NEWS

Senate reform bill passes last hurdle en route to passage
December 23, 2009 5:14 p.m. EST

‘On the doorstep of history’ :
Sen. Harry Reid applauds the work of his Senate colleague in moving the health care bill to a final vote.

Washington (CNN) — The Senate health care bill cleared a third and final procedural hurdle Wednesday as Democrats successfully limited remaining debate time on the $871 billion measure.

The Senate voted 60-39 along party lines to set a timetable for likely passage of the bill early Thursday morning.

Democrats also turned back last-ditch motions from Republicans claiming various provisions in the bill, including a mandate that individuals purchase coverage, are unconstitutional.

“It’s long past time we declare health care a right and not a privilege,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said after the vote.

“Today is a victory … for American families,” proclaimed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana. “Americans won.”

The expected victory for President Obama’s top domestic priority comes after nearly a year of sharply polarized deliberations on Capitol Hill. Any measure passed by the Senate, however, will still have to be merged with a $1 trillion plan approved by the House of Representatives in November.

Increasingly confident Democrats hope to have a bill ready for Obama’s signature before his State of the Union address early next year.

“Health care reform is not a matter of if,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday. “Health care reform now is a matter of when.”

If a combined House-Senate health care bill clears Congress and is signed by Obama, it would be the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid over four decades ago.

Republicans have mounted a no-holds-barred legislative campaign against the bill, using a series of procedural maneuvers to slow debate while arguing that the measure will raise taxes while doing little to slow spiraling health care costs.

They’ve also ripped Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, for garnering the 60 votes necessary to pass the bill in part by cobbling together a series of “sweetheart deals” for wavering members of the Democratic caucus.

“This bill is a grab bag of Chicago-style, backroom buyoffs,” Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch said Wednesday.

Recent compromises made to win the backing of moderates such as Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut also angered many liberal Democrats and threatened to undermine support for the bill.

Democrats have now held three key procedural votes on the health care bill this week. The backing of all 60 members of the Democratic caucus was required during each vote in order to overcome a filibuster from a GOP minority united in opposition.

Final passage of the measure, in contrast, will require only a bare majority in the 100-member chamber.

Enthusiastic top Democrats argue the Senate bill would constitute a positive change of historic proportions. The legislation, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, would extend health insurance to more than 30 million Americans currently lacking coverage while reducing the federal deficit.

The House and Senate bills agree on a broad range of changes that could impact every American’s coverage.

Among other things, they have agreed to subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

They also have agreed to create health insurance exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less-expensive coverage. Both the House plan and the Senate bill would eventually limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Insurers also would be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person’s gender or medical history. However, both bills allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums for older customers.

Medicaid would be significantly expanded under both proposals. The House bill would extend coverage to individuals earning up to 150 percent of the poverty line, or roughly $33,000 for a family of four; the Senate plan ensures coverage to those earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or just over $29,000 for a family of four.

Major differences between the bills will be the focus of the conference committee that will try to merge them. House and Senate Democrats are still divided over how to pay for their plans. They are also split on, among other things, language relating to abortion coverage and whether to include a government-run public health insurance option.

The House bill includes a public option; the more conservative Senate measure would instead create nonprofit private plans overseen by the federal government.

© 2009 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

NEWS

Senate moves health bill forward
December 22, 2009 12:34 p.m. EST
’s Ted Barrett, Dana Bash and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report.

Health care bill on track: Senate leaders on health care reform hold a news conference to discuss the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Washington (CNN) — The Senate moved closer to passing health care reform Tuesday as Democrats cleared the second of three key procedural hurdles on the sweeping $871 billion measure.

The Senate voted 60-39 along party lines to adopt changes negotiated by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada. The Senate also set a timetable for ending debate on the bill.

A third and final procedural vote is scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.

If Democrats clear that hurdle, the Senate will be on track to take a final vote on Christmas Eve on whether to approve the Senate’s version of the bill to overhaul health care, President Obama’s top domestic priority.

“Health care reform is not a matter of if,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, “health care reform now is a matter of when.”

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, declared that “the finish line is in sight.”

“We’re not the first to attempt such reforms, but we will be the first to succeed,” Baucus said.

Any measure the Senate passes still would have to be merged with the $1 trillion House version in what could be tough negotiations

In remarks Tuesday on the Senate floor, Reid acknowledged the toxic political environment surrounding the nearly yearlong debate.

Senators should set aside “personal animosity,” he said. “There’s a lot of tension in the Senate, but I would hope everyone would go back to their gentlemanly ways. … Let’s just all try to get along.”

Republicans have mounted a fierce campaign against the bill, using procedural tactics to slow debate and casting the measure as an unnecessary government intrusion in health care that will raise costs.

“Mark my words: This legislation will reshape our nation,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Monday. “Americans have already issued their verdict. They don’t want it. They don’t like this bill, and they don’t like lawmakers playing games with their health care to secure the votes they need to pass it.”

If a combined House-Senate health care bill wins final approval from Congress and Obama signs it, the measure would be the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago.

Obama on Monday praised the Senate for “standing up to the special interests who prevented reform for decades and who are furiously lobbying against it now.”

The influential American Medical Association, a traditional opponent of overhauling health care, endorsed the Senate measure hours after a rare 1 a.m. Monday vote to start winding down debate.

Read CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s take on the health care bill

All three procedural votes require Democrats to win the backing of 60 members to break a GOP filibuster. Final passage of the measure, by contrast, will require a simple majority of 51 votes.

Back-room deals on health bill: CNN’s Dana Bash reports on Democratic leaders’ back-room deals to clinch health care reform.

To Democrats, Monday’s vote signaled eventual victory on the Senate bill.

“The die is cast. It’s done,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said.

Compromises made to win the backing of lawmakers such as Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, enraged many liberal Democrats and threatened to undermine support for the bill.

Liberal Democrats are upset with Reid’s decision to abandon a government-run public health insurance option and an expansion of Medicare to Americans as young as 55.

But top Democrats argue the Senate bill still would constitute a positive change of historic proportions. The legislation would extend health insurance coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans while reducing the federal deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The House and Senate bills agree on a broad range of changes that could affect every American’s coverage.

Among other things, they have agreed to subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

They also have agreed to create health insurance exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage. Both the House plan and the Senate bill eventually would limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Insurers also would be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person’s gender or medical history. However, both bills allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums for older customers.

Medicaid would be significantly expanded under both proposals. The House bill would extend coverage to individuals earning up to 150 percent of the poverty level, or roughly $33,000 for a family of four; the Senate plan ensures coverage to those earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or just more than $29,000 for a family of four.

Major differences between the bills would be the focus of a conference committee that would try to merge them.

One of the biggest divides is over how to pay for the plans. The House package is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and Medicare spending reductions.

Specifically, individuals with annual incomes more than $500,000 — as well as families earning more than $1 million — would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.

The Senate bill also cuts Medicare by roughly $500 billion. But instead of an income tax surcharge on the wealthy, it would impose a 40 percent tax on insurance companies providing what are called “Cadillac” health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families.

Proponents of the tax on high-end plans argue it’s one of the most effective ways to curb medical inflation. However, House Democrats oppose taxing such policies because it would hurt union members who traded higher salaries for more generous health benefits.

The Senate bill also would hike Medicare payroll taxes on families making more than $250,000; the House bill does not.

Another key sticking point is the dispute over a public option. The House plan includes a public option; the Senate plan would instead create new nonprofit private plans overseen by the federal government.

Individuals under both plans would be required to purchase coverage, but the House bill includes more stringent penalties for most of those who fail to comply. The House bill would impose a fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual’s income. The Senate plan would require individuals to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750 or 2 percent of his or her income — whichever is greater. Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

iReport.com: Give your thoughts on the Senate health care bill

Employers face a much stricter mandate under the House legislation, which would require companies with a payroll of more than $500,000 to provide insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.

The Senate bill would require companies with more than 50 employees to pay a fee of up to $750 per worker if any of their employees rely on government subsidies to purchase coverage.

Abortion also has been a sticking point for both chambers. A late compromise with Catholic and other conservatives in the House led to the adoption of an amendment banning most abortion coverage from the public option. It would also prohibit abortion coverage in private policies available in the exchange to people receiving federal subsidies.

Senate provisions, made more conservative than initially drafted to satisfy Nelson, would allow states to choose whether to ban abortion coverage in plans offered in the exchanges. Individuals purchasing plans through the exchanges would have to pay for abortion coverage out of their own funds.

Nelson said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that he would withdraw his support if the final bill gets changed too much from the Senate version under consideration.

Among other things, Nelson had a provision added to the bill requiring the federal government to cover Nebraska’s costs for expanded Medicaid coverage after 2016. No other state is slated to receive such a benefit.

© 2009 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

NEWS

Senate health care bill clears key hurdle
December 21, 2009 8:15 a.m. EST
’s Ted Barrett, Dana Bash, Alan Silverleib and Jim Acosta contributed to this report.

The Senate vote on health care reform came shortly after 1 a.m. Monday.

Health care hurdle cleared: Health care reform cleared a major hurdle in an early morning vote in the senate. CNN’s Brianna Keilar reports.

What can health bill change?: CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta and Karen Tumulty of Time magazine talk about what the health care bill would do.

Partisan rancor fills D.C.: A blizzard of partisanship blankets Washington in the debate over health care reform. CNN’s Jim Acosta reports.

Washington (CNN) — Democrats won a major victory in their push for health care reform early Monday morning as the Senate voted to end debate on a package of controversial revisions to a sweeping $871 billion bill.

The 60-40 party-line vote, cast shortly after 1 a.m., kept Senate Democrats on track to pass the bill on Christmas Eve. If it passes, the measure will then have to be merged with a roughly $1 trillion plan passed by the House of Representatives in November. Shortly after the vote, the Senate went into recess until noon Monday.

The vote left President Obama on the cusp of claiming victory on his top domestic priority and enacting the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid over four decades ago.

“Today, the Senate took another historic step toward our goal of delivering access to quality, affordable health care to all Americans,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said in a statement.

The bill will help “promote choice and competition to drive down skyrocketing health care costs for families … all across America.”

The vote was the first of three this week requiring Democrats to win the backing of 60 members — enough to break a GOP filibuster. Final passage of the measure, in contrast, will require a simple majority in the 100-member chamber.

Many political observers believe Monday’s outcome indicates a likely Democratic win on the remaining procedural hurdles and the final vote.

Inside the Senate debate: A major health care victory for Democrats as a 60-40 party line vote was reached to end a package of controversial proposals.

Conservative Dem defends deal: In a CNN Exclusive, Nebraska Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson explains his health care negotiations on ‘State of the Union.’

Obama adviser on drop in polls: Watch as a senior adviser to President Obama discusses the president’s approval rating with CNN’s John King.

“The die is cast. It’s done,” New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer proclaimed after the vote.

Republicans ripped the majority for passing the measure in the middle of the night and accused Democrats of ramming the bill through despite growing public opposition.

“Make no mistake: If the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they wouldn’t be forcing this vote in the dead of night,” argued Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.

“Mark my words: this legislation will reshape our nation. And Americans have already issued their verdict. They don’t want it. They don’t like this bill, and they don’t like lawmakers playing games with their health care to secure the votes they need to pass it.”

The unusual timing of the vote was a consequence of Senate rules, Democrats’ determination to pass the bill before adjourning for the holidays, and the GOP’s willingness to use every possible legislative tactic to slow the bill’s progress.

Unanimous Republican opposition has forced Reid to win the support of all 60 members of his traditionally fractious Democratic caucus. Compromises made to win the backing of more conservative members, such as Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, have enraged many liberal Democrats and threatened to undermine support for the bill.

Liberal Democrats are particularly upset with Reid’s decision to abandon a government-run public health insurance option and an expansion of Medicare to Americans as young as age 55 — ideas strongly opposed by Lieberman and other centrists.

Top Democrats, however, argue that the Senate bill as written would still constitute a positive change of historic proportions. The legislation, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, would extend health insurance coverage to over 30 million Americans while reducing the federal deficit by $132 billion over the next decade.

The deficit would drop by another $1.3 trillion between the years 2019 and 2029, the CBO said.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have now reached agreement on a broad range of changes that could affect every American’s coverage.

Among other things, they have agreed to subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to about $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

They have also agreed to create health insurance exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage. Both the House plan and the Senate bill would eventually limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Insurers would also be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person’s gender or medical history. Medicaid would be significantly expanded under both proposals.

There are, however, major differences between the Senate measure and the more expansive — hence expensive — House bill.

One of the biggest divides is over how to pay for the plans. The House package is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and new Medicare spending reductions. Individuals with annual incomes over $500,000 and families earning more than $1 million would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.

The Senate bill also cuts Medicare by roughly $500 billion. It does not include a tax surcharge on the wealthy, however. It would instead impose a 40 percent tax on so-called “Cadillac” health plans.

Proponents of the tax on high-end plans argue it’s one of the most effective ways to curb medical inflation. House Democrats are adamantly opposed to taxing such policies, arguing that such a move would hurt union members who traded higher salaries for more generous benefits.

Another key sticking point is the dispute over a public option. The House plan includes a public option; the more conservative Senate plan would instead create new nonprofit private plans overseen by the federal government.

iReport.com: Give your thoughts on the Senate health care bill

Under both plans, individuals would be required to purchase coverage. But the House bill includes more stringent penalties for most of those who fail to comply. Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

Employers face a much stricter mandate under the House legislation, which would require companies with a payroll of more than $500,000 to provide insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.

The Senate bill would require any company with more than 50 employees to pay a fee of up to $750 per worker if any of its employees relies on government subsidies to purchase coverage.

Abortion has also been a sticking point for both chambers. A late compromise with conservatives in the House led to the adoption of an amendment banning most abortion coverage from the public option.

It would also prohibit abortion coverage in private policies available in the exchange to people receiving federal subsidies.

Senate provisions, made more conservative than initially drafted in order to satisfy Nelson, would allow states to choose whether to ban abortion coverage in plans offered in the exchanges. Individuals purchasing plans through the exchanges would have to pay for abortion coverage out of their own funds.

Many observers expect the final bill will conform largely to the measure now moving through the Senate.

“Reid had to make a lot of concessions to get his entire caucus behind the Senate bill,” said CNN deputy political director Paul Steinhauser.

“He can’t afford to a lose a single vote. Every Democratic senator has the power to kill this bill, and that fact gives Senate negotiators tremendous leverage in their negotiations with the House.”

Nelson told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that he would withdraw his support if the final bill gets changed too much from the Senate version under consideration.

Among other things, Nelson had a provision added to the bill requiring the federal government to cover Nebraska’s costs for expanded Medicaid coverage after 2016. No other state is currently slated to receive such a benefit.

© 2009 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

NEWS

Senate votes to give green light to health care bill
December 21, 2009 1:50 a.m. & 4:18 a.m. EST
’s Ted Barrett, Dana Bash and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report

Washington (CNN) — Democrats won a major victory in their push for health care reform early Monday morning as the Senate voted to end debate on a package of controversial revisions to a sweeping $871 billion bill.

The 60 to 40 party-line vote, cast shortly after 1 a.m., kept Senate Democrats on track to pass the bill on Christmas Eve. If it passes, the measure will then have to be merged with a roughly $1 trillion plan passed by House of Representatives in November. The Senate went into recess until noon Monday shortly after the vote.

The vote left President Obama on the cusp of claiming victory on his top domestic priority and enacting the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid over four decades ago.

“Today, the Senate took another historic step toward our goal of delivering access to quality, affordable health care to all Americans,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said in a statement.

The bill will help “promote choice and competition to drive down skyrocketing health care costs for families … all across America.”

The vote was the first of three this week requiring Democrats to win the backing of 60 members — enough to break a GOP filibuster. Final passage of the measure, in the contrast, will require a bare majority in the 100-member chamber.

Many political observers believe Monday’s outcome indicates a likely Democratic win on the remaining procedural hurdles and the final vote.

A major health care victory for Democrats as a 60-40 party line vote was reached to end a package of controversial proposals.

In a CNN Exclusive, Nebraska Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson explains his health care negotiations on ‘State of the Union.’

“The die is cast. It’s done,” New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer proclaimed after the vote.

Republicans ripped the majority for passing the measure in the middle of the night and accused Democrats of ramming the bill through despite growing public opposition.

“Make no mistake: If the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they wouldn’t be forcing this vote in the dead of night,” argued Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.

“Mark my words: this legislation will reshape our nation. And Americans have already issued their verdict. They don’t want it. They don’t like this bill, and they don’t like lawmakers playing games with their health care to secure the votes they need to pass it.”

The unusual timing of the vote was a consequence of Senate rules, Democrats’ determination to pass the bill before adjourning for the holidays, and the GOP’s willingness to use every possible legislative tactic to slow the bill’s progress.

Unanimous Republican opposition has forced Reid to win the support of all 60 members of his traditionally fractious Democratic caucus. Compromises made to win the backing of more conservative members, such as Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, have enraged many liberal Democrats and threatened to undermine support for the bill.

Liberal Democrats are particularly upset with Reid’s decision to abandon a government-run public health insurance option and an expansion of Medicare to Americans as young as age 55 — ideas strongly opposed by Lieberman and other centrists.

Top Democrats, however, argue that the Senate bill as written would still constitute a positive change of historic proportions. The legislation, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, would extent health insurance coverage to over 30 million Americans while reducing the federal deficit by $132 billion over the next decade.

The deficit would drop by another $1.3 trillion between the years 2019 and 2029.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have now reached agreement on a broad range of changes that could effect every American’s coverage.

Among other things, they have agreed to subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

They have also agreed to create health insurance exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage. Both the House plan the Senate bill would eventually limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Insurers would also be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person’s gender or medical history.

Medicaid would be significantly expanded under both proposals. The House bill would extend coverage to individuals earning up to 150 percent of the poverty line, or roughly $33,000 for a family of four; the Senate plan ensures coverage to those earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or just over $29,000 for a family of four.

There are, however, major differences between the Senate measure and the more expansive — and hence expensive — House bill.

One of the biggest divides is over how to pay for the plans. The House package is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and new Medicare spending reductions.

Specifically, individuals with annual incomes over $500,000 — as well as families earning more than $1 million — would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.

The Senate bill also cuts Medicare by roughly $500 billion. It does not include a tax surcharge on the wealthy, however. It would instead impose a 40 percent tax on so-called “Cadillac” health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families.

Proponents of the tax on high-end plans argue it’s one of the most effective ways to curb medical inflation. House Democrats are adamantly opposed to taxing such policies, arguing that such a move would hurt union members who traded higher salaries for more generous benefits.

The Senate bill would also hike Medicare payroll taxes on families making over $250,000; the House bill does not.

Another key sticking point: the dispute over a public option. The House plan includes a public option; the more conservative Senate plan would instead create new nonprofit private plans overseen by the federal government.

iReport.com: Give your thoughts on the Senate health care bill.

Individuals under both plans would be required to purchase coverage, but the House bill includes more stringent penalties for most of those who fail to comply. The House bill would impose a fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual’s income. The Senate plan would require individuals to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750 or 2 percent of his or her income — whichever is greater.

Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

Employers face a much stricter mandate under the House legislation, which would require companies with a payroll of more than $500,000 to provide insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.

The Senate bill would require companies with more than 50 employees to pay a fee of up to $750 per worker if any of its employees relies on government subsidies to purchase coverage.

Abortion has also been a sticking point for both chambers. A late compromise with Catholic and other conservatives in the House led to the adoption of an amendment banning most abortion coverage from the public option.

It would also prohibit abortion coverage in private policies available in the exchange to people receiving federal subsidies.

Senate provisions, made more conservative than initially drafted in order to satisfy Sen. Nelson, would allow states to choose whether to ban abortion coverage in plans offered in the exchanges. Individuals purchasing plans through the exchanges would have to pay for abortion coverage out of their own funds.

Many observers expect the final bill will conform largely to the measure now moving through the Senate.

“Reid had to make a lot of concessions to get his entire caucus behind the Senate bill,” said CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser.

“He can’t afford to a lose a single vote. Every Democratic senator has the power to kill this bill, and that fact gives Senate negotiators tremendous leverage in their negotiations with the House.”

Nelson told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that he would withdraw his support if the final bill gets changed too much from the Senate version under consideration.

Among other things, Nelson had a provision added to the bill requiring the federal government to cover Nebraska’s costs for expanded Medicaid coverage after 2016. No other state is currently slated to receive such a benefit.

© 2009 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

NEWS

Senate pushes to pass bill by holiday

December 20, 2009 6:10 p.m. EST

This weekend's snowstorm in Washington hasn't stalled the Senate debate to overhaul health care.

Washington (CNN) — Senate Democrats braved the aftermath of a blizzard Sunday to continue their push to pass a sweeping health care bill before Christmas.

The Senate began an all-day session, to be followed by a crucial vote scheduled for after midnight, on changes crafted by Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to gain support for the bill from all 60 members of the Democratic caucus.

With Republicans unanimously opposed, Democrats need the support of their entire caucus to overcome a filibuster and move to a final vote on the bill later this week.

“We have had a long, arduous and I think sometimes taxing debate to reach this moment,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the chamber’s second-ranking Democrat, to open the session. “I think it’s time for a vote.”

A key hurdle was cleared Saturday when the last Democratic holdout, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, agreed to support the bill in return for compromise language on federal funding for abortion and more money for his state. It was the latest in a series of deals with Senate Democrats to hold together caucus support for the bill.

iReport.com: Give your thoughts on the Senate health care bill

The House of Representatives already has passed its health care bill, and if the Senate also passes legislation, the two versions would be merged by a conference committee. Both chambers then would have to approve a final version before it goes to President Obama to be signed into law.

Obama had wanted to sign the bill by the end of year, but his senior adviser, David Axelrod, acknowledged Sunday that wouldn’t happen.

“I think we’re going to have some work to do when we come back” from the Christmas-New Year break, Axelrod said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Both Axelrod and Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday the Senate bill lacks some provisions the Obama administration wanted, but that it would bring much-needed health care reforms.

“There is no major piece of legislation that’s ever been passed without compromise; that’s the legislative process,” Axelrod said on NBC. “It is not perfect. Over time it may be improved, as all legislation is.”

In a New York Times op-ed published Sunday, Biden said the bill was “not perfect,” but called it “very good” because it expands coverage to those currently unable to afford or obtain health insurance while holding down the nation’s spiraling health care costs.

“I’ve been around a long time, and I know that in Washington big changes never emerge in perfect form,” Biden wrote.

Republicans, however, accused the Senate’s Democratic majority of working secretly to force through a poorly conceived bill that required special deals with recalcitrant caucus members.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the wheeling and dealing “personifies the worst” in how Washington operates, while Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, accused the Democrats of buying support.

“This process is not legislation; this is corruption,” Coburn said at a news conference.

The only Republican to have voted for a health care reform plan in the Senate Finance Committee in October, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, said Sunday she would oppose the measure now before the full chamber.

“I deeply regret that I cannot support the pending Senate legislation as it currently stands, given my continued concerns with the measure and an artificial and arbitrary deadline of completing the bill before Christmas that is shortchanging the process on this monumental and trans-generational effort,” Snowe said in a statement.

While Reid apparently believes he has the 60 votes now to pass the Senate bill, it was unclear how senators would react to changes by a conference committee.

Nelson told “State of the Union” on Sunday that he would withdraw his support if the final bill gets changed too much from the Senate version under consideration. In particular, Nelson said he would oppose a bill that includes a government-run public health insurance option in the House version but cut from the Senate bill.

Facing criticism from both Republican opponents of health care and liberal Democrats seeking a stronger bill, Nelson said, “It’s like going home and getting bit by the family dog. Who enjoys that?”

“The high intensity here is as harsh and unforgiving and unrelenting as I have ever seen it in my nine years here,” he said of the health care debate.

Meanwhile, Republican Mike Huckabee, a former presidential hopeful and ex-governor of Arkansas, traveled to Nelson’s home state to rally against the senator’s decision to vote in favor of the bill. Speaking at an Americans for Prosperity event in Omaha, Huckabee invoked the holiday spirit, likening the health care bill to a “lump of coal” that has “fired up” the public.

“If the members of this Congress will not pay attention to the people who elected them, who hired them and who have the right to fire them, then the people in this country will remind them who they work for when they no longer get to work for them,” he said.

The $871 billion Senate bill would be the largest deficit-reduction measure in a decade, Obama said Saturday.

“We are on the cusp of making health care reform a reality,” the president said.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the legislation could decrease the deficit by $132 billion over the first decade, and more than $1 trillion in the 10 years afterward, Obama said at a brief news conference.

While the House and Senate bills agree on most issues, there are significant differences over how to pay for them and how they will expand health coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

The House bill calls for an income tax surcharge on the wealthy, while the Senate version would increase the Medicare payroll tax for those earning more than $200,000 and levy a tax on insurance companies that provide expensive health plans.

Axelrod told “State of Union” that the president thinks the Senate idea to tax insurance companies that provide high-cost “Cadillac” health care coverage is worth considering.

Axelrod avoided discussing details but said that taxing the expensive insurance plans would lower their long-term costs because insurers would seek to bring down the price to avoid the tax. Obama “thinks that has some merit,” Axelrod said.

Organized labor opposes taxing expensive health plans, arguing such benefits have been negotiated for workers in lieu of pay raises in a changing economy.

Axelrod noted the plan would tax insurance companies, forcing them to become more efficient. Eventually, he said, reducing the cost of employer-provided health care should mean more money to raise wages.

Some liberal Democrats criticize the Senate bill as being too weak, but Axelrod said a final health care measure passed by Congress will mean historic and far-reaching benefits for the nation.

“It is so wrong to suggest that this is somehow some kind of middling improvement for the American people,” Axelrod said.

In a CNN Exclusive, Nebraska Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson explains his health care negotiations on ‘State of the Union’.

Obama adviser David Axelrod tells John King that his administration is on the cusp of reforming health care.

CNN’s Howard Kurtz talks with three top journalists about the personal tone of the health care debate coverage.

Sen. Lindsey Graham gives scathing criticism of the Obama administration and the proposed Senate health care bill.

CNN’s Dana Bash reports, as Sen. Ben Nelson pledges support for health care reform, bring the vote count to 60.

© 2009 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

The seat’s hot and he ain’t even in it yet: Bank of America’s chief risk officer, Greg Curl, considered a leading candidate to succeed Ken Lewis as CEO, is under investigation by the New York attorney general for his role in what BofA shareholders were and weren’t told about the bank’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

Your incompetence. Let me show you it: Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker calls for the return of Glass-Steagall and tells the Wall Street Journal’s Future of Finance Initiative, a group of financiers and policy makers, “Your response [to the economic crisis], I can only say, is inadequate. You have not come anywhere close.”

Quote of the day, also from Volcker at this session: “I wish somebody would give me some shred of evidence linking financial innovation with a benefit to the economy.” For good measure, he said the best financial innovation of the past 25 years was the ATM. (Which actually was introduced earlier … but, hey, forget it, he’s rolling.)

Bonus quote of the day, from Gavin M. at Sadly, No!, characterizing hinky academic Stanley Fish: ” …oleoresinous of eye, exuding cheap 1970s tenure …”

Congressman Alan Grayson to Fed Chair Ben Bernanke: Dude, you’re screwing the taxpayers directly AND committing tax fraud!

Oh, snap!: Dick Cheney (laughably) claims trying terrorism suspects in New York will generate more terrorism and calls it treason, so Alan Grayson tells him to “STFU.” This will give Official Washington another case of the vapors, but when Cheney himself once told a senator on the Senate floor to “go [have sex with] yourself,” he really has no room to whine and neither does anyone else.

Crying poor: AIG’s general counsel is leaving because she can’t make it on $500,000 a year. Given her track record of driving companies into ditches, I’m sure she’ll be snapped up in no time. And, yes, I’m being snarky — twelve digits’ worth of my tax money going into AIG in one year entitles me — but, no, I’m not being snarky about her getting snapped up in no time.

“Extreme victimisation,” but not in the way he thinks: Britain slaps a 50% tax on bankers’ bonuses. Will the U.S. follow suit?

Memo to Howard Kurtz: There’s a reason we call you Howie the Putz. And you’re soaking in it.

Well, yeah, if, by “socialism,” he means “a scary word that conservative wankers scream to try to scare people”: Charles Krauthammer calls environmentalism “the new socialism.”

Well, the federal government can just rock *me* to sleep tonight: The TSA posts some of its most sensitive security information on the Internet. But let’s talk about White House party crashers. Or Tiger Woods.

Sauce for the goose other gander: Paul Wolfowitz lost his job for trying to line up a job for his girlfriend. Will Max Baucus?

Zero tolerance for zero tolerance: Confronted with indisputable evidence of an on-screen error, Fox News decides to abandon its zero-tolerance policy for on-screen errors.

Sarah Palin, Woman of the Year?: Pollak says it could happen.

In late September of this year, I was spurred to undertake a sort of study by a class I am taking at the University of Oregon called New Media and Digital Culture. Henry Jenkins’ writings on media convergence served as the main catalyst here: the theory goes that as media becomes increasingly participatory — which is to say that with blogs and similar platforms, everyone now gets a say and the “experts” are removed from their perches — the good ideas rise to the top. Questions become “crowd-sourced.” The “correct” answer emerges, and everyone wins. Collective intelligence rules the day.

But I have a problem with this: in a world of crowd-sourcing questions and problems, who decides which answer is correct? The crowd itself? And this is a problem with real-world implications. Blogging emerged as a phenomenon in the first few years of our still-young 21st Century: the very same few years in which the United States of America pursued some very dubious undertakings such as, I dunno, a wild goose chase for WMD’s in Iraq. And the real-world consequences of that misadventure and others cannot be overstated. The crowd gets its say, but the crowd is often stupid. The right answers are there — they just get drowned out.

But it would be silly to blame the whole thing on blogging. Those decisions took place in the real world, not online. However, the addition of new media platforms to our overall cultural experience has affected our discourse, in tangible ways. So I set out to pit collective intelligence against collective stupidity: to attempt to measure the extent to which one trend is dominant over the other.

What I found is that this cannot be quantified.

There is Memeorandum – a crucial, invaluable tool that I read obsessively – for tracking arguments as they happen. It’s amazing how much commentary from across the political spectrum is included in its net. But there is a degree of opacity to the site operator’s selection criteria and the technology’s algorithm.

There is Technorati – a tool that enables users to measure a given blog’s reach and depth – but the site is unreliable and changes its platform frequently ( according to blog expert Simon Owens).

There are blog lexicons – where a given online community constructs and solidifies its own history of political debate on the internet. Balloon Juice is a fine example: one can learn from whence the very concept of a ” meme” derives, or follow the hilarious story of the internet meme known as ” I am aware of all internet traditions.”

So what we get are just a few case studies: demonstrating that there are examples of collective intelligence, as well as examples of collective stupidity, driving discourse through New Media.

Some of these:

Collective Stupidity

Memo-gate, Dan Rather, Pajamas Media

• http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/10/ta100809.html
• (Here’s a weird one: I cannot locate the Huffington Post article from a couple years ago in which a writer laid out his case that Dan Rather got “rolled”, and that we all got “rolled” in the process. I’ll keep looking.)

Collective Intelligence

Superfreakonomics: Steven Leavitt, Stephen Drubner, Brad DeLong, Ken Caldeira

• http://www.amazon.com/SuperFreakonomics-Cooling-Patriotic-Prostitutes-Insurance/dp/0060889578
• http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/10/correspondence-on-global-warming-and-superfreakonomics.html
• http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/not-so-super-freak-ctd.html
• http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28449
• (The gist here: bloggers punctured the fatuous logic of intellectual charlatans who had previously been media darlings – and killed their new book just before its release date.)

The Churlish Turn of Modern Discourse

If puncturing fatuous logic needs to entail glib mockery, is it an example of collective intelligence, collective stupidity, or both?

• “I am aware of all internet traditions”< /li>
• • http://www.balloon-juice.com/?page_id=28598
  • http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10643
  • http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/06/thanks-to-911-shes-outraged-by.html
  • The “Shorter” tradition
  • • http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/06/thanks-to-911-shes-outraged-by.html

Both and Neither: New Media Killing Off the Old Guard

The Washington Post’s Very Embarrassing Summer

• Confidential Lobbying “Salons”
• • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/iwapoi-ombudsman-responds_n_230677.html
• Firing of Dan Froomkin
• • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/19/dan-froomkins-firing-leav_n_217968.html
• Chris Cillizza, Dana Milbank, and Mouthpiece Theater
• • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YArTpukehYY
  • Reaction: Two Dudes and a Webcam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJEPDwGVirQ
  • • Further on Dana Milbank
    • • Obama misquote, departure from Obermann, “won’t read blogs”
      • • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/30/iwashington-posti-fans-ou_n_115861.html
      • Nico Pitney, “planted questions”< /li>
      • • http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303262.html
        • http://mediamatters.org/research/200906240008
        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c7kr43HG4Q
        • • Howard Kurtz: “Do you think there’s some jealousy involved here?”

You Heard What?

Oprah Winfrey announced on her show Friday that she would be ending her nationally acclaimed televsion talk-show on September 9, 2011. The Queen of Talk claims that 25 years “felt right in her heart” and that she is ready to move on to pursue other activities in her career.

Oprah’s announcement may seem like a shock to many but it was slightly forseen. She hinted on Good Morning America back in September about the decision she has finally made: “I am literally in thoughtful prayer and consideration to continue to go ahead,” she had said. “You’ll be hearing about it before the end of the year.”

The question lies to what will happen to the daytime spot–does this mean that other talk show hosts will finally have the opportunity to shine or that the Oprah era will never really end? Many critics like Washington Posts’ Howard Kurtz belive that while some minds are already racing to fill the mental gap that will occur, it will not be easy to replace the life size personality and charsima that Oprah Winfrey brought America for over 20 years.

“She has this trust, this intimate connection with the audience because she talks about her own mistakes,” Kurtz said.  “I’m not sure Oprah can be replaced.”

Published: November 9, 2009

I watch Howard Kurtz’s “Reliable Sources” media-review show most Sunday mornings on CNN. That’s partly because since Fox News scrapped its weekly “News Watch,” it’s the only regular program on national television that looks at the news media critically. That’s also because Kurtz, the Washington Post’s chief media writer, does a good job bringing in knowledgeable people to talk about the major traps the media fell into that week.

That said, I don’t love the program. The defunct Fox show, with regulars such as Jane Hall, Neal Gabler  and Cal Thomas, was far more thoughtful and provocative, a weekly gathering of smart people who actually conversed with each other and who tried to puzzle out why on earth the news media do what they do.

“Reliable Sources,” on the other hand, is like a Starbucks latte: predictable, frothy and over-caffeinated. A typical show zips along, hitting much the same headliners that dominate the rest of the Sunday talk circuit, albeit flipping them over and asking whether the media handled them well. Then it fusses over some non-story, typically to deplore the excessive coverage it received, thereby contributing more excess. It remains comfortably within the imaginative nexus bounded by Capitol Hill and Georgetown, with little input from the provinces, almost nothing from abroad.

But it’s unique and I watch it, so I was interested in last week’s Washington Post column by the paper’s ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, about conflicts of interest involving Post reporters—notable among them Howard Kurtz.

TV news is firmly within Kurtz’s beat, and Alexander wrote that “being paid by CNN presents an inescapable conflict that is at odds with Post rules.” Those rules say a Post staffer “cannot accept payment from any person, company or organization that he or she covers.” Alexander praised Kurtz’s reporting: “Still,” he asked, “would The Post allow a reporter who covers energy to be paid on the side by a big oil company?”

Now, I take conflict of interest seriously, and I’ve suggested it’s the signature ethical issue of the new media age, with more and more people who offer news and commentary depending on multiple income streams from sources that may be implicated in what they say as journalists.

Reasonable people may quarrel over whether such things as political sympathies or religious affiliations should disqualify reporters from covering certain matters. But nobody, I think, would deny that the bedrock of any conflicts policy must be a straight-up ban on taking money from entities or people you write about.

This, Kurtz plainly does.

It’s fair to say some of that goes with the territory—and it’s a territory we need populated: We must have critical coverage of the media, and unless we depend entirely on unpaid bloggers, coverage will come from people employed by, yes, other media. So any media critic, especially one working for a powerfully influential organization, has a huge, continuing problem to overcome: How to deal with his or her own employer’s holdings, entanglements and rivalries?

The question isn’t settled by looking at how Kurtz handles a given topic in his Post columns, whether he consistently discloses his relationship to CNN (or, for that matter, its owner Time Warner), or whether his TV guest list tilts toward journalists from the Post and CNN, his two paymasters.  Media Matters for America, the liberal media watchdog, has been bird-dogging Kurtz for some time, and has concluded that he pulls his punches on-air when it comes to CNN while bedeviling rivals MSNBC and Fox News. See: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200911020024

Still, what makes conflicts of interest so insidious is that their effect may be impossible to catalogue.  They make themselves felt not in clear-cut favoritism but through impaired judgment: The stories that are skipped, or the elements of stories that are done that are omitted or downplayed.

These are judgment calls that may (or may not) be a concession to that offstage loyalty. Who can say? But that’s precisely why an outside entanglement should be barred—not because bias can be proven, but because bias would be its perfectly natural and wholly plausible byproduct.

If a CNN newsroom employee offered to cover the TV news industry for The Post, the paper would unquestionably say no. A news outfit of the Post’s stature simply can’t entrust its coverage of an industry to a stakeholder in it, no matter how accomplished a journalist he is. There’s plenty of other media for Howard Kurtz to cover.

-30-

Reposted from: http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | November 4th, 2009

The Double Standard About Journos’ Bias

By John Stossel

I made The New York Times last week.  It even ran my picture. My mother would be proud.

Unfortunately, the story was critical.  It said, “Critics have leaped on Mr. Stossel’s speaking engagements as the latest evidence of conservative bias on the part of Fox.”

Which “critics” had “leaped”?  The reporter mentioned Rachel Maddow.  I wouldn’t think her criticism newsworthy, but Times reporters may use MSNBC as their guide to life.  He also quoted an “associate professor of journalism” who said my speeches were “‘pretty shameful’ by traditional journalistic standards.”  All this because I spoke at an event for Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a “conservative advocacy group.”

It is odd that this is a news story.  In August, AFP hired me to do the very same thing. I give the money to charity.  The Times didn’t call that “shameful.”

But in August, I worked for ABC News.  Now, I work for Fox.  Hmmm.

It reminds me of something that happened earlier in my career.

I was one of America’s first TV consumer reporters.  I approached the job with an attitude.  If companies ripped people off, I would embarrass them on TV — and demand that government do something. (I now regret the latter — the former was a good thing.)

I clearly had a point of view:  I was a crusader out to punish corporate bullies.  My colleagues liked it.  I got job offers.  I won 19 Emmys.  I was invited to speak at journalism conferences.

Then, gradually, I figured out that business, for the most part, treats consumers pretty well.  The way to get rich in business is to create something good, sell it for a reasonable price, acquire a reputation for honesty and keep pleasing customers so they come back for more.

As a local TV reporter, I could find plenty of crooks.  But once I got to the national stage — “20/20″ and “Good Morning America” — it was hard to find comparable national scams.  There were some:  Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc.  But they are rare.  In a $14 trillion economy, you’d think there’d be more.  But there aren’t.

I figured out why:  Market forces, even when hampered by government, keep scammers in check.  Reputation matters.  Word gets out.  Good companies thrive, and bad ones atrophy.  Regulation barely deters the cheaters, but competition does.

It made me want to learn more about free markets.  I subscribed to Reason magazine and read Cato Institute research papers.  Then Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Aaron Wildavsky.

My reporting changed.  I started taking skeptical looks at government — especially regulation.  I did an ABC TV special, “Are We Scaring You to Death?” that said we TV reporters often make hysterical claims about chemicals, pollution and other relatively minor risks.  Its good ratings — 16 million viewers — surprised my colleagues.

Suddenly, I wasn’t so popular with them.

I stopped winning Emmys.

I was invited on CNN’s media program, “Reliable Sources,” to be interviewed by The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz and an indignant Bernard Kalb.  They titled the segment, “Objectivity and Journalism:  Does John Stossel Practice Either?”  It was in big letters over my head.

Apparently, I had broken the rules.

On the air they told me that I was no longer objective.  I was too stunned to defend myself effectively.  I said something like:  ”I’ve always had a point of view.  How come you had no trouble with that when I criticized business?”

In hindsight, I wish I’d said:  ”Look at the title on the wall, you hypocrites!  It shows you have a point of view, too.  Many reporters do.  You just don’t like my arguments now that I no longer hew to your statist line.  So you want to shut me up.”

But I didn’t.

So I’ll say it now:  Reporters who think coercive government control is generally good and I, who thinks voluntary market forces are generally better, both have a point of view.

So why am I the one called biased?

I like what “Americans for Prosperity” defends.  I’m an American, and I’m for prosperity.  What creates prosperity is free and competitive markets.  That means limited government.

And I will speak about that every chance I get.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

]]> http://am1090.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/this-morning-on-the-stephanie-miller-show-299/ Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:04:32 +0000 am1090 http://am1090.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/this-morning-on-the-stephanie-miller-show-299/

Howard Kurtz, media columnist for “The Washington Post,” calls in at 6:05am to talk about his latest column, “Armchair Quarterbacks.”

Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) calls in at 6:30am to talk about health care reform.

Humorist Charlie Pierce , author of “Idiot America” calls in at 7:30am to riff on the news of the day.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) calls in at 8:30am to talk about health care reform.

Health care legislation heading to the Senate floor will give millions of Americans the option of purchasing government-run insurance coverage, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced yesterday. Reid said individual states would have the choice of opting out of the program.

The government will release figures this week expected to show that the economy has emerged from its recession and is in the early stages of recovery. But the following week, the government will issue another set of figures expected to show unemployment continuing to rise toward and possibly above a clearly recessionary 10 percent.

An al-Qaida linked group claimed responsibility for the twin suicide bombings in the heart of Baghdad that killed at least 155 people ahead of January’s elections.

HALL: I think there’s less debate than there was. And I’m also, frankly, uncomfortable with Beck, who I think should be called out as somebody whose language is way over the top. And it’s scary.

KURTZ: Was that a factor in your decision to leave Fox?

HALL: Yes, it was.

Aravosis: Fox is “a political operation and not a news network”

“We’re in Chicago tonight, a city in Crisis.  Kids are dying, shot, beaten, murdered in these streets.”

Anderson opened last night’s show standing in front of a makeshift memorial for 16-year old honor student Derrion Albert who was murdered by a group of kids while trying to catch a bus coming home from school.

These words weren’t much different from the comments Anderson made on May 31, 2007 when AC360 visited Chicago to report on the violence that was taking the lives of Chicago’s children back then:

“Tonight, in a special edition of 360, for the rest of the hour, we are going to try to get some answers, find out why children are dying and what’s being done to stop it.”

That day,the death of Desiree Smith, the third student from her school to be killed in 2007, first brought Anderson and 360 to Chicago’s “really mean streets.”

Apparently, little has changed.

Although the community is angered by Derrion’s murder, no one has come forward to offer any information to the police about what happened.  Since 360’s first report in May 2007, 94 children have been killed and more than 500 have been wounded.

According to Anderson, there is a stop snitchin “code of silence” on the streets which has become an obstacle to law enforcement officials attempting to solve these violent attacks and murders.

Anderson suggested that Derrion Albert’s murder caught Washington’s attention because it was caught on videotape.  It has brought government officials like Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan to Chicago to talk about it.

Anderson interviewed Duncan about the city’s violent crime rate:

ARNE DUNCAN, U.S. EDUCATION SECRETARY: What’s amazing to me is, we have been dealing with students being killed for far too long.  And the fact that those — those deaths, those violent deaths, weren’t on video, people didn’t seem to wake up.

And, so, it’s amazing to me that it takes a video to sort of awaken the country.  But if that’s what it takes, let’s use this as a moment.  Let’s not move — let’s not lose momentum, and let’s make sure this doesn’t happen again.  So, let’s take an absolute tragedy and try to make sure that our children can live safe and that we open this national conversation about values. 

Coincidentally, Duncan ran the Chicago public schools for seven years.  Anderson should have asked him what he did during those seven years to stop the murders and curb the violence.  According to Duncan, ”the federal government is not going to solve this problem.  It is going to be up to local leaders, communities, parents, preachers, and the kids themselves.  We all have a part to play.”

Duncan had a different opinion when Anderson interviewed him back in May of 2007 when he blamed the violence on the availability of guns:

DUNCAN: We have to get the guns off the streets.  We have to put people behind bars who have guns and shouldn’t have them.  It should be an automatic felony. 

Now that Duncan is a member of the federal government he claims that it cannot solve this problem.  However, now that he has the ear of the president isn’t he in a position to encourage strict gun legislation, especially when it comes to assault rifles?

During the 2007 interview Anderson pointed out to Duncan that although many kids were shot, some were stabbed or strangled.  Duncan’s response was to stupidly suggest that other contries “value their children more than we do here in America.”

At that time Duncan did not say anything about parental or community responsibility.  I am not so sure who he was pointing the finger at.  I have a similar problem with the question Anderson brought up during his interview yesterday with Duncan: 

Do you still believe as you did in 2007, that if this was happening in a rich suburb, the reaction would be different, the response would be different?

The fact is,  Anderson brought up the race issue, he alludes to in this question in 2007, not Duncan:

COOPER: Do you think that the fact that it is happening to African-Americans affects the way people see it, that other people who see it in the paper, ” Oh a young black kid has been killed,” and they immediately write it off?

Funny thing is Duncan’s response to this question in 2009 was evasive, unlike his response in 2007.  In 2007 he was more than eager to agree with Anderson’s suggestion:

DUNCAN: I do.  And it’s tough to say.  We’ve lost 21 students in 40 weeks who have been shot dead in Chicago.  That’s a child every two weeks.  That’s a staggering number.

And just think.  If that happened in one of Chicago’s wealthiest suburbs, and God forbid it ever did.  But if there’s a child being shot dead every two weeks in Hinsdale or Natka (ph) or Barringrton, do you think the status quo would remain?  There’s no way it would.  All hell would break loose.

In 2009 Duncan’s response to the same question was quite different:

DUNCAN: I think we have too many deaths whether it’s here in Chicago or northern Illinois, whether it’s Columbine.  This is not a Chicago issue.  That’s what this is about.

In my opinion, Anderson’s attempt to turn this into a racial issue back in 2007 and now is both reckless and unprofessional.  I have no idea what his motivation is to try and sensationalize this tragedy in that way:

COOPER: It’s interesting.  Only two years ago, he (Duncan) said when he was head of the public school system here (Chicago), he said that if this was happening in a rich suburb in Chicago or outside Chicago, if kids in rich suburbs, in a white suburb, were getting killed on this level, there would be – all hell would break loose.  That there would be a national outcry.   

As I said it was Anderson, not Duncan who brought up race.  I would like to know who exactly is Anderson trying to blame for this violence.  Who does he believe this “outcry” should come from?  The government, which is now run by a black man, the MSM, which he is a member of, or the non-black community who have problems of their own?

Anderson is outraged by stories like this, but, living in his Ivory Tower, he has no idea what the day to day struggles are for whites, hispanics, or blacks living in the real world without the benefit of Vanderbilt money, so he has no right to pass judgment on anyone.

What proof does he have that the non-black community is not outraged by these senseless deaths?  What does he expect them to do?  Frankly, he and education secretary Arne Duncan are in far better positions to make a difference than anyone else.  In fact, if anyone should be held responsible for the lack of attention paid to these deaths it is the MSM.  Maybe Anderson should start holding his own profession responsible and stop blaming others.

In an attempt to find answers to these problems, Gary Tuchman reported on a new controversial mentor program for school children designed to try and curb violence by targeting children who are at the highest risk of getting into trouble.  Created by Ron Huberman, the current head of the Chicago Public Schools, the plan involves spending $30 million dollars of stimulus money on less than 3 percent of Chicago school children (10,000).  Each child will be assigned a 24-hour volunteer mentor and offered a part-time job.  

Gary further explained that the program will not “work with perpetrators who are no longer in schools” which worries neighborhood parents because many parents in the most dangerous areas are gang bangers themselves.  Gary also pointed out that although children like Derrion Albert would not qualify for the program, his murderers would.

However, CNN education contributor Principal Steve Perry thinks the answer lies in education, not money:

PERRY: I think it is another reaction.  Too often, what happens is, we react to the problem, as opposed to trying to solve it.  If we want to solve the problem that is existing in Chicago’s or any of the large public school systems, we have to fundamentally change the way in which we deliver education. 

Teachers can play a different role.  The issue is not money.  The stimulus money is not sustainable. 

Chicago resident Janice Allen, who is raising her nephew, explained that in her opinion, the children cannot succeed in school because of their constant fear of being attacked on the streets.  She believes that they need work study programs and jobs where they can “utilize their idle time.”

Principal Perry sees things differently: 

PERRY: I think that this is a local issue.  I say with all due respect to Ms. Allen, she and the members of that community need to own that they can change this.  They need to acknowledge their own power within their community, their churches, their religious orders, their — their — their fraternities and sororities.       

Anderson also interviewed a number of other residents who called on Chicago’s mayor for the last 20 years, Richard Daley for help.  The mayor declined 360’s numerous requests for an interview regarding this issue.  

From tragedy to corruption.

The House Ethics Committee’s investigation into charges of tax evasion and fund raising “irregularities” by Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has been expanded to include an investigation into his personal finances.  

Investigations revealed that Rangel hid income from a house he owns in the Dominican Republic and that he lied for years about his personal net worth on tax forms. In response to these charges he said that he just forgot to put these things on the forms. 

I wonder if that excuse would work for any of us?

Although Republicans have called for Rangel’s removal as chairman, they have been unsuccessful.  As Anderson rightly pointed out, these allegations are made worse because he is responsible for the tax laws that the American people are forced to follow.

CNN senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash reported:

There are a lot of dynamics at play here.  Rangel is a veteran member.  He’s a leading member of the Black Caucus, which of course is a powerful bloc that the leadership doesn’t want to anger.

In my opinion this is just another example of the rich and powerful not having to play by the same rules they set for everyone else with the added benefit of being a member of a minority group that no one wants to “anger.”

I guess Rangel has the best of both worlds.

And then there is the ridiculous ongoing saga of the Letterman “scandal.”  Gap toothed Dave is now being smacked down by the National Organization of Women (NOW) who have accused him of creating a toxic work environment and abuse of power.

Anderson tried to play the Devil’s Advocate during the discussion with CNN legal analyst Lisa Bloom and “Reliable Sources” host Howard Kurtz.  He pointed out that there is no evidence of “favoritism” as a result of Letterman’s many liaisons and that Dave is the real victim here.

COOPER: But Lisa, as he points out, I mean, he is the victim here of an alleged extortion or the alleged victim here.  Is it appropriate to kind of be attacking him for something which has emerged because of an extortion plot?

Although Bloom agreed that the extortion plot was more serious, she did not let Letterman off the hook, calling what Letterman did “a workplace issue” something separate from the extortion attempt.

Bloom also brought up another very good point:

BLOOM: You know, people say, “Well, no woman has raised a claim.” Think about what it takes to raise a claim against an A-list powerful man like David Letterman.

I mean, the woman who raised the sexual harassment claim against Bill O’Reilly ultimately left the news business, left New York City entirely.  I mean, it is a very scary thing to come up against a major celebrity.

Bloom is absolutely right!  I am sure there are many celebs who have gotten away with and continue to get away with behavior like this.  As I said about the Rangel “situation,” this is just another example of the rich and infamous believing that they are entitled to live by different rules than the rest of us.

This is one of those stories I offer up not because I really know much about the subject at hand but because what’s

From a Time Magazine article saying Zazi had a Senior al-Quaida Contact

being talked about doesn’t pass the smell test for me.   Policy on terrorism was one of those issues where we were supposed to see a distinct difference between the Dubya/vpResident Evil administration and the Obama/Biden Dog and Pony Show.  I’m not getting any signals of substantive difference.  I’m just sensing another charm offensive wrapped up with no real explanation or details.  It also seems the press is failing to do its job again.  I’m not sure what has gotten into WaPo, but they can’t seem to figure out what serious journalism is about any more. Their reporters seemed captured by their subjects.

Washington Post Staff writer Ann Kornblut wrote about the Zazi case here and basically buys a list of what seems like empty talking points to me about how the policy for terrorism is now ‘more balanced’.  Again, I’m no expert, but the article seemed weak and I just felt like a lot was missing.

I have to say I was quite relieved to see Glenn Greenwald deconstruct the article over at Salon and put some substance to my gut feelings.   Howard Kurtz should have something to add to this as should Media Matters and I’m waiting for their response too.

The Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut today produces an extreme piece of government-serving, stenographic “journalism,” publishing a dubious administration press release masquerading as a lengthy news article on Obama’s approach to Terrorism and civil liberties.  The Post depicts Obama as heavily and heroically engaged in disrupting the alleged Najibullah Zazi domestic terrorist plot and — repeatedly highlighting that success — claims ”the White House has been charting a delicate course as it attempts to turn the page on Bush-era anti-terrorism policies,” whereby “the Obama administration is increasingly confident that it has struck a balance between protecting civil liberties, honoring international law and safeguarding the country.”  Here are all of Kornblut’s cited sources for the article — every last one of them — in the order she cites them:

Obama aides pointed . . . administration officials said . . . a senior administration official said . . . officials said . . . a senior administration official said . . . senior Obama officials stressed . . . a senior administration official said . . . aides said . . . officials said . . . one senior administration official said. . . . one senior official said. . . . The official said . . . a senior administration official said . . . a senior administration official said . . . administration officials said . . . . a senior official said.

Not a single named person is cited, and there’s not a syllable of quoted dissent in any of it.  Virtually every sentence in the long article does nothing but praise Obama and depict him as stalwartly safeguarding America’s civil liberties (unlike Bush did) even as he protects us from the dangerous Terrorists, so why is anonymity needed for that?  It’s nothing more than what Robert Gibbs is eager to say every day.  Nor is there a hint of who these officials are, what the basis is of their knowledge, or why The Post granted anonymity, all of which are flagrant violations of the Post’s own so-called “anonymity rules,” which its own Ombudsman — just six weeks ago — complained are “routinely ignored” …

Anyway, go read some of the links and see if you come up with anything different then me.  I’m really interested in hearing your take on all of this because I don’t want another 9/11 but I’m not really happy to see any more of my constitutional rights disappear either.

digg!!! tweet!!! share!!!

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

I haven’t been in Washington for most of the last week on vacation, but there was one story that was hard to avoid throughout my reader and streams from back in the District: the backlash against new social media policies for Washington Post reporters. The long and the short of it is that the journalists who use these sources must treat their new, unfiltered mouthpieces as they would an edited, long-form story; that is, they must continue to embrace neutrality and fact-based reporting as the only ethical way to talk about the news.

The anger arises from those who look uphold the core of “social” media: it is unabashed about its biases, uncowardly about its  uncouth behavior. The social channel of media, the one that we create and the one in which the audience says who is the authority, relies more than anything on transparency. Those who are almost to devoid of opinion or commentary, because of the rote simplicity of these channels, are as suspicious as those who let their lack-of-neutrality fly high.

The question becomes what to make of a policy that almost neuters the essence of this form of communication.

When it comes to an insider of old media and its changes, one of the first sources I turn to is usually Howard Kurtz. The fact that he’s with the Post made it even more likely to flip over to his page to see where he came down on these policies:

Not to put a damper on a great fuss, but I think this is entirely reasonable. I don’t see it as a corporate attempt to crush creativity and sap the soul. People follow journalists on Twitter and Facebook because they’re interested in what the person writes, blogs or says on television. We can’t pretend we’re random people who can just pop off at will.

No one is saying we can’t engage on these sites, or that some Post editor has to provide tweet-by-tweet approval.

I think there’s plenty of running room to be insightful and entertaining — within the confines of 140 characters — and engage in dialogue with people who care about politics and journalism.

Translation: wet blanket.

The move, as explained in Andrew Alexander’s (WaPo Ombudsman) piece this morning, is to preserve neutrality and credibility. He even goes as far to site examples of a reporter who used Twitter to make statements about the political viability and circumstances of health care reform issues.

To both of these men, here’s what I say: tough.

We are not in an age where distant reporters are what people ask for. Yes, Mr. Alexander, you will continue to get people who send you e-mails each week complaining about a newspaper’s bias. However, the difference is that the audience finally has a way to “change the channel” of print media, so do what you can to keep your audience focused on you (hey, it may even drive Web traffic!) No one wants to follow a bland person who just links to their own content. Engaging is important – albeit risky because it requires transparency – and it is a must-take proposition.

You actually have an opportunity to show that your reporters are human, that they have opinion and willing to engage in smart conversation. Why would you throw that away?

Image: Brian Lane Winfield Moore’s “Loose Tweets Sink Fleets” via Flickr