Blue Mass. Group has MOVED!!

One liberal's positive view of Alito

Katherine (Kate) Pringle is a partner in a New York law firm.  She is also a progressive Democrat who was heavily involved in John Kerry's presidential campaign.  And after she graduated from law school in 1993, she spent a year working as a law clerk to Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito, Jr.

In light of this morning's nomination of Alito to the Supreme Court, I called Pringle to get her take.  The short answer: she is very pleased with the nomination.  More below.

I asked Pringle to describe what kind of judge Alito is.  She said that Alito is "very thoughtful, very careful, very respectful of Supreme Court precedent.  He has a strong conservative intellectual approach to things, but he is respectful, honest, and straightforward."  She emphasized that Alito is very respectful of the litigants in the case before the court, and also of the opinions of his colleagues - he always looks for common ground and for opportunities to build consensus.  She added that he is "not out there to accomplish a specific agenda," and noted his respect for "the Supreme Court as an institution."  Incidentally, Alito's "respect for litigants" was echoed in this NPR story that interviewed Clark Lombardi, also a former Alito clerk (I do not know whether Lombardi self-identifies as a liberal or a conservative).  Lombardi emphasized that Alito was very aware of the "human side" of cases, and said that Alito never treated litigants as pawns in a grand ideological chess game.

I wondered what Pringle meant by a "strong conservative intellectual approach."  She elaborated: "he cares a lot about the words of the statute or constitutional provision or contract" involved in the case.  "He starts first and foremost with the words."  Pringle added that Alito is "not interested in being expansive with judicial opinions.  He decides the specific issue in front of him, and is not inclined to go beyond that."

The "deciding specific issues" approach to judicial decisionmaking has been associated with the Justice that Alito would replace, Sandra Day O'Connor.  O'Connor is known for writing very narrow opinions that resolve little more than the precise set of facts presented to the Court - and some have criticized her for that practice, preferring that Justices write expansive opinions laying down broad rules for future cases.  I asked Pringle whether she thought Alito was in "the O'Connor mold" in this respect.  She thought that he was.  She described Alito as "interested in focusing on the immediate case at hand.  He is not someone who is eager to reach out and grab broad principles and institute them separate and apart from the case."  I asked whether Alito might alter his case-by-case approach to judging on the Supreme Court.  Pringle didn't think he would.

If you've heard any news stories about Judge Alito, you've heard that his supposed "nickname" (it remains unclear by whom it was bestowed) is "Scalito," the idea being that he's a "little Scalia."  I asked Pringle if she thought this was fair to Alito.  "No," she said, "I never have."  Pringle noted that Scalia and Alito are of course both of Italian ancestry, are both Catholic, and are both conservative, but she thinks there are more important differences between them including temperament, personal style, and the desire (or lack thereof) to find consensus.  (See also this Time article on the "Scalito" comparison.  My own view, FWIW, is that this "Scalito" business is simply due to two conservative judges having Italian surnames that happen to sound similar.  It is therefore insulting and juvenile and should be dropped immediately - if two Jewish judges' names were subjected to similar wordplay, the "joke" would be widely condemned as anti-semitic.)

Moving into more dangerous territory, I asked Pringle whether she had any sense of how Alito would apply stare decisis (the doctrine counseling respect for precedent) on the Supreme Court.  Her view is that, because of Alito's tremendous respect for the Supreme Court as an institution, he is unlikely to overturn precedent lightly.  Rather, he will grapple with existing precedent, even when he might have decided the original case differently, and will give considerable importance to the opinions and approaches of the Justices that came before him.  She thought that overall Alito's approach would probably resemble that described by now-Chief Justice Roberts in Roberts' confirmation hearings.  As to specifics, Pringle was not willing to hazard a guess as to whether, given the chance, Alito would vote to overrule hot-button cases like Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas.

Pringle, as I noted earlier, is a liberal Democrat.  I wondered whether her ideological bent was an anomaly in Alito's chambers, or whether Alito routinely hired left-of-center law clerks.  She didn't know whether Alito intentionally hires law clerks with diverse viewpoints, but she did know that she was not alone - a good number of Alito's past law clerks are far more liberal than he is.  She also emphasized that Alito was always asking his clerks for their viewpoints, and that he enjoyed the debate when different opinions emerged on particular cases (this, too, was echoed in the NPR interview with ex-clerk Lombardi).

Pringle's bottom line is a pragmatic one.  Of course, Alito would not have been on John Kerry's or any other Democrat's short list for the Supreme Court.  But, as we all know, John Kerry didn't win in 2004, nor did the Democrats capture a majority in the Senate.  Given that reality, Pringle said, "I'd rather have someone who has real intellectual ability, who has experience, who has a history of making these kinds of difficult decisions, and who has demonstrated respect for the Court as an institution, than a stealth candidate."  And given the other candidates on the "conservative short list," Pringle is optimistic about Alito.  She says that he will treat every case fairly, and that "we'll be proud to have him on the Court."

So there you have it: one view of the Alito nomination, from a lefty who knows him well.  FWIW, I'm still undecided on this nomination, because I haven't read nearly as much as I want to read before taking a position.  I'd encourage you to do the same: do at least some of the reading yourself - don't let the interest groups filter it for you.  You can start with this site, which contains links to the full text of several important Alito opinions.  Also, be sure to check out SCOTUSblog (starting with this post), which will be covering this nomination extensively, including detailed discussions of important cases, and which scrupulously avoids pushing an agenda in either direction.

House has released its health care bill

Here is the House health care bill (pdf).

A couple of highlights (I haven't read the whole thing yet):

• Individual mandate is enforced by (1) a financial penalty of 50% of the smallest premium the individual would have been able to pay to maintain coverage, assessed either by reducing a tax refund or (if that's not enough) by an assessment from DOR; and (2) preventing driver's license renewal until the coverage issue is resolved.
• Businesses with 11-99 employees must pay an assessment of 3% of their payroll to the state's new "Commonwealth Care Fund" beginning on July 1, 2006; for 100 or more employees, the rate is 5%.  These rates will rise to 4%/6%, and again to 5%/7%, at one-year intervals.  Health care-related expenses incurred by the employer, including "an amount equal to the employer's expense for employee health benefits, including health insurance, and contributions to employee health savings accounts," will be credited against the contribution (so that if these expenses exceed the assessments, no contribution will be required).

Much, much more to come.

Lefties: hold your fire on Alito

I have no position yet on what the Democrats should do about Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.  But I spoke this morning to a lawyer whom I know to be a partisan progressive Democrat who knows Alito, and who supports the nomination.  I will be writing up our conversation today or tomorrow.  Stay tuned.

Employers are NOT universally opposed to "pay or play"

Don't be fooled.  To read the Globe articles discussing the House's health care bill, you would think that the "business community" is universally opposed to including a "pay or play" employer assessment in whatever health care legislation emerges from the State House.  But it just ain't so.

I spoke at some length this morning with Phil Edmundson, CEO of William Gallagher Associates in Boston, and the co-founder of a group called Massachusetts Business Leaders for Quality Affordable Health Care (MBLQAHC).  MBLQAHC is listed as a sponsor of Health Care For All's "Affordable Care Today" campaign, which is backing the Health Access and Affordability Act.  And, importantly, MBLQAHC is squarely behind the idea of a "pay or play" type of assessment on businesses, whereby businesses over a certain size either provide health insurance to their employees or pay an assessment into a state fund that is used to subsidize free or low-cost health insurance (I'm oversimplifying, but that's basically the idea).  While there are differences between the House bill and the HAAA, Edmundson describes the House bill generally - and its inclusion of an employer "pay or play" assessment in particular - as "a big step forward."  Much more below.

Why would a coalition of business leaders (Edmundson won't say just yet who is in his coalition - he will announce his membership as part of his State House press conference at noon tomorrow) support an assessment on business?

Edmundson explains that the current system is terribly unfair to businesses who do the right thing by providing health insurance to their employees.  These businesses pay not once but twice - once to cover their own employees, and again in the form of assessments to the state's Uncompensated Care Pool that reimburses hospitals for caring for uninsured patients.  On the other hand, businesses that don't provide health care get off scot-free.  A system better set up to encourage businesses not to provide health care seems difficult to imagine.

Edmundson also pointed out that most businesses with what he called "mobile jobs" (jobs that can be relocated outside of Massachusetts) - such as banks, insurance companies, manufacturers, and the like - already offer their employees health insurance (presumably because qualified employees expect it and will go elsewhere if they don't get it).  Many of the employers that don't pay health insurance are retailers and construction contractors - and those employers can't easily relocate their jobs (as Edmundson says, if you want to pave roads or sell doughnuts in Stoughton, you've got to have people working in Stoughton).  So Edmundson sees the prospect of job loss as a result of a "pay or play" assessment as minimal - the assessment will actually benefit employers who already pay for health insurance; many businesses who don't pay for health care now cannot relocate; and this plan will spread the cost of health care more equitably among all Massachusetts businesses.

I asked why the "business community" is perceived as opposed to a "pay or play" provision when it would seem to actually benefit a substantial percentage of businesses.  Edmundson saw three possible reasons.  First, he says, some employers who provide health insurance simply are not educated about the current system - for example, they don't understand that they pay not only for their own employees but also for the free care pool, thereby subsidizing their competitors who don't provide health insurance.  Second, the business community can generally be expected to react instinctively against government regulation.  Edmundson said that, being a businessman himself, he understands that instinct, but he says that it's important to take the health insurance issue in context.  After all, he says, business has been dealing with worker's compensation laws and unemployment insurance laws for years, and those laws are now seen as a reasonable way of dealing with social problems that, if left unaddressed, would have morally unacceptable consequences (in the form of workers losing their jobs and facing financial ruin for reasons beyond their control).  Edmundson sees health insurance as a similar situation - this sort of threshold, he says, has been crossed before.  Third, Edmundson points out that employers who are now (in his words) "scamming the system" by not providing health insurance and relying on the contributions of other businesses to fund the free care pool can be expected to protest a "pay or play" provision very loudly, and it is often the loudest voices that set the terms of the debate.  The point of MBLQAHC is to add some loud voices on the other side.

I asked Edmundson about the possibility of an individual mandate, and whether he thought that might make "pay or play" more palatable to business.  Edmundson said he was open to the idea, though it is not part of the HAAA that MBLQAHC has formally endorsed.  But he insists that an individual mandate makes no sense without ensuring that truly affordable plans are available to the individuals being forced to carry coverage - failing that, he said, an individual mandate is "a non-starter."

The support of at least some significant portion of the business community is crucial to making "pay or play" stick - a State House source told me last week (before the House announced its plan) that there was no appetite in the Senate for "pay or play" because there was no perception of any support from business.  Phil Edmundson hopes to change that perception, starting tomorrow at noon when he announces who is in his coalition and what they stand for.  Let's hope he succeeds.

Nail 'Em

"Guarantees are for used cars and washing machines, not Supreme Court justices," Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said yesterday on CNN. Not entirely true. There is no reason Senators cannot extract a promise from judicial nominees to decide specific types of cases in specific ways before they vote to confirm them. Roberts, for example, was unnecessarily allowed to wiggle out of answers to numerous questions on grounds these subjects might come before the Court. True, the Constitution leaves judges free to decide actual cases as they think best once on the bench but violation of a general guarantee offered in a confirmation hearing could arguably be grounds for impeachment. At a minimum, getting judges to promise to decide types of cases in specific ways before confirmation by the people's representatives would set a more democratic standard for the judiciary.

Willard Weighs in for the Rich

Willard took a jog down a Cape beach in top coat and dress shoes last week to weigh in once again for the rich. The Governor spoke against the clean energy Cape Wind proposal. His Excellency was mocked by supporters of the project who carried small pinwheels. Cape Code Times reports that Willard's office, while opposing wind power on the wealthy Cape has approved permits for wind developers in the Berkshires. Meanwhile, the newspaper reported, "while Mitt was muddying the wind and the water here, Canada's wind-power capacity, already the fastest-growing form of electricity generation in Canada, took another significant step forward with the funding for two new wind-power projects in Quebec. Together, the 60 turbines at the Mount Miller and Mount Copper wind farms provide 108 megawatts of wind-energy capacity, lifting Canada's total wind-power generation capacity from 444 to more than 550 megawatts, an increase of nearly 25%."

Bush wants Alito confirmed this year

President Bush, in announcing Judge Samuel Alito's nomination, has urged the Senate to hold a vote on Alito by the end of this year.  That seems very unlikely - last I heard, both Republicans and Democrats were saying that the Judiciary Committee probably would not even hold hearings before January.  Bush probably would prefer to have Alito voting on the cases that the Court has already heard, rather than the arguably more centrist O'Connor, but at this point it doesn't look like that will happen.

NBC News is reporting that Sen. Schumer (D-N.Y.) is already describing Alito as a "controversial" nominee.  Dems are not holding their fire on this one.  Fireworks to come, no doubt.

Alito picked to replace O'Connor

Federal appeals court judge Samuel Alito, Jr., currently sitting on the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, will be named this morning to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Bush tried the whole "go outside the federal judiciary," "don't nominate a white male" thing once, and that didn't go so well for him.  So we're back to a well-trodden path.  Alito was the US attorney in New Jersey, and has been on the Third Circuit for 15 years. 

Alito's most famous vote was in the case that eventually became the Supreme Court's hugely important Planned Parenthood v. Casey - Alito voted to uphold Pennsylvania's restrictive abortion law in its entirety (ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld most of the law but struck down the spousal notification part of it).  But with 15 years on the court of appeals, there is a very large body of work to be pored over in the coming weeks.

Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has already made loud noises against Alito, and an attempted Democratic filibuster is considered a possibility at this stage.  That's going to be tough to sustain, IMHO - Alito will most likely be an impressive nominee who will do as well as Roberts did at his confirmation hearings.  We'll see.  The righties, incidentally, are quite pleased with this nomination.

Bush's announcement is expected at 8 a.m.  Much more to come, of course.

Initial reactions to House health care plan

Here's my quick-n-dirty first take on the House's plan, to be unveiled tomorrow am. See this post for the sections to which I'm referring.

A. The expansion of MassHealth is good: It's the strategy for which we had hoped in expanding access to low-income folks -- exactly the same as the Health Access and Affordability Act. Restoration of dental services cut in 2002 is also important.

B. This creates a "purchasing mechanism" for individuals and small business to buy insurance. Now, if this creates a "pool" by which the buying power of the state is leveraged to lower rates, that's good. I'm not clear on that from the language, however.

C. "Commonwealth Care": It's a subsidized insurance program for those who are too "rich" for MassHealth (our Medicaid program) but still under 300% of poverty level. Sliding scale assistance.

D. There's that pesky personal mandate again. "Individuals for whom there are not affordable products [Who decides what's "affordable" and for what income level?] available will not be penalized." Uhh... that's good, I guess... but if there is an "affordable" product for you, you still have to pay a "penalty" based on what you would have to pay.

Look, I understand the reason why you want folks to pay in: Because otherwise the uninsured eventually end up in the hospital, and somebody pays for that care. Still, it's going to be controversial.

E. This is a good part of the plan, and one that I hope gets significant play: Currently businesses that do pay insurance have to pay into the Uncompensated Care Pool, while businesses that don't, apparently don't have to pay. In other words, there's no disincentive for not insuring your workers, while you have to pay a surcharge if you do. Obviously that's wrong, and needs to be fixed. This is a good deal for all businesses that insure their workers, and tough on those who don't. That's a positive incentive, it seems to me.

F. Addresses racial and ethnic health disparities. A-OK by me.

G. I have to say I'm pretty ignorant about the aspects that address hospital billing, though they're doubtless critical.

H. Apparently there's no extra ciggie tax or alcohol tax. The money comes from the employer assessment and tobacco settlement funds. Is this realistic?

Summary of Health Access Reform Bill

Tomorrow, 10/31, the MA House Joint Committee on Health Care Financing will approve its version of health care reform.  Here's the Globe's preview. (Expect a lot of "trick or treat", "scary" clichés from the press and lobbyists. Yuk yuk.) We'll have more on this tonight and going forward -- there's a lot of good, some bad, some practical, and some improbable.

I hate pdf's because they require opening another program, and they don't really seem "interactive" enough for blogging, so I'm just cutting and pasting the entire text of their "highlights". Here's the pdf if you insist.

A) MassHealth Expansion
The bill expands MassHealth coverage for children, parents and childless adults. Currently, children in families up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) are eligible for MassHealth. The bill increases eligibility to children in families earning up to 300% FPL ($38,500/yr for a family of 2). MassHealth coverage for parents would be expanded from 133% FPL to 200% FPL ($32,200/yr for a family of 3).

This bill also provides MassHealth coverage for all childless adults up to 100% FPL ($9,600/yr). Currently, the majority of childless adults are not eligible for Medicaid at any income level, unless eligible because of circumstances such as disability or long-term unemployment.

The bill enhances outreach and enrollment for Medicaid-eligible families and individuals by providing support to community-based agencies for sustainable outreach programs. An additional $80 million is provided to increase Medicaid hospital rates, while keeping within the budget neutrality limits of federal financing under the new Medicaid waiver. These rate increases are tied to performance goals of quality, efficiency, and improved outcomes for patients. The bill also creates a 2-year pilot program for smoking cessation treatment for MassHealth enrollees, and restores dental services that were cut in 2002.

B) Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector
The bill creates a public, central purchasing mechanism, called the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector. It connects individuals and small businesses with health insurance products. The Connector certifies and offers products of high value and good quality. Individuals who are employed are able to purchase insurance using pre-tax dollars. The Connector allows for portability of insurance as individuals move from job to job, and permits more than one employer to contribute to an employee’s health insurance premium. New, lower-cost, specially designed products are offered through the Connector to 19 to 26-year-olds. The Connector is to be operated by the Group Insurance Commission and overseen by a separate, appointed Board of private and public representatives.

C) Commonwealth Care Insurance Program
The bill creates a subsidized insurance program called the Commonwealth Care Insurance Program. Individuals who earn less than 300% FPL and are ineligible for MassHealth will qualify for coverage. Premiums for the program will be set on a sliding scale based on household income. The program will be operated through the Connector, and retain any employer contribution to an employee’s health insurance premium. The subsidized products must be certified by the Connector as high value and good quality.

D) Individual Investment in Health Care
The bill provides that all residents of the Commonwealth shall maintain health insurance coverage. Individuals for whom there are not affordable products available will not be penalized for not having insurance coverage. A sliding scale schedule of affordability for insurance products will be set by the Board of the Connector.

Beginning in 2007, Massachusetts residents shall confirm health insurance coverage by reporting on state income tax forms, and coverage will be verified through a database of insurance coverage for all individuals. The Department of Revenue shall enforce this provision with penalties based upon a portion of what an individual would have paid toward an affordable premium.

E) Employer Contributions to a Healthy Workforce
The bill eliminates the current $160 million Uncompensated Care Pool assessment on insurers and businesses. All businesses with more than 10 employees will make a contribution, based on their total payroll, to a new “Commonwealth Care Fund.” Businesses with 10 or fewer employees will be exempted from this contribution. Employers will receive a credit for their employee health expenses. Revenue from the assessment, along with other state and federal funds, will support the subsidized Commonwealth Care Insurance Program.

F) Reduction of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
The bill aims to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities by requiring hospitals to collect and report on health care data related to race, ethnicity and language. In addition, the bill creates a study of a sustainable Community Health Outreach Worker Program to target vulnerable populations in an effort to eliminate health disparities and remove linguistic barriers to health access.

G) Health Safety Net Fund
The current Uncompensated Care Pool is eliminated by this legislation. The bill maintains the safety net by creating the Health Safety Net Fund to reimburse hospitals and community health centers for uncompensated care. Hospital reimbursements will be made using a new standard fee schedule, instead of the current charges-based payment system. The plan anticipates the transfer of funds to the Commonwealth Care Insurance Program as free care use declines.

H) Funding
The plan leverages federal dollars to enhance and match state spending, and uses revenue generated by employer contributions to fund health insurance coverage. The bill applies tobacco settlement funds that the state receives each year toward health coverage for Massachusetts residents.

It's contagious!

Good gravy. We're not satisified with our own screwed-up health care system -- now we're actually exporting it:

...Experts questioned the priorities of Washington's $1-billion rebuilding plan, which has focused on construction instead of basic needs such as better training for doctors and public healthcare campaigns.

..."I saw enormous incompetence which was more costly than even Iraqi corruption," said Richard Garfield, a Columbia University health expert who worked with U.S. and international officials in Iraq last year. The U.S. "was pouring money down the drain."

Ugggggghhh....

Willard Quite Right on Drunk Driving

Massachusetts Democrats have a bad name as a back-scratching old boy's club that look the other way when it suits them. The new drunk driving bill passed last week by the Legislature is a case in point. Willard said the bill had loopholes "so large you could fly a 747 through" them, and sent it back with three amendments, according to the Associated Press.

Willard "asked lawmakers to restore language that would let prosecutors use certified court records as proof of prior convictions when sentencing alleged repeat drunken drivers, instead of having to rely on the testimony of eyewitnesses or the arresting officer as proof of those convictions. That can be a daunting challenge if the original arrest took place years earlier," the AP reported.

He also said he "wants to suspend the driver's licenses of repeat offenders who refuse to submit to a breath test for at least one year - instead of the current six months - and to increase the mandatory jail sentence for anyone found guilty of motor vehicle manslaughter from two and a half to five years," according to the news service.

"The House and Senate both initially approved the use of court records to establish prior convictions, but that provision was stricken by a legislative conference committee made up largely of lawyers that had represented drunken drivers," the AP said.

The Governor's proposals deserve our support. More to the point, the Legislature should not defend drunk drivers, and the Demoratic Party should not let Willard take the lead in protecting the citizens of the Commonwealth.

I get meta: Daily Kos as a public policy engine?

Below is a diary I posted on DailyKos. I'm amazed at how much energy goes into the posts, diaries and comments on that site, and yet I feel like it could all be harnessed to much greater actual effect on what our government actually does. See what you think:

The OTHER real scandal: Distracted by Fitzmas?

While endless yards of analysis of the Rove/Libby/Plame affair were spun out this week; while we all hit "reload" a thousand times waiting to see what goodies we were going to get for Fitzmas; while we indulged in Schadenfreude that we haven't enjoyed since Gingrich and Livingston got taken down...

The Senate voted this week not to boost the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program by a few billion dollars. To put it in perspective, the Republicans have already given $14.5 billion in tax breaks to oil companies in the energy bill passed three months ago.

Look, I love DKos, I love the community and the energy, and yes, I love the Schadenfreude. But we can't actually do anything to make Fitzgerald indict Rove, or throw Libby into the slammer for 30 years, or hold Dick Cheney's head in the toilet. That's in the hands of Fitzgerald, the lawyers, the judge and jury.

But this stuff -- the food stamps issue and the heating oil issue -- who knows, we might have done something about it, if we had anywhere near the amount of diaries and action and attitude and energy directed towards issues that affect many many real people, maybe even people you know. Up here in the Northeast, there may well be people dying from not being able to afford heat. Did we do all that we could to prevent that from happening? I don't mean to be hypocritical -- I implicate myself in all these questions.

What's the next big thing coming down the pike that we'll ignore, or give insufficient attention to, because we're consumed with rage at BushCo?

The Republicans never, ever let up in their zeal to destroy protections for the middle class and poor.  For them, everything is an opportunity to push their callous agenda, making life a little more rotten for thousands or millions of people. And so, maybe we can't allow ourselves to be distracted by beautiful shiny objects, or the prospect of a merry Fitzmas.

What do you think?

Irve Indicted

Let's get the nomenclature straight before we go any further with the "Scooter Goes to Jail" discussion. "I" Lewis Libby is not an imperial form of address ala "I, Claudius" (although that may have been where Scooter hoped he would wind up). The initial, as NPR revealed 10 days ago in a model of investigative journalism -- but which even Patrick Fitzgerald seems not to have discovered, since the indictment reads "I. Lewis Libby also known as Scooter Libby" -- stands for "Irve," a name that Libby evidently hates.

They get letters

A letter from former Massachusetts Medicaid commissioner James J. Callahan Jr., in yesterday's Globe:

AN INDIVIDUAL mandate for healthcare coverage is bad public policy because it assumes that the provision of healthcare is an individual, not a social, responsibility.

Sound familiar? Read the whole thing.

And in response to Robert Kuttner's column on GM's new health-benefit-cutting deal with UAW, here's another letter writer who wonders: "What is puzzling is why General Motors is not screaming for national health insurance."

Well... that's a good question, but the question wishfully assumes a false choice: That GM would prefer to insure its workers through a more efficient government-based system -- and therefore pay higher taxes --  than through the wasteful system they're paying for now. Sadly, there's a third option: Neither. And that seems to be where we're headed, unless and until the public gets sick of it and demands government action.

GM, Ford, Starbucks and other globally-threatened companies are not walking through that single-payer door, folks. They are captive to the same hit-the-numbers-this-quarter thinking as the rest of Wall Street, and they are not going to go to Washington to ask for their taxes to be raised -- even if it's in their long-term interests, even if it would keep their employees healthy and productive, even if it would take the burden of health care costs off of them. Right now, all they can think of is getting the monkey off their backs as soon as possible and showing Wall Street a nice shiny quarter.

Health Care: What's your bottom line?

So, with health care reform (or "reform") apparently barrelling down the pike, we always knew the devil was going to be in the details. And now, all stakeholders will find themselves challenged -- ethically, economically, strategically -- as to what they'll accept in the final bill. For some, a personal mandate is an absolute non-starter; for others (our Gov), no tax increase whatsoever; for some, slot machines as a revenue stream are out (I'm certainly not crazy about them); for some, an employer assessment is straight out, while some won't sign on to a bill without one.

Yup, it's a mess -- and it always is with health care policy. Just like health plans and the government playing hot potato with expensive cases (people), we're all now playing hot potato with who gets the mandate to cover: Is it government (ie. single payer, funded who knows how), is it the individual (Mitt's plan), or is it employers ("pay or play")?

I'd like to suggest that if our various leaders and stakeholders pick one of these three bases to cling to tenaciously at all costs, we will go nowhere, or to a place that no one is happy to be.

In his must-read article about the various paradigms of health care, Malcolm Gladwell makes a distinction between "actuarial" insurance -- by which individuals pay more or less depending on their risk level, or else they skip out entirely -- and "social" insurance, in which the protection provided by the insurance is considered a social good, a necessity extended to all members of society as a matter of civic morality.

The three-part hot-potato discussion that's happening in the State House right now is limiting because we have not come to the necessary moral conclusion: Making sure that folks can see a doctor if they have to is a social good, something a civilized culture does for its members.

Yes, that's regardless of socio-economic status, race, class or gender; regardless of good luck or bad;  good genes or bad; regardless of smarts or lack of smarts; morality or immorality (and who among us is capable to sit in judgement of our neighbors?). There are all kinds of things in life that depend on moral virtue; access to health care simply should not be one of them.

I support the Health Access and Affordability Act and the MassACT ballot initiative, not because they're perfect, but because it seems to me that those bills have some sense of the shared sacrifice -- yes, sacrifice -- that will be necessary to do the right thing. But let's be clear: this is a three-legged table, and without each of the legs no reform will stand. Individuals, either as taxpayers or as insurance-consumers, will have to stand up. Employers, either as taxpayers or as providers of insurance, will have to stand up. And government will have to stand up and facilitate logistically and financially.*

Really, my bottom line is to protect the bodies of Massachusetts citizens, for moral and economic reasons. There are better and worse ways to do that, but let's keep our eyes on the prize, be ready to sacrifice in good faith, and demand that others be willing to do the same.

*Yes, you can say that taxpayers and government are the same, but government also receives revenue from non-tax sources like the lottery and tolls, and from taxes on things not used by everyone, like cigarettes. Think of smoke taxes as "usage fees".

Senator Barrios talks health care

Monday afternoon we were fortunate to have a conference call with State Senator Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge) about the ongoing health care debate, and the various ways the state might ensure health care coverage for the currently uninsured. David has posted his objection to a personal mandate ("Thou shalt have health insurance") as the way to get everyone covered.

The issue of mandates in any prospective health care bill is extremely dicey. A mandate on someone is frankly necessary, since all parties involved -- individuals, insurers, and government -- all have reason to skip out on insuring many people. Individuals may not be able to afford insurance, or choose not to buy it; insurers wish to avoid expensive cases; the government has finite resources (i.e. tax revenue) and raising revenues is almost always politically risky.

Sen. Barrios has an interesting perspective, which in a sense may show the general direction of the Senate as much as his own wishes for the legislation. Barrios is a self-described "progressive Democrat", who places the greatest emphasis on covering the greatest number of uninsured. To this end, he endorses what he calls a "progressive mandate"; that is, a mandate on individuals to buy their own insurance, subsidized by the state; combined with a mandate on employers to either cover their own workers or pay into a pool which subsidizes the above-mentioned individuals. (This arrangement would not apply to the self-employed or very small businesses, who would be allowed to purchase from a pool created by the state. They would be mandated to provide themselves coverage one way or another.) Perhaps unfortunately, Barrios calls this arrangement "pay or play", and it is apparently similar to the arrangement repealed in 1996. For Barrios, a personal mandate without "pay or play" is a non-starter.

In other words, Barrios suggests hitting two of the three bases of possible mandates: Individual and employer. The Senator feels that the state taking over more individual cases (i.e. by expanding MassHealth/Medicaid eligibility) without an employer mandate would improperly "subsidize" those businesses that do not offer coverage.

Barrios is also very skeptical of Romney's supposed $200/month insurance plan, for which the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation apparently provided a back-of-the-napkin sketch: He refers to that as "semi-insurance", which has limited value in preventing or ameliorating illnesses early on, therefore depriving individuals of health, and depriving the state economy the productivity of a healthy worker. In other words, it's an insufficient investment to be worthwhile. In addition, no insurer has come forth to offer such a plan.

The most controversial part of the individual mandate would be the enforcement mechanism: How do you make someone buy a product that they feel they can't afford or don't want? Barrios couldn't remember, and said he'd get back to us on that. It's our impression that this is the most politically radioactive part of the individual mandate approach. The legislature would have to consider this extremely carefully to avoid a nasty backlash.

We should mention that Senator Barrios was very frank, cordial, responsive, and generous with his time. We appreciate his talking with us. We'll have a lot more on this issue this week and going forward.

You tell 'em, Harry

Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on this morning's withdrawal of Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court:

The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues.

I had recommended that the President consider nominating Ms. Miers because I was impressed with her record of achievement as the managing partner of a major Texas law firm and the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association. In those roles she was a strong supporter of law firm diversity policies and a leader in promoting legal services for the poor. But these credentials are not good enough for the right wing: they want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals.

In choosing a replacement for Ms. Miers, President Bush should not reward the bad behavior of his right wing base. He should reject the demands of a few extremists and choose a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.

Right on, Harry.  This will be most interesting - does Bush deliver a slap in the face to his so-called "base" that just delivered to him the greatest humiliation of his presidency by nominating another "moderate," such as Alberto Gonzales?  Or does he capitulate, figuring that with the indictment of his closest advisor likely within the next 24 hours he cannot afford to further piss them off, however angry he may be at them?  My guess: Bush is really mad, and won't give them what they want.  So it'll be Gonzales.

Republican moral limbo: How low can you go?

So, a week after John Edwards begins his national tour for poverty awareness, House Republicans revealed their poverty program: Grind the middle class and poor into dust.

Republicans began targeting key programs for budget cuts yesterday, from student loans and health care to food stamps and foster care. But the tough measures immediately drew staunch opposition from anti-poverty groups, businesses and moderate Republicans.

..."I can't believe that some people in Washington think that, after a Category 5 hurricane, the solution is to unleash a Category 5 hurricane on working people," said Michele Baker, a custodian for the Orleans Parish School District, who weathered Katrina in her car, spent the aftermath in the Louisiana Superdome and now has no job.

How low can they go? How morally bankrupt? How about depriving children of medical care? Picking on the disabled? It's all in there. Back in the 90's, Newt Gingrich got hammered for proposing cutting school lunches. This makes that look like, well, child's play.

There is no lower that the Congressional Republicans can stoop -- they're already at the worm's eye view. Next up -- reintroducing workhouses, child labor, slavery, and sharecropping. Why not?

Reminder: Health Care rally at State House tomorrow

A reminder: you can make your voice heard for ambitious health care reform tomorrow at the State House at noon. This is in support of the MassACT initiative, which would increase access to health care and reduce premiums across the board.

Report: Fitzgerald seeks to indict Rove and Libby

According to Raw Story, sources close to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation are saying that Fitzgerald has asked his grand jury to indict Karl Rove and Scooter Libby on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, and has also asked the grand jury to indict Libby for violating the now-famous Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.  UPI has a similar report, though with fewer specifics on the charges involved.  Raw Story's sources are claiming that Rove was offered, and declined, a deal in which Rove would not contest a perjury charge in exchange for not being indicted for obstruction of justice.  They also claim that two unnamed individuals not presently in the administration will also be indicted.

If this report is accurate (and that's a big "if," though Raw Story has been pretty reliable on this story so far), it's really quite remarkable.  It means, for one thing, that Fitzgerald thinks he has enough evidence to show not only that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA agent, but that Libby knew she was covert, and outed her anyway.  It also means that Fitzgerald thinks he can show that "the United States [was] taking affirmative measures" to keep Plame's CIA work a secret (as required by the IIPA), which suggests that he may have testimony from the CIA to that effect.  (Raw Story does note some doubt as to whether the grand jury will actually indict on the IIPA charge.)  Also, the absence of any indication that Fitzgerald intends to rely on the Espionage Act suggests either that he thinks he doesn't need it - because he thinks he's got enough to use the harder-to-prove IIPA - or because he is worried that the broad wording of the Espionage Act could create legal problems down the road (such as being struck down by a court for being overbroad), or maybe both.

The UPI report also contains this potentially explosive nugget: "According to this reporter's sources, Fitzgerald approached the judge in charge of the case and asked that a new grand jury be empaneled."  If that's right, then the interviews, the investigations, the questioning, the grand jury appearances, and all the rest of it, will drag on well into next year - and into the 2006 election season.  So we could have parallel proceedings: criminal proceedings in whatever indictments are announced this week, plus ongoing investigations into other aspects of the case, perhaps involving the Italian intelligence documents related to the Niger forgeries into possession of which Fitzgerald has recently come.

Hold onto your hats - it's gonna be a wild ride.

UPDATE: The grand jury has adjourned for today, apparently without taking any final action.  No word on any announcement from Fitzgerald, or when the grand jury will meet again.

The 'Living' Constitution: Resolved

There has been a lot of fuss lately about two approaches to Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court. "Original intent" supporters think the justices should transport themselves back in time to the moment when the law at issue was ratified and enforce it as it would have been enforced at that time. "Living Constitution" proponents argue that laws need to be interpreted to fit changing times. Law Review articles have been written. Pundits have bickered. Hot words have been exchanged.

How unnecessary. The issue has apparently been settled all the time: the Living Constitution approach is the Court's policy. From a document titled The Court and Constitutional Interpretation posted on the Supreme Court's official website:

"The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of judicial review has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a living Constitution whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations" [original emphasis].

Nicholas Kristof, meet Senator Hutchison

What a spectacle.  We expect this from the pathetic John Tierney, the NYT's worst op-ed columnist.  But now Nicholas Kristof, the usually-sensible NY Times op-ed writer, has lowered himself to the embarrassing level of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) in launching a preemptive strike against Novak-Plame-Rove-Libby-gate special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.  Hutchison, as you'll recall, disgraced herself on the Sunday talk shows by trivializing the possibility of perjury or obstruction of justice indictments, on the ground that those crimes really aren't so bad after all (for a real good laugh, check out Hutchison's comments when Bill Clinton was the one facing perjury charges).

So now comes (sub. req'd, sorry) Kristof, casting aspersions in Fitzgerald's direction without any basis for doing so.  It's really appalling - check this out:

In the 1990's, we saw the harm that special prosecutors can do: they become obsessive, pouncing on the picayune, distracting from governing and frustrating justice more than serving it.... Special prosecutors always seem to morph into Inspector Javert, the Victor Hugo character whose vision of justice is both mindless and merciless.  [Nick, what the hell are you talking about?  Do you have ANY basis for thinking that Fitzgerald is running that kind of investigation?  I think not - every responsible report of Fitzgerald, including some from the right, have described him as entirely apolitical and as someone who would not be afraid to shut down a two-year investigation with no indictments if that's what he thought the evidence called for.]

we should be uneasy that he is said to be mulling indictments that aren't based on his prime mandate, investigation of possible breaches of the 1982 law prohibiting officials from revealing the names of spies.  Instead, Mr. Fitzgerald is rumored to be considering mushier kinds of indictments, for perjury, obstruction of justice or revealing classified information.  [First, as anyone who has been paying attention should know by now, Fitzgerald's "prime mandate" was NOT limited to the 1982 law - this is one of the Bush apologists' favorite talking points, but it's simply false.  Second, why should we be uneasy?  If laws were broken, they were broken, and Fitzgerald's job is to figure out whether that happened.  As noted above, he is trusted by just about everyone to do that job properly.  This is Sen. Hutchison territory, and it's as embarrassing for Kristof as it was for her.]

The leak of Mrs. Wilson's identity resulted from that offensive, but it may well have been negligence rather than vengeance.  [Then again, it "may well" not have been.  What earthly basis do you have to say this, Nick?]

I question whether the White House knew that she was a noc (nonofficial cover), and I wonder whether some official spread the word of Mrs. Wilson's work at the C.I.A. to make her husband's trip look like a nepotistic junket.  [Ah.  YOU question.  YOU wonder.  But of course, YOU haven't seen the evidence that Fitzgerald has seen.  So how about YOU shut up and wait until he reveals what he's got?  Furthermore, let's assume that Cheney et al. knew that Plame worked at the CIA, but didn't know that she was a "noc."  Wouldn't it have been prudent of them to check into that before they started leaking her name to Bob Novak, just in case she actually was covert?  Is that so much to ask?]

Absent very clear evidence of law-breaking, the White House ideologues should be ousted by voters, not by prosecutors.  [What kind of stupid standard is this supposed to be?  If there's evidence that they committed a crime, they should be indicted for it, and if the jury finds them guilty, they should be punished.  That's how our system works.  No one gets a free pass on committing crimes just because they happen to work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  If anything, I'd think we should hold our public servants to a higher standard, not a lower one, especially where - as here - national security is involved.]

Why is Kristof suddenly trying to disparage Fitzgerald's investigation?  Oh yeah - because he was involved in the whole nasty affair.  Tangentially, perhaps, but he was part of it.  And it's human nature not to want things in which you were involved to reek of corruption and wrongdoing.  So we can understand Kristof's concern about his good name being dragged into the incestuous morass of press and administration sources whispering to each other in this business.  But he should know better than to express his concern by questioning the integrity of a prosecutor whose integrity, by all accounts, is not open to question.

RIP Rosa Parks

The woman who spawned the modern civil rights movement by her courageous action 50 years ago on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama has died at the age of 92.  From the linked article:

"I'd like people to say I'm a person who always wanted to be free and wanted it not only for myself; freedom is for all human beings," she said during an interview from the pastor's study of St. Matthew African Methodist Episcopal Church, a small congregation she joined upon moving to Detroit in 1957.

What an extraordinary legacy she leaves.

Cheney knew

Holy cow.  The NY Times, after months of playing catch-up on Novak-Plame-Rove-Libby-gate, has vaulted into first place with a truly blockbuster story: Scooter Libby's own notes show that his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, was the one who told Libby that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA. 

What does this mean?  For one thing, that Libby was lying his ass off when he told the grand jury that journalists first told him about Plame, so perjury looks more and more like a real possibility.  For another, Cheney himself is hip deep in this whole thing, and even if he didn't personally break any laws (obviously Cheney is authorized to receive classified information, and it seems highly unlikely that Cheney himself leaked information to journalists), the ongoing revelations in this case will continue to implicate him.  It also seems possible that, if Fitzgerald concludes that leaking Plame's identity as a CIA agent to the press was a crime (perhaps a violation of the Espionage Act), then Cheney could well be named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the events that led to that leak.

Wow.  And again, I say, wow.  Nice to see the Times back in the game.

Wurmser in the eye of the storm

Raw Story, which has been quite reliable in its reporting on Novak-Plame-Rove-Libby-gate, has fingered Cheney and Bolton aide David Wurmser as the one who first brought Valerie Plame's identity into the imbroglio over Joseph Wilson and the Iraq war.  According to Raw Story, Wurmser through his CIA contacts found out that Plame worked on WMD at the CIA, and that she had recommended her husband for the Niger mission.  Wurmser then passed that information to Scooter Libby, and possibly to Dick Cheney, as well as to Stephen Hadley and Condoleezza Rice.  Libby told Karl Rove about Plame.  Shortly thereafter, Wurmser was instructed (it's as yet unclear by whom) to leak Plame's identity to specified reporters in an effort to muzzle Wilson.

The article also says that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been given lots of background information on Wurmser, including that he "largely invented evidence that Iraq had close ties to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden," in an effort to further his and his boss's goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

Heavy stuff.  If true, it bears out what has appeared to be the case for some time: the Iraq war was the creation of a bunch of vigilantes in Washington who had their own ideas about what would be good for the Middle East, and never mind if the facts don't fit the theory.

Marginally relevant puzzler: what is the name of the villain in Verdi's opera Luisa Miller?  (Answer in the extended entry.)

Wurm.

No unfunded mandates!

Lynne, of the excellent blog Left in Lowell, left a comment over at the HCFA blog that I think deserves to be rebroadcast.  It sums up exactly why I think an individual mandate (a) is not going to solve the health care crisis, (b) is going to create financial hardship for a lot of people, and (c) is therefore a bad idea.  Here is Lynne's story (minor typos corrected):

All I can say is that I did not want to remain uninsured for 6 years, but we couldn't afford private insurance. So a mandate would have just increased our already huge financial burden. As independent workers, both of us had NO access to help with insurance premiums.

Recently, my husband got hired and they pay 50% of the premium - which still leaves us paying a whopping $118 per paycheck (just the HMO). Even if the so-called "mandatory" health care came with some "cheap, dirty" plans with high deductibles, I suspect it wouldn't even match the 50% that the employer is now covering (so probably more than $200-300/mo). And the health care would do us little good, as a high deductible would have killed us financially, if anything happened, anyway. Useless on all fronts, dangerous because I now cannot choose between eating, rent and health care premiums. Which was the unfortunate choice we've had to make all these years before my husband got hired.

And we're way above poverty level, so I highly doubt we'd qualify for any sort of subsidy.

That's our story...I suspect not an uncommon one.

An individual mandate is a HUGE deal, folks.  It has major practical implications of the kind outlined by Lynne.  We must insist, at the very least, that the impact of a mandate on the thousands of people in circumstances like Lynne's be carefully considered, and that practical solutions to those problems be readily available.

An individual mandate has major philosophical implications as well - frankly, I cannot think of any other instance in which government forces people to buy a private-sector product that they may not want (car insurance, again, is NOT the same, most obviously because the government does not force anyone to drive a car).  I'm no Norquistian "drown government in the bathtub" sort, but this kind of plan sets off all kinds of "Big Brother" alarm bells for me. 

Don't let Beacon Hill rush something like this through in its usual half-assed way.  Tell your legislators you want to know what they're doing, and tell them what you think of it.

Q: How do you get young creative people to leave Massachusetts?

A: Force them to buy health insurance if they want to live here.

House Speaker Sal DiMasi has in large part signed on to the Mitt Romney plan for addressing the health care crisis.  DiMasi announced his support for an "individual mandate" under which, by a variety of yet-to-be-determined mechanisms, everyone in Massachusetts would be required to have health insurance, and those who don't would be punished.

I've already expressed serious reservations about this kind of plan.  And Health Care For All's John McDonough notes some similar concerns.  Here's another reason to worry about it: at least according to today's Globe article, a principal target of this plan is people who are "young, healthy, and able to afford coverage."  I'd wager that most of these people are single, and further that most of them either work for small businesses or are self-employed (since if they work for Fidelity or Raytheon they'll have health insurance through their employer).  Maybe they're artists; maybe they're entrepreneurs; maybe they're recent college grads working as temps or contractors and therefore not getting benefits.

Those folks are, in general, pretty mobile.  So if you tell them that they can't live here unless they shell out several hundred bucks a month for health insurance, what do you think they'll do?  I'm guessing they'll go elsewhere.  There are lots of good reasons to live in Massachusetts, but between our out-of-sight housing costs, our reasonably high personal income tax rate, and forcing them to buy health insurance, I could easily see young people bailing out of this state at an alarming rate.

Here's yet another red flag: Charlie Baker, CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and a stalwart Republican, says that "the health plans and many of the folks in the business community have considered an individual mandate to be a much better way to go than an employer mandate.  If the House is considering an individual mandate similar to the proposal made by the governor, I think there would be a fair amount of support for that in the employer and health plan community."

First, when you've got corporate elites backing a massive governmental intervention of this kind, you need to think very, very hard about what is going on.  Second, WTF??  It's OK to force individuals to buy health insurance, but not OK to force employers to provide it for their employees?

McDonough's post notes that this proposal could move through the House very fast.  We need answers about what this plan really entails NOW, and we need to let our representatives know what we think about it.  Don't let this one pass you by - if you live in Massachusetts, it affects YOU.

Separated at birth?

The plane to Spain has stained O'Flaherty's name

Rep. Gene O'Flaherty (Chelsea), after helping water down the anti-drunk-driving "Melanie's Bill", leaves the country for Spain? Gene-O and co., the "optics" of that leave something to be desired.

And on the substance of the bill: I can imagine there being civil liberties problems with using a refusal to take a breathalyzer test as evidence against a driver. But proving prior convictions should just not be a problem, given a good-faith effort in writing the law:

One of the provisions taken out was a proposed change in state law to allow certified court records to be used in court proceedings to show a defendant's past drunken-driving convictions.

I mean, that would include a mug shot, right? What good reason can there be to not use those records before sentencing?

I have no sympathy for repeat DUI offenders. You'd figure that Gene-O and co. would realize how bad it looks for them to carry water for drunk drivers.

Fitzgerald goes online; Wilsons go to court

The indispensable Raw Story points to two remarkable developments in Novak-Plame-Libby-Rove-gate today.

First, WaPo's Dan Froomkin notes that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has launched an official web site on the Justice Department's "usdoj.gov" domain.  Does that sound to you like an action of a prosecutor who is about to fold his tent and go home?  It doesn't to me - rather, it suggests that he expects to have a whole lot of information to post in the near future.  There's not a whole lot up there yet - but already there are some very important documents.  For example, if you read some recent news stories carefully, you can see the beginnings of an effort to portray Fitzgerald as a runaway prosecutor who has gone well beyond his supposed "original charge" of looking for violations of the very narrow Intelligence Identities Protection Act.  Two documents (1, 2)on Fitzgerald's site, however, conclusively debunk that portrayal.  Of particular interest is the second of these, written by then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General James Comey in February 2004:

I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003 delegation to you ... is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses ....

That's right, folks.  Fitzgerald has - and has always had - the express authority to investigate violations of way, way more than the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.  The importance of that Act to the case now appears to have been a gigantic red herring, possibly concocted by Victoria Toensing and other Republican sympathizers who want to diminish public support for the investigation.

The second big development is this report that Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson are in the final stages of deciding whether to bring a civil lawsuit against the Bush administration - sensibly, they are waiting until Fitzgerald says what he's going to do before they take any formal action.  This is important because, as we learned in the Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton case, sitting Presidents (and Vice Presidents) can be forced to testify under oath in a civil case while in office.  Can't wait to see those depositions!

John Edwards and moral leadership

Former Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate Edwards has taken on the cause that many of us thought would be front-and-center after Hurricane Katrina: systemic poverty. He's currently on a poverty awareness tour of colleges that stops at Darmouth College in Hanover NH today. It's in conjunction with group called "Opportunity Rocks", and the Center for Promise and Opportunity.

Unfortunately, because of work commitments, I came to the Harvard Kennedy School of Government courtyard about halfway into his speech. There were a few hundred people there, I would guess. (A well-dressed and alert-looking fellow stopped me and asked, "Who's that speaking?" Now... I didn't want to be a jerk, but I might have gaped a bit: What do you have to do to get famous around here? Is running for Vice-President on a major ticket not enough? No, I didn't say that.)

With his typical clarity, Edwards exhorted the crowd, especially the students, to take moral leadership of the issue of poverty. He quoted an unnamed DC labor leader: "The people we've been waiting for ... are us." Edwards sees the grassroots as the place where movements -- that's his term -- are born, and that the populace at large cannot wait for elected officials to act; elected "leaders" must be made to follow a popular engagement.

So, when people are sensitized to human suffering and motivated to act, what are the next steps? That was on my mind going into the interview.

David asked first about the sense of national community that Edwards appeals to. Edwards saw that sense when John F. Kennedy was president, but feels it's been missing for a long time. Hurricane Katrina was a signal moment in creating a sense of community again: "These people are part of our country!"

David then asked, Why do you want to talk to bloggers? Sen. Edwards, it turns out, is a big blog fan.  His One America Committee has its own, along with a videoblog, podcasts, the whole bit. He likes the real, immediate and unfiltered communication through blogs.

I asked, What is the best way to get elected officials to notice the issue and act? Edwards is concerned with helping create a political movement against poverty. Currently elected officials don't see it in their own interests to do anything. "You are the people to do it," he said.

But concretely, what does that mean? What's the "funnel", by which I mean, where does all the action and organizing and publicizing lead? Is it Letters to the Editor? Direct political action? Edwards hopes that blogs, reflecting citizen-level energy and enthusiasm, can help achieve a tipping point in which the mainstream media eventually picks up an issue and forces government officials to act.

That's an interesting, non-partisan strategy, for which I have a lot of sympathy: For all that we choose officials based on their ideology or temperament, they are all subject  to circumstances and Zeitgeists beyond their control. Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act; Clinton signed welfare reform; Reagan signed COBRA; George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Why? They pretty much had to.

I asked Edwards about the fact that many young people are drawn to volunteerism, but political involvement is low; people will volunteer in a soup kitchen but not question why people need a soup kitchen. Can these folks be engaged? Edwards feels that young people haven't lost their idealism, but that no one in the political arena has asked them to act. But any movement addressing systemic