Pages

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Yet Another Senate Let Down

 Again this is a case of republicans saying no and democrats afraid of their own shadows and what might happen in November.  I am totally exhausted and feel like I have been let down, yet again. We need to be able to show these Senators that they have not felt the full brunt of this unemployment issue.  It is easy come November we put new people that might listen to us for once and do what we need done to make our lives a little securer and better.  Unbelievable where are their cojones, I think they were cut off and discarded.....

Senate Uses Budget Technicality To Scuttle Jobs Bill For Vulnerable Workers

Our guest blogger is Melissa Boteach, the Half in Ten Manager at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
For the past few months, the talk around town has been around the conflicting imperatives of job creation and deficit reduction. Yet, somehow, a provision that would have created hundreds of thousands of jobs for vulnerable workers, without adding a penny to the deficit over the next 10 years, failed to muster the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate yesterday. A fully paid-for amendment offered by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Patty Murray (D-WA) that would have spent $1.3 billion to create up to 500,000 summer jobs for disadvantaged youth and $1.3 billion to provide opportunities for states to build on innovative Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs that are projected to create more than 100,000 subsidized jobs by September for vulnerable workers was scuttled by a 55-45 vote.
These two programs not only provide immediate economic relief for hard-hit families and communities; they have the potential to change the long-term employment prospects of youth and families by offering skills training and work experience so that workers can be full participants in the recovery that will eventually come.
It’s a tough economy for everyone right now, but among the hardest hit populations are low-income workers, youth and women heading families. A recent study revealed that workers earning less than $12,500 in the fourth quarter of last year were facing depression-era levels of unemployment (upwards of 30 percent). Those earning between $12,500 and $20,000 are not faring much better, with jobless rates hovering around 20 percent. Women heading families are also suffering disproportionately, with unemployment rates at 11.6 percent, and the most recent employment reports reveal that one in four young people aged 16-19 is out of a job right now.
Yet funding for two of the main programs to provide employment opportunities to these populations failed to pass on a procedural issue — and a silly one at that. A sizable majority supported the amendment, but Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) raised a “point of order,” charging that the amendment to the Senate’s jobs bill violated the pay-as-you-go rule, and therefore required 60 votes.
This is a technicality. The amendment paid for the job-creation over ten years instead of over five years. The pay-for strategy was actually good economics, considering that the amendment commits to pay for the provisions when the economy is likely to be stronger. But hey, never let good economics get in the way of gotcha politics!
The Senate should be applauded for moving forward on an extension of unemployment and health benefits for the jobless and providing fiscal relief to states to preserve the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters. There may be other opportunities to obtain funding for summer jobs portion of the amendment, and advocates cannot give up on fighting for the TANF emergency fund in the House jobs bill.
But the Senate’s failure to pass an amendment to directly and cheaply create hundreds of thousands of jobs for our country’s vulnerable workers is difficult to comprehend. Given a choice between partisan politics and proven job creation strategies that have won the support of both Democratic and Republican governors, partisan politics won and struggling American workers lost.

Is this Feasible? A Viable Option?

Is this something that should be looked at as a public option, or single payer. It would put money into the coffers as long as we figure out how not to double what is done by the Drs, and cut down the bureaucratic bullshit and paperwork.  Rep. Grayson seems to be the only person trying to find solutions and having the cojones to speak his mind.  I love thus guy........And he's from my home state.........

Why The White House Should Embrace Grayson’s Medicare Buy-In Proposal

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has provided the White House with a real opportunity to win back its disillusioned Democratic base and take the next logical step to reforming the health care system. Last night, Grayson introduced the “Public Option Act,” also known as the “Medicare You Can Buy Into Act,” which would give all citizens and permanent residents under the age of 65 an opportunity to buy unsubsidized coverage in the Medicare program. The bill instructs the Secretary of Health And Human Services to “establish enrollment periods and coverage” guidelines and requires the newly insured to pay premiums that reflect the “costs incurred for individuals within each age.”
“What it does is it takes this enormously valuable public resource called the Medicare provider network and makes it available to all Americans,” Grayson said on the floor, remarking that the government “spends billions” on putting together a provider network that benefits “only 1/8 of the population.” “It’s like saying only senior citizens can drive on federal highways. That is how important the network is and we have to open it to everybody”:
GRAYSON: We’re going to be seeing a Senate bill that doesn’t have a public option. We’re going to be seeing reconciliation that doesn’t have a public option. But Americans need a public option. That’s why I’ve introduced this bill….This is not a plan for subsidies. Everyone would have to pay their own costs. This is not a plan that is not meant to help everybody except for the people who can’t otherwise get insurance…I’m asking the speaker and the leadership, if we have to vote on this senate bill, if we have to vote on this reconciliation amendment that doesn’t have a public option on it, isn’t it time we did something good for America?
Watch it:
 




As Grayson himself admits, in of itself, the unsubsidized Medicare buy-in would wouldn’t provide an affordable option for most Americans. Clinton era reformers sought to expand the Medicare program but were never able to provide enrollees with affordable premiums on an unsubsidized basis. According to a CBO analysis of a Medicare buy-in for uninsured Americans between 62 and 64 — that group would have to pay a premium plus an administrative fee of 5 percent — “the annual premium for single coverage in 2011 would be about $7,600 (that figure includes the cost of Part D coverage).”
The significance of this amendment lies in its political implications. After all, most progressives lost faith in the Senate health care bill after Reid’s deal to replace the opt-out public option with a Medicare buy in for 55 to 64 year olds fell apart. Running on a platform that calls for a Medicare buy in could rally the base, get out the vote, and provide Democrats with an offensive campaign strategy in response to the GOP’s anticipated ‘repeal it’ campaign. Most importantly, it would allow Democrats to rally behind a very popular element of health care reform and help offset the public’s reaction to the Senate bill. It’s a win-win for Democrats. The White House would be keen to pursue it.

What is the Deadline for the Vote?

Hoyer Backtracks On March 18 Deadline, Hopes To Vote On Health Reform Before Easter Recess

The White House is pushing the House to pass the Senate’s health care bill by the end of next week, but Democratic leaders have rebuffed the administration’s deadlines. “He was certainly informed that we don’t feel we want any deadlines assigned to us,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said after a healthcare strategy meeting between House and Senate Democratic leaders and Rahm Emanuel. Democrats appear to be about 10 votes short of securing the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate reform bill and Republicans are fanning the flames of discontent. Over the last few weeks Republicans have promised to hold Democrats accountable for their original vote on the Senate package and tried to scare House members by arguing that there’s no guarantee that the Senate will approve a reconciliation package.
This morning, during an appearance on The Today Show, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) — who yesterday morning said that “None of us has mentioned the 18th other than Mr. Gibbs” — initially suggested that the administration’s March 18 deadline was doable, before pushing it back to March 26, the beginning of Easter recess:
VIEIRA: Quickly, Congressman Hoyer and also Congressman Cantor, yes or no, will this bill be voted on before the president leaves for Asia on March 18th? Congressman Hoyer, yes or no?
HOYER: That’s our objective.
VIEIRA: And congressman Cantor?
CANTOR: Meredith, all I can say…
HOYER: Meredith, let me recall that ….
CANTOR: Is if it was a good bill, we’d be voting on it now, wouldn’t have to be talking about circumventing the rules….
HOYER: There is no circumventing of the rules and Mr. Cantor knows there’s no circumventing of the rules. And when I said the 18th, we hope to have this vote before we break for the Easter Break.
Watch the somewhat awkward exchange:
It’s certainly frustrating to hear Hoyer say that he’s merely “hoping” to pass something before Easter break, since a vote after the break would probably fail. Convincing ‘no’ votes to switch to ‘yes’ is a heavy lift in Washington, but it will be almost impossible after lawmakers attend August-style town halls in their districts.
But then again, the White House really set itself up for failure by enforcing an unrealistic (if past experience is any indicator) deadline. The reality is, we won’t have final action until the reconciliation instructions expire in April (once Congress passes a new budget) and lawmakers are literally pressed into action.

First Fly Girls Get Gold: 'I Never Thought It Would Happen'

Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War II Receive Congressional Medal, Six Decades After Service


Marylyn Myers Peyton is seen in this WASP "Class of '44" photograph. Peyton was one of the 1,074 Women Airforce Service Pilots who were awarded the Congressional gold medal today for their service to the United States. These women were the first females to fly military aircraft for the U.S. armed forces.
 
WASHINGTON, March 10, 2010—

When Dori Martin and Marylyn Myers Peyton joined the U.S. Air Force in the 1940s, little did they know that they would one day become a part of history.
Martin, 88, and Peyton, 86, were part of the thousand or so women who were recruited as civilian pilots in the U.S. military at the height of World War II. These Women Airforce Service Pilots -- better known as WASP -- became the first females to fly military aircraft for the U.S. armed forces.
"We never thought of ourselves as making history," Martin said.
Today, nearly 66 years after their service, the first fly girls will be awarded the Congressional medal of honor.
"I never thought it would happen," Peyton said of the recognition.
"It's wonderful," Martin said. "Nobody even knew about us."
Hundreds of WASPs attended the ceremony on Capitol Hill today to receive their gold medals, which, along with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, is the highest civilian honor bestowed for courage, service and dedication to the United States.
"You gave all that you could to save the United States of America and the world that was at war," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who sponsored the bipartisan legislation to grant the award.
"You fly high and into the sky," she added. "Today, instead of giving you the gun, we will give you the gold."
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, said today's gathering was the largest crowd ever to gather inside the United States Capitol.
WASPs may have been sidelined for years, but these first female Air Force pilots had their work cut out for them. The requirements for women to become military pilots -- at least 500 hours of flying experience -- were more stringent than for men. They were paid a mere $250 per month, slightly less than men, and women had to pay for their own lodging, food and uniforms.
Then there was also the social stigma and the occasional jabs that came with being in a male-dominated atmosphere.
Also, unlike the men, they did not hold any ranks. They were all flight officers.
But Martin and Peyton say if they had to do it all over again, they wouldn't even think twice about it.
The WASP program was launched in 1943 as the United States faced a shortage of male fighter pilots at the time when the war was at its peak.
Despite the stigma and their families' concerns, the women say all they wanted to do was fly, and the experience was a joyride.
"It was a great deal of fun and a lot of work," Martin recalled.
Peyton's journey to the group was a complicated one. She worked for United Airlines and said she wanted to learn how to fly and do something for the country during the war.
She kept hearing reports about the group, but no matter how many people she asked, she couldn't figure how to get in touch with them until one day in Wichita. She was sharing a cab with two other women who were talking about WASPs, she said. Peyton got the contact information from the women and got in touch with the women who were organizing the WASP program when she returned home to Iowa.
"It was a big secret," she said, laughing.
Getting a foot in the door was no easy task.
Of the more than 50,000 women who applied, only 1,830 were accepted and 1,074 graduated from the training program. These women were stationed at 120 army air bases around the world, and flew a total of 60 million miles. Their duties involved everything from ferrying planes to training fighter pilots to chemical missions, but they were barred from taking part in actual combat.
Both Martin and Peyton say they were treated respectfully at their base in Texas, although they heard reports of discrimination in some bases on the East coast.
However, they admit that men weren't used to them being around the base.




WASPs Honored 66 Years After WWII

Despite the important role the WASPs played in the war effort, they received few benefits and little recognition.
Of the group, 38 women died in uniform. Their bodies were returned to the United States without any official ceremony and at the expense of their families, because they were officially civilians.
The rest of the women had to pay the expenses for their journey back home. The WASP records were sealed after World War II ended, until 1980, and the women in the program didn't receive veteran status until 1979.
Today's ceremony, lawmakers said, was part of the effort to right that wrong.
"This day comes too late for us," Pelosi said. "For too long, the proud service of the WASP was not recognized in word or in deed. Today we honor you as the heroes you are."
Mikulski praised the women for blazing the way for young women to join the U.S. Air Force.
"You answered the call of duty and you did it on your own dime," she said. "Today, because of your valor, because of your trailblazing, women are serving in the Air Force and the military. You really created this opportunity."
The women say it's high time their work is recognized.
"We served our country without any expectations of recognition or glory. We did it because our country needed us," said WASP Deanie Parish, who accepted the award on behald of her fellow female WWII pilots. "All we ask is that our overlooked history will someday no longer be a missing chapter... most of all in the history of America."
Both Martin and Peyton, who now live at the same assisted living facility in Sun City West, Ariz., are overjoyed at receiving medals.
For young women who want to follow in their footsteps, "don't give up," Martin advised.
"Stay with it," Peyton said. "Everyone thought we were crazy anyway."
That sentiment has changed considerably. In July 2009, President Obama hailed the work of the WASPs while signing the bill to award them the congressional medals.
"The Women Airforce Service Pilots courageously answered their country's call in a time of need while blazing a trail for the brave women who have given and continue to give so much in service to this nation since," Obama said. "Every American should be grateful for their service, and I am honored to sign this bill to finally give them some of the hard-earned recognition they deserve."
WASP Kathleen Hilbrandet, 86, said her own experience shows women can accomplish anything they want.
"If you really want to do something, don't get discouraged," she said. "Keep working toward the goal."