Blue Commonwealth - Jim Webb

What are Mark Warner and Jim Webb Waiting for

Heather TaylorMiesle NRDC Action Fund — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:19:24 GMT

In the next few weeks, the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham clean energy bill will come up for consideration on the Senate floor. While we do not yet know what is in and what is out of the bill, the NRDC Action fund has begun a campaign to ensure that Senators hear from their constituents on this vitally important legislation.
What we are doing is drawing the focus on Senators who will play a key role in the drive to pass the bill. We began last week with Senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts. If you live in Massachusetts, it is not too late to join in this effort. Please sign our letter and post a note of support for clean energy legislation on Senator Brown's Facebook Wall. If you do not live in Massachusetts, and are wondering if your Senator could use a little encouragement, click here and you can post something on their Facebook wall, or call their office.

This week, as we hope Scott Brown is hearing from folks in Massachusetts loud and clear, we also turn our attention to Virgina, and its two Senators, Mark Warner and Jim Webb. Each of these men is well-poised to play a critical role in getting this bill passed, and they should each do everything they can to make that happen.

Both men arrived in DC with proven records of success in their respective fields. Other lawmakers are courting their votes and looking to them for guidance. These Senators carry a lot of weight and because of this, they can be key players in passing clean energy legislation.

Both men have stated that they believe America should reduce its global warming pollution. Now we have to translate that belief into action.

Senator Webb has possibly the best understanding of America's national security needs in the Senate. Webb served as a marine in Vietnam and as Secretary of the Navy. He has also been an outspoken advocate for our veterans and has shown himself to be an effective negotiator, and powerful leader in the Senate.

When the Quadrinnel Defense Review included climate change as a significant threat to U.S. National Security, Senator Webb was already working on a proposal with Senator Alexander (R-TN).

Unfortunately, he has been a strong defender of fossil fuels and outdated energy technologies. We need to get him into the clean energy camp.

Senator Warner seems to be moving our way. He recently co-led an effort to show support for comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Along with Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), he got 22 senators to sign on to a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) calling on him to bring a bill to the floor.

Senator Warner is a businessman. After he helped found cell phone giant Nextel, he became a highly respected governor of Virginia. He turned deficits to surpluses during a recession by working with members from both parties. As a result he was recognized as having run the best managed state in the country.

The world is not waiting for the U.S. to get moving on clean energy technologies, and the longer we wait, the more competing nations are able to get a head start. China's investment in clean tech R&D is nearly double that of the U.S. As a result, much of the job creation and economic growth that come with clean energy innovation are already happening in China.

Surely Mark Warner will understand the business importance of making progress on clean energy and not ceding an even larger advantage to overseas interests. Surely Mark Warner gets that borrowing billions from China to buy oil from the Middle East is not smart financially.

Senator Warner understands the urgent need for this legislation in more than just business terms. In September of 2009, Senator Warner said:

"The idea that we're going to, for one more year, delay trying to take on this critically important issue around energy, would be a competitive, financial, and potentially environmental disaster."

But perhaps the most important reason Senators Warner and Webb should be leaders on this issue, is that passing a clean energy bill now would be good for the people of Virginia. Virginia is one of the top recipients of federal Research and Development funding, the state's economy would likely get a big boost from the passage of clean energy legislation. Because of its proud tradition of producing exceptional men and women in uniform, Virginia has felt the strain from the extended and repeat deployments of America's military to fight enemies who benefit from our dependence on oil. Passing a clean energy bill will contribute to a vibrant economy for Virginia, and will make it easier for our military, including its proud members from Virginia to defend our nation.

So lets get to work telling Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb that we want them to step up at lead on passing the clean energy bill:

1. Sign the letter here.

2. Post a note of support for clean energy on their Facebook Walls: Warner Webb

3. Ask your friends to do the same by posting this to your Facebook, and Twitter.

Thanks for your help, and stay tuned as we encourage more Senators to stand up and lead us to the robust economy, increased national security, and national prosperity that will come with a clean energy future.

Heather Taylor-Miesle is the director of the NRDC Action Fund. Become a fan on Facebook or Twitter.

Senator Cuccinelli?

Paradox13VA — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:41:33 GMT

It is fascinating to me that a conservative state Delegate from Fairfax can so quickly be transformed into a national figure by benefiting from a lackluster Democratic year in Virginia, and some well-timed crazy as he starts out his term as our Attorney General.

Looking at what AG Cuccinelli has been doing since coming into office, it seems he is far more concerned with national / Federal issues than state issues. In fact, seen from a certain angle, I would say that Ken Cuccinelli is setting himself up to run for Senate against Jim Webb in 2012.
Ken Cuccinelli's actions against the GLBT community, and lawsuits against the Federal government, seen from this perspective, are actions hammering the wedges where Sen. Webb may differ from some of his critical constituencies in rural Virginia.

And now, he deems it appropriate for him to stick his nose into the business of the Speaker of the House.

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is questioning the Constitutionality of an obscure legislative maneuver to get health care reform passed without taking a flat vote on the legislation.
Dubbed "deem and pass" the process is essentially a way for House Democrats to avoid taking recorded votes on the Senate health care bill. The idea was hatched to help bring fence-sitters into the fold by offering them political cover for approving health care. - The Shad Plank

Nevermind that a vote is a vote and arguing over House procedure is like arguing over margins and font size, why is the Attorney General using his office to stick his nose in Congress's business? Unless he's angling for a job in Congress itself, and setting himself up as an "outsider" to a serving Congress member's "insider" status.

The AG has been remarkably quiet on important state issues like the budget in this most-difficult budget year. He's even been silent on the issue of pro-women license plates, even though this was a cause celebre for him while in the Assembly. I sincerely doubt he's changed his mind on important state questions, and now, with the increased profile of being Attorney General, he could no doubt make (state-level) hay on many of the things passed by the Assembly in this session.

So, silence on funding Planned Parenthood with license plate revenue, and relative silence on the state budget. Why would Cuccinelli avoid picking a fight with the Assembly, while clearly willing to pick a fight with everyone else? Well, consider who is going to have to pay for all these high-profile lawsuits against the Federal government? You and me, as Virginia taxpayers, with appropriations from the Assembly.

It's all speculation, of course, but it is interesting.

(Crossposted from Leesburg Tomorrow.)

Warner, Webb Announce $5M for Valley Green Jobs Program

Riley Murray — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:09:04 GMT

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner and Jim Webb today announced that the Shenandoah Valley Workforce Investment Board (SVWIB) has received a $5 million investment from the economic stimulus package to fund a new program to train workers for jobs in the region’s emerging “green” technology manufacturing and renewable energy industries. The funding, awarded through the U.S. Department of Labor, will provide workforce training opportunities for an estimated 1,000 Virginians across 10 counties and six cities in the Shenandoah Valley.

full text of press release

On gays in the military - two columnists, two arguments ... and more

teacherken — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:15:39 GMT

From liberal Frank Rich in the New York Times, repealing DADT is the right thing to do, and besides, at this point most conservatives know better than to make an issue of it, because the politics, especially among independents, is against them. Look at new Senator Scott Brown, who may be with them on financial issues, but like independent is not on social issues, because after all, in Massachusetts gay marriage is a settled issue.

From conservative Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post, there is no right to serve in the military. The real issue is military effectiveness. DADT is hurting the effectiveness of the military. Besides, her former Marine brother, who used to strongly oppose gays serving openly, now says leave it to the troops. But remember, no one has a right to serve.

And from me? I'm not a columnist. Leaders should lead. DADT was wrong when Clinton was President, it is wrong now. And politically, most young people want to know what all the fuss about gays is about.
Let's start with Parker, who is the conservative, and wants to be sure even as she now supports repeals that she does not lose her conservative credentials. In The only reason to end 'don't ask, don't tell': military effectiveness, she begins her column by writing

Repealing "Don't ask, don't tell" may be the right thing to do, but there's only one reason to do it: military effectiveness.

And just in case you did not catch it then, she ends by writing

More questions remain than can be posed, much less answered, in this space, and Gates may need every minute of the 11 months he has requested to study the issue. Whatever one's personal opinion, the guiding principle should be only what is best for military effectiveness.
"Be all that you can be" was a nice recruiting slogan, but the military really is not about you. And the right to serve belongs to no one.

In between, recognizing that she herself is a civilian with no military experience, she relies upon her brother:

Even my Marine vet brother, who survived Khe Sanh in 1968, insisted for years that gays would have been a huge problem in Vietnam. Today he says: "Gay, schmay. If he has the guts to go through the things I did, then good for him. . . . No doubt we all served with gay guys and never knew it. Gays aren't stupid and they darn sure know who is friendly and who isn't. I say leave it to the troops and forget about it."

She offers some conservative caution in the very next paragraph:

The operative words in his mellower assessment may be "never knew it," which remain central to arguments in favor of keeping the policy intact. To what extent, if any, does "knowing" affect cohesion and what, exactly, does "knowing" entail? The truth is, we don't know, and a policy change would constitute an experiment.

Having offered that caution, she refers to the notorious example of the loss of Arabic linguists - a clear illustration of how military effectiveness HAS been hurt by DADT - but then, in almost a throwaway passage, give what I think is the most important lines in her piece:

Equally absurd is the notion that gays cannot abide by the rules against fraternization. There's no evidence that gays are less able to control their libidos than are heterosexuals.

Let's parse that last sentence: There's no evidence that gays are less able to control their libidos than are heterosexuals. In fact, in most situations, gays have had to demonstrate far better control of their libidos, especially those who have served, before DADT and since it became law.

I served in the earlier period. I was a Marine stationed at Quantico, a base with a higher percentage of Women Marines that perhaps any place other than Henderson Hall, the operational headquarters of the Corps. I knew a few of my female counterparts. Most had experienced the absolute sexism of many of my fellow male Marines, or should I say their arrogance: if a Woman Marine wouldn't sleep with them it was only because she must be a dyke. I heard that in the barracks. Hell, at one point I had my own sexuality questions precisely because I was friends with a couple of WMs and did not see them solely as a receptacle for my penis.

I have lived around enough people who were gay and bi- to have some sensitivity on this issue. My wife was heavily involved in the dance world. My neighborhoods of residence included Greenwich Village and Brooklyn Heights, both gay-friendly neighborhoods. In the Village I lived at Christopher and Gay, a very short distance from Plato's Retreat, an infamous gay hangout. And I clearly remember Stonewall.

I will return to my perceptions on this issue. But let us first examine Frank Rich, whose column is titled bluntly, Smoke the Bigots Out of the Closet. He is observing the politics. He begins

A funny thing happened after Adm. Mike Mullen called for gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military: A curious silence befell much of the right. If this were a Sherlock Holmes story, it would be the case of the attack dogs that did not bark.

. Yes, there was the idiocy of John McCain, but as many have noted, his self-contradiction from his previous willingness to defer to the military is offset not only by the current support for repeal from Adm. Mullen and Colin Powell, but Rich cannot resist reminding his readers that McCain's wife and daughter appear in ads for gay marriage rights.

Moreover, most on the Right remained silent after Mullen's testimony, Rich calls Fox's coverage of the testimony "fair and balanced" and offers this dig at one of Fox's competitors:

Only ratings-desperate CNN gave a fleeting platform to the old homophobic clichés. Michael O'Hanlon, an "expert" from the Brookings Institution, speculated that "18-year-old, old-fashioned, testosterone-laden" soldiers who are "tough guys" might object to those practicing "alternative forms of lifestyle," which he apparently views as weak and testosterone-deficient. His only prominent ally was the Family Research Council, which issued an inevitable "action alert" demanding a stop to "the sexualization of our military."

Here I might note that it perhaps would have served O'Hanlon to recognize that never having served in the military himself, perhaps he should have offered the deference that Kathleen Parker gave to those who have served or are currently serving. As an aside, had I previously had any doubt about O'Hanlon's lack of qualification to comment on matters of national security (which in fact I didn't), this episode would have served to totally discredit him.

Of greater importance in Rich's column is his ability to explain the silence on the right to the testimony of Mullen:

The answer begins with the simple fact that a large majority of voters - between 61 percent and 75 percent depending on the poll - now share his point of view. Most Americans recognize that being gay is not a "lifestyle" but an immutable identity, and that outlawing discrimination against gay people who want to serve their country is, as the admiral said, "the right thing to do."
Mullen's heartfelt, plain-spoken testimony gave perfect expression to the nation's own slow but inexorable progress on the issue. He said he had "served with homosexuals since 1968" and that his views had evolved "cumulatively" and "personally" ever since. So it has gone for many other Americans in all walks of life. As more gay people have come out - a process that accelerated once the modern gay rights movement emerged from the Stonewall riots of 1969 - so more heterosexuals have learned that they have gay relatives, friends, neighbors, teachers and co-workers. It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love.

Remember these words: It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love. I will return to them in my own remarks.

Rich also examines the politics, which he argues supports repeal, using the idea of a "Scott Brown Republican" to support his case. He dissects Sen. Hatch, who after saying he is opposed to prejudice of any kind tries to defend DADT by saying that repeal would lead to a gay demand for "special rights." As Rich notes:

Such arguments, both preposterous and disingenuous, are mere fig leaves to disguise the phobia that can no longer dare speak its name. If gay Americans are to be granted full equality, the flimsy rhetorical camouflage must be stripped away to expose the prejudice that lies beneath.

Rich of course uses the occasion to go much further than DADT, with a thorough examination of the ongoing trial on Proposition 8. That section, while well worth reading, I will leave to your perusal. I want to stay on DADT as my primary, albeit not my sole, focus.

It cannot be my sole focus because of course DADT is part of a larger picture which includes marriage equality. Rich is right to connect the two.

For now, allow me to quote one more sentence from Rich, the first of his concluding paragraph:

The more bigotry pushed out of the closet for all voters to see, the more likely it is that Americans will be moved to grant overdue full citizenship to gay Americans.

The issue of exposing the bigotry - and the false fear - fueling many who oppose repeal of DADT (and full equality for gays) is key to my remarks. Let me remind you of two other lines I have quoted:

If gay Americans are to be granted full equality, the flimsy rhetorical camouflage must be stripped away to expose the prejudice that lies beneath.

It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love.

Repeal of DADT is key if we are to move towards full equality. Here I might offer historical perspective. Truman's executive order desegregating the military was in 1948. It took 19 more years until the Supreme Court finally banned anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v Virginia (and as an aside, shortly before the end of her life Mildred Loving came out against the Virginia anti-gay marriage amendment because she viewed the discrimination against gay marriage as exactly parallel to how she and her husband had been treated).

Especially at a time when we no longer have conscription, when to fill the billets of our military we need to encourage those willing to serve, a ban against a portion of the willing does not make logistical sense. Call it military necessity, call it military readiness. On those grounds alone the ban should be repealed.

But it is more than that. It is an opportunity for those who serve with gays to acknowledge their full humanity. It will remind people that, as Barry Goldwater once put it, "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight." Bigotry that ignores that should be exposed, because it weakens our nation. And as we see the service of gays and realize their sexual orientation is an aside, as is the race of a Colin Powell, the religion of a Hyman Rickover (who had to overcome religious prejudice during his own military career) or the gender of the many females now serving with distinction, we can understand the full power of these words of Mike Mullen, that allowing gays who want to serve to do so openly "is the right thing to do."

But it is more. When I look at my students I see a tapestry that would have shocked many when I was their age. Many of my students are the product of relationships such as that of Richard and Mildred Loving - one parent white, the other black. We have a President with a similar heritage, and that kind of racial mixing is not at all unknown - in our families, my wife and I can point at one sister whose husband is Hispanic, another whose child by her ex-husband is half Native-American and thus a registered member of a Tribe, and my sister's son who with his African-American wife has two children whose "race" is identical to that of the President. At my school it is not at all unusual to see class officers whose parents have different skin colors, or to have teachers married to someone different: last year our two top students were a pair of twins whose mother is of Asian origin and whose father is Caucasian.

Many of my students date people of other skin colors. And some are involved with people of the same gender, openly, in a way that would have been unknown almost 5 decades ago when I was their age.

And we are beginning to see another phenomenon - children with gay parents. This year I teach two young women each of whom has two mothers. The young ladies and their parents are open about it. It does not affect the friendships or the social lives of either young lady.

And that brings us to perhaps the most important line in Rich's piece: It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love.

Fundamental rights ... my senior Senator Jim Webb explained while running for his current office why he opposed the same anti-gay marriage amendment agaist which Mildred Loving offered this statement:

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Webb's words were simple, those of a Libertarian, that there were three things the government needed a damn good reason to be able to cross his doorstep and say anything about - how he prayed, who he slept with, and his guns.

Service to the country is something that should be encouraged. We should not put artificial barriers between that service and those others might hate or fear. That bigotry should be exposed, not allowed to distort life for the rest of us, depriving us of the service of those who are well qualified and willing to take on such burdens.

Perhaps that will help more overcome their own fear to recognize that such bigotry and fear should also not be allowed to deny fundamental rights such as marriage to anyone. Let me repeat Mildred Loving's words: I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

Kathleen Parker may be cautious, attempting to maintain a conservative credibility, bu even she acknowledges that if DADT is harming military effectiveness, it should be eliminated.

It is harming, and not just because of the loss of Arab linguists. Insofar as the military is not a reflection of the American dream, of the richness of our society, it will not be as effective because it runs the risk of losing support from the American people. That is an argument of military effectiveness.

Insofar as prejudice of any kind can undermine the operations of our military - be it prejudice on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation - it harms our military effectiveness. Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater understood that even before DADT became law.

Looking back 60+ years, the idea of a segregated military may seem odd to many who did not live through the civil rights era as did I. Truman showed leadership, and helped move our nation forward. So did Branch Rickey at one year earlier, bringing Jackie Robinson into Major League Baseball. Try to imagine baseball - or football or basketball - with no black players. Society can and does adjust.

We should repeal DADT. We should move towards full equality for our gay and bi brothers and sisters. The generations behind us, such as the students I teach, will eventually wonder what took us so long. Because as Frank Rich so rightly notes. It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love.

Peace.

Virginia Residents Making Health Care Personal on Capitol Hill

Rusty5329 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:11:52 GMT

originally posted at Sum of Change

Yesterday, I tagged along with the Virginia Organizing Project (VOP) and residents from all over Virginia as they visited Capitol Hill to share their personal health care stories with their Senators and Representatives. As Kevin Simowitz, a VOP organizer, said to the group before their scheduled meetings:

"They [Congress] get lobbied all the time, right? Our estimates show that the insurance lobby spends about $641,000-a-day lobbying Congress. Now, we can pass a plate, but we're probably not gonna come up with that much money. The thing that we can do is you all can bring your personal stories about why we're here and why we need a public health insurance option as part of the bill. And if you're speaking out of your own experiences, speaking in non-partisan language, and speaking about what needs to happen... we're gonna walk out of this meeting a little bit further along the health care road than where we are."

We will have a video report for you on Monday, but for today I will share with you what these meetings were like and what was discussed.
The day started off at Senator Mark Warner's office where the group of some 20 people met with Luke Albee, Sen. Warner's Cheif of Staff (CoS). The group began the conversation by asking Mr. Albee for a legislative update on the health care fight from his perspective. "We're further along in health care than we've been in my life." We hear this all the time, but to this 25-year-old, that statement continues to move me. This fight is so much older than I am and we are so close to taking a huge step forward for our nation. "I think at the end of the day we're gonna get there," Mr. Albee added. "You guys have helped us a lot, because we are hearing from folks." He went on to say that during the stimulus fight they were only hearing from the other side, that it felt like the calls were 99 to 1 against and it hurt, but on health care both sides have been vocal.

The group then took some time to share personal stories about our health care system with the CoS. They started with Matt Masterson. Matt is a father of 3. He has Rheumatoid arthritis, his wife suffers from depression and had a near-fatal, enlarged gall bladder, and one of his children was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes at age 2. He had great insurance, but struggled to cover his son who has a preexisting condition. Matt mostly struggled with the costs though. Even with decent insurance, the copays for medication for his family became too much to take, eating $1,500-a-month at points. Then Matt lost his job for taking too much sick time. The costs became crippling to his family. His family lost their home and car. He explained all this to Mr. Albee, then began to tear up as he said, "I'm not doing this for me, I'm doing it for my kids... I want them not to have to go through what I went through... I got drove into poverty."

They continued sharing stories with Mr. Albee. Linda Pallette told about her battle with breast cancer. She had no insurance when this happened. She calls herself "lucky" that she did not own a home at the time, if she had, she would not have qualified for state hospitalization. It has now been 10 years since her successful fight with breast cancer, "I can never repay these 10 years... that's why I'm doing this... I'm okay. This is not about me." She then shared another story. This was of her neighbor's dear friend, who Linda only knew as Mary. Mary, when facing illness, literally chose to die rather than leave her family in medical debt.

Mr. Albee urged the group to continue knocking on doors, getting people to write letters and call the Senator's Office. The meeting ended with a group photo and an assurance from Mr. Albee that he would relate these stories and the others to Sen. Warner as thoroughly as possible.

Next on the list was Senator Jim Webb. The group met with Courtney Weaver, a Legislative Correspondent from Sen. Webb's office. The meeting was very similar to the previous one, a legislative update from Ms. Weaver, followed by personal stories, a request that she relate the stories to the Senator, and, of course, a photo with the group. And then it was off to the Representatives, Glenn Nye, Rob Wittman, and Eric Cantor to be exact. I tagged along with the group visiting Rep. Nye, who has said of the public option:

"I will consider the notion of a public option," Nye said, "... if it can be set up in such a way that it does not crowd out the private insurance market. That reduces choice, not increases it."

The group chose Rep. Nye because of this shaky support of the public option. The VOP believe this is a Representative that they can move. While Rep. Nye's office hears from insurance lobbyists, and opponents to reform, they are also hearing personal stories of struggle from members of his district. And to the Senators' and Representatives' credit, they are making time for their office to hear these stories. This plan, focusing on personal stories, is how health care reform advocates are fighting to cross the finish line.

Check back at Sum of Change on Monday for our video coverage of the day's events!

Ask, Today, For Health Reform

Paradox13VA — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:40:50 GMT

There are a ton of videos floating around, explaining health care reform and advocating for change. But this one from Robert Reich hit home on an important fact we knew a month ago, but seems to have been lost somewhat since the beginning of September.

Did you catch the difference in Reich's video? He reminds us to write our Congressmembers, and President Obama, now, and tell them how we feel. After writing numerous letters in July and August, I mentally let the issue slide after Sen. Warner said he would not oppose the public option. Mr. Reich reminded me that this is not enough. Sen. Warner and my Democratic candidates expected a lot of me in 2008. In 2009, I expect a lot of them.
And so, this letter was faxed to our Senator's office today.

Dear Senator Warner,
Tonight, our President speaks before you and will tell you that he supports a public option. He joins a majority of America in this belief. It is right that he comes to Congress to ask for your support as our Senator. After all, there is a reason that James Madison and the other framers, so many of them Virginians themselves, placed the legislature first in our system.
With that primacy comes both responsibility and opportunity. There is a responsibility to seriously and deliberately consider the weighty issues placed before the Senate. But there is also an opportunity to be in the right place, at the right time, and change the course of the waters of American history.
These next few weeks are one such opportunity for you and your colleagues in the Senate. America needs real health reform, and that means a market-based check on the insurance market that has both the size and strength to set the standard by which health insurance coverage will be measured. It means a national, robust, fully-funded public option, available on day one.
This is my seventh letter to you, sir, asking for your support of this important initiative. I was happy to hear that you would not oppose a public option if it came up for a vote, but not standing in the way is not how to lead. Leadership means being at the front of the line, not a bystander. Your life has been one of leadership, demonstrable, results-oriented leadership. I proudly campaigned and voted for that leadership, and I'm asking for it to shine through at this critical time.
Please sir, millions of us, myself and my small, Virginia employer among them, need a real alternative in the flawed health insurance market. May your voice sound loud and proud for the real reform on the table today. Speak out, now, for the public option.
Sincerely,
Paradox13VA

Take the time to write your own letter, or call the Senator, today.

Senator Mark Warner
Phone: 202-224-2023
Fax: 202-224-6295

Lest one think that supporting the public option is a sign of creeping communism, and perhaps that's why Sen. Warner hasn't come out in favor of it, Sen. Webb has been on the side of you, me and the public option for months. It's not like Sen. Webb is known for his liberal credentials. His support is just further proof that the public option is the right answer for health reform. It is important to acknowledge that support, and thank the Senator for it.

Senator Jim Webb
Phone: 202-224-4024
Fax: 202-228-6363

Dear Senator Webb,
In anticipation of tonight's speech by our President, I wanted to send you a short note to again thank you for your support for the public option. This fight is upon us, and your voice and strength on this issue are appreciated by this Virginia family.
Please honor your commitment to a strong, national, fully-funded public option in the coming weeks of debate. A strong, national public health insurance option is the only way to ensure real competition and reform.
Sincerely,
Paradox13VA

This battle is upon us, and now is the time to make our voices heard. Call, email and fax our Senators and Representatives, today.

(P.S. Thanks for the promotion, Kathy! This was crossposted from Leesburg Tomorrow.)

My Friends And I Chose The Public Option

Paradox13VA — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:44:07 GMT

I have a friend on the west coast who I enjoy debating politically, over Facebook. He takes umbrage at the possibility of a publicly funded and sponsored health insurance option that could compete within the private market, but have the weight and benefit of the government behind it. In his opinion, such an option in the market would crowd out private offerings, since who in their right mind (no pun intended) would pick a private option when a public option is available.

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether private options in the marketplace have a right to exist without competition from public options, let's examine the fundamental criticism - The existence of a public option will crowd out private options.

The experience of the American economy proves the lie of this criticism. There are many examples of public options co-existing with, and competing with, private products and services. In most of these markets, the existence of the public option actually provides incentives for the private providers to do more and better. Follow me below the fold for the examples.
Finance - The very backbone of the global financial system is a public option: U.S. Treasuries. Treasuries provide a safe haven and a baseline for comparison for all other financial investments. The presence of Treasuries provides the market with stability and standardization. And yet, there is plenty of investment in other, private, investment options.

K-12 Education - Private schools in America, including private charter schools with public funding in DC, seem to be doing just fine in competition with universally available public school. Indeed, private schools have a reputation for being better than public schools, for the people who pick them as an option. Similar to the Treasuries in the example above, public school provides the standards and baselines for the market to compete within, because the public schools are in the market. A regulator from on-high does not do as good a job as entities actually participating in the market itself.

Higher Education - Perhaps the best single example is the public options available in higher education. There are hundreds of public colleges and universities in lively competition with thousands of private colleges and universities. And all of them are better for that competition. You don't hear about private colleges being driven out of business by public universities. And once again, large public universities set the standards for the marketplace to compete on.

Transportation - I know all of us have given up our private option of cars in favor of the public option of public transit. Wait, we haven't? Public transit has helped the private transportation market greatly. Publicly funded roads created the private market for cars. Public buses and trains compete with private taxis and shuttles on price, quality and on-time reputation. Some public transportation entities do poorly, and fail, while some private transportation entities do poorly and fail. Similarly, some of both do well, and succeed. It's a market, that happens.

And those are just four public options competing with private companies I could think of this afternoon. I'm sure there are others.

Returning to my friend and I and our Facebook debate, the irony is that my private option friend picked a public option on what was, perhaps, the most significant decision in his life. He, like me and most of our friends, chose the public option of UVA over alternative private options for college. And the higher education system has yet to collapse in spite of the fact that we graduated a decade ago having taken advantage of that public option. Similarly, I have chosen some public options (municipal bonds) for my investments, to go along with many private options. And the day is not too far off that I will have to choose between a public and a private option for my child's education.

I like having the choice.

In the end, perhaps Jon Stewart said it best in his critique of the Colorado college student asking the President a question at a recent town hall. The relevant part starts at 3:10.

Jon: "Yeah, private institutions can never compete with strong public options! Right, guy who goes to publicly-funded state-college talking to person who went to still-flourishing not-out-of-business private college?"

If you live in Virginia, now is the time to call and write our Senators, as I did today. They need to hear from us, now. Call today, and tell them we need a strong public option in the health care market, just like we have one in so many other markets that deeply impact our lives.

Senator Jim Webb
Phone: 202-224-4024
Fax: 202-228-6363

Senator Mark Warner
Phone: 202-224-2023
Fax: 202-224-6295

(Crossposted from Leesburg Tomorrow.)

A portrait of Jim Webb, writer and prison reformer

teacherken — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:10:41 GMT

also posted at Daily Kos

Those of you who have been around a while probably remember that I was an early supporter of Jim Webb for the United States Senate and was actively involved in his 2006 campaign. Thus when I see a piece like the one in today's Washington Post with the title Structuring Sentences, about his attempt to examine and reform our approach to imprisoning people, I will not only read, I will call your attention to it, as well as offer some comments of my own. The piece has a below the title blurb:

Jim Webb Puts His Writerly Skills to Work in a Modest Proposal: Reform The Nation's Prisons -- And Drug Laws

and an interesting conceit at the start of the 2nd paragraph

But he seems most eager to define himself as a man of letters, or at least he does on this particular overcast day at his office, pausing to talk for a few minutes about what could be his greatest legislative legacy or a most uncharacteristic clunker.

The Post piece is not great writing, yet despite the journalist's attempts to make himself clever, it gives a reasonable look at one of our more interesting public figures.
It is worth reminding people that for all of the focus many in the media had about Webb's opposition to the Iraq war, that was to him less important than is concern about economic equity in his decision to run for the Senate against George Allen. Many of the things that concern him have at least some connection with matters of economic equity. One can see that clearly in his first signature legislative achievement, his new GI Bill, which was saw strongly opposed by those in the Bush administration and by John McCain for fear that it might make leaving the service so attractive that they would have insufficient bodies to feed to their dreams of an American imperium. While Webb was assigned to Foreign Relations, Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs as his key committees, I know that he asked for HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) in order to have more influence on the issues that matter most to him.

For a sense of what Jim is like as a person, and how he sees himself, one paragraph might help a great deal:

"I am, at bottom, a writer," he says, invoking his default response. "I start with a theme, rather than a plot." Webb wants to shape a plotline that, with each turn of the page, draws America closer to reinventing its criminal justice system. Questioning why the United States locks up so many of its youths, why its prisons swell with disease and atrocities while fundamental social problems persist in its streets, has earned Webb lavish praise as a politician unafraid to be smeared as soft on crime. And when a law-and-order type as rock-ribbed as Webb expresses willingness to consider legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, excitement follows.

And to understand the sharpness of his intellect, and his ability to challenge conventional thinking, note this:

"Either we have the most evil people on Earth living in the United States," Webb said when he introduced his bill March 26, "or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice."

Let me extract out the complete Webb sentence: Either we have the most evil people on Earth living in the United States, or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice.

Perhaps some do not know the context from which those words derive, so let me summarize them

the US has 2.38 million people locked up
that is 5 times the world's average incarceration rate
7.3 million are incarcerated or on parole
that number has increased 290% since 1980

1980 - hmm, the year we turned to a right-wing Republican ideology under Reagan, a reinstitution of the Nixonian "law and order" approach, with a heavy emphasis on making sentences longer, or if you will, punishments more rigorous.

Here I digress slightly. We know that simply locking up more people has not solved our crime problems and has unnecessarily placed a large burden upon our economy, not merely in the cost of housing and confining all the additional prisoners, but in the lost of productive workers both while incarcerated and in their post-prison lives when they are barred from much productive work. Oh, and increasingly we are seeing this very important function of government privatized. Gee, why does that remind me so much of the approach we have seen towards schools?

More "rigor"? Check

More punitive? Check

Increased privatization of a government function? Check

Costing a great deal of money without much positive success? Check

A large portion of our increased prison population comes from non-violent drug sentences. Some have questioned Webb's willingness to examine this, remembering that his active duty service was in Vietnam, a conflict which in the minds of some is connected with heavy drug use by our military. Webb has a blunt response to such assertions:

I saw far more drugs at Georgetown Law Center than I ever saw in the military

says the member of the Law School class of 1975.

Jim Webb is in many ways a very private man. He will rise to a sense of duty, which is why he was willing to be considered for the VP slot - that, plus the recognition that as VP with a brief on economic equity he could have far greater impact on issues that mattered to him than he could as a Senator not on the relevant committee (HELP). And it is interesting that VP Biden has a brief on the addressing the needs of the Middle Class, something that corresponds strongly with the concerns Webb had. I suspect, but do not know, that the financial disclosure forms were a sufficient reason for Webb to withdraw his name - as noted, he is a private man.

But he is also an intellectual. He has a small child in whose life he wants to be involved. He wants time to write books, and noted upon his election to the Senate his hopes of emulating Daniel Patrick Moynihan in continuing to write books during his term.

The issue of prison reform is something that has long interested Jim Webb, since he examined the Japanese justice system as a journalist. Back in March he used his writing skills to present the issue to the American public, penning Why We Must Fix Our Prisons as a cover story for Parade, the Sunday magazine with a circulation of perhaps 30 million.

There are many issues facing our nation. We will need the best efforts of as many as possible to help save this nation. Removing some by unnecessary incarceration is detrimental to a goal of full inclusion, especially when those sentences fall disproportionally on the poor and on minorities.

I have some problems with the Post piece - I perceive the writer trying to insert himself, by being almost snarky in the way he approaches Webb. Still, despite that, I believe it presents a reasonable picture of the man, and at least partially explains why Webb is so concerned about this issue. If that leads some more people to pay attention and to be willing to consider change, then the article serves a useful purpose despite its flaws.

Jim Webb may not be a perfect man, and as a politician he is still a work in progress. As I know from having been involved in his campaign and continuing to stay in touch, primarily on the issue of education but also as our paths cross from time to time as we belong to circles that on occasion overlap, he also has one of the sharpest minds of any of our Congressional electeds. He is a writer, he understands the power of words, and is willing to use his skill in the domain of words to advance causes about which he cares even if those causes might not be politically popular nor benefit him directly.

I am about to go address something about which Jim Webb would care. I am spending 4 days a week for the next 5 weeks helping students meet the requirements in Government in order to graduate from high school in Maryland. Today will be my first group of such students. I know that if they do not graduate from high school they will have a high probability of being included in the statistics of the incarcerated. Even should we get them through, they are heavily minority and tilt towards the lower end of the Socioeconomic ladder, things that also make it more likely they would be included in the over 2 million, or if you prefer the larger figure, 7 million, who help drive Webb's interest in reforming this portion of our approach to criminal justice.

I wanted to be sure people saw the article, and considered Webb's concern. If you have done that, I should be satisfied, but I am not. I would also ask that you contact your Congressional electives and ask them to support Jim Webb on this issue.

Thanks... and

Peace.

Demand the Public Option From Our Senators

Paradox13VA — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:38:47 GMT

As usual, Digby has probably the best coverage of the unethical and illegal actions taken by health insurers in the name of that extra dollar of profit. In this case, testimony by a former Cigna Vice President about the policies and procedures used to drive those who actually use health insurance to cover health expenses off of the insurance rolls.

We need a strong public option, not a co-op or any other watered down compromise. A strong public option will cause the health insurance market to compete on outcomes and coverage, not lack of those things.

This is why progressive organizations are asking for us to call our Senators and keep them focused on a public option, not any kind of alternative compromise.

Can you call Sens. Warner and Webb? Tell them that anything other than a strong public health insurance option is unacceptable-including the weak co-op proposal.
Senator Mark Warner
Phone: 202-224-2023
Senator James Webb
Phone: 202-224-4024
- MoveOn.org

Of course, when I called the Senators' offices, the voicemail boxes were full, so I sent a letter by fax instead.

Dear Senator Warner,
I am sending you a letter to request your strong and uncompromising support for a public option in any health care reform that passes the Senate. Any alternative, such as a "co-op" plan, is unacceptable. As the testimony by Wendell Potter before the Commerce Committee demonstrated, insurers cannot be trusted to achieve universal coverage themselves.
A single public insurance plan must be available to everyone, nationally, as an option to provide an honest and fair choice in a marketplace that has become unbalanced, oligopolistic, and inefficient. Only when faced with competition from a public plan will private insurers be forced to serve the needs and interests of their customers. I implore the Senator to be a champion of real reform.
Sincerely,
Paradox13VA

We can make real health care reform happen - this year. All it takes is enough Americans standing up and speaking out, writing their Senators and calling their Congresspeople. Take the time today, Virginia, to make that one call. Copy and paste the letter above (I give you full permission!) and send it by fax to Senators Warner and Webb. Take an action, now, today, to ensure that your kids don't lose their health insurance because of a spurious "pre-existing condition" in ten years. Those are the stakes, and this is the time.

(Essentially crossposted from Leesburg Tomorrow. With a tip-o-the-hat to OpenLeft.)