Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Portrait of a Scoundrel

Here's a video clip of Joe Lieberman advocating--just three months ago!!!--for the same Medicare buy-in plan he's now threatening to filibuster.

There's no excuse for anyone to pretend any longer that Lieberman's behavior can be explained in terms of logic, evidence or principle. Ezra Klein's comments on this are particularly apt.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Now's the Time

We are on the cusp of a decision that may launch our country on a path of genuine improvements to our health care system. Whether the outcome is progressive reform depends on all of us.

Here's a list of events, most in New York, some not. Please do what you can.


Upper Manhattan Health Care Reform Forum with Barack Obama Democratic Club of Upper Manhattan
Time: 7 PM
Location: The Armory – 216 Ft. Washington Ave., between 168th & 169th St. (ground floor theater).

• State Senator Eric Schneiderman, sponsor of a bill that would enact universal health coverage in NY State.
• Councilman Bill de Blasio, Democratic nominee for NYC Public Advocate, and sponsor of a bill to promote healthy eating.
• Geoff Berman, Deputy Field Director for OFA NY.
• Dr. Aaron Fox, National Physicians Alliance


National Day of Action - Rally for the Public Option
Time: 4:30 - 5:30 PM
Location: Southwest corner of Union Square.
Host: Moveon.org

Bring thank you cards written to Sen. Schumer, or write them right there at the event. A member of Sen. Schumer's office will be on hand to accept the cards.


Get BACK on the Bus for Health Care Reform
Time: 9:00 AM
Location: Easton, PA - Departing from Port Authority Bus Terminal
Host: Tom Predhome


"Health Care Issues: Urgent Issues, Critical Information"
Time 5:30 - 7:30 pm
Location: New York Presbyterian Hospital - Main Building 21 Bloomingdale Road, White Plains, NY 10605
Host: NASW NYS Westchester Division & the League of Women Voters of Westchester
• Mark Hannay, Director, New York Metro Health Care for All Campaign
• Mary Beth Morrissey,
MPH, Health Care Attorney, Fordham Ravazzin Center on Aging


OFA Phone Bank for Health Care Reform

Times: Shifts at 12 pm, 2 pm
Location: OFA office in Midtown East

Staten Island Senior Center Tour
Time: 12:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Location: TBD (Staten Island, NY)

Women Calling Women to Fight for Health Care Reform
Time: 12:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Bronx, NY 10463

Time to Deliver Call Party
Time: 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Location: 308 East 72nd Street, 11 D (New York, NY)

Queens Senior to Senior Phonebank
Time: 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Location: TBD (Jamaica, NY)

Women Calling Women to Fight for Health Care Reform
Time: 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Location: TBD (Bronxville, NY)

Bushwick Health-Care Reform Telephone Soiree
Time: 7:00 PM - 10:00 PM
Location: Brooklyn, NY (Brooklyn, NY)

Call for Health Reform (UWS)
Time: 8:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Location: 300 W 110th Street, Apt. 5E, New York, NY 10026


Busting the myths and making the case for health care for all!
LEARN WHAT YOU CAN DO to fight the myths and misinformation about health reform!
Time: 7:00 - 9:00 pm; Doors open at 6:30 pm with refreshments
Location: Rosenfield Building, Hess Commons (Main Flr.)
Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University722 W 168th St.
Myth-busting speakers will include:
For up-to-date information on speakers, visit www.phanyc.org
Help make sure we get health reform this year!

More events on my.barackobama.com

Saturday, September 12, 2009

I Have to Raise My Voice

Tuesday is primary day in NYC, which of course means we're all being bombarded with flyers, ads, etc. You all know the drill.

I got home last night to find a really sleazy flyer in my mailbox from one Delia Hunley-Adossa containing the following:

At the top of the page is a very unflattering black & white photo of my councilwoman, Letitia James.

Underneath, in bold solid caps, is the following text:

So just how much did Letitia James have to pay?

James' political career was borne of a corrupt county system that put a price on holding office and collected big from ambitious candidates like James. The party bosses ruled and the power-hungry paid for their support.

The County Organization hand-delivered James into office and James... well, let's just say that one hand washes the other.

A few points:

1. Note the juxtaposition of the word "convicted" with the photo, clearly implying , by association, criminality on the part of James.

2. Unnamed "leaders" are accused of selling "office" (which office?) in the upper-case text. Just below, the flyer asks how much James had to pay. There is nothing in the flyer specifying any charges whatsoever against James.

3. The accusations are all made via implication, which is pretty underhanded. The implicit argument seems to be the following:

  • The Brooklyn Democratic organization (never mentioned by name, btw) is corrupt;

  • Letitia James is part of the Brooklyn Democratic Party;

  • Ergo, she must be corrupt, too (this is obviously guilt-by-association, which is a slimy way to make an argument).

4. The last sentence in the flyer is in two parts. The first says "The County Organization hand-delivered James into office..." This is false. James actually had decided not to run for the council seat then held by James Davis, but his assassination led to the problematic candidacy of his brother. James then entered the race, winning handily.

5. The second part of the last sentence is another unsourced smear: "and James... well, let's just say that one hand washes the other." What's the basis for this claim? As with all the other innuendos in the flyer, no evidence is provided to support it.

So who is the object of all these innuendos and smears?

Letitia James is a lawyer whose role models were Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley & Barbara Jordan. She worked for the Legal Aid Society, then was Assistant Attorney General under then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. She served as Chief of Staff to Assemblyman Roger L. Green, then as counsel to then-State Assemblyman Albert Vann. She gained a reputation as a rough-edged election lawyer for the Democratic Party, which probably earned her the enmity of some. On the City Council, she led efforts to set up a Business Improvement District on Fulton Street, opposed Mayor Bloomberg's successful effort to repeal term limits, supported the creation of bike lanes, and for greater stimulus funding for the 35th district, and, most relevant to the Hunley-Adossa flyer, has been one of the most prominent opponents of the Atlantic Yards project.

And who, you ask, is the candidate behind the sleazy flyer?

Delia Hunley-Adossa
is a long-time community activist whose group, Brooklyn Endeavor Experience, has received over $400,000 from Bruce Ratner. Yes, that Bruce Ratner--the developer of Atlantic Yards. Needless to say, Hunley-Adossa is a staunch supporter of the Atlantic Yards project. Her group is also heavily stocked with family members, according to The Brooklyn Paper, a practice commonly known as nepotism, and one we certainly don't need to see on the City Council.

Hunley-Adossa has distinguished herself in this campaign by comments in a debate at the offices of The Brooklyn Paper in which she exhibited unfamiliarity with the powers and responsibilities of the City Council, and a pronounced aversion to questioning by the news media, as reported by Brooklyn Paper:

The debate was a rare opportunity for The Brooklyn Paper to question Hunley-Adossa, who stopped returning phone calls from The Paper’s reporters months ago. She explained the snub, saying she didn’t know that we had called, though later revealed that she must have known about the reporters’ calls because they came to her home phone and cellphone — devices that she does not answer because they are “private” lines.

“It’s invasive,” said the candidate, whose opinion about privacy was not shared by the other candidates.

She promised to answer her phone 24 hours a day if she’s elected to office.

It remains to be seen whether Hunley-Adossa's veracity with regard to accessibility will be any greater if she's elected than it has been during the campaign.

Hunley-Adossa is very well funded, thanks to Ratner. The flyer in question is very well produced--heavy paper stock, glossy finish, high resolution, perfect registration, and diabolically clever wording & positioning of page elements. It looks and feels, in fact, very much like a piece one would expect to find in a Republican Party campaign. National political consultants have been hired to work on election races in NY city & state before, and this certainly feels like the work of the kinds of people who gave us the Willy Horton ad, the assaults on Michael Dukakis and the teabaggers, with their bogus claims about Obama plans for euthenasia, kidnapping and indoctrination.

Let's give the people behind this sort of campaigning the kind of result they deserve. Let's vote on Tuesday for Letitia James, who has done a good job representing us in the 35th district, and who does not reduce public discourse to the gutter level to promote her candidacy.

Friday, September 11, 2009

We're #37!!!!

Here's a little song about our global standing in terms of health care. I don't know who's responsible for it, but it's letter perfect:

[H/T Marta Evry at Venice for Change]

Thursday, August 13, 2009


August 29, 2009


2 PM Rally at Times Square, 42nd St. and 7th Avenue

Health reform is finally within grasp. Opponents are spending millions every day to destroy it. We cannot let this happen. We voted for change in '08 and we must see it through.

On Saturday, August 29, 2009, New Yorkers will walk from all parts of the city for the first ever United We Walk for Reform Rally in support of the historic health reform legislation before Congress.

It's our health care. It's our time. Save the date to make your voice heard.

Grassroots groups will meet in front of hospitals and health clinics across the city to walk to rally at Times Square. Check out mybarackobama.com for meeting locations in the next week (or set up one of your own).
2 - 3:30 PM - UNITY RALLY: Rally for health care at Times Square, 42nd St. and 7th Avenue

Want to organize your own walk to the rally? It's easy:

1) List your "United, We Walk for Health Care Reform" event on mybarackobama.com and spread the word to your friends.
2) To calculate the time you'll need to get to Times Square, we recommend hopstop.com.
3) Have fun and bring banners, wear t-shirts and buttons. Be creative!
4) Remind people to use sidewalks and bring posterboard signs (nothing on sticks).

Thank you for being a leader for health care reform. This can't happen without you!

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Demystifying the Health Care Debate

We break down what’s going on with Health Care Reform

Saturday, August 15 at 3pm

2479 Frederick Douglass Blvd just below 133rd St.

Featuring Harlem4 members:

Dr. Janet Taylor (Today Show, Star Jones Live)
Steve Leser (Editor, OpEd News)

Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

In November-and against all odds, we took the driver's seat. We cannot become guilty of falling asleep at the wheel.

The availability, the expense and the inadequacies of health care in America are a national disgrace. We worked hard to elect an Administration that is responsive to the needs of everyday Americans. The next stage requires that we continue our call that health care in America is regarded as a human right. We are making the statement that national health care is a national imperative and we feel that there is no more appropriate place to make our stand than in Harlem.

Join us. Bring your family. Bring your friends, neighbors and coworkers. Please forward and distribute the flier below. To make change, we must make our stand.

As Barack Obama said himself, change in health care "requires a mobilization of energy of the American people to insist on a Congress and a White House that are actually going to deliver this time."

Chet Whye

On Facebook:

On mybarackobama.com:

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Upcoming Events

Sick in the System

Film Screening Party

Tuesday, August 11th, 7-10 PM

Irish Rogue, 356 W. 44th St (between 8th and 9th Ave.)

RSVP: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/healthcareorganizingevent/gpf3lv

Join us at the Irish Rogue to view this powerful documentary made by a group of New York grassroots volunteers!

We will also talk about how we will help cure our "sick" system!

The film features real life stories, which have been central to swaying Congress and is something President Obama's been asking for. It's the all volunteer work of a young director, Brooklynite Brian Umana, and his team of twelve, who have interviewed dozens of New Yorkers over the past few months. We're learning how important personal stories are to this movement, and that's why this particular volunteer effort is so important: to get these stories to legislators.

Check out clips here:

Kelly (from Brooklyn): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8yLr2LLrCQ
Community Health Fair

Saturday, August 8 10:00 AM


A multi cultural Annual health fair. With Music, food and fun. The celebration includes Health care and mental Health information. The goal is to Educate the community, while celebrating the end of summer. This Event will be held at the Calvary Cathedral of Praise, where several colorful tents will be erected. A variety of the finest exotic and comfort foods/dishes from various Countries including the U.S.A. Health care data via mobile equipment. Information about Health Care Reform will be on Hand. Members from Organizing for America are encouraged and urged to participate,and to enjoy the event.

TimeSaturday, August 8,10 AM
Host:Joanne A Bailey
Location:Calvary Cathedral of Praise (Brooklyn, NY)

45 East 8th Street

Brooklyn, NY 11218

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Hoodlum in the House--er, Town Hall

Here's a great Rachel Maddow segment about the staged disruptions of Democratic representatives' town hall meetings around the country.

These organized mobs remind me of Mussolini's black shirts. After the Brooks Brothers riot in Florida (2000), I can't say I'm completely surprised, but it still does amaze me that a major political party and its allies are willing to stoop this low.

I guess the only antidotes are intense blogger pressure on the media to report on the groups involved and their leaked strategy memo, and large crowds of people genuinely interested in rational public discourse.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Health Care Reform and the Already Insured

Here is a great New York Times editorial, analyzing the effects of the health care reform plans currently under debate in Congress on those of us who already have health insurance:
Health Care Reform and You

Published: July 25, 2009

The health care reform bills moving through Congress look as though they would do a good job of providing coverage for millions of uninsured Americans. But what would they do for the far greater number of people who already have insurance? As President Obama noted in his news conference last week, many of them are wondering: “What’s in this for me? How does my family stand to benefit from health insurance reform?”

Many crucial decisions on coverage and financing have yet to be made, but the general direction of the legislation is clear enough to make some educated guesses about the likely winners and losers.


The House bill and a similar bill in the Senate would require virtually all Americans to carry health insurance with specified minimum benefits or pay a penalty. They would require all but the smallest businesses to provide and subsidize insurance that meets minimum standards for their workers or pay a fee for failing to do so.

The reforms would help the poorest of the uninsured by expanding Medicaid. Some middle-class Americans — earning up to three or four times the poverty level, or $66,000 to $88,000 for a family of four —would get subsidies to help them buy coverage through new health insurance exchanges, national or state, which would offer a menu of policies from different companies.


Many insured people need help almost as much as the uninsured. Premiums and out-of-pocket spending for health care have been rising far faster than wages. Millions of people are “underinsured” — their policies don’t come close to covering their medical bills. Many postpone medical care or don’t fill prescriptions because they can’t afford to pay their share of the costs. And many declare personal bankruptcy because they are unable to pay big medical debts.

The reform effort should help ease the burdens of many of them, some more quickly than others. The legislation seems almost certain to include a new marketplace, the so-called health insurance exchange. Since there will be tens of millions of new subscribers, virtually all major insurers are expected to offer policies through an exchange. To participate, these companies would have to agree to provide a specified level of benefits, and they would set premiums at rates more comparable to group rates for big employers than to the exorbitant rates typically charged for individual coverage.

Under the House bill, the exchanges would start operating in 2013. They would be open initially to people who lack any insurance; to the 13 million people who have bought individual policies from insurance companies, which often charge them high rates for relatively skimpy coverage; and to employees of small businesses, who often pay high rates for their group policies, especially if a few of their co-workers have run up high medical bills. By the third year, larger businesses might be allowed to shift their workers to an exchange. All told, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 36 million people would be covered by policies purchased on an exchange by 2019.


As part of health reform, all insurance companies would be more tightly regulated. For Americans who are never quite certain that their policies will come through for them when needed, that is very good news.

The House bill, for example, would require that all new policies sold on or off the exchanges must offer yet-to-be-determined “essential benefits.” It would prohibit those policies from excluding or charging higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions and would bar the companies from rescinding policies after people come down with a serious illness. It would also prohibit insurers from setting annual or lifetime limits on what a policy would pay. All this would kick in immediately for all new policies. These rules would start in 2013 for policies purchased on the exchange, and, after a grace period, would apply to employer-provided plans as well.


Current estimates suggest that it would cost in the neighborhood of $1 trillion over 10 years to extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. Under current plans, half or more of that would be covered by reducing payments to providers within the giant Medicare program, but the rest would require new taxes or revenue sources.

If President Obama and House Democratic leaders have their way, the entire tax burden would be dropped on families earning more than $250,000 or $350,000 or $1 million a year, depending on who’s talking. There is strong opposition in the Senate, and it seems likely that at least some burden would fall on the less wealthy.

Many Americans reflexively reject the idea of any new taxes — especially to pay for others’ health insurance. They should remember that if this reform effort fails, there is little hope of reining in the relentless rise of health care costs. That means their own premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses will continue to soar faster than their wages. And they will end up paying higher taxes anyway, to cover a swelling federal deficit driven by escalating Medicare and Medicaid costs.


Healthy young people who might prefer not to buy insurance at all will probably be forced to by a federal mandate. That is all to the good. When such people get into a bad accident or contract a serious illness, they often can’t pay the cost of their care, and the rest of us bear their burden. Moreover, conscripting healthy people into the insured pool would help reduce the premiums for sicker people.

Less clear is what financial burden middle-income Americans would bear when forced to buy coverage. There are concerns that the subsidies ultimately approved by Congress might not be generous enough.


The main gain for these people is greater security. If they got laid off or chose to leave their jobs, they would no longer be faced with the exorbitant costs of individually bought insurance but could buy new policies through the insurance exchanges at affordable rates.

President Obama has also pledged that if you like your current insurance you can keep it.

Right now employers are free to change or even drop your coverage at any time. Under likely reforms, they would remain free to do so, provided they paid a penalty to help offset the cost for their workers who would then buy coverage through an exchange. Under the House reform bill, all employers would eventually be allowed to enroll their workers in insurance exchanges that would offer an array of policies to choose from, including a public plan whose premiums would almost certainly be lower than those of competing private plans.

Some employers might well conclude that it is a better deal — for them or for you — to subsidize your coverage on the exchange rather than in your current plan. If so, you might end up with better or cheaper coverage. You would probably also have a wider choice of plans, since most employers offer only one or two options.


Two factors could help drive down the premiums for those who are insured. In the short-term, if reform manages to cover most of the uninsured, that should greatly reduce the amount of charity care delivered by hospitals and eliminate the need for the hospitals to shift such costs to patients who have private insurance. One oft-cited study estimates that cost-shifting to cover care for the uninsured adds about $1,000 to a family’s annual insurance premiums; other experts think it may be a few hundred dollars. In theory, eliminating most charity care should help hold down or even reduce the premiums charged for private insurance. When, if ever, that might happen is unclear.

In the long run, if reform efforts slow the growth of health care costs, then the increase in insurance costs should ease as well. And if the new health insurance exchanges — and possibly a new public plan — inject more competition into markets that are often dominated by one or two big private insurance companies, that, too, could help bring down premiums. But these are big question marks, and the effects seem distant.


Critics have raised the specter that health care will be “rationed” to save money. The truth is that health care is already rationed. No insurance, public or private, covers everything at any cost. That will not change any time soon.

It is true that the long-term goal of health reform is to get rid of the fee-for-service system in which patients often get very expensive care but not necessarily the best care. Virtually all experts blame the system for runaway health care costs because it pays doctors and hospitals for each service they perform, thus providing a financial incentive to order excessive tests or treatments, some of which harm the patients.

An earlier wave of managed care plans concentrated on reining in costs and aroused a backlash among angry beneficiaries who were denied the care they wanted. The most expensive treatment is not always the best treatment. The reform bills call for research and pilot programs to find ways to both control costs and improve patients’ care.

The bills would alter payment incentives in Medicare to reduce needless readmissions to hospitals. They would promote comparative effectiveness research to determine which treatments are best but would not force doctors to use them. And they call for pilot programs in Medicare to test the best ways for doctors to manage and coordinate a patient’s total care.

Any changes in the organization of care would take time to percolate from Medicare throughout the health care system. They are unlikely to affect most people in the immediate future.


People over 65 are already covered by Medicare and would seem to have little to gain. But many of the chronically ill elderly who use lots of drugs could save significant money. The drug industry has already agreed to provide 50 percent discounts on brand-name drugs to Medicare beneficiaries who have reached the so-called “doughnut hole” where they must pay the full cost of their medicines. The House reform bill would gradually phase out the doughnut hole entirely, thus making it less likely that beneficiaries will stop taking their drugs once they have to pay the whole cost.

Not everyone in Medicare will be happy. The prospective losers are likely to include many people enrolled in the private plans that participate in Medicare, known as Medicare Advantage plans. They are heavily subsidized, and to pay for reform, Congress is likely to reduce or do away with those subsidies. If so, many of these plans are apt to charge their clients more for their current policies or offer them fewer benefits. The subsidies are hard to justify when the care could be delivered more cheaply in traditional Medicare, and the subsidies force up the premiums for the beneficiaries in traditional Medicare to cover their cost.

Reformers are planning to finance universal coverage in large part by saving money in the traditional Medicare program, raising the question of whether all beneficiaries will face a reduction in benefits. President Obama insisted that benefits won’t be reduced, they’ll simply be delivered in more efficient ways, like better coordination of care, elimination of duplicate tests and reliance on treatments known to work best.

The AARP, the main lobby for older Americans, has praised the emerging bills and thrown its weight behind the cause. All of this suggests to us that the great majority of Americans — those with insurance and those without — would benefit from health care reform.

Sunday, July 19, 2009


Here are links to various news stories from the past week:

Bill Moyers' interview with former insurance company executive Wendell Potter (a real eye-opener).

Here's a conundrum from the inspector general's report on Bush/Cheney era spying programs--Did the threat assessments drive the surveillance program, or, Alice-in-Wonderland like, was it the other way around?

Here's a review of Andrew Bacevich's latest book, The Limits of American Empire.

Obama increases pressure on Congress re health care legislation.

Keynes and the Efficient Markets Hypothesis.

The Daily Show on Palin resignation (I hadn't seen this before--it's hilarious).

Not wanting to be left out of the meltdown on the right, wingnut bloggers --never mind; see for yourself.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) catches hoof-and-mouth disease at the Sotomayor hearings.

The House of Representatives release of its version of the health care reform bill.

Here's a chart showing an international comparison of unemployment benefits.

Eric Martin on Obama's Afghanistan conundrum.

Eric Martin, contra Peter Bergen, agrees that historical analogies shed little light on the situation in Afghanistan.

Ben Stein seems to have problems with ethics.

The GOP presented a confusing chart on the floor of Congress Friday, supposedly illustrating that the Obama health care plan is complicated. No fooling... Here I thought a bill reforming interactions between doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, patients, labs, etc., making up a significant portion of the economy was going to fit on the back of a bubble gum wrapper. In response, The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn offers his own chart--of the system we have now.

Ezra Klein interviews conservative economist Bruce Bartlett on taxes and health care reform.

Conservatives, says Kevin Drum, are trapped by their own ideology on health care.

An article in Parameters, the U.S. Army War College Quarterly, argues that tying defense spending to GDP is a bad idea.

Wingnut blogger predictions about Iraq in 2003 didn't turn out very well.

The myth of conservative judicial restraint.

Matthew Yglesias on economic recovery based on recapitalization via profits.

He illustrates with a chart showing the percentage of total income earned by the top 1% of the population, 1913-2008.

The mechanism proposed to keep costs down in the health care reform bill.

Intellectual irresponsibility test (wingnut bloggers jump off cliff, chapter ???).

Fasten your seatbelts for a jobless recovery.

Yoo on Yoo.

Help for one time homeowners.

Buchanan being Buchanan.

Jon Stewart on Goldman.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

More Health Care Reform Events--Brooklyn

As you likely know, the next three weeks or so are a crucial time for health care reform. President Obama has made it clear that he would like to see a final bill brought to a vote before the August recess. This week, the House of Representatives and the Senate HELP committee put forward health care legislation, and the Senate Finance Committee is expected to produce a bill in the coming days. Therefore, it is critical that we, and Democrats in other states, reach out to our legislators and urge them to move forward with health care reform.

To that end, grassroots organizers in Brooklyn have organized a number of local canvasses and phone banks this weekend in support of health care reform. Below are some times and locations for events, or, as always, feel free to organize one of your own.

Like during the election, you also have the option to phone bank from home using barackobama.com .

We hope to see you out at a canvass or phone bank this weekend!

Saturday, July 18th

Fort Greene
Canvass at the Brooklyn Flea
12 to 3
176 Lafayette (b/w Clermont & Vanderbilt)
RSVP here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gpctl4

Park Slope
Canvass at the Grand Army Plaza Farmer's Market
10:30 to 12:30
Grand Army Plaza
RSVP here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/healthcarecanvass/gpfx2t

Carroll Gardens
Canvass at Carroll Park
1:30 to 3:30
Carroll Park
RSVP here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/healthcarecanvass/gpctgh

Carroll Gardens
Phone Bank
11 to 1
Contact organizer for details
RSVP here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/healthcarephonebank/gpcrpq

Phone Bank
12 to 1
Contact organizer for details
RSVP here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/healthcarephonebank/gpct2w

Sunday, July 19th

Phone bank
12 to
Help Community Learning Center
1821 Nostrand Ave
RSVP here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/healthcarephonebank/gpctyr

Friday, July 17, 2009

Health Care Reform Phone Banking--Final Push!

Come phonebank for health care reform!

Our postcards, calls and meetings have made a tremendous difference in New York. With a few exceptions, most Reps and Senators are now solidly on board for reform in our state. Now, it's time to take our grassroots action national. Join us for phonebanks across the city to call Obama volunteers in battleground states of Florida, Montana and Arkansas; we'll be encouraging them to call their Senators.

Saturday, July 18th

Monday, July 20th
Upper West Side, 7 PM - 9 PM
Youth Hostel, 103rd & Amsterdam, BOARD ROOM
RSVP to threeparksdems@aol.com
Refreshments will be served.

Wednesday, July 22nd
71 Lexington Ave., Apt. 5, Brooklyn, 7-9 PM

Thursday, July 23rd
Grammercy, 6-9 PM
12 Grammercy Park South (E. 20th St. between Park and Irving)

Westchester, 8 PM - 10 PM
7 Davenport St, Harrison, NY 10528

For canvasses, check out my.barackobama.com

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Eric Cantor's Nose is Growing

Yesterday, GOP House Minority Whip Eric Cantor was interviewed on NPR by Steve Inskeep. A transcript follows, minus introductory statements:
Q: Here’s something I’d like to know. In your mind, what is a reasonable amount of time to give this admin to do whatever it can to turn the economy around that it says it inherited?

A: Steve, I don’t actually think that’s the right way to approach this question. When we considered the first stimulus bill in January, representations were made, promises were made by President Obama that if we acted quickly and passed the bill, we’d be able to stave off job loss and stop the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 1/2%. So I think that the proper test is, representations and promises that were made did not come to fruition.

Q: But the reason I ask that is because, as you know, the administration has said, “Wait a minute, we never said it would work in the first few months, we have not even gotten around to spending all the money yet, give us a little bit of time.” What is a reasonable amount of time to give them?

A: Again, this is not what the administration said. The administration said that we needed to act with a sense of urgency, that is how we were going to be able save jobs and avoid folks from having to go on the unemployment lines. That should still be our goal. We shouldn’t have been expediting the review of an 11-hundred page bill without anyone in the House reading it if the course that we expected was going to be a one- or two- or three- or four-year period in which to see the money go out. That’s where we get into the situation where you waste taxpayer dollars.

Q: Although the administration is saying now it took years to get into this mess; it’ll take time to get out. What’s a reasonable amount of time? What’s the time on the clock for him as far as you’re concerned?

A: Steve, there’s not a question—we shouldn’t be arguing about how we got here because that’s pointing blame. I think the American people are tired of that. They want to know how we’re getting out of this situation. Republicans had a plan, I went and personally gave him our stimulus plan back in January. We still want to work with this president. The way we see an economic recovery coming about is through investment. We’ve got to get small businesses back into the business of putting their money to work, taking risks, so that jobs can be created.

Q: Do you think that the economy will be the heart of next year’s congressional elections?

A: Well, listen, no one has a perfect crystal ball. But clearly I think that the economic situation before us needs to be satisfied in order for the electorate to begin to have some confidence in their leadership. I think what you’re seeing in polling right now is a reflection of the fact that this president & this congress own this economy.

Q: How many Democrats do you think are vulnerable?

A: Steve, again, you look at the numbers out of the last election. There are 49 Democrats sitting in seats that John McCain won. Obviously not all of those are vulnerable, but I do think you start there. And then you also look at the seats that have individuals who are new to Congress that perhaps were in seats that were held by the Republican candidate prior. I do think there are a sufficient number of vulnerable Democrats that will allow Republicans to make significant gains, if not take over the Congress and the U.S. House in 2010.
Note Cantor's insistence on portraying Obama's recovery plan a failure while refusing to say how much time a plan should be given to take effect, all while claiming he doesn't want to assign blame--but that Obama and the Democrats "own this economy." One wonders how many more sides of his mouth Cantor has from which to speak.

Cantor claims that Obama didn't say that time would be required for the recovery plan to take effect. A turn to google shows that not to be true. Here's what President Obama had to say on the subject during his January 8, 2009, Fairfax, VA speech introducing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan:
It will not come easy or happen overnight, and it is altogether likely that things may get worse before they get better. But that is all the more reason for Congress to act without delay.
Of course, Obama's economic package was passed without a single GOP vote in the House of Representatives, and it got through the Senate only after four GOP "moderates" forced a compromise which included removal of federal funding to states for school construction (considered one of the more effective recession-fighting tools, as it would have created jobs) and cuts to state fiscal stabilization programs, also important during a recession. Nor did the GOP offer anything like coherent objections to Obama's plans, as noted by economist Brad DeLong.

There was a strategy behind the monolithic opposition, as noted by Greg Sargent. In fact, a GOP Representative responsible for "messaging" admitted as much in public.

Months of consistent opposition and obstruction didn't work very well for the GOP. Their poll numbers were (and still are) in the sewer. On March 26, they attempted to unveil an economic (ahem) plan of their own, but that didn't work very well.

They put out something a little more substantive on April 1 (how fitting), but as noted by Ezra Klein, among many others, the plan offered little in the way of details and was completely unrealistic.

Meanwhile, here’s what the stimulus IS doing:

Ezra Klein cites a study by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities showing that the stimulus is closing 30-40 percent of state budget deficits. Why does that matter?

States must balance their budgets, as mandated by their respective state constitutions. How can they do that?
1. Raise taxes (Conservatives all raise your hands if you’re in favor. Ahh, I didn’t think so.); or
2. Cut spending. What happens if they do this during the worst downturn since the Great Depression?
a. States would have fewer resources at a time when they need them most to cope with the crisis.
b. State employees would lose their jobs (further deepening the recession).
c. The social safety net would collapse (imagine what happens if, as state employees lose their jobs, SCHIP funding is slashed).

It's not enough, God knows. People need jobs, and it takes a long time for an economic plan to take full effect. But surely we shouldn't be taking seriously complaints about the economic recovery plan from a party as completely cynical, dishonest and deeply unserious as the current GOP.

Are Inflation Fears Real? An Economist Says No

Scott Fullwiler, an economist writing at the blog Economic Perspectives From Kansas City, observes that fears of inflation that have been expressed in various circles lately, all having to do with the large amounts of liquidity the Federal Reserve has pumped into the economy (you know, Obama’s economy recovery package?), are misplaced. In fact, he says,
As of July 2, 2009, the Fed reported the following assets on its balance sheet:

* Term Auction Credit: $283 billion
* Commercial Paper Lending Facility: $115 billion
* Central Bank Liquidity Swaps: $115 billion
* "Other" Loans (includes the Primary Dealer Credit Facility): $119 billion

Together, these assets amount to $632 billion. And what do they all have in common? They are all LOANS. Note also that they comprise the bulk of the $726 billion in reserve balances held by banks the Fed reports on its liability side.
Moreover, all of the loans in question are short-term, and have already been repaid.

The fear among Fed critics is apparently that the Fed lacks an “exit strategy;” i.e., it has no clear plan to counter the rise in reserve balances, which they claim will lead to inflation. Yet Fullwiler explains that
Banks DO NOT use reserve balances to create loans. They create loans and deposits simultaneously out of thin air. They use reserve balances to settle payments or meet reserve requirements ONLY. If a bank is short reserve balances for either of these purposes, the Fed provides an overdraft AUTOMATICALLY at a stated penalty rate, which the bank then clears via the money markets or the cheapest alternative. Whether banks in the aggregate hold $1 or $1 trillion in reserve balances, there operational ability to create loans is the same . . . infinite! (Though the creation of even 1 loan requires a willing, credit-worthy borrow in the first place, of course.)...That is how loan creation works in a modern monetary system. The belief that banks need reserve balances in order to lend is only applicable in a gold standard-type of monetary system.
In short, there’s no danger of inflation stemming from the Fed’s activities discussed above & there’s no need for an exit strategy.

Interestingly enough, Fullwiler observes that the financial press (he cites the Wall Street Journal specifically) doesn’t understand how the Fed works.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

LIMITED FREE SPACES for D.C. Health Care Rally

Limited FREE Buses to Washington, DC —

The Time is NOW to Mobilize Nationally for Health Care for ALL

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Health Care Rally & Town Hall in Washington, DC

Join thousands of Americans at the
largest health care rally in history!

Limited FREE buses

Meet at 5:30 AM at Union Square; leave at 6 AM
Back at 9:30 PM

Check out below for more information:

Our voice, strength and support on behalf of real health care reform is urgently needed. On Thursday, June 25th, there will be a big rally and lobbying day for health care reform in Washington, D.C.

Transportation and lunch will be FREE on this trip. Please spread the word to your friends and family!

Monday, June 22, 2009

Health Care Reform Events and Update

Washington, DC
Thursday, June 25th

Join thousands of Americans from all across the country at the largest health reform rally in history! Come for the rally, town halls, and visits with key policy makers. Congress is voting on health care reform legislation in July. They need to hear our voices now!

Free Bus Reservation: Naomi Rothwell | Facebook (Union Square at 5:30 am)


Irish Rogue (map)
356 W 44 St
New York, NY
Thursday, June 25th at 7pm

Can't make it to DC? Amplify your colleagues’ voices. Join us to write letters to our representatives urging health reform and supporting the public health insurance option. Bring your personal stories and letterhead from your office.

Echo Event

Hunter College School of Social Work (map)
New York, NY
Tuesday, June 23rd at 2pm

Come hear Dr. Dean, former chair of the DNC, former governor of Vermont, and founder of Democracy for America, talk about the fight for the choice of a public health insurance option.

New York, NY
Saturday, June 27th

Still not sure how to get involved? Find a service event in your own neighborhood on Saturday, June 27th.

Organizing for America


New York, NY
Week of June 27

Some of our elected officials are starting to back down on supporting the public health insurance option. Help keep up the pressure. Join or organize a phone bank. Speak to your elected officials or reach out to doctors in other key states to mobilize them.

Nina Agrawal


NPA Success in Washington Last Week!

Last Wednesday, members of the New York NPA hand-delivered a box of 1000 post cards to Senator Schumer's office in DC and met with 6 Congress members on Capitol Hill. We received a very warm welcome from all, and Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez even personally sent us a thank-you letter afterward. Staffers and Congress members alike were very impressed to see physicians stand side by side with patients to fight for something other than their own financial interests.

Health care providers, sign our petition to support the public health insurance option

Tell a Friend about the NPA

Watch our Introductory Film

Become a Member of the National Physicians Alliance

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Misleading Uses of Statistics, Chapter 57,942

A conservative interlocutor on a facebook thread challenged me the other day:
...Let's just use numbers without liberal or conservative pundit spin, okay? Here's how things stood at the end of 2006, no commentary:

Economic expansion was in its 74th month. The country had a rolling average of 103,000 job increases for the last three months of 2006. Unemployment stood at 4.7 percent. The household job count, which picks up small businesses, posted a 303,000 average gain.

Worker wages rose 3.8 percent in 2006, a full percentage point ahead of inflation. U.S. productivity surged 6.3 percent in the third quarter, its best pace in four years. Business inflation fell from 3.5 percent a year ago to 1.5 percent.

U.S. household net worth hit a record high of $58.6 trillion, and household wealth increased 43 percent from 2001-2005.

Now give me numbers showing me how "delusional" I am. No spin, just facts.
No problem...

First, I have to say I find your periodization of data bizarre. Aside from anything else, no government spending makes its presence felt in the economy for about a year, regardless whose it is. It just takes a while to get the ball rolling. This was noted in the Obama team's projections when they introduced the stimulus plan, by the way. It is absurd to draw any conclusions about the efficacy of the stimulus plan (or any of the others, for that matter) 5 months into a new administration.

Secondly, your reliance on 2006 data (I'd like to know your sources, by the way--I'm relying on the Bureau of Labor Statistics and several economists, as noted in the links below) is a bit odd, given that Bush was in office for 8 years. I think it's much more objective to compare apples to apples, so I'm comparing 8 years of Clinton to 8 years of Bush. Surely with 8 years of data for each, there can be no question as to the onset of the economic policies of each president or responsibility for same. Sound fair to you? I knew it would...

One last point: I also think it's unreasonable to compare the economic performance of any president in the midst of a major economic crisis (this one's generally considered the worst since the end of the Great Depression) with that of a president not facing a similar situation. Compare Obama in a few years to FDR if you like. Or if you really want to stretch way back and account for lots of data problems, try the panic of 1873 or, even worse, the economic crisis of the early 1820s. But again, apples to apples seems a reasonable approach.

1. Employment Rates:

Type of data: Percent
Age: 16 years and over

1993 199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008

The graph and data above show remarkable growth in the employment-population ratio from 1993 (61.4%) through 2000 (64.4%), followed by a sharp drop in employment from 2001 (64.4%) through 2004 (62.4%). This was followed by a modest increase in employment from 2004 (62.4%) through 2007 (62.7), followed by a dive off a cliff from 2007 (62.7%) to present (59.7%) coinciding, of course, with the economic crash.

Incidentally, the reason I use the employment-population ratio instead of raw employment numbers is that, unlike the latter, the former illustrates the extent to which employment rate changes reflect, by lagging, equalling or exceeding population growth rates, actual increases or decreases in the availability of jobs. The economy gained somewhere in the neighborhood of 22 million new jobs under Clinton. I forget offhand how many jobs we lost under Bush, but it was a lot.

2. Wages:

From 1993 to 2001, wages were flat for the first 2 years, followed by net changes in percentage points of .4%, .3%, 2.6%, 2.1%, .9%, .7% and 2.0%. From 2001 to 2007, net changes in wages in percentage points were .6%, 0.0%, -1.0%, -0.4%, 1.8% and -0.7%. By any measure, net increases in wages were greater from 1993-2001, than from 2001-2007.

3. Productivity:

Percentage changes in productivity from 1993 to 2008 were as follows:

1993 199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008

In other words, productivity increased almost continually from 1993-2002, then declined consistently until 2008.

4. Business inflation:

Business inflation rose slowly from 1993-2001, increasing faster from 2001-2007, then experiencing a levelling out.

1993 199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008

5. Household Net Worth:

As far as household net worth is concerned, let’s disaggregate your statistics. The wealthiest 1% of the population experienced a 40% increase in wealth during the Bush years; everyone else either had level net worth or lost ground. Adjusted for inflation, the real wages of the average American worker has actually decreased slightly since the 1970s. Use of an aggregate household net worth number obscures these differences.

To understand why consider a hypothetical case in which you have 5 income levels: $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 and $1,000,000. Assume the number of households at each level is, respectively, 10, 30, 50, 40, 10--a very rough bell curve. Multiplying the number of households at each income level by its income, then adding up the subtotals (140 households, $13,800,000) and dividing the total income by the number of households yields the average income of the whole group: $98,571.43. Now consider another group with the same number of households, but with these 5 income levels: $10,000, $18,000, $29,500, $39,000, $1,500,000. For the sake of simplicity, lets keep the distribution of incomes at each level the same as before. We still have 140 households, but the total income is now $18,675,000--solely because of the increase in income in the highest quintile. The average income per household is now $133,392.90, simply because the highest quintile value is so much higher than it was in the previous example. Did most households experience an increase in income from the first example to the second? Of course not--only those at the highest quintile did, but their increase was so great it pulled up the average for the whole group. The numbers I used were obviously not taken from the U.S. Census, but the phenomenon I've explained in simplistic terms is roughly what has happened to American households since the 1970s--those in the highest income brackets experienced a dramatic increase in income, especially over the past 8 years, while the average working household (I'm referring here to the median, or midpoint value in an index of U.S. incomes) either experienced no change or a slight decline in income during that period.

(Additional source data available at U.S. Department of Commerce website—fee required for access.)


By the way, the contrast turns out to be even more stark than the numbers above indicate. It turns out that, no matter how you slice it, the economy always has done better under Democratic than Republican administrations—with the exception of every 4th year of a GOP president’s term in office (the exception to the exception being, of course, 2008 under Bush).

It’s interesting, by the way, to see how heavily my conservative challenger relies on 2006. Bush was in office for 8 years—why not data for his whole term in office? His economic record was anemic compared to Clinton’s (see charts above), and it was topped off with a global economic collapse, which, contrary to claims from the right, was not caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but by wildly irresponsible behavior by mortgage brokers, ill-informed consumers, many of this country’s biggest investment banks, and the insurance company they relied on to hedge their bets via credit default swaps, AIG. (The latter, incidentally, didn’t think it necessary to back those financial instruments with their own money. And of course, they were unregulated (thanks largely to GOP Sen. Phil Gramm), so who was going to notice?) And yes, it’s true, Bush didn’t cause the collapse all by his lonesome, and some Democrats were complicit in the mess, but any honest measure of the economic history of the US from 1980 to present will unavoidably conclude that the GOP was the prime mover in the rush to deregulate, reflexive hostility to government, and the near-religious devotion to the idea that unfettered “free” markets would naturally police themselves. We’ll all be living with the results of that folly for a long time to come.

And people who try to blame Obama for the mess are being disingenuous. Sorry—5 months just isn’t enough time for any president to have a significant effect on the economy. It just takes time for programs to start & for money to flow through the pipeline. I realize my conservative challenger is a libertarian and particularly aggressive in his belief in the sanctity of the marketplace. But fair is fair—and if anyone attacked a conservative or libertarian politician with the intensity, obsessiveness and peculiar one-sidedness he exhibits toward Obama, he’d have no trouble recognizing how unreasonable that sort of behavior really is.

Incidentally, while I can't speak for your sources, not knowing what they are, I don't look to pundits when forming my opinions. Nor do I have one iota of patience for spin, regardless who does the spinning.

Harlem Health Care Reform Canvassing Event

In recognition of NATIONAL HIV TESTING DAY, we are hosting a FREE health clinic that will include HIV, STD, TB, and Hepatitis Testing Services. We also will be canvassing, making phone calls and initiating several advocacy initiatives in support of President Obama's three health care principles:

1. Reduce costs
2. Guarantee choice
3. Ensure all Americans have quality, affordable health care.

Nowhere else in our country do people in communities like Harlem know better that Health Care Reform is urgently needed. It is essential that our voices are heard.

Saturday, June 27 from 11:00 AM - 3:00 PM
Staging Location: African Services Committee (New York, NY)
429 West 127th Street (between Amsterdam & Morningside Aves.)
Hosts: Oscar Carter and Gregg Ross
Contact: ross.gregg@gmail.com

MyBarackObama.com: http://tinyurl.com/kqjpkc
Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/mr4ead

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Dangerous Simplicity

Lisa McGirr & Kim Philips-Fein are two historians who've studied the new right. McGirr focuses on the grassroots movement (Orange County, CA, specifically) while Philips-Fein explores the big business-led development of the infrastructure enabling the right to gain power. Together, they provide a useful framework for interpreting the ongoing meltdown of the new right.

If one starts from a traditional, often fundamentalist Christian point of view, and accepts the premise that the US is perfect, any problems we face must be due to a sinister external force. The government is an easy target, especially since it embraced in the late 20th century a bureaucratic-technical approach to modernity, rather than emphasizing traditional church-based values.

Add to that the traditional conservative position that government is an inherent threat to individual liberty, and the western mythology of the rugged individual (contra the reality that the prosperity enjoyed by most Orange County conservatives was dependent on massive government spending in the form of defense manufacturing and the infrastructure required to support it) & it was easy for conservatives to feel that government programs aimed at amelioration of poverty represented confiscation of the fruits of their hard work and potentially a threat to their freedom (freedom largely being defined economically; the more fundamentalist among them were less concerned about freedom when moral concerns were involved). This is not to say, by the way, that there were/are no reasonable bases for concern about government threats to individual liberties; rather, the point here is that the threats perceived by modern conservatives have been generally imaginary (fluoridated water,gun rights, the Soviet Union as an imminent threat to the U.S. at the very moment the former was unraveling, etc.).

The inherent contraditions in these positions, as noted above, are pretty easy to see. Conservatives were generally hostile to the civil rights movement and many, including William F. Buckley Jr., infamously argued that efforts to expand rights to African Americans constituted government intrusion into individual rights of free association. Nor have many conservatives, despite their traditional zealotry about government encroachments on liberty, been similarly concerned about the potential for similar threats to individual rights by corporate power. The obviously selective choices of objects for conservative outrage lead many outside the movement to conclude that the stated motives for opposition are but smokescreens for racism, defense of socioeconomic privilege, and various other bigotries and fears.

It's kind of striking that movement conservatives depend on a manufactured sense of grievance and paranoia, and increasingly, a rejection of evidence & logic to maintain group cohesion & a sense of identity. Even after they got Reagan & then Dubya elected, the right continued to peddle conspiracy theories and nurture a sense of grievance. Now, after undeniable political dominance for 6 of the last 8 years (and really, considering the haplessness and complicity of many Democrats, it’s been more like 40 years), virtually every aspect of every policy enacted by conservatives stands revealed (to those willing to look honestly) as a total failure of massive proportions. Yet lacking a more sophisticated intellectual framework for interpreting the results, many on the right continue to resort to a belligerent form of denial. Hence the hysterical screeching, wild accusations and even occasional shootings we observe on cable TV and elsewhere. A simplistic template is inadequate for efforts to understand the complexities of the world we live in.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Health Care Rally & Town Hall Meeting!

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Join thousands of Americans at the
largest health care rally in history!

Limited FREE buses

Meet at 5:30 AM at Union Square; leave at 6 AM
Back at 9:30 PM

mybarackobama.com link: http://tinyurl.com/lwappy

Public Option Teach-IN: Fact over Fear

The fight for health care reform is on. The public option is in jeopardy.

This Tuesday, June 16th, learn about the public option, why it's critical to health care reform, the debate on Capitol Hill, and what you can do to support President Obama's historic health care reform initiative. Health care policy blogger Tim Foley (Change.org) will present a balanced overview as well as key messaging points.

The Irish Rogue Pub
356 West 44th St. (Southeast corner of 9th Ave.), 2nd Floor
Pub food, drink specials, comfortable couches, and great company!
Tuesday, June 16th, 7:30 to 9:30PM

RSVP: here. This is your opportunity to be part of the legislation of a lifetime. Please spread the word to your family, friends, co-workers. Health care affects everyone!

Saturday, June 13, 2009

U.S. Chamber of Commerce vs. Obama

I just got this message from moveon.org. Given its implications, I thought it best to post it on my blog & give it whatever publicity I can:

Less than 48 hours ago, the biggest corporations in the country declared war on President Obama's agenda. The scale of the attack is mind-boggling.

The right-wing lobbyists at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will spend $100 million to defeat Obama's plans for health care and a clean energy economy. They call it their "most important project" in nearly 100 years.1

Congress is voting on a crucial energy bill in less than two weeks, and you can count on a barrage of misleading TV ads and arm-twisting in Congress aimed at weakening the bill. We're countering with an emergency organizing drive to strengthen the energy bill—but we urgently need to raise the funds to power our organizing drive.

Can you chip in $35 to help fight back against the Chamber's campaign?


Your local Chamber of Commerce represents small businesses, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is different—it represents the interests of mega-corporations, especially Big Oil and Coal.

In the next ten days, we'll pull out all the stops to block the Chamber and strengthen the energy bill. And after the big vote, we'll keep going just as strong—demanding a public health insurance option in the health care bill, fighting for tough new rules to rein in the financial industry, and making sure Obama's progressive agenda gets enough grassroots support to succeed.

This is an all-hands-on-deck moment, so we're pulling together our best online, grassroots, and legislative strategies to:

  • Flood Capitol Hill with thousands of phone calls.
  • Buy online ads targeted to get the attention of opinion-makers in key House districts.
  • Bring together progressive members of Congress to speak out about the problems in the bill.
  • Hand-deliver petitions to dozens of local congressional offices—and hold media events outside to highlight the voices of unemployed people calling for clean energy jobs.
  • Hold face-to-face meetings with congressional staff in Washington and in communities across the country.
  • Launch a new website, StrengthenIt.org, where we'll rally local environmental groups to the cause.

We're deciding this weekend on our final plan for pushing Congress before the vote—so we need to know what resources we have available. Can you chip in $35?


Thanks for all you do.

–Anna, Wes, Noah, Nita and the rest of the team

P.S. If you're a member of your local Chamber of Commerce or run a small business, please sign our petition asking the U.S. Chamber to stop lobbying against Obama's clean energy jobs plan:


1. "Chamber defends free-market system," Politico, June 10, 2009