Also Also

Bad Murtha Fuckers

What an interesting Friday in Congress. Bills of all kinds were flying around--budget in the House, taxes in the Senate, plus Patriot Act manueverings and reconciliation back and forth. And somehow they still found time to organize a political stunt bill vote and in the process set the smear engines on full ahead.

The House today voted 403-3 to defeat a bill calling for a literally immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Of course the headlines essentially read what the GOP wanted them to read in a hopeful attempt at jujitsu: that a bill to pull troops--something a majority of Americans now supports in some abstract form--was unanimously rejected by both sides of the aisle. But it might have been helpful to put the bill text closer to the top of these stories:

"It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Not heavy on detail, is it? Murtha's own bill gave no such immediacy other than ASAP, but that's not what the GOP had the House vote on. So the bill itself was a sham, quickly recognized as such by Minority leadership and given the heave ho. But the far more controversial event occurred during the debate, as new Rep Jean Schmidt (the winner in the Hackett squeaker) read into the record a statement supposedly from a constituent, calling Murtha a coward. Things devolved quickly from there:

Ms. Schmidt: Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young marine in my district. He believed in what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it. A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bop, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body - that we will see this through.

[Note by kos -- the whole chamber went nuts at this point, with Democrats shouting and booing Schmidt down]

The Speaker Pro Tempore: The house will be in order. The house will be in order. The house will be in order. The house will be in order. The house will be in order. The gentlelady will suspend. And the clerk will report her words. All members will suspend. The gentleman from Arkansas has demanded that the gentlelady's words be taken down. The clerk will report the gentlelady's words.

The Speaker Pro Tempore: The house will be in order. Members pleas take seats. The gentlelady from Ohio.

Ms. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were not directed at any member of the House and I did not intend to suggest that they applied to any member. Most especially the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. I therefore ask for unanimous consent that my words be withdrawn.

The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection. The gentlelady's words will be withdrawn.

Now there's no doubt that Republicans have been looking to pounce on something, anything, for a couple of weeks now. And GDub gave the signal to begin defending the administration against criticisms of warhandling. Cheney upped the ante this week, and Bush endorsed it. This is a campaign-style assault engineered by Karl Rove, back in the saddle emotionally for now, or perhaps simply throwing himself into his work. (Note to Karl: keep your calendar open for testimony/lawyering up in the Abramoff case--DeLay's former axeman is turning state's evidence). So I'm sure the troops were given the signal to attack whatever the first bold statement on Iraq was from one of the Democrats.

But I don't think this is turning out the way they'd like, so far. The House vote will be used as GOP ammunition, but the bill doesn't stand up under scrutiny and I think that can be communicated.  The smear attempt is definitely coordinated--one of the tactics Rove has developed is asking for an ethics probe of Murtha--but I'm not sure Karl specifically had Jean Schmidt in mind, and not for calling him a coward by proxy of constituent letter. Where the Republicans may have had an advantageous strategy by forcing Democrats to defend Murtha's policy initiative, the Dems seem much more comfortable defending Murtha's character and honor. Chairman Dean weighed in quickly and forcefully:

Shameless Republicans immediately went on the attack. Dick Cheney, who has said that he had "other priorities" and collected 5 deferments while people like Murtha served in Vietnam, called Murtha's comments "irresponsible" and regretted that "the president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone." The White House spokesman, who has also never worn the uniform, pronounced himself "baffled" that Murtha, who volunteered for two wars, wanted to "surrender to the terrorists". A Republican Congressman said Murtha and others "basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Shame on them. Every one of us -- right now -- needs to let Jack Murtha know that we respect his service, respect his leadership, and respect his right to speak the truth. This man has spent his life serving us. The very least each one of us can do is let him know that no matter what dishonorable smear campaign Republicans wage we will be there with him.

Send Congressman Murtha a note telling him that you will not be silent while he is attacked:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

So did John Kerry via email, strikingly bluntly for him (although truthfully I think he's a day late and a dollar short defending Democratic Congressional war veterans):

It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country have aimed their venom at a marine who served America heroically in Vietnam and has been serving heroically in Congress ever since. No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience.

Dennis Hastert -- the Speaker of the House who never served -- accused Jack Murtha of being a coward. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn't a coward when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam and earned two purple hearts -- he was a patriot then, and he is a patriot today. Jack Murtha's courage in combat earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice should be heard, not silenced by those who still today cut and run from the truth.

Instead of letting his cronies run their mouths, the President for once should stop his allies from doing to Jack Murtha what he set them loose to do to John McCain in South Carolina and Max Cleland in Georgia.

The President should finally find the courage to debate the real issue instead of destroying anyone who speaks truth to power as they see it. It's time for Americans to stand up, fight back, and make it clear it's unacceptable to do this to any leader of any party anywhere in our country.

Murtha shows up on Meet the Press Sunday I believe. Assuming he does well, this may end up backfiring a little on Republicans while they are out in their districts. In any case, it's been a wild week on the House floor.

--TJ

 

Measure 37: The Week That Was

By now, if you were interested in the story to begin with, you know that Measure 37--Oregon's citizen revolt against the supremacy of land-use planning--was overturned in Marion County a little over a week ago. Citing five separate conflicts with state and federal constitutions, Judge Mary James was near-total in her agreement with 1000 Friends of Oregon and a coalition of farming interests.

I have been following the case fairly closely, although the timing of the decision caught me a bit by surprise. And I don't think in the leadup to the decision that I ever heard a relatively objective expert confidently say, "This is gonna go down." So the emphatic way in which 37 was overturned has sparked a flurry of response from all sides, as well as litigants in current M37 claims.  [I won't pull them all out of context and reprint them here, but they are sprinkled throughout the links I'm citing.]

By Tuesday, counties and claimants were trying to assess the current and future status of their deliberations:

"They're all asking, 'What does this mean?' " said Mike Brandt, planning director in Yamhill County. "And the typical answer was, 'I don't know.' "
James' ruling stamps out all Measure 37 building opportunities unless construction crews are already legally at work, the consensus goes.
Measure 37 supporters can ask James to allow claims to go forward during the appeals process. Such a decision is unlikely, putting the measure on hold until the Oregon Supreme Court decides its fate.
"Like so much else under Measure 37, there will be degrees of uncertainty until then," Shetterly said.

Everything is on hold in the short term until the judge rules on whether to grant an injunction on making the ruling effective immediately. The sides argued their cases on Friday, and The O noted that a denial of the injunction is expected. Which means everything grinds to a halt until the Appeals Court rules or grants an injunction.

For a measure that passed with such strong statewide support, is there a revolt amongst the masses? Are people in the streets  wielding torches and pitchforks (and levels and carpenter nails and blueprints?)  Depending on what you think of the O's selection bias when it comes to letters to the editor,  there may be a couple torches, but also a number of supportive voices. The most entertaining was a torch song:

In her decision on Measure 37, Marion County Circuit Judge Mary James wrote, "A government cannot be forced to choose between exercising its plenary power to regulate for public welfare, health or safety, or paying private parties to comply with the law." And, "Because Measure 37 currently imposes limitations on the government's exercise of plenary power to regulate land use in Oregon, it is unconstitutional."

Limitations on government is what it's all about. Has Judge James read The Federalist Papers? Has she heard the term "limited government"?

It took 30 years of pain before the people spoke in two different elections, but the black-robed tyrants still have not gotten the message. They would bond the people who want to be free.

They favor a socialist collective, which is what the Land Conservation and Development Commission is, versus people making their own choices. They would put the decisions in the hands of unelected bureaucrats to service their agendas while they give lip service to the environment, at the expense of landowners.

PRESTON DREW Vice president Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights Enumclaw, Wash. www.proprights.org [emph mine, wingnuttery his]

So what now? I should mention that the day after the decision, The O came up with an idea that try as I might, really sounds horrible: have the Bowlinator call a special session. Doesn't that sound like a capital idea? Bringing back Karen Minnis for another joyous session? Yecch. The last thing this issue needs is more partisanship. The House will make something barely weaker than the current version; the Senate will draft something different, and neither the twain shall meet.  The Hillsboro Argus couldn't resist saying "I told you so" on Thursday. Literally:

The judge also cited trashing legislative laws on land use. So as counties all over the state scratch their collective heads and wonder just where this is all going to end up, don't say we didn't tell you so.

After it ends up in the Oregon Supreme Court, it will get tossed back to the Legislature. Taking on the life of a resurrected ghost, it will become a political hot potato and could put a Republican in the governor's office for the first time since the rocks cooled after the Vortex Concert. Where's Tom McCall when you need him?

I'm not sure I'm buying the electoral rhetoric, just given the state of things politically in Oregon and the rest of the country, but they're right that adding the Legislature is just going to add another layer to the problem--at least in the fashion of a highlighted session to address the problem.

The Portland Tribune and the Statesman-Journal both have hopeful outlooks from the decision, offering the useful advice that this is an opportunity to take a broad look at land use policy. The Trib wants to vest faith in "The Big Look," a task force first due to report to the Legislature in 2007. But the SJ gives an ex-OSU professor a chance to offer the most concrete set of ideas, thank God,  to help bridge the gap in rhetoric:

The first one deals with building a home on existing parcels. If a local unit of government allowed the creation of a legal parcel, then let people build a home on it, provided they can get a septic permit, find water and meet all of the other zoning restrictions. There are many parcels out there right now that were purchased with the intent to build a home and, because of a zoning change, it no longer can be justified. My advice to the Legislature; Just do it! It will not impact the rural areas as much as you think.

Next, provide landowners with tools that will let them keep their land in farming and at the same time fend off the very lucrative temptation to sell for development. One of the most noted of these tools is called Transfer of Development Rights. It offers a financial mechanism for landowners to sell the development rights to their property and realize the value of that development while keeping their property in its current use. Currently, 37 states have laws enabling TDRs. By now, it is not an experiment.

I urge everyone who is interested to read over the ruling cited above. Once you move quickly past the procedural stuff described in the beginning, the ruling is pretty clearly set out and explained, violation by violation. For a counter that is certainly not objective but at least seems to get the argument being made by James, the Oregonians who are not one of your 1000 Friends but who are in fact In Action offer one here. Assuming that the memo was crafted by Kelly Clark, you can assume many of these same assessments of James' ruling will be cornerstones of the app
eal(s).

Update 10/26 12AM--
There's a good column by Russell Sadler at Blue Oregon, followed by a fairly lively debate over the principles of the ruling, and who may participate in that debate. Also also--damned if I can find it at the cesspit that is OregonLive, but today's  morning print edition noted that Judge James denied the state petition to enjoin repeal of Measure 37 as appeals proceed. So any counties that were still processing may soon opt to stop, given that it would seem we are talking months, minimum. Score one feebly for The O; they called that one right.

--TJ

OR Supremes: Live Sex Shows OK By Us

Given that the variously lovely ladies of Oregon have long enjoyed the legal ability to sate their cash-enamored dreams by pushing a little tail in one form or another, Thursday's doubly penetrating state Supreme rulings were no surprise, slamming home the message that Rose can continue to display her flower to Pearl while men watch through a plexiglass window. And that some 5-foot6-guy in a cigarette-stale office upstairs will get the labor for free. America! Or rather, Oregon!

Lest I confuse you by starkly representing the strip club industry in paragraph one, I heartily support both rulings on the premise that there appears to be no compelling state interest in banning the practices under discussion. But let's face it: even at their best, the purveyors of erotic dance are not generally running the classiest joints in any Oregonian burg.  And no matter how hot the girls are and how unbelievably good the steak is for just $4.00 with 51 taps to choose from to wash it down, look up and you're still in a dim bar where a nude woman is distractedly dancing with a pole while recorded music blares at variously annoying volumes.

So this is definitely one of those rulings that you can really only support in the name of good old American liberty, embracing chaos as the mysterious side dish for your all-you-can-eat combo plate of freedoms. Is the lack of a four foot buffer between dancer and patron, and the ability to watch two humans fulfill a design function, a signal of chaos? Well, no--but it certainly doesn't look good on a postcard, and thus you can understand why some folks might not wish to provide a broad outlet for these more base and fun concerns of the human spirit.

So if you're still reading this rather than going out to a club (or investigating a move to Portland), some helpful background to allow you to save face at parties where NOW may be waiting to pounce: in a tribute to our lost friend B!x, Portland Communique gave a nice update on the status of the cases when they were heard by the Court. I love the bar owner in the story he quotes, who worries that he might not be able to maintain four feet between dancers and patrons because of the size of the bar. What, does he show girls in a shoebox, like a sexy diorama? For a slightly more earnest treatment of the issues in both cases, ACLU Oregon immediately removes all traces of any lustful thoughts you may have encountered while reading this post. The Oregon State Bar is another, more even handed perspective, although it's just as much of a boner kill to read.

I thought when I read this at Oregon Commentator Online (an OR Blog I confess I had not yet seen), that might spur all kinds of local blog champagne corks. Read about the story Friday at work, go violate the 4 foot buffer on Buffy Friday night! But nothing. Speaking seriously, this is actually a fairly notable story. Live sex acts? You won't get away with that crap in most of the South, and places with lots of old people like Arizona. And if you're Outside the Beltway, this is just one more example of the coming Armageddon:

With courts approving this stuff it’s no wonder marriages fall apart, kids think oral sex is not sex, and what was once considered reserved for marriage and special is now officially open season for reducing people to their lowest common denominator. No wonder we are so willing to murder our own children and call it choice.

I'll let you draw the connection between shcool sex education and the four foot buffer, because I can't. Anyhow, let me join my brethren here in our great state, and as an official ambassador of good will urge you to Fuck On Ahead in Oregon! Hey, I gotta call Teddy the Bowler--he might could use that one.

--TJ

*I linked to the KGW version of the AP story because it's the more complete version than the standard Google copy, but you may find yourself against KGW's content barrier. You should be OK for the first page visit.

Keeping an Eye on the Ball

Carla and the other folks at Preemptive Karma have been good to us--quick with a trackback, solid collaborators and offline sounding boards. There's been a spate of things lately at Also Also that have piqued their interest, and while I've been following their commentary I've neglected to point out several good pieces. Carla's done two in two days that I think address the overarching themes that need to be brought up again and again until we start getting them right: this is not how we want government to respond, either through insufficiency or ignorance--and this is not the way Americans treat each other.

Yesterday's item more directly addresses the first question: what foundation of principles does our notion of governance rest upon?

I want a country with a strong, centralized government that protects and respects the rights of individuals first and foremost (as opposed to groups or the majority). I want a country that promotes liberty and justice for all people, including those that aren't our citizens. I want a country whose rule of law is based in the laws our founders determined best, that of English Common Law.

Well, at least we have the 'centralized' part right. Some of the commenters offer their own visions, some more narrowly personal than others ("I want a government that buys me a pony.") Walker Willingham, whose own blog follows up at his place with a wonderfully pragmatic assessment of the liberty/order tension:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

And today Carla focuses in on a story that continues to bother me as I read more of it: the refusal of Gretna officials to allow an exodus from the Convention Center to leave New Orleans and cross over into the rest of Louisiana--starting with Gretna.  Accounts vary, from a first handed account to various wire rehashes of interviews with two paramedics who were among the crowd. But the repeated story is that in trying to use the Crescent City Connection out of town, they were definitively and unyieldingly blocked access out of New Orleans. Why? "To protect our assets."

As a commenter in that thread points out, there's no room to be high and mighty here in Whitey Central, OR. This isn't about southern racists, it's about people with views of prosperity that starts at their mailbox and ends at the back fence, and who create fear fantasies of unknown people based on what the local Fox affiliate presents as news. Read the accounts of the townspeople--black and white, they claim--that back the police chief of Gretna by referencing the nonstop killings, corruption and sloth afflicting New Orleans. They're not talking about the people on the bridge--especially since 250 or so of them were VISITING IN A HOTEL. The people they're talking about are the ominous 'they.'

Policies, both social and fiscal, that play the fears of one group off another are as old as feudal government and beyond. So this is nothing new. But it's getting mighty old.

--TJ

Smith Joins Rest of GOP Senate, Kills Katrina Kommission

Reflecting popular support tagged as high as 70%, Senator Hillary Clinton had proposed an amendment establishing an independent commission on the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.  Rather than the majority-proposed version that would have empaneled Congresspeople and with Republicans retaining agenda control, Clinton's version was modeled after the 9/11 Commission, appointed by the Executive and featuring no current politicians. Where are the Democratic ideas, you ask? Here's one Hillary had:  cut the crap and appoint some people without vested partisan interest to investigate the facts.

So what would the response of the GOP be? As if you had to ask--the amendment failed. Not only did it fail, it failed on a strict party line, David Vitter (R-LA) somehow missing from a vote on the biggest issue facing his state since secession. I'll leave it to Louisiana's constituents to ask Vitter what he had going* (since Sen Landrieu made the vote.) I was more curious about what our own Gordon Smith had to say for himself.

Of course, without access dollars you don't actually talk to Smith himself; for that he has people like Jared White (spelling guessed at). Jared was a delightful Young Republican who certainly did as much to help as possible, without actually yielding relevant information. It couldn't have been more than an hour after the vote had been taken, but Jared seemed ready with a firm answer to my initial question about his vote: because the commission vote was an amendment to an appropriations bill, and that bill was deemed "detrimental" to Oregon, Smith had to vote no.

One thing aides and phone answerers in Senate offices don't like, is follow up questions. They've given you what they got from above, and now you're asking them to wing it like Scotty McClellan. But two obvious followups emerged in my head and I went with them.
"So, what was the provision?"
"Excuse me?"
"What was the part of the bill that the Senator felt was detrimental to Oregonians?"
"Uhhmmm, I....don't know."

I hit the useful-info terminus on that one, I realized, and took the name of the applicable legislative aide for followup later. But before he could shunt me to voicemail, I gave him #2: "So the Senator's opposition was based on its placement as an amendment?" That got a yes, and we were at the moment of truth--would Smith support the idea of a 9/11 Commission as a standalone bill?

Jared parried with the reliable "I can't address details," to which I said, "Just address the principle. Does he support a task force appointed by the Executive, with no current Members of Congress?" Jared had Gordon be noncommittal on that one, not surprisingly. So does Gordon Smith support a 9/11-style Katrina commission? You bet he does or doesn't! We'll see if the LA calls me back and can explain things any better.

But hey, maybe there was some devilish plot in the bill to make Oregonians drink only Bud and Coors, and Gordy was just looking out for us. Surely if it were detrimental to the state, I figured, Smith wouldn't have wasted the chance to reach across the aisle and seek support from his Democratic counterpart, Ron Wyden. After all, the state has a long history of bipartisan cooperation at the federal level. Surely, I figured, Smith must have alerted his colleague to the danger in voting Yea, as Wyden did.

So I called up the Wyden office, and asked if they knew what Gordon was referring to. They didn't, and again I wasn't surprised. I was a little disconcerted that they referred me to the Thomas website to read the text (I had already been), rather than easing my mind by assuring me that Wyden wouldn't have voted for an appropriation that would hurt Oregon. They missed a prime opportunity to say what was true: Wyden voted to find out the truth; Smith just isn't that serious about it, and may even prefer NOT to discover it.

If you call and are able to find out what perplexed Smith so much that he had to join a panicked majority and kill the commission vote, let us know. So far I'm highly dubious any such provision existed, that isn't just a convenient out for his nay vote on the hearings.

This doesn't seem like the last word on an independent commission--Congress and the President dragged their feet under duress for months on the formation of the 9/11 panel before finally acquiesing--so don't forget which party was out front, and which was not ready to seek the truth.

*update 9AM--
commenter MFL at Kos noted that Vitter's staffers called it "a dire emergency", but that he would support an independent commission.

Update 10AM--
commenter LynnS at Kos claims that Smith's staffer changed their story to the broader "procedural problems with the amendment" line that many folks are hearing from GOP offices, but more importantly she notes that the staffer indicated clearly that Smith was IN FAVOR of an independent commission. If you get a confirm, or a different story, drop a comment on us.

Update 2PM--
Over at Tapped, they're citing The Hill to wonder how long the Democrats can remain unified on not participating in sham hearings controlled by the GOP.  I share their (Tapped's) revulsion--what on EARTH will it take for the opposition party to get some spine? We're not even asking for them to hang tough on difficult political issues like gay marriage (although it'd be nice); this one is both ideologically AND politically supportable. Jeee-sus.

--TJ

GOP on $ for Katrina: Waive Union Hiring Rules

Ah, finally we're seeing words about common sacrifice and committment to our national defense, coming from the US Congress:

Rep. Randy Cunningham (news, bio, voting record), a California Republican who also serves on the House Appropriations Committee, told Reuters after the meeting that conservatives fretted about the huge relief costs with "more storms (gathering off the southern coast), the Iraq war and health care" costs that are rapidly escalating for the federal government.

Cunningham said that none of those Republicans suggested scaling back costly tax-cut proposals they have advanced for the past few years. Instead, he said they urged the Bush administration to look at ways to save on Gulf Coast reconstruction by waiving rules requiring union laborers for upcoming federal contracts.

Of course, you may recognize the name if you're an astute newsreader, or you're a fan of TalkingPointsMemo.com--this is the infamous "Duke Cunningham,"  currently awash in an influence-peddling scandal.

So tax-cuts--that we can afford. But following through on promises to pay reconstruction workers a fair wage...I guess that's not important.

Also in this story is news that an amendment by Rep Obey (D-WI), put forth in the bill to reassign FEMA as an independent agency of Cabinet rank:

Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record) of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, had a broader goal of restructuring the embattled Federal Emergency Management Agency that is overseeing the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Obey said he would offer an amendment to the emergency spending bill to restore FEMA's status as an independent, Cabinet-level agency and require that its director have substantial experience in disaster relief. In a post-September 11 shake-up, FEMA became part of the new Department of Homeland Security.

"The problem is the agency we are appropriating money to has demonstrated with great clarity that it is spectacularly dysfunctional," Obey said on the House floor.

But his amendment was expected to be blocked by the Republican leadership, which wants to pass the bill quickly, especially with Vice President Richard Cheney touring Mississippi on Thursday.

Anything to help Dick Cheney get back in the game and look effective, I suppose.

So what's the meme?

• GOP Congresspeople are balking at what Katrina relief will cost
• The 800-lb gorilla in the room--the idiocy of sustaining Iraq's costs indefinitely--appears invisible to them
• In order to save the country money, the working class will need to tighten their belts

Nice.

-TJ

Katrina Response: Dems Out in Front

It's often said--sometimes with truth, sometimes not--that the national Democratic Party appears either too cowed or too enfeebled to offer anything but carping at the administration, and a hope that eventually all Bush supporters will simply see the error of their ways and start pulling levers marked 'D.' Where is the firm opposition, and where are the countering ideas? What is the vision the party has for the future? I don't see a transcript available, but HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher featured an all-liberal panel last Friday, and after slamming the administration nonstop for Katrina, Sheehan and anything else, they spent a fair amount of time reaming out the Democratic Party for their own failures.

In that vein, it's important to publicize what finally looks like a constructive, well-timed and politically sustainable vision of what should be done in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. As noted in the comments at Kos (hat tip), all it needs now is a catchy phrase like Contract with America.  "Rebuilding Hope," perhaps? How about "George is Still Asleep; May We Help You?" "Remember This When They  Start Lying About Us in 2006?"

Here is the meat of the proposals; contact your Senator and urge them to make these items their highest priority--NOT the estate tax repeal, NOT the elevation of John Roberts:

The following are just some examples of proposals that Senate Democrats believe deserve immediate Senate action this week:

Ensuring health care for all displaced victims

            * Immediate access to Medicaid for displaced victims.
            * No need to prove residency or assets
            * No copayments
            * No penalties for failing to sign up for Medicare Part B in time.

To ensure access to medical care, we should ensure immediate access to Medicaid for displaced victims.  Paperwork requirements should be streamlined and asset requirements waived to ensure that victims, many of whom have no legal documents in their possession, can enroll in the program with little red tape. Residency requirements for participation should not apply to these victims to allow them to obtain health care services around the country. In addition, copayments should be waived for these people as they struggle to meet other needs as well.  The Federal government should bear the full cost of these changes, and ensure that no affected state suffers a reduction in Federal Medicaid funding (their "match rate") for other populations. This proposal is based on a similar successful initiative after the September 11 disaster.

< We also should provide compensation to health care providers who provide a disproportionate share of the care for these victims.

            Displaced victims should not be penalized for late enrollment in Medicare Part B because they have become newly-eligible or have lost coverage from another plan during this time. Similarly, everyone from the affected states should have an additional year to enroll in the new Medicare drug benefit and its low income subsidies. The automatic transition of dual eligible beneficiaries from Medicaid to Medicare drug coverage should be delayed in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, with the Federal government bearing the full cost of those people continuing Medicaid drug coverage.

Getting victims housing

            * Emergency housing vouchers for displaced victims
            * Expedited application procedures with no red tape.
            * No tenant contributions until they find work.
            * Tax incentives for private families to take in victims.
            * Identify federal facilities that can house victims.
            * Relief for homeowners facing threat of foreclosure

FEMA has said that up to 1 million people may need housing assistance. The Senate therefore should immediately authorize the Department of Housing and Urban Development to create and distribute temporary emergency housing vouchers to victims, without many of the restrictions that apply under the existing Section 8 low-income voucher program. For example, victims should not have to document their income levels, and tenant contributions should be waived until they find work. HUD also should be authorized to increase existing limits on allowable rents given the likelihood that rents in Gulf Coast areas will increase substantially for the foreseeable future.  HUD needs to take over primary responsibility for distributing vouchers since many of the region's local housing authorities are not functioning at full capacity, if at all. 

            Given the scarcity of rental housing, we will need to rely on private individuals and families to provide free room and board to victims. To encourage this, we should immediately approve a tax subsidy for those who provide such assistance to Katrina's victims. 

            To help identify locations to house victims, the Administration should be required, within 10 days, to release an inventory of federal civilian and defense facilities that can be used to provide emergency housing, or as locations for the construction or deployment of temporary housing units. 

            We should increase aid to owners of damaged homes by waiving current law caps on home repair assistance (now $5200) and home replacement assistance (now $10,200).  In addition, we should waive a requirement that individuals leave their home to qualify for home repair assistance, a rule that threatens to exacerbate an already massive demand for shelter in the region. 

We should reestablish the Temporary Mortgage and Rental Program, which has been used in the past, including after the September 11 disaster, to provide assistance to homeowners and renters facing financial hardship.  This could be important for many victims who otherwise could lose their homes through foreclosure. 

Getting victims to family members and friends

            Many of Katrina's victims have little or no access to transportation.  Although FEMA has legal authority to address this, the agency seems overwhelmed and has proven unable on its own to meet the compelling needs of countless numbers of stranded victims.  We therefore need to make this a White House priority and direct the President to lead a broad effort to quickly ensure that displaced victims can get to family, friends and others who can provide them with room and board.         

Getting students into school

            Many of Katrina's victims are children who need to enroll in a new school.  To encourage schools to accept these victims, and alleviate some of the resulting burdens, we should provide funding to school districts that accept displaced children. This funding could be used to hire additional teachers, teachers' aides, or counselors, or to provide temporary expansions of classrooms.  A similar program should be provided for institutions of higher education that admit displaced students. 

Bringing victims' families together and placing them with other families

            The government should establish a toll free "800" number and web site through which victims could access a national victim database and information about available assistance.  Displaced individuals could register and provide contact information, so that separated family members and friends could find each other.  The database also would allow volunteers to sign up if they are willing to provide free shelter to victims. 

Getting victims cash to meet other basic needs

To ensure that victims can get cash for their basic needs, we should strengthen and expand the Disaster Unemployment Insurance Program and automatically extend any expiring UI benefits that victims are receiving. We also should give the President authority to increase the $26,200 statutory cap on cash assistance through the Individuals and Households Program, and should waive the 25 percent matching requirement for States in the Gulf region.    In addition, victims should be allowed to withdraw funds from individual retirement accounts (IRA's) penalty-free, with extra contributions permitted later. 

Providing financial relief to victims and National Guard

           Katrina's victims, and National Guard involved in disaster operations, should not be obligated to make payments to the Federal government in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.  There should be a short term moratorium on obligations such as:

      Student loans
      Individual and corporate income taxes
      Small business loans

In addition, disaster victims filing for bankruptcy should be treated differently under the bankruptcy code in recognition of their particular hardship.

Ensuring victims have access to food

           We should ensure that the many victims of Katrina who are struggling to obtain food have access to food stamps through a streamlined application process. States should be provided relief from the additional costs associated with administering the food stamp program for victims.

Restoring order

We should provide law enforcement funding where needed to help protect innocent citizens from crime and to ensure that there are places in which to imprison dangerous criminals.  In addition, we should authorize federal courts to convene outside of their ordinary location in the event of an emergency, such as the massive flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina.

Helping victims get jobs

Private employers should be given an incentive to hire displaced victims by temporarily qualifying them for the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which can reduce an employer's tax liability by up to $2400 per qualified new worker.  In addition, the Federal government should establish a temporary preference for hiring displaced victims who are qualified for jobs. 

Moreover, many displaced workers now lack the documents they need to secure employment under Federal law, such as passports and birth certificates.  This law should be relaxed temporarily so that victims can legally obtain work without such documents, so long as they can provide a valid Social Security number. 

Supporting the National Guard

We should ensure that Guard units serving in the Gulf Coast effort be considered to have been mobilized under Title 32 (they are currently mobilized through the states).  This would qualify them for federal benefits and ensure that their service counts as active duty for the purposes of retirement, health care, and other benefits.  It also would make them eligible for the Family Separation Allowance if separated from their families for more than 30 days, and could provide relief from creditors and foreclosures. 

Requiring accountability

We should require the President to submit regular reports to the Congress on the status of recovery efforts, the number of victims who remain without decent housing, jobs, etc., and any additional resources or action needed to address the crisis.

--TJ

 

WA Gov: Also Also Talks to Steve Excell, Part One

Part of the reason I'm so skeptical of the people pushing  a 'revote' for the 2004 general election, is the tendency of the most strident to demonize the officials and workers of the state--and frame that demonization as an indictment of both the election and the 'government.'  It runs right down from the top--from 'Governor-pretend Fraudoire' to 'King Sims' and on down to Dean Logan.

I say I'm skeptical, because while I haven't talked to those three, I've certainly spoken to a range of county officials, communications directors, and elections executive Bill Huennekens. I've chatted with the Clerk of Chelan County.  And with the exception of a brusque referral to "written disclosure requests" from Snohomish County, I've discovered that--at least among the people whose job isn't specifically to "handle" me--there are personable, intelligent, forthcoming people in positions of power in Washington State.  So it rings quite hollow when I hear about "massive incompetence...or worse"  and "stonewalling", because my personal experience has been quite different. It's not that I'm softballing them; I've been accused of compiling "meticulous" questions, and I went 15 rounds with an official at the Secretary of State's office, trying to get her to say whether or not they had requested any documents from King.  She wanted me to write a different story.

But even with her, we got some things settled--and she also put me directly in touch with Assistant Secretary of State Steve Excell, which is what I was shooting for with the phone call in the first place. It's a bit of a misnomer title ('Assistant,' not Steve); it's really a Chief of Staff position, and one well suited for a longtime friend of SoS Sam Reed.  It was Reed who brought Excell back out of the private sector, after stints as former governor Spellman's Chief of Staff, and as legislative aide to Congress. The Husky/Hoya is therefore well acquainted with both Washingtons.

I asked first for an overview of the SoS's role in elections, recounts and contests. Excell remarked that the SoS is technically the chief elections officer of Washington, but he exists within a highly stratified system that really gives most of the elections management power to county Auditors, or in some cases elections executives such as in King.

The SoS adopts supracounty regulatory procedures in order to provide some level of standardization (and if anything seems sure, it's that the federal HAVA voter's act and the 2006 elections will come with greater centralization and oversight than in 2004). The office also defines terms for the counties, helping to parse those regulations. Also of note is the certification program for FTE employees of the various elections divisions, an unusual step taken by few other states.  The SoS handles Motor Voter forms from the DMV, performs various voter outreach programs (particularly in the interest of replacing the somewhat calcified Election Day volunteer corps), and maintains a statewide voter database amalgamated from the county versions.

As a general monitor of the elections, the office is charged with receiving and posting tabulated results as they come (increasingly online, which in my view was a strong success given the unique nature of the elections--no mean feat).  Reed triggers the recount provisions from his desk, administers it financially, and observes randomly. When the counties certify their results, the SoS performs the ministerial duty of blessing it and passing it on to the Legislature--and when I say bless, I mean that nearly literally, as in passing a hand over it and saying "looks good." This may be an area where oversight develops in the future; the reason for this cursory ratification is due to statute, not lackadaisy.

The office also performs periodic, rotating reviews of county procedure in elections. Here is the jumping point for my interest in talking to Excell--what is the Secretary of State's office doing to find out what happened in this election? His answer was surprising in one respect, because in essence he said they're going to wait and see what Judge Bridges finds out.  I found it a little curious that the search for truth would be a passive exercise, and I asked, "So the office is essentially going to let the litigants provide the information on the election?" Affirmative.

That said, there are reviews, and there are also informal inquiries, so it's not fair to suggest that the SoS is mute or disinterested, but apparently the feeling is that given the race to develop materials for disclosure, the counties cannot also handle a formal review of the process. Also, there is an intent not to review counties in the midst of major procedural changes, such as King underwent in 2004 with new registration software-- causing errors like mailing out new ballots for non-address registration changes.  While the goal is to make a review of each county once every seven years, cuts in funding have broadened the cycle to about once a decade.  Counties can also ask for reviews on their own, and the office will assist with audit-style evaluations as requested.

No reviews have been scheduled or performed since the election, and none appear to be planned in the immediate future.  Excell allows that informal requests continue on an ongoing basis, from legislative and federal sources--an example being the Justice Department's request for reassurance from the counties on their plans to make sure military ballots were delivered in a timely fashion (from which they appeared satisfied that this occured).  It took specific probing, but Excell did admit that Reed's office was in fact seeking information from the counties, trying to keep up with press requests (not to mention the "new media").  Quote, "we do our share."

In grand cliffhanger style (or if you're not buying that, then because this is too much information to digest in a single bite), I'll stop and tease you with Part Two, in which I begin to ask more specifically about what the Secretary of State is looking to see, what they're getting,  and what they've learned. I also asked Excell about the military ballots situation, the office's opinion on pending reform legislation, his own quoted statements in SoundPolitics, and other statements from SP that produce a different response than the previously quoted "pretty accurate."

--TJ

Grading the States: Government Performance

How well does your state function? The Government Performance Project has finished its review of each state in the union, grading them in the areas of financial, human resource, infrastructure, and information services, and then giving each state an overall grade.

Oregon's grade? C+, which is near the bottom overall but fundamentally a little below average. A large part of the poor grade comes from the ridiculous way in which our state's finances have been mucked with, and the "independence" with which Oregon voters have prevented any gains in tax revenue over the last decade or so. Oregon's planning and infrastructure components are actually fairly strong, so at least we've got that going for us. We're better than California's C-, but god help us if we weren't. A better, sadder comparison is with Washington, one of the very best run states in the country. Perhaps the people in Washington's government aren't ALL morons, miscreants and perpetrators of fraud...!

Read more about the project here.
Hat tip to Taegan Goddard at PoliticalWire.

--TJ

Club for Abuse

The Club for Growth blog is experiencing a burst of traffic this weekend. Unfortunately for Steve Moore and his political progeny, it's not particularly uplifting traffic. Author Andrew Roth takes favorite whipping boy Arlen Specter to task for his opposition to Social Security privatization, and uses Josh Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo to identify him as such.

Trouble with that what, after about a week Marshall happened to mention it on his site--and the comments flowed. About two thirds down, someone asks the pointed question: have you ever read a post at a highly partisan political blog, and out of dozens of comments, not ONE person supported the author's viewpoint? Particularly telling, in a serious vein, is the number of people who claim to be "moderate Republicans" and sound awfully skeptical of the plans they're hearing. I have to say it's looking clearer that cuts in benefits are not going to be part of the equation, or at least the major part. Which leaves borrowing or raising taxes, not exactly more palatable options to a lot of people. I'm betting on expanding the payroll cap, but that of course is the one thing Bush has actually specified about the plan--that he won't raise payroll taxes.

Anyhow, to paraphrase Roth, I'm Recommending a Conservative Blog--that just got nailed by a liberal jihad.