were joined by over 100 lawmakers from 30 states.
The letter sent to President Obama strongly urges the administration to examine the practices of the Chinese government and to take action to remedy the situation.
A press release from the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) contends that "both labor and management agree that domestic paper jobs will remain in jeopardy because of illegal subsidies given to Chinese paper producers. From 2002 through the end of 2009, overall employment in the U.S. paper and paper products sector dropped 29 percent, from roughly 557,000 workers to 398,000." Should the subsidies continue, the AAM predicts that more jobs in the US will be lost.
The actual letter can be found below:
Dear Mr. President:
We write to bring to your attention the damage caused to American manufacturing by the subsidies that China's paper industry receive, which are significant and market-distorting.
A recently released study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) documents the known subsidies that China's government provides its paper industry and the ensuing exponential growth of production and export sales of Chinese paper. These events correspond to an increasing U.S. trade deficit with China in paper. The EPI study shows that paper production in China tripled over the last ten years, despite global overcapacity, saturated markets, and no inherent advantage in the marketplace. It is clear to us that the rise of China's paper industry is less related to market forces than to a decision by China's government to implement an industrial policy that promotes domestic paper production.
America's paper industry is the most efficient in the world and is part of a supply chain that promotes sustainable forestry practices and good-paying jobs. This industry should not be asked to continue to compete on the unlevel playing field that China has constructed through heavy subsidization of domestic production. This is a critical period of time for the U.S. paper industry. Production in the U.S. has declined while China's surged. From 2002 through the end of 2009, U.S. employment in the paper and paper products sector dropped 29 percent, from roughly 557,000 workers to 398,000. In each of our states and districts, hardworking Americans still rely on the paper industry - both directly and indirectly - for their livelihoods and the chance for a decent, middle-class wage.
To that end, we urge you to carefully examine the practices employed by the Chinese government to provide its paper industry an artificial and unfair advantage in the U.S. market, and determine the extent to which these practices cause or threaten to cause harm to American producers. Such an analysis should be conducted to identify China's unfair trade practices in the paper industry and apply all appropriate and necessary remedies to combat those identified.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
Sincerely,
Sen. Olympia Snowe
Sen. Susan Collins
Rep. Mike Michaud
Rep. Chellie Pingree
and 104 other Members of Congress
President Obama recently announced that he wanted to address the outstanding concerns with the pending Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and bring it to Congress for a vote. In response to that announcement, this week I sent a letter, signed by 109 other Members of Congress, asking the President for a meeting to discuss how we can fix the Korea-U.S. FTA and how we can improve U.S. trade policy so that it works for Mainers, too.
The U.S. approach to trade has not changed drastically in the 15 years since the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect. Now, more than ever is the time to review and revise our trade policy. If the recession showed us anything, it showed us how important it is to have a robust manufacturing sector and how economically damaging our trade deficit can be. The only meaningful way to address these issues is to fix our broken trade policy, and we can start with making changes to the Korea-U.S. FTA.
Unfortunately, fixing a handful of provisions in the Korea FTA, such as those on auto and beef provisions in the Korea FTA will not be sufficient. It is imperative that U.S. car companies and cattle ranchers get equal and complete market access in Korea. But it is also equally important that we make sure the agreement does not undermine the new financial regulations just signed into law or make states' workplace safety regulations vulnerable to challenges by Korean companies doing business here.
It's also critical that we look at basic issues like how to connect small U.S. manufacturers with export opportunities and how to retrain workers who lose their jobs as a result of these trade agreements. Right now, there is not enough technical assistance for our small businesses to find those openings in foreign markets. And Mainers are all too familiar with Trade Adjustment Assistance. The assistance is needed relief and the training is helpful, but without a broader effort to protect our manufacturing sector, there are no jobs to be trained for.
Too often in Washington, efforts to improve our trade priorities are misconstrued as being anti-trade. This is simply an argument of convenience. Of course I support trade. I want Maine's farmers and businesses to export their products to foreign markets. But signing flawed trade agreements just for the sake of signing them is bad policy and it hurts our economy.
The reasons for getting our trade policy right are simple. We shouldn't promote off-shoring of U.S. jobs. We should protect and promote the U.S. manufacturing sector. And we must address our ballooning trade deficit. Signing trade agreements that take away manufacturing jobs or benefit multinational companies at the expense of middle-class families is not only wrong, it's economically unsustainable.
That is why my colleagues and I requested a meeting with President Obama to discuss how we can fix the Korea-U.S. FTA and ways we can improve our long-term trade strategy. A productive conversation will help us take advantage of this unique opportunity to reexamine our approach to trade and make sure it works for all states, including Maine. Opening our markets shouldn't mean losing our livelihoods, but if we keep pushing more bad trade deals, that's exactly what will happen.
The House late Thursday approved additional funding for the war in Afghanistan, beating back a series of Democratic amendments aimed at forcing the Obama administration to withdraw troops.
The supplemental appropriations bill, containing billions of dollars in additional domestic spending sought by Democrats in the House, passed 239-182, with 15 Democrats and 167 of 177 Republicans voting against the measure.
But President Barack Obama will not be able to sign the war funding bill -- which the Pentagon had wanted to see signed into law by July 4 -- until later this month because the House amended the Senate's already approved version of the legislation.
And further changes seem likely. Just as the House was preparing to vote on the rule for the supplemental, the Obama administration released a statement strongly supporting the underlying war funding but threatening a presidential veto of any bill that includes "provisions that would undermine [the president's] ability as commander in chief to conduct military operations in Afghanistan."
Maine Reps. Mike Michaud and Chellie Pingree were amongst the 15 Democrats that voted against the bill. The each issued a statement regarding their votes - Michaud's:
I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and visited with our troops there. They do an amazing job given their tremendously difficult mission.
I support the President's goals of defeating al Qaeda and reducing the threat of global terrorism. However, as we enter our ninth year of this war, our brave troops and their families are being strained by multiple redeployments. The cost of the war has now exceeded $1 trillion dollars, with billions of dollars more that will be needed to continue our current strategy in the region. With an investment of people and resources of this magnitude, I feel obligated to continue to call on the President to provide Congress and the American people with a firm plan and timeline for troop withdrawal, including a set date when U.S. forces will be completely out of Afghanistan.
Just like the Iraq War, I believe that it is of the utmost importance that we finalize a responsible plan to end our time in Afghanistan. Corruption is rampant in Afghanistan and I will continue to oppose these types of funding measures in the absence of a plan to bring our troops home.
I also remain deeply concerned about the ongoing use of supplemental appropriation bills since they allow Congress to circumvent all budget rules. That means every dollar in this bill is added directly to our ballooning debt at a time our economy is struggling. We need to get our fiscal house in order if we are ever going to be able to tackle domestic priorities like improving our economy.
And Pingree's:
Last week the Senate voted not to extend unemployment benefits or pass funding that would help keep firefighters and teachers on the job-because, they said, we couldn't afford it. Isn't it time to start asking whether we can afford a war that costs us $7 billion a month?
After the events of 9/11, the United States went into Afghanistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and dismantle Al Qaeda. Not to occupy the country or build the Afghan government, a government that has proven time and time again to be one of the most corrupt in the world.
A majority of American's don't think we should continue fighting the war in Afghanistan. It's time our national policy catches up with public opinion.
There's the old journalism phrase - "...if a man bites a dog, that is news". Well the bottom-line news right now is that the Democrats in Congress are voting to fund continuation of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and the Republicans are voting against the war funding.
What's with that?
Despite clear opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by the public, two pieces of legislation are being worked in Congress right now to fund expansion of the U.S. military occupation in Afghanistan and to fund yet another year of both U.S. wars. In each of these bills, the military-industrial-political interests have cleverly packaged war funding along with numerous other measures so many members of Congress risk the ire of at least some constituents if they vote to shut off the war funding drain.
The result -- two weeks ago, $33 billion in 2010 "emergency" war funding was approved by the U.S. Senate, and $159 billion in additional 2011 war funding was authorized by the U.S. House of Representatives. Note: more Congressional votes are needed before either of these spending measures is final, but the wars and the debts just keep rolling on with the Democrats in charge.
Beyond the fact that Congress continues to ignore the opinions of most Americans and votes contrary to America's true interests on the most important non-climate issue facing us, what's really interesting - the "man bites dog" part of the story - is how the two political parties lined up in Congress for the votes.
In political news from around the Pine Tree State:
We missed this segment of Countdown with Keith Olbermann this past week, in which he debunks the claims made by Republicans (including Sen. Susan Collins) regarding the Christmas Bomber and how the Obama adminsitration is treating terrorism suspects (h/t Collins Watch):
Update: On Meet the Press this morning, White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan said he briefed four GOP members of Congress on Christmas night regarding Abdulmatallab, including Sen. McConnell, and that "None of those individuals raised any concerns with me."
So in his speech to the Heritage Foundation, McConnell either forgot that briefing or he was lying to score political points. And how is it that Sen. Collins wasn't told about this by McConnell?
At the very least, McConnell let Collins put forth her response video knowing full well that he had not objected to the way the administration was handling the case. Why did he let her do it?
While delegation members generally agree the policy should be reviewed, Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe take a more cautious approach than Democratic Reps. Mike Michaud and Chellie Pingree.
"I support the president's proposal to have the Pentagon do an analysis of the implications and consequences of changing the policy," said Collins, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "I do believe the policy needs to be reconsidered, but I recognize there are a lot of consequences that the Pentagon wants time to figure out."
Collins acknowledged that society has changed since President Bill Clinton signed the policy into law in 1993. During that time, she said, "many of our NATO allies have revised their rules to allow openly gay men and lesbians to serve, and they have done so without it having a negative effect that opponents fear."
Pingree, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said a change is overdue. She backs a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
"Frankly, the sooner we do it and the less painful we make it, the better off the military is to move forward," she said. "We do everything we can to recruit young people into the military and then we spend millions of dollars discharging them - not because they have not performed their duty, but because someone 'outs' them."
Pingree said nearly 14,000 gay and lesbian soldiers have been discharged from the military and untold numbers have been lost to the armed services because they refuse to enlist because of the rule.
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Congressman Mike Michaud voted to pass H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act of 2009. The bill extends a number of important tax provisions, including tax credits that promote research and development and investments in alternative fuels. The bill also extends the deductibility of state and local sales taxes and property tax relief, as well as the college tuition deduction and the deduction for classroom expenses for teachers.
"This bill will make sure that important tax credits do not expire," said Michaud. "The extensions of these tax measures will promote investment in U.S. businesses, save families money, and help teachers recoup money they spend on classroom items."
One provision in the bill that extends tax incentives for Empowerment Zones will directly benefit the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone. These tax incentives will provide businesses in the Aroostook Empowerment Zone with wage tax credits for the coming year. An employer can receive up to a $3,000 wage credit per employee for employees who work and live in the Zone. They also can receive accelerated depreciation expenses on items such as business equipment.
"The empowerment zone tax extension is a positive thing for Aroostook County," said Michaud. "In Congress, we need to refocus our efforts on promoting economic development throughout Maine and the nation. The extension of these tax provisions is important and a step in the right direction."
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Congressman Mike Michaud, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, reacted to the news that the House-Senate conference report on the annual transportation spending bill includes a one year pilot program that would exempt Maine's highways from the 80,000 pound federal truck weight limit. Michaud worked hard to make sure that leaders of the Transportation Committee and Appropriations Committee realized the importance of this pilot project to Maine.
"This pilot program is a good first step in addressing this issue permanently. I will continue to work with the delegation and my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to arrive at a more permanent solution to our state's truck weight mismatch. Maine deserves a permanent solution to this issue so that we can improve road safety, increase productivity and remain economically competitive with our neighbors."
In a flurry of press releases, Reps. Mike Michaud and Chellie Pingree have announced funding for a variety of projects around Maine:
Sacopee Valley Health Center will receive an $802,951 grant. The project in Porter, Maine is being funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1).
"This funding will allow the Sacopee Valley Health Center to reinforce its mission of providing high quality patient-centered primary and preventive health care services," Rep. Michaud said.
Before the days of the cinema, audiences were once entertained by moving panoramas-long, continuous paintings unwound off spools to reveal scenes from a story across the stage. Painted in 1851, one such piece showed the popular storyline of John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" in 62 beautiful scenes. With an 800-foot-long, 8-foot-high canvas, the panorama awed audiences as it toured the region.
Given to the Saco Museum in 1896, the piece was thought lost for 100 years, before being found in 1996. The museum then restored a quarter of the canvas, which has been exhibited across the country.
Using a $50,000 Save America's Treasures Grant, the museum will restore the remainder of the painting. It also plans to produce a video of the scenes as well as a replica of the entire piece so it can be dynamically displayed for the public as it was originally intended.
"There are only about 10 moving panoramas left in the country and this one is in the best condition," said Saco Museum Director Jessica Skwire Routhier. "These were a big deal in their time. When this piece was originally made, it was like the release of a new 'Harry Potter' movie."
Rep, Pingree said, "If we let pieces of our past fade away we lose the history that educates and enriches us," said Pingree. "These funds will go a long way toward protecting irreplaceable parts of Maine's unique legacy and allowing us to keep that legacy alive for generations to come. Only the most significant projects of the highest historical and cultural value win these grants. We should be proud of these projects and the contributions they make to American history."
Today, Congressman Mike Michaud applauded the announcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that the Bucksport Regional Health Center will receive a $2,459,420 grant. The funding will be used for an expansion of its facility to include mental health services and chronic care patient self-management counseling services. The project in Bucksport is being funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, H.R. 1), and Michaud wrote a letter supporting the grant in November. Michaud is planning to join Bucksport Regional Health Center Executive Director John Corrigan at the White House today for a community health centers event.
"The Bucksport Regional Health Center has a strong record of providing exceptional health care services for the 26,000 underserved residents in the area," said Michaud. "This facility has been a leader at providing much needed primary care services in the community. This grant will help the health center expand and provide even more services. This project will also help create jobs and increase economic activity in the community."
In Rockland, a $300,000 grant is being awarded to the Association for Maritime Preservation to restore the Schooner J & E Riggin, built in 1927. An iconic symbol of Maine's Midcoast working waterfront, the vessel is one of only four 1920s oyster dredgers in the world and is the only one that remains a working vessel.
Funds will be used to replace fastening, planking, framing and decking so the Riggin can continue to educate passengers about North America's maritime heritage. The restoration work will be done in Midcoast Maine.
Administered by a partnership of several federal agencies, the Save America's Treasures Grant Program helps preserve naturally significant cultural artifacts and historical structures and sites.
FireDogLake has established a nationwide phone bank to call House members that voted in favor of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962. The amendment would basically ban insurers from covering all abortions, whether the insurance was through the public option or private.
You can volunteer to call targeted Democratic members that supported Stupak by clicking on the logo at the right.
Jane Hamsher of FDL was on Democracy Now! this morning; listen/watch here.:
AMY GOODMAN: Prominent blogger Jane Hamsher has launched a national phone bank campaign to target districts of the representatives who voted for the anti-abortion Stupak amendment. The campaign is called "One Voice for Choice." Jane Hamsher joins us now from Washington, DC, founder of the blog FireDogLake.com.
Jane, welcome to Democracy Now! Explain what this campaign is all about, and in the process, exactly explain what the Stupak amendment is and whether you think it will be included in the Senate bill.
JANE HAMSHER: Well, the Stupak amendment, it was introduced by Bart Stupak, a congressman who began on July the 1st of this year getting signatures from fellow anti-choice members of the Democratic Party in the House to be able to keep any abortion funding out of the healthcare bill. But he went much further than that. That's already the law of the land. That's the Hyde Amendment. But he went much further than that, and they say that no insurance company offering insurance on the exchange, whether it's funded with government money or not, can offer elective abortion coverage. And that threatens to take away abortion coverage from just about any insurance policy, because even the private insurance plans for reinsurance of big companies that have their employees insured can be affected by it, because money for that is provided under the plan.
Ben Nelson will introduce an amendment, but he would have to get sixty votes in the Senate-or, I'm sorry, he'd be able-yeah, I think you have to get sixty votes in the Senate in order to be able to get it into the bill. So I don't really think that it's going to be in the Senate bill. However, Nancy Pelosi has privately been telling people that she can't pass a bill in the House without it. So, even though Diana DeGette got a letter of forty-one members of the House to say they would vote against any bill that didn't have one, the fact is that she had that letter before the last vote, and all of them did vote for it. Furthermore, they won't say who their names are on that letter, and it's been my experience as someone who's run these kinds of whips before that unless those names are public, these people have-feel like there's nothing that they're accountable to, and in the end they'll do it.
So we took a look at the sixty-four members of the Democratic Party who were the ones who voted for the Stupak amendment, and we looked at what was going on and thought, well, how can we micro-target them in order to be able to use the leverage that we can create by people having phone banks and calling into their districts in order to be able to affect them? You're looking at people who are very scared about the 2010 election. They are in close districts. They feel like they have to appeal to Republicans in their districts in order to get votes. And they're voting for the Stupak amendment because they think that it will make them more popular in 2010.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) will be holding a Ministerial Conference 30 November through 2 December, the theme of which is "Multilateral Trading System and the Current Global Economic Environment."
Leading into it, Rep. Mike Michaud sent along this statement via email:
Those of us in Congress who have supported reforming our trade policies believe the current DOHA Round framework is bad for the United States. Instead of expanding the WTO model and its proven damage further, we need to turn around this agenda and make trade work again for all nations. Almost half of the entire Democratic Caucus has co-sponsored the TRADE Act, which explicitly calls for WTO renegotiation. We stand ready to work with the Administration to deliver on its promise of a change agenda at the WTO.
The TRADE Act of 2009 (H.R. 3012), sponsored my Mr. Michaud, is worth noting, as the summary from govtrack makes clear:
Trade Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment Act of 2009 or the TRADE Act of 2009 - Directs the Comptroller General to: (1) review biennially certain free trade agreements (including Uruguay Round Agreements) between the United States and foreign countries to evaluate their economic, environmental, national security, health, safety, and other effects; and (2) report on them to the Congressional Trade Agreement Review Committee (established by this Act), including analyses of specified aspects of each agreement and certain information about agreement parties, such as whether the country has a democratic form of government, respects certain core labor rights and fundamental human rights, protects intellectual property rights, and enforces environmental laws. Declares that implementing bills of new trade agreements shall not be subject to expedited consideration or special procedures limiting amendment, unless such agreements include certain standards with respect to: (1) labor; (2) human rights; (3) environment and public safety; (4) food and product health and safety; (5) provision of services; (6) investment; (7) procurement; (8) intellectual property; (9) agriculture; (10) trade remedies and safeguards; (11) dispute resolution and enforcement; (12) technical assistance; (13) national security; and (14) taxation. Requires the President to submit to Congress a plan for the renegotiation of existing trade agreements to bring them into compliance with such standards. Establishes a Congressional Trade Agreement Review Committee. Expresses the sense of Congress that certain processes for U.S. trade negotiations should be followed when Congress considers legislation providing special procedures for implementing bills of trade agreements.
This is really a huge bill, in that it requires that one-sided (pro-business, fuck labor and the environment) agreements entered into under Clinton and Bush Jr. be reviewed, and brought into line. That 128 other Congressmen have signed onto it (including Chellie Pingree), says a lot.
There had been a fair amount of grumbling amongst gay rights advocates since last year's election, with many feeling that despite the hard work they gave to the Obama campaign, that the administration now sees them as a nuisance. This was compounded by the President not speaking forthrightly in favor of the NO on 1 campaign. Then add this latest revelation in the leaked email of the Treasurer of the DNC, and well...
The talk is heating up that instead of supporting that instead of supporting the Democratic Party with their time and money, gay rights advocates will instead support progressive candidates. Some may view this as an immature reaction to yet another loss, but I disagree - progressives and populists of all kinds still do not have a voice within the Democratic Party that equals their supporters.
And then look at the lack of public leadership amongst elected officials. Many members of our Legislature took a courageous stand on LD 1020, as did Gov. Baldacci. But on the Federal level, only Rep. Chellie Pingree had the courage to voice her convictions regarding equal marriage.
Hello Rep. Mike Michaud!
And while they are not Democrats, our two senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, were not only mum on the issue, they refused to even provide any kind of statement about it when asked.
And we wonder why 53% of Mainers voted Yes on 1? Three-quarters of our delegation didn't think it important enough to try to influence their constituents.
I'm curious as to how Snowe, Collins, and Michaud actually voted on Question 1.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) unveiled a health-care reform bill Thursday that includes a government insurance option and a historic expansion of Medicaid, and seemed to have the potential to draw support from a broad range of Democratic lawmakers.
Democratic House aides said party leaders had yet to resolve long-standing disputes over provisions to prevent federal funds from being used to subsidize abortions and to block illegal immigrants from receiving benefits. But lawmakers also said there was a growing realization among Democrats from across the political spectrum that the time had arrived to compromise and move forward after weeks of internal battling.
"At the end of the day, we've got to pass something," said Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.). "The whole debate, I hope, has been about more than just therapy."
The 1,990-page bill includes a version of the "public option" preferred by moderates and raises Medicaid eligibility levels to 150 percent of the federal poverty level for all adults, a steeper increase than in earlier drafts.
In a prepared statement sent to the media, Rep. Mike Michaud had this to say:
We have an historic opportunity to pass health care reform. After months of consideration and debate in three congressional committees, House leaders laid out their bill today. While the actual language of the bill is just now being made available for the Congress and the American public to read, I am pleased that reform efforts are progressing.
We must bring stability and security to Americans who have insurance today, and affordable coverage to those who don't. We must also promote fiscally responsible reform that will not add to our debt or the skyrocketing growth in the cost of health care. The status quo is unacceptable and we must act.
One of my greatest responsibilities as a member of Congress is to always ask the question - Is this legislation good for Maine? Over the last few months, I talked to a lot of Mainers about health care reform during meetings, roundtables, and telephone town halls. Families, individuals, small businesses, and health care providers all raised specific concerns they had with various aspects of health care reform. Whether it's making sure health insurance is more affordable or that rural areas and small businesses are treated fairly, Mainers have legitimate concerns that must be addressed in a final bill. We need reform, but we need it done right and we need it to work for our state.
I have had some serious concerns with previous versions of the bill - specifically, how the cuts in Medicare would impact our seniors, home health care agencies, nursing homes and rural providers in Maine. I am also concerned about how low reimbursement rates already negatively impact our overall health care system in Maine.
I have been working hard every day to resolve these concerns, and I will closely examine this new bill to make sure that it is a good one for Maine. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to accomplish meaningful reform.
When asked why Rep. Michaud said nothing about a public option, Ed Gilman, spokesman for Rep. Michaud, emailed me:
The Congressman has always supported a public option.
Rep. Chellie Pingree also had a statement:
The health care bill introduced today takes important steps toward making quality, affordable health care available to all Americans. It will lower costs, provide more choice and reform some of the insurance industry's worst practices-like excluding people based on pre-existing conditions.
This bill includes a public option, which is essential to give consumers real choice and give the insurance companies real competition.
And the legislation introduced today will protect Medicare and Medicare recipients. Nothing in this bill cuts basic Medicare benefits. And it will close the donut hole for prescription drug prices.
Today, Congressman Mike Michaud announced that he will hold a telephone town hall on health care reform on Wednesday, August 26th beginning at 7:10 PM. This will be the second telephone town hall held by Michaud on health care reform. Nearly 2,000 Mainers participated in the first call that was held on July 20th.
"As I travel around the state and hear directly from Mainers about health care, it's clear that people want reform done right," said Michaud. "Having this month to hear directly from Mainers has been extremely beneficial. The people that I've met with have real concerns that I will take back to Washington with me as Congress continues to work on crafting a health care reform bill. This week's telephone town hall will provide another great opportunity for me to hear directly from Mainers."
People wishing to participate in the telephone town hall may call (877) 269-7289 (PIN to enter the call is 14635) on Wednesday evening at 7:10 PM. Information on the call, as well as additional information on health care reform, has been posted on Michaud's website.
"I look forward to hearing from Mainers," said Michaud. "I will continue to update my website with the most up-to-date information available as the debate on health care moves forward."
I'd like to talk to you, once again, about health care reform. I have decided to include each of you in all my future correspondence, and I would welcome any reply that each of you care to make.
Do you believe the following words to be true?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
- Declaration of Independence
I believe they are not true. Though written and signed by men of great courage and foresight, they still failed. At that time, they failed include more than 50% of the population.
I believe these words have slowly become more accurate over the years. Today they include most of the population, but not all... so these words are indeed more accurate, but ultimately they are still not true. We have failed to fully realize what Lincoln called "our Grand Experiment." By which he meant a true representative democracy, or as he put it "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Why point this out? What does it have to do with health care reform? Everything. Like it or not, and most don't like it, the insurance industry is a form of government. A government accountable, not to the people, but only to profit.
Sen. Snowe, you recently took a walk in Bangor, and talked with some people about health care. First, a sincere thank you for making yourself available. It means a lot to us.
I found myself intrigued by the Bangor Daily News coverage of the event. Here is an excerpt of a conversation with Dr. Kathryn Bourgoin:
"The senator, as cool as anyone could be on a 90-degree day, agreed that Medicare has worked well for the nation's seniors. "But, I'm not as confident that government can run an entire system," Snowe said." - Snowe talks health care on Bangor walk; The Bangor Daily News, August 20, 2009, By Eric Russell.
Interesting perspective, to say the least, since you seem to have the utmost confidence that, with a little reform, the private sector can run an entire system just fine. How is that even possible? It defies all logic.
Please.... please... PLEASE, take off your ideological blinders that tell you the "free market" works best in any situation, and look at the evidence.
Medicare has a long, successful track record, as you have admitted, an overhead of 4%, and the person running it makes $150,000 a year.
The private sector insurance companies, on the other hand, have an average of 30% overhead, and an average CEO salary in excess of $10,000,0001. These companies preside over the most expensive system in the world, we pay 50% more for our health care than the next closest industrialized country, and we pay that premium for a quality of service that ranks 37th in the world, and dead last among the top 19 industrialized nations2.
Great Britain has government run health care, and spends just 6% of it's GDP on health care. The United States spends 17% of the GDP of the largest economy on the planet, yet the WHO ranks Great Britain's system 18th in the world compared to 37th for United States2.
Afraid of rationing? Try getting into an emergency room in any U.S. city, on any given evening. In his book, Sick: The Untold Story of America's Health Care Crisis - and the People Who Pay the Price, Jonathan Cohn tells the story of a 55 year old Boston woman with heart disease. One evening at 4:35pm, following her collapse and a 911 call, the responding ambulance was turned away, due to over-crowding, from the emergency room of the closest hospital [within 5 minutes] equipped to deal with her condition. She was re-routed to another nearby hospital whose trauma team did not have the means to perform the life saving procedure she required. By 7:03pm that evening, she had died.
Why the crowding, and hence the rationing? Because the under-insured and uninsured have no choice but to go to emergency rooms for any treatment they need. You see, to have a regular primary care physician and office visits, they pretty much insist on having insurance and/or immediate payment. While emergency rooms cannot, by law, refuse emergency treatment. So these people literally have to wait until a condition becomes an emergency!
Why is this true? Put simply, so H. Edward Hanway (Cigna) can retire with a $73 million golden parachute1, and Ronald Williams (Aetna) can make $18.6 million a year1. What do we get for paying this exorbitant compensation? They develop better and better ways to raise premiums, deny claims, exclude the sick from coverage, and purge customers who actually, you know, use the insurance to get health care (the audacity!). Also known as making a profit in a free market, but yeah, Senator, big government is the problem.
Senator, what exactly, considering the above, makes you so confident in the private insurers? Your reform? Your oft-touted SHOP Act doesn't even ban discriminatory practices such as pre-existing conditions. Fostering competition? Your bill fails there too, Senator, a co-op for shopping? No matter how many co-ops you form, there are still only 8 major players, and they don't need your co-op as badly as you need them... According the economics I studied, that still leaves them in the driver's seat on pricing.
What makes me so sure? Because some states, like Maine, already have consumer protection laws that these companies don't want to deal with... so they just don't offer insurance here. What's your plan on that?
Seriously, what is your plan? Since the Finance Committee is keeping the details of their plan under wraps (somewhat understandably, I admit) during negotiations, we really don't know anything but the broad strokes. According to the Washington Post, It will cover an estimated 94% of Americans -- eventually. Here's an interesting quote from article: "The Finance Committee coalition is seeking compromise on some of the most complex issues facing Congress [such as]... ...who and how many should be allowed to remain uninsured."
Yet, even as you sit your taxpayer sponsored; all visits, screenings, and procedures 100% covered; socialized health insured "persons" around your conference table deciding whom to exclude, Some of you people have the nerve, the unmitigated gall, to call the provisions of H.R. 3200, Sec. 1233 monstrous, evil, and/or dangerous? You have the temerity to lie about bureaucrats making life-critical decisions they have no business making? It's becoming very easy to see where you get your material.
Congress needs to come to grip a certain fact: Only a non-profit, low overhead organization is going to fix this. So, tell us Senator, what's wrong with Medicare for everyone again?
By the way, I have an idea. How about we leave members of congress, and all the congressional support staff serving congress as a whole, uninsured? The co-ops are your idea, how about you buy your insurance there?
1. Source: AFL-CIO, 2009 Executive Pay Watch 2. Source: World Health Organization, World Health Report
Note: fortunately, it's a well established fact that the terms "persons" and "asses" are interchangeable when discussing members of congress.
As I walked into yesterday's tour at the AEWC at UMO, I was handed a letter from a staffer at Jason Levesque's campaign Levesque is challenging Rep. Mike Michaud in 2010 (I did not see Levesque there).
In the letter, Levesque challenges Michaud's support for a public option, and invites him to hold a joint Town Hall meeting on health insurance reform:
I don't have to tell you that this is one of the biggest issues that you will be faceing in Congress this year and I believe the voters of the 2nd District deserve an opportunity to be heard before you vote.
I propose we hold a joint town hall meeting to discuss health care. This is not meant to be an ambush or a one-sided debate, but rather an opportunity for voters across the district to express their opinion before you vote on this bill.
While talking to a reporter, he noted that at every event he covers (no matter the subject) that features a member of the Maine delegation to Congress, there are always a small number of protesters at hand, either in favor of or opposition to, health insurance reform.
Why Rep. Michaud would enable the shout down protesters a chance to deny his constituents a chance to speak, even in opposition, is beyond me. Nor can I think of why Michaud would hold a debate with Levesque, who hasn't even won his party's nomination.
Transportation Sec. Raymond LaHood visited the Advanced Structures and Compostie Center at the University of Maine today, to inspect the lab and learn more about the "Bridge in a Backpack." He was the guest of Rep. Mike Michaud and Dr. Habib Dagher, Director of the AEWC. From their website, the AEWC is a:
"48,000 ft2 ISO 17025 accredited, world-leading facility with ten integrated laboratories under one roof. The Center houses laboratories for composite materials manufacturing science, resin infusion, polymer/interface science, environmental durability testing, mechanical testing, nondestructive evaluation (NDE), advanced microscopy, and large-scale multidegree-of-freedom static and dynamic structural testing.
The Center also houses two pilot plants: a Composites Extrusion Pilot Plant and a Strand Composites Pilot Plant."
The focus on today's visit by Sec. LaHood was the Bridge-in-a-Backpack, an innovative engineering solution to short span structures. Essentially, two infaltable tubes filled with polymers and resins are set to the correct design position, and allowed to harden. The hollow cores of the tubes are then filled with concrete, providing the structure necessary to carry loads over the desired span. Dr. Dagher told me that this structural system is capable of carrying both road and railway loads.
After an introduction by President Bob Kennedy, Dr. Dagher explained that Sec. LaHood was shown more than a dozen technical aspects of the lab, with the focus on the Bridge-in-a-Backpack. Dagher said that this type of construction would greatly reduce the time need for construction of bridges using current methods, and would reduce the carbon footprint of such construction by 50%.
Dagher also noted that cost savings over current methods of construction would be on order of 20% for erection, and over 40% over the life of a comparable conventional structure.
Sec. LaHood was delighted at what he saw, and heaped praise on Rep. Mike Michaud, stating that Michaud had invited him to his office the day after he took office. LaHood jokingly said Michaud had brought one certain "weighty issue" to his attention, meaning of course efforts to incrase the turck limit on Interstaes in Maine from the current 80,000 pounds to 100,000.
And as you might expect, there was a fine photo-op of the dignitaries lifting a 60 foot wide tube arch set up for the purpose:
I also want to express my thanks to Aimee Dolloff and Joe Carr, both of the University of Maine, who were much more than kind in answering my questions.
One of the things most talked about at the blogger summit I attended yesterday in Pittsburgh was what is the link about gay rights and immigration reform. At first glance the two movements do not seem to have any areas of crossover, but after you read the story about Shirley Tan, her partner Jay Mercado, and their twin sons, you'll see that there is plenty. From People Magazine last April, a gay mom faces deportation:
Their twin sons were fast asleep when two men with badges rang the doorbell at 6:30 a.m. on Jan. 28. Inside their tidy suburban Pacifica, Calif., home, Jay Mercado was getting ready for work, and her wife, Shirley Tan, planned to take the boys to school. But the two men-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents-had other plans. They produced an order of deportation, and minutes later Tan was under arrest. After a day in jail Tan was sent home with an electronic ankle bracelet pending her deportation hearing. "I said, 'I am not a fugitive,'" Tan, 43, recalls through tears. "We're just a simple, happy family."
But this stay-at-home soccer mom's situation is complicated and, for the moment, dire. Despite her long relationship with Mercado-they are registered domestic partners who wed in 2004-Tan is in the U.S. illegally. This month she was ordered to appear in court with a plane ticket to the Philippines. There was an appeal, and she won a stay until April 22, but may be deported then. "Why is this happening to them?" asks Mercado's mother, Renee, 76 (Tan is her primary caretaker). "It doesn't happen often that people find this kind of love."
As Steve Ralls from Immigration Equality explained to us, Tan's deportation has been delayed until 2011, due to a private bill sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. But this is still temporary, and applies only to Tan. As the Advocate notes in crossing borders, there are many more binational gay couples under similar threats:
Perhaps it's no surprise that the injustice faced by Matthew, his partner, and thousands of other gay couples historically has failed to achieve a critical mass of outrage, despite persistent grassroots efforts and a series of legislative attempts to address the inequity. Most Americans simply will never find themselves falling in love and building a life with a person who is forever forced into the "Noncitizens" line at JFK. Only 6% of same-sex unmarried couples are binational, according to one study by UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute, a think tank focusing on laws regarding sexual orientation, and the affected couples who are active in lobbying for policy reforms have worked largely behind the scenes -- particularly if a nonresident partner is in the country illegally.
This year the landscape is changing. In June the Department of Health and Human Services enacted policy reforms that will bring down one long-standing barrier to immigration, a ban on HIV-positive foreign visitors (George W. Bush last year signed a bill into law approving the change but did not implement it). And in Congress two bills that would grant immigration rights to gay couples have given the issue unprecedented attention in the fractious battle over immigration reform expected to play out in the upcoming autumn legislative session. Should the bills be included in a larger immigration package (one that could ultimately include a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants), they could become a significant step for gay rights under the Obama administration. For the first time the federal government would acknowledge the rights of gays and lesbians to live in this country with their partner of choice, regardless of national origin.
There is a bill before Congress sponsored by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 1024, S. 424) that would revise immigration law to expand who can become a citizen through marriage to a U.S. national, in this case adding "permanent partners" to the list. Both Reps. Michaud and Pingree are cosponsors of the House version.
H.R. 1024 has been rolled into another bill in its entirety. This one, sponsored by Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), the Reuniting Families Act (H.R. 2709), further expands the rights of foreign born children of "permanent partners" to the same level as those of foreign born husbands or wives. H.R. 2709 has now become the lead bill.
Here is the testimony delivered by Shirley Tan before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary:
There is much more to follow, so please check back.
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an