Travel Channels "Ghost Adventures" Hosts are Afraid of Ghosts, Run Scared!

I have watched and loved almost every ghost show on TV. Paranormal State, Ghostly Encounters, Ghost Hunters, Ghost Hunters International, Ghost Tracking and A Haunting. It's great watching adults, and sometimes tweens, investigate and go after an uninvited ghostly presence in buildings around the world. I wish I had their job.

But the Travel Channels Ghost Adventures features a couple of guys who first inclination, when faced with a creaky door or apparition, is to turn tail, run and scream like little girls.

It's like watching a chase scene out of Scooby Doo. How did they ever get a show?

Cut and Runners, Unpatriotic, Traitors...Republicans?

What was this thing about being more patriotic than Democrats? MSNBC's Rachel Maddow:

Boss Limbaugh Pulls Marionette Cantor's s Strings: What Listening Sessions?

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow takes us through the many steps of the GOP's self destruction...

Democrats, the Friends of Small Business and Public Health Care

Ed McKee, Pie Tanza Restaurant owner and host to the first big GOP "listening session," had this to say about the impact of the nations health care debacle on his small business. Ed Schultz has been turning up the heat on Washington to get something done, and this interview should get everyones attention.

Saving the Health Insurance Industry, One Lie at a Time. The Luntz Strategy.

One of the most successful argument posed by the Republican Party against a public health care option is the idea of "waiting lists." What they don't tell you now is that we already have waiting lists for everything except emergency care. There will always be waiting lists, as long as there are hundreds of million of people accessing the same health care system. Republicans also act as though there are no American health care horror stories, they couldn't tell you one, only those we hear from countries like Canada and England. That insinuates there are no real solutions. So at least someone can make money on its delivery.

The well oiled GOP has now fine tuned their message. Below Ed Schultz gets the message out:

AP-A 28-page presentation by Frank Luntz, who has long experience in advising Republicans on tailoring their speeches and phrase-making to achieve maximum political benefit. Poll testing rhetoric is a technique both parties use, and in his presentation, Luntz credits Obama with making skillful use of language. He's also got some pointed advice to Republicans eager to doom the as-yet unwritten legislation. "Your political opponents are the Democrats in Congress and the bureaucrats in Washington, not President Obama. Every time we test language that criticized the president by name, the response was negative even among Republicans," Luntz wrote. "

Americans want solutions, not politics." One section of his presentation is, "Which is the best reason to oppose Obama?" The most successful attack is, "It will lead to the gov't setting standards instead of the doctor who really knows best." That was followed closely by, "It will lead to the gov't rationing care, making people stand in line and denying people treatment like they do elsewhere."

Sen. Baucus Takes Single Payer Health Care OFF the Table, But Feels our Pain!

The Democrats appear to have picked up some bad habits having watched the Republicans work their authoritarian magic over the last 15 years. I'm ashamed at their behavior and surprised that President Obama hasn't registered at least some disappointment. Here's the brief description from someone who was advocating a single payer health care plan.

OP Ed News: Yesterday morning, eight doctors, lawyers and other activists stood up for single payer health care. We stood up during a hearing before the Senate Finance Committee. The hearing was only to hear from the insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies, HMO’s and business interests. They did not want to hear about a real national health care plan. I was one of the eight. -Kevin Zeese



Ed Tubbs wrote this about our current problem:

First, No US employer can carry a heavy sack of health premium rocks that are minimally four digits to the left of the decimal point for every employee, yet remain competitive. Second, it won't matter if everyone is insured, so long as this country is short the medical professionals … You suffer a long wait now. You'll continue to suffer. Third, We cannot continue to bleed out a quarter of the high school student body, under-train the remainder, and leave those who persevere through college and med-school with five- and six-figure debt.

Finally, whether it's in a private insurance model or a government single-payer system, someone --an insurance company clerk or a government employee--is going to be in the same room with you and your doctor. The only things that will change are the nametags and the name of the employer. The only dollars-and-cents difference will likely/hopefully be that the approximately 50% of private industry costs and profit will not be equaled in a government single-payer scheme.

Democrat Steve Kagen -- an allergist, turned down his Congressional health care coverage, I'll respectfully decline until you can make that same offer for all of my constituents," Kagen, 58, said to a Congressional human resources staffer, explaining his decision to turn down what many call the "Cadillac" of U.S. health plans. Since then, he's introduced his own health care reform bill— and remained healthy, at least through August, when we last checked in with him. Now he has a second term to stay healthy through.-scientificamerican.com

Rep. Paul Ryan Embarrassed by Not Knowing Anything about His Own Government Provided Health Care Insurance?

First the bad news: Barack Obama, a Democrat believe it or not, doesn’t believe in a single payer system of health care.

The Obama administration's Health and Human Services official, Kathleen Sebelius, said on flatly rejected the idea of the government taking over the nation's medical insurance system, saying the Obama administration does not want to assume management of health care coverage. "Dismantling the private market and having an entirely public option, a single-payer system, I think is not something that the president supports." -Newsday

The Good News: GOP rising star Rep. Paul Ryan looked clueless when it came to even the basic components of his own taxpayer provided health care coverage.

(Sebelius) reaffirmed Obama's commitment to creating a government-run insurance program to compete with private insurers --"Competition helps to promote innovation. It helps promote best practices and also can help to lower costs."

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told Sebelius, "The rhetoric coming from the administration sounds good, sounds familiar -- 'If you like what you've got, you can keep it. We're going to have more choice, more competition in health care.’ But when you look at what is being advocated here, in particular a public plan option, it just seems ... you're embracing contradictory principles."

Wrong again Paul.

Sebelius responded that state governments for years have offered government employees a choice between a public insurance program and private insurance plans for their health care coverage.

"It can work very effectively, and does work very effectively," she said, indicating that such arrangements could be a model for overhauling insurance markets nationally.

It looks like Rep. Ryan is taking his Congressional Cadillac health care plan for granted. What’s a matter Paul, haven’t you ever looked at a doctor bill or shopped for the lowest priced treatment?

Didn’t think so, dumbo.

R.I.P. Health Care Reform! Thanks Congress.

It’s hard for me to imagine that a public health care plan, one Americans will overwhelmingly sign up for, has been successfully portrayed as dangerous and not profitable.

I’ve already resigned myself to the reality that health care reform is not going to happen for another decade or so, sad but true, so every post on the subject is strictly for entertainment purposes. I also need to vent. I’m hoping the gamble I take as an uninsured family pays off in the meantime. If we do get sick and go broke, I will try and drain from the public safety nets as much taxpayer money as I can, until Republicans cut those programs too.

Because politicians can now openly defend insurance company profits and denounce a public plan as a threat to corporate bottom lines, even Democrats, the battle is lost for the uninsured, underinsured and insured who will be priced out of the market in a few years. We aren’t hurting enough yet, I guess. Here’s Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) arguing for the insurance industry:

“It’s a big problem,” Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) said. “It’s like putting an elephant in the room with some mice and saying, ‘Okay fellas, compete.’ There wouldn’t be any mice left after a while.”

Think Progress:

Alexander’s nonsensical analogy aside, Igor Volsky recently explained the actual impact of having a competing public plan, writing, “In an environment where private plans are forced to compete with a new efficient public program, inefficient, over-bloated insurers will go out of business, but private plans with good networks of providers or better services will continue attracting new enrollees.

If we’ve always been told by free marketers that private business can do a better job in a more efficient way, than why are they worried a government health care option would wipe them out? They have even argued that the actual administrated overhead of Medicare is about the same as the private sectors, and not the low 1 to 3 percent costs often mentioned in these debates. If that were true, then a public plan would not have the noticeable advantage, right?

Reader responses:

#1-I understood the credo of the Republicans to be that private enterprise can always provide better solutions than the government. Why are they unwilling to allow private enterprise to compete with the government in this arena? FedEx seems to do an okay job despite their being a United States Postal Service. There are plenty of charter bus, car, and taxi services despite the city providing public transportation. (Charter schools too).

#2-Let's see -- a public plan operating without profit might make things tough for private insurers who cherry-pick their customers, drop insureds as soon as they get sick, deny claims on technicalities in order to increase profits, spend more on
lobbying and advertising than they do on claims, and operate with a 40%overhead. And this is a bad thing?

One reader brought up the topic of “insurance insurance.” After reading the following story on such a plan, I would say we are pushing for change in the nick of time.

All Things Considered, December 3, 2008 · Just when you thought the nation's health insurance system couldn't get any more byzantine: Now you can buy insurance to protect yourself from losing your health insurance.

That's the … new product rolled out this week by insurance giant UnitedHealthcare. It's only for people who currently have coverage through their employers, but who fear they might lose it or may want to retire early and will need coverage to tide them over until they become eligible for Medicare.

You have to be healthy to enroll in a continuity plan … then you can select the plan of your choice and pay 20 percent of the premium each month to keep the plan on "inactive" status. When you leave or lose your job and the health insurance that goes with it, you can start your individual continuity plan even if you've developed medical problems in the interim.

Robert Laszewski, a health insurance industry consultant, says the product also assumes that efforts to overhaul the nation's health care system — including promises made by President-elect Barack Obama to ban the use of pre-existing condition exclusions in health insurance — will not come to pass. "It's a bet against Obama being successful," he says, "because if Obama is successful in the next few years, this product has no value."

Republicans Health Care Plan Explained!

Bill O'Reilly's health care solution centers on improving health choices. Wouldn't it be great if the sick "stopped drinking a quart of gin everyday?" It would be better if people lived healthier lives by cutting out junk foods and not sitting in front of a plasma TV all day. Just as long as they don't give up our right to SMOKE in bars and restaurants. Those nanny staters are trying to take away our freedoms.



MSNBC's Ed Schultz asks Grover Norquist how he would bring health care to everyone and lower the cost of premiums. If you were blaming the insurance companies and sweetheart deals with an area's most powerful hospitals for artificially high premium payments, you would be wrong. Trial lawyers. The hapless insurance companies have no choice but to charge high liability premiums for a lawsuit problem that doesn't really exist. If only doctors and hospitals were free to make a few mistakes without worrying destroying peoples lives or going to court.



No, really, Republicans were in charge of our government for about 15 years. Surprised at the results?

Anyone for a Tea Bag Protest for Tax Dodgers that end up Costing Americans Money?

Tax havens. Shelters for the business elite. Simple and to the point, the tea bag party should be up in arms about corporate freeloading. Oddly, they are willing to defend the indefensible. Rachel Maddow again explains in the simplest terms, why not paying their fare share is a bad idea for Americans.

Maddow Blows Lid Off Sen. Jeff Sessions Racist Past. I Didn't Know.

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, ... Jeff Sessions, the "fresh face" of the new party of racist fringers. Why hide it, right?

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow put together a frightening portrait of a very familiar face.

Hedge Fund “Speculators” Victims of Obama and Their Negative Public Image as Greedy Bastards

My conservative friend called to complain how unfair it was that the hedge fund bottom feeders were vilified for sending Chrysler into bankruptcy court. In his world view, this small group of owners with a 10 percent stake in Chrysler, should have the ability to liquidate the company assets over the objections of the majority stake holders. To my friend, making a little money for these few predator investors took precedence over the hundreds of thousands of workers getting their walking papers. Conservative writer David Brooks just wrote:

The party sometimes seems cut off from the concrete relationships of neighborhood life. Republicans are so much the party of individualism and freedom these days that they are no longer the party of community and order. The Republicans talk more about the market than about society, more about income than quality of life. They celebrate capitalism, which is a means, and are inarticulate about the good life, which is the end.

So it’s hard to feel sorry for this group of poor misunderstood hedge fund investors, who threw the first stone by calling themselves "the Committee of Non-Tarp Lenders," now that their whining about their personal safety.

Reuters - The dissenting lenders, led by lawyer Tom Lauria, said some identified publicly in the politically charged reorganization have received death threats "which they perceive as being bona fide." Those lenders have notified police and the FBI, he said.

BUT this just in…

The judge overseeing Chrysler’s bankruptcy case in Manhattan ruled Tuesday afternoon that the group of dissident secured debt holders in the case must make their identities public … Judge Arthur Gonzalez said that the creditors could not benefit from court protection of their identities simply because they were taking an unpopular position. He questioned the validity of the threats, as cited by Mr. Lauria, which consisted of four or five anonymous postings on The Washington Post’s Web site. -NY Times

Kudos to the lawyer representing Chrysler and Fiat for this incredibly appropriate response:

“It’s a bit ironic, your honor, that what Mr. Lauria is complaining about is anonymous postings on the Internet,” a lawyer for Fiat said at court. “Anonymity promotes irresponsibility.”

Brooks Offers Republican Make-Over. But Will Anyone Listen?

I'm posting the entire comment from NY Times contributor David Brooks, because he just wrote the most important analysis of the Republican Party's problems I seen in years. Damn he's good.

The Long Voyage Home
By DAVID BROOKS

Republicans generally like Westerns. They generally admire John Wayne-style heroes who are rugged, individualistic and brave. They like leaders — from Goldwater to Reagan to Bush to Palin — who play up their Western heritage. Republicans like the way Westerns seem to celebrate their core themes — freedom, individualism, opportunity and moral clarity.

But the greatest of all Western directors, John Ford, actually used Westerns to tell a different

story. Ford’s movies didn’t really celebrate the rugged individual. They celebrated civic order. For example, in Ford’s 1946 movie, “My Darling Clementine,” Henry Fonda plays Wyatt Earp, the marshal who tamed Tombstone. But the movie isn’t really about the gunfight and the lone bravery of a heroic man. It’s about how decent people build a town. Much of the movie is about how the townsfolk put up a church, hire a teacher, enjoy Shakespeare, get a surgeon and work to improve their manners.

The movie, in other words, is really about religion, education, science, culture, etiquette and rule of law — the pillars of community. In Ford’s movie, as in real life, the story of Western settlement is the story of community-building. Instead of celebrating untrammeled freedom and the lone pioneer, Ford’s movies dwell affectionately on the social customs that Americans cherish — the gatherings at the local barbershop and the church social, the gossip with the cop and the bartender and the hotel clerk.

Today, if Republicans had learned the right lessons from the Westerns, or at least John Ford Westerns, they would not be the party of untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice. They would once again be the party of community and civic order.

They would begin every day by reminding themselves of the concrete ways people build orderly neighborhoods, and how those neighborhoods bind a nation. They would ask: What threatens Americans’ efforts to build orderly places to raise their kids? The answers would produce an agenda: the disruption caused by a boom and bust economy; the fragility of the American family; the explosion of public and private debt; the wild swings in energy costs; the fraying of the health care system; the segmentation of society and the way the ladders of social mobility seem to be dissolving.

But the Republican Party has mis-learned that history. The party sometimes seems cut off from the concrete relationships of neighborhood life. Republicans are so much the party of individualism and freedom these days that they are no longer the party of community and order.

This puts them out of touch with the young, who are exceptionally community-oriented. It gives them nothing to say to the lower middle class, who fear that capitalism has gone haywire. It gives them little to say to the upper middle class, who are interested in the environment and other common concerns.

The Republicans talk more about the market than about society, more about income than quality of life. They celebrate capitalism, which is a means, and are inarticulate about the good life, which is the end. They take things like tax cuts, which are tactics that are good in some circumstances, and elevate them to holy principle, to be pursued in all circumstances.

The emphasis on freedom and individual choice may work in the sparsely populated parts of the country. People there naturally want to do whatever they want on their own land. But it doesn’t work in the densely populated parts of the country: the cities and suburbs where Republicans are getting slaughtered. People in these areas understand that their lives are profoundly influenced by other people’s individual choices. People there are used to worrying about the health of the communal order.

In these places, Democrats have been able to establish themselves as the safe and orderly party. President Obama has made responsibility his core theme and has emerged as a calm, reassuring presence (even as he runs up the debt and intervenes rashly in sector after sector).

If the Republicans are going to rebound, they will have to re-establish themselves as the party of civic order. First, they will have to stylistically decontaminate their brand. That means they will have to find a leader who is calm, prudent, reassuring and reasonable.

Then they will have to explain that there are two theories of civic order. There is the liberal theory, in which teams of experts draw up plans to engineer order wherever problems arise. And there is the more conservative vision in which government sets certain rules, but mostly empowers the complex web of institutions in which the market is embedded.

Both of these visions are now contained within the Democratic Party. The Republicans know they need to change but seem almost imprisoned by old themes that no longer resonate. The answer is to be found in devotion to community and order, and in the bonds that built the nation.

Democrats Decide a Universal Public Health Care Option Should Be as Bad as the Flawed Private Plans Now

After reading the following NY Times article, I couldn’t help but jot down a few quick responses. Let’s start with the premise brought up at the end of this piece:

“…some insurers and Republican lawmakers circulated a video clip of a recent speech by Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, in which she said insurers were right to fear that a public plan option could “put the private insurance industry out of business.” Ms. Schakowsky said that might happen because of “the superiority of the public health care option.”

The bottom line: The public plan smokes the competition. It is so much better in fact that people would abandon the failed for profit inhumane system we’ve had in place for years in a heartbeat.

Even with huge majorities in Congress and a Democratic president who ran on health care reform, it might surprise you to hear that this golden opportunity is about to pass us by, resulting in an unaffordable public plan cloned from the fatally flawed private sector. Beautiful!

Remember, with overwhelming public support for a total reworking of our current health care system, the Democrats have decided to require “the public plan to resemble private insurance as much as possible.”

Thank you Sen. Chuck Schumer for these jaw dropping compromises that are “looking for a middle ground that would address the concerns of political moderates:”

Democrats want to keep premiums unaffordable: “The public plan must be self-sustaining. It should pay claims with money raised from premiums and co-payments. It should not receive tax revenue or appropriations from the government.”

Democrats will not use its size and buying power to the lower costs as it does with Medicare, promising to pay MORE: “The public plan should pay doctors and hospitals more than what Medicare pays. Medicare rates, set by law and regulation, are often lower than what private insurers pay."

Democrats want to limit public plan health care providers: “The government should not compel doctors and hospitals to participate in a public plan just because they participate in Medicare.”

Health care reform?

Never mind!

Note: Check out Rocknetroots' look at health care: the next bubble to burst.

The GOP Week in Review for May 4th

Christian Conservatives Don’t Want to Lose their First Amendment Right to Bully Gays. Religious Freedom Fighters Unite!

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The North Carolina Senate considered whether schools must adopt detailed anti-bullying policies. The legislation is opposed by conservative Christians who said it would advance special protections for gay people.

Gay persecution is so much fun, isn’t it? Anybody got a stone?

Would You Believe an Ad from Conservatives for Patients' Rights? Only if You Don't Read the Details Below

I received the following email alert from Health Care for America Now:

Conservatives for Patients' Rights? tries to swift-boat President Obama's health care plan with false and misleading claims. Click here for the ad or watch below.

Rick Scott, who's for-profit hospital chain is famous for defrauding Medicare, has put $1 million of his riches behind this ad, which is on CNN and FOX News right now.

These TV stations have policies against airing untrue advertisements. Our partner SEIU has sent a letter to CNN and FOX, pointing out the falsehoods and asking for the ad to be taken off the air.

How deceptive is the ad? You won't believe how low this bottom feeder, Rick Scott, can go.

Rick Scott’s ad contains blatantly false statements and misleading edits. We've teamed up with SEIU to call on cable news networks to adhere to their own 'truth-in-advertising' policies and pull these ads.

Mr. Scott makes a specific claim: "not only could a government board deny your choice in doctors, but it can control life and death for some patients." This statement is demonstrably false. In reality, the powers of this so-called "government board" are clearly defined and cannot do what Mr. Scott claims. The statutory authority of the Council specifically excludes the power "to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer." It is worth noting that even under President Bush, the National Institute of Health already had an annual budget of $355 million to conduct precisely this type of research.

The advertisement further deceives viewers by blatantly misrepresenting the positions of two physicians. While the advertisement paints both as opponents of any role for government in health care reform, in reality, just the opposite is true. Both physicians are in fact supporters of universal health care. What they are opposed to is the U.S.'two-tiered' system that already rations health care based on the ability to pay. In fact, Mr. Scott misrepresented Dr. Day's comments, and Dr. Day openly mocked the ineffectiveness of the U.S. health care system. What Dr. Day is opposed to is Canada's outdated funding model, not Canada's healthcare system. Dr. Day actually advocates reform of the funding structure to preserve Canada's healthcare system, not dismantle it.

Rick Scott is the face of our current health care debacle. A lying thief profiting from the pain and sicknesses of others. The fact that he's willing to be in the spotlight shows how arrogant he and the health care industry is in this country. Maybe he and Sen. Ben Nelson (who is concerned the insurance industry's bottom line might be adversly affected with a public plan) can share a story or two about how many lives they've destroyed.

Are You Out There Carriesnation?

What the hell happened to carriesnation.blogspot.com? One of the best sites for labor news, cars and stuff, I'm shocked someone so dedicated would leave without a trace.

Her important persistent contribution will be missed.

The Upside Down World of Voucher Schools, Down the Republican Rabbit Hole

You can’t be a Republican today without vilifying the public schools system and backing taxpayer supported vouchers to unaccountable private schools. You’ll hear the word “competition” as the free market solution. The word competition is code for putting in place a for profit private educational system. For example:

NJ Republican gubernatorial candidate Christopher Christie pledged to create a school voucher program that allows students from failing districts to attend schools in districts that accept them … Christie decried the high costs of education in 31 mostly poor districts where the state is under a court order to spend additional money. "In those districts, we need to increase competition to make sure we get a better educational product."- Philadelphia Enquirer

Apparently, the state is short changing the school district. Fact: Early research indicates that voucher schools don’t result in better public schools by magically creating “competition.” Accountability to taxpayers has been the likely driving force.

But like his Republican primary opponent Steve Lonegan said, “Allowing students to take their vouchers and attend school outside their towns and cities "would siphon students off to other cities and leave behind empty schools and empty neighborhoods."

Bottom line: Republicans would much rather abandon our public school systems than try to fix them. It’s called “cut and running.”

But are private schools cheaper to run. Accountability and cost is strangely allusive when you’re dealing in the private sector. Elected official already collecting a paycheck usually jump through the hoops demanded of them by the public. But what happens when the public is unhappy with recent actions by a private school and want some accountability? It will cost every taxpayer money. For instance:

The non-profit four year boarding high school, Conserve School, announced that recent steep declines in the state, national and global economy were forcing the school and its supporting Conserve School Trust to make significant, cost-saving changes to its founding operational model in an effort to preserve Conserve School's long-term viability. Conserve announced a mass layoff of 32 of its 60 employees, (and wants to ) transition the environmentally-focused institution to a semester program for high school juniors.

Angry parents and community groups are suing.

“Also entering the Conserve School case in Vilas County Circuit Court as an intervenor party is Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.”

All costs coming out of the taxpayers pocket. Every taxpayer in the state.

And what about private voucher schools that close overnight, leaving students high and dry. Or private schools that are found to be inadequate, sometimes lacking a curriculum, and are shut down by the state. Kids at these schools just lost an entire year or more, that can never be made up, at a critical time in their development.

Sen. Ben Nelson on Health Care Reform: "The public plan wins the game." But He's Against It!

I thought this comment from Sen. Ben Nelson on a public health care plan in the reform package was classic.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Friday that he will oppose legislation that would give people the option of a public health insurance plan. The move puts him on the opposite side of two-thirds of Americans.

Nelson's problem, he told CQ, is that the public plan would be too attractive and would hurt the private insurance plans. "At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game," Nelson said. Including a public option in a health plan, he said, was a "deal breaker."

A poll released this week by Consumer Reports National Research Center showed that 66 percent of Americans back the creation of a public health plan that would compete with private plans. Nelson, in comments made to CQ, joins the 16 percent of poll respondents who said they oppose the plan

This response in the comments section of Crooks and Liars said it best.

katy-boo hoo?

i listen to stephanie miller and ed schultz on XM... lately there have been some callers, supposed insurance agents/sellers, who want to know what's to become of them...

i liked ed's reaction... basically, find another job/profession, just like the auto workers, or textile workers or any other worker who's job was outsourced or downsized... it's called 'change'..

This response appears to be a letter to the Fergas Falls Daily Journal, and sums up the "complex" issues of health care reform in a way even a conservative can understand:

The public health insurance option is essential, but insurance companies are fighting it hard — and some Democrats are starting to waver.

In this economy, one of the best arguments for the public option is the fact that it'll dramatically reduce health care costs.

Two recent studies show that folks who choose Obama's public health insurance option would receive high-quality insurance and a choice of doctors — and save up to 30 percent off of private plans.

If Americans have a choice, the for-profit insurance companies will be forced to make their plans a better value, so those who keep their private coverage will save, too. This 30 percent savings is critical to the debate over a public health insurance option — and (your newspaper) should include it when covering health care.

Wanda Dempsey

Tow the Line or Else. Republicans Always Want to Debate, Except within the Party Itself

Diverse ideas and moderation has never been an accurate way of describing the GOP. Case in point:

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele said at the state GOP convention the party has a long way to go to rebuild after
stinging electoral defeats in recent years … Steele told party activists they had to return to GOP principles and restore faith with voters. "It's not that Americans are less conservative," he said. "It's that our credibility is shot."

The GOP can restore its credibility by returning to core party principles of limited government, low taxes, individual freedom, personal responsibility, economic freedom and faith, he said.

After seeing their ideology crumble under the weight of failed free market theories, limited government regulations that tanked the global economy, Americans retirement funds destroyed and phony rhetoric about “lost freedoms,” Steele couldn’t make up his mind about who’s in, and who’s out:

Earlier he told reporters that the party also welcomed moderate voters but wouldn't abandon its conservative principles. "If you want to be a part of this, welcome," Steele said. "If not, you have other choices."

Not exactly a welcome mat for diverse ideas and an open healthy debate.

Citing Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's vote in favor of President Barack Obama's $787 billion federal stimulus law, Steele said the senator "voted (himself) out of the party. We didn't kick (him) out."

Yikes, and that was just one vote.

Reince Priebus, the state GOP chairman, said of Steele's opponents within the party, "They don't like it and we told them to hit the road and we told them things were going to change in this country."

But that doesn’t mean the door is locked.

(Steele said that) while returning to its conservative roots, the party is reaching out to moderates. If voters agree with 70 percent of the GOP agenda, that can be enough to make them identify with the party, he said. "Your choice,"

Just don’t vote with the Democrats or your out.

Like state Democratic Party chairman Joe Wineke said, "From shunning moderates to hemorrhaging members from its ever-shrinking tent, it is clear that the Republican Party is in a state of chaos."

Demand for Unaffordable Private Schools Never Happened. Manhattan Parents Prefer and Choose Public Schools that Never Kept Pace with Demand.

Free market voucher advocates did a great job of convincing everyone that Americans wanted and trusted private schools more than their failed public school systems. But just like Utah parents that overturned a statewide voucher program pushed by Republican legislators who knew was best for kids and private for profit educators, Manhattan parents are giving their politicians an earful. NY Times:

As a growing collection of Manhattan’s most celebrated public elementary schools notify neighborhood parents that their children have been placed on waiting lists for kindergarten slots, middle-class vitriol against the school system — and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — is mounting.

“You have unleashed the fury of parents throughout this city with your complete lack of preparedness,” read one father’s recent missive ... “Kindergartners Are Not Refugees!” proclaims a flier.

Beth Levison, a documentary filmmaker whose son is No. 79 of 90 on a combined waiting list for Public School 41 and Public School 3, both in Greenwich Village (said) “You would think that Bloomberg, who is a businessman, knows how to manage inventory like this,” Ms. Levison continued. “My kid isn’t just a bottle of vodka, but this is about inventory.”

Here’s the surprise revelation: And parents fear that the lists reflect not just the new policy but also a surge in demand, fueled by an increase in young families and an economic downturn that makes private schools less appealing.

But the epicenter of the outrage is Manhattan’s District 2, particularly the Upper East Side and the Village, where new condominiums have lured young families. The district’s Community Education Council estimates 400 children are on waiting lists at a dozen schools. Rebecca Daniels, president of the District 2 council, said parents were frustrated because they had warned the Education Department that this could happen. These parents are questioning everything and everybody, and it’s putting them in a position that they don’t want to be in,” she said. “Parents shouldn’t be sitting here pitted against one another when their biggest concern is telling their 4- or 5-year-old why they’re not in kindergarten.”

Schoolsmatter blogger Jim Horn, wrote this:

How Bloomberg's School Business Model Went Bust

Now we see, too, that the religious fervor among New York City Business Roundtablers for school charterization and the spread of more private schools was based on the same kind of wishful greed that enabled the destruction of the American economy, again. The Bloomberg-Klein braintrust believed they could continue to shrink the public school system as those market forces we used to hear so much about shoved their way in to replace the white public schools that would have been abandoned for more upscale private boutiques that could be easily afforded in the economy that only went up. What would be left of the public system would be a conglomeration of cheap charter chain gangs for the poor, all run by corporations at public expense.

Bloomberg-Klein could never imagine there could be circumstances that would have the white middle class again enrolling their children in public schools. And, of course, the current outrage among middle class NYC parents who can no longer afford private school for their kindergartners is the outcome. Unfortunately, for Bloomberg, he cannot call up the shop floor and have more public kindergartens manufactured by month's end. Oh, well--maybe New Yorkers will have had enough of lawyers and MBAs running the schools.

Speculators Bankrupt Chrysler, Say They Don’t Deserve to Sacrifice Money. Dissolve Chrysler instead.

In the following NY Times article about the investment speculators who bankrupt Chrysler, not one word is mentioned about the job losses and economic pain dissolving the auto maker would have on the American worker, so these greedy bastards could make their money. After all, they bought Chrysler stocks low anticipating making off like bandits in a bankruptcy fire sale of secured assets. This is the bottom feeding business they’re in, and proud of it. Notice in this story the brutal disconnect of these hedge fund snakes, or as President Obama called them, “a small group of speculators.”

Peter A. Weinberg (pictured here) and Joseph R. Perella are part of a band of Wall Street renegades — “a small group of speculators,” President Obama called them — who helped bankrupt Chrysler.

The NY Times writer, ZACHERY KOUWE, then began to spin the story in a decidedly defensive capitalist way. Like this:

That, anyway, is the Washington line. In fact, Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Perella … are the epitome of white-shoe investment bankers … But now the two men, along with a handful of other financiers, are being blamed for precipitating the bankruptcy of an American icon.

The truth hurts doesn’t it, poor things. After all, this is the kind of business their in. A business that doesn’t sacrifice anything except the company targeted for breakup.

As Chrysler’s fate hung in the balance Wednesday night, this group refused to bend to the Obama administration and accept steep losses on their investments … Chastened, and under intense pressure from the White House, the investment firm Perella Weinberg Partners, abruptly reversed course. In a terse statement issued shortly before 6 p.m. Thursday, Perella Weinberg Partners announced it would accept the government’s terms. It was too late … other Chrysler holdouts … OppenheimerFunds, insisted it would not back down. But whatever the outcome, this bit of brinkmanship … has become yet another public relations disaster for Wall Street.

No kidding. What we’re seeing is the side of business the Republicans never reference as they convince more Americans that the government is being unfair to them. But Kouwe continues to portray these hedge fund bottom feeders as victims:

Representatives for Perella Weinberg … initially defended the firm’s decision … as a principled stance against the administration’s growing intrusion into American business.

These ideological Ayn Randers sure showed us, didn’t they?

But now that Chrysler has tipped into bankruptcy, some industry executives worry the administration will try to turn this episode to its political advantage. Washington, these people contend, needed some political cover for the mess in Detroit — and Wall Street provided a handy scapegoat. A move is already afoot to tighten oversight of hedge funds and end certain tax benefits for private investments funds. The Chrysler bankruptcy, and Wall Street’s role in it, will make resisting those efforts more difficult.

Another words, they cooked their own goose. Their “principled stance” resulted in a long over due backlash.

What is striking to many in financial circles is how much Chrysler’s reluctant creditors gambled for what is, in the scheme of this bankruptcy, a relatively small amount of money. After weeks of increasingly rancorous negotiations, Perella Weinberg and 17 other financial firms — rejected the administration’s plan. It was, they argued, simply unfair.

What was fair were the large numbers of displaced Americans out of work and the disappearance of an American auto manufacturer.

The Treasury offered to pay all of Chrysler’s senior lenders $2.25 billion in cash if they forgave most of the company’s debts. Perella Weinberg and the others demanded more, arguing they would receive at least that much, and possibly more, under ordinary bankruptcy proceedings … Many of them bought Chrysler debt for about 30 cents on the dollar, long after it became clear that the company was in trouble. Most of this debt is secured by Chrysler assets … The thinking was that in the worst case, these assets could be sold at a profit if Chrysler were liquidated. The dissident creditors said they had a fiduciary responsibility to seek the best possible returns for their own investors … The creditors suggested banks that had received bailout money were being strong-armed by the administration, a view some of the bankers privately said they shared.

Victim hood is a conservative badge of honor and their ace in the hole. It’s worked before. It doesn’t seem to be working now.

Perella Weinberg and others … stand little chance of prevailing in court, bankruptcy lawyers said. “Saying they have an uphill battle is an understatement,” said John C. LaLiberte, a bankruptcy lawyer … Even those involved in the negotiations see little upside in fighting. “There’s zero chance this group will be able to get anything more in bankruptcy court given that 90 percent of the lenders are lined up against them,” said a hedge fund manager who owns about $10 million of Chrysler’s secured debt and voted for the government’s proposal.

Our tour of Wall Street’s corporate mindset and its penchant for human sacrifice should be a warning. Hedge fund regulation, here we come.