DFA Progressive Values group name change to Empathy Cafe.

Written by: Edwin Rutsch on Aug 10, 2009 11:19 PM EDT

Linked to groups: Michigan Democracy for America, Democracy for New York, DFALA, Capitol Area Progressives (CAP) , Florida DFA

Greetings

The DFA What are  Progressive Values? group
has not had much activity for some time. I wanted to let you know I've just
changed the group name to Empathy Cafe. http://democracyforamerica.com/groups/2285-empathy-cafe

 From my work of interviewing people about progressive values I've come to see empathy as a core progressive value. It's also the value that Obama ran on. See this compilation video I made from Obama's speeches on empathy.
http://progressivespirit.com/Empathy/Obama/ObamaOnEmpathy.htm

So with that in mind I've been refocusing my work on supporting Obama's call for standing in each other's shoes.  Below is some of the work we've been doing.  More to come shortly.
---------------------

Read more

Congressman Kratovil wins how ?

Written by: Stephen Crockett on Aug 7, 2009 9:47 AM EDT

Linked to groups: PA for Democracy, Alabama For Democracy-Montgomery, Democracy for Cecil, DEMOCRACY for Baltimore, DFA Anne Arundel

Frank Kratovil of Maryland’s 1^st Congressional District faces a very difficult re-election race because the district historically leans Republican. However Kratovil has a very effective secret weapon, it is an active and well-financed coalition from an element of the Republican Party mostly from the extreme Far Right wing of the Republican coalition. They are the “tea-baggers, Obama birthers and Healthcare Town Hall disrupters” you have been seeing on television and reading about in your local newspapers!

This group is not really representative of the typical Republican voters from sprawling Maryland 1^st. Most Republicans I know from the dozen or so counties comprising the 1^st Congressional District are relatively moderate and always reasonable.

They dislike taxes like everyone else. However, they believe government does on most occasions some things very well (like Social Security, the American military, Medicare, national parks, etc.)

The Republicans I know simply dismiss the nonsense about Obama not being born in America. Obama’s Hawaiian original birth certificates in all forms (long and short) have been made public. The birth announcement was published in the Hawaiian newspapers when he was born.

These local Republican voters would never deny other citizens their right to interact with their member of Congress just to score political points. This kind of rude behavior has never been tolerated by either major political party in recent memory. I have lived in the District for over 35 years.

Read more

Why All Progressives, Democrats, Unionists and Reformers Should Join ACORN

Written by: Stephen Crockett on Jul 29, 2009 4:56 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Democracy for Chester County, DFA New Jersey, Progressive Democracy South Jersey, Prince George's - Democracy for America, Lower Bucks for Democracy

We are all familiar with the highly partisan and blatantly dishonest attacks on the low and moderate income advocacy group ACORN that dominated Fox News election coverage last Fall. Republican Right Wing partisans have remained loyal to their absurd talking points after the November election and continue to intentionally spread lies about the ACORN organization that all progressives, Democrats, labor activists and reformers should actively refute. These politically-motivated attacks on ACORN are based on two ridiculous ideas.

The first ridiculous idea is that this relatively small group of relatively poor individuals somehow is responsible for the mortgage crisis and the collapse of the economy. After decades of Reagan-Bush Republican mismanagement, Wall Street greed, assaults on unionized labor, unsound tax policies, unfair trade policies, disastrous healthcare policies, runaway corporate corruption, huge sweetheart government contracts going to Republican connected corporations and absurd financial deregulation, we need to understand that the structure of our economy needs serious fundamental reform. Reagan-Bush Republicanism ruled the market economically and politically to create the economic crisis.

The economic collapse has many more serious fundamental causes than just the collapse of the mortgage market. Income inequality, speculation, ending anti-usury laws, not enforcing anti-monopoly laws and excessive credit card debt can be added to the previous list of root causes underlining the current economic crisis. The Republican Right bears most of the responsibility for this situation. ACORN bears none!

First of all, sub-prime mortgages did not create the mortgage crisis. The notable economist Paul Krugman has debunked this Republican myth very effectively. The mortgage crisis has been spread across all income levels. Foreclosures are not limited just too poor people.

ACORN has never issued any mortgages nor has it pressured lenders to issue high-rate, unaffordable loans to poor and middle class Americans. Instead, for over a decade, ACORN has been the national leader in the fight against predatory lending.

Read more

No Healthcare Reform Equals No Senate Job

Written by: Stephen Crockett on Jun 22, 2009 9:56 PM EDT

Linked to groups: DFA Passaic County , Roosevelt Democratic Club, Essex County, NJ, DFA, Jersey Shore DFA, Bergen Grassroots

It mystifies this writer that many Senate Democrats have failed to understand that killing the “public option” compromise position being pushed by the Obama will mean the end of their Senate careers. Politics has changed dramatically in the last few years and many Senate incumbents seem to have missed the size and intensity of the paradigm shift.

It is no accident that the Republican Party is in electoral meltdown. The Republican leadership is still stuck in the politics of the 1980’s and 1990’s. Unfortunately, the Democrats in power have not embraced the public sea change in attitudes completely. They do not understand that the Democratic wave does not threaten their hold on power. It does!

The Democratic shift is not based on partisan identity divorced from real changes in government policy. The Democratic election wins in 2006 and 2008 were strong rejections of both the Republican Right and the current unfair status quo in government policy.

If Democrats do nothing to reform the rigged economic system and fail to give American workers a fair shake, they are going to get replaced either in a primary or general election. If Democrats fail to protect civil liberties, they will be defeated. If Democrats start unnecessary wars, they will go down along with the already defeated Senate Republicans.

Of course, this is not good news for the Republican Right. The public is rejecting Republican Right politics and Republican-lite politics. Americans want real and meaningful reforms. Nothing less will do. Democrats who want to do the bidding of large corporations like the health insurance industry are going to get their backsides handed to them in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Senators from both major political parties better get with the program!

Read more

The Letterman Joke Deception, Smears and Cynicism of Sarah Palin

Written by: Stephen Crockett on Jun 13, 2009 12:20 PM EDT

Linked to groups: Progressive Democrats For Delaware, DFA Anne Arundel, Atlantic County DFA, Hudson DFA, Union County for Democracy

Sarah Palin owes the American people of very sincere apology. She owes David Letterman an apology. She owes her own children an apology. Her actions and statements have been dangerous, exploitive, divisive and deceptive

I am disappointed that the media pundits commenting on this case did not point out that Sarah Palin conveniently used a 6 second joke by a non-political figure to divert the discussion away from the role Palin’s recent political rhetoric has played in creating a hostile and dangerous political climate in America over the past year. Palin’s outrageous comments falsely connecting Obama to socialism, falsely creating a completely unfounded fear of Big Brother government and stoking up political paranoia on the Right is dangerous and in poor taste. Her kind of rhetoric can directly be connected to the recent murders by Right-Wing extremists at the Holocaust museum in DC and in Kansas. She stoked the paranoia and inflamed their misguided passions and twisted political world view.

The Palin-type of extreme political rhetoric from the Republican Right has been feeding a growing domestic terrorist problem in America. This kind of dangerous rhetoric routinely comes not only from Palin herself, but also, from Right-Wing talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, extremist Right-Wing websites like Free Republic.com and, unfortunately, from many, many Republican Party officials and activists. Examples of Right-Wing political hate speech on talk radio are legion. Free Republic.com has thousands of posted comments of the most extreme nature. At about the same time that Palin was making her most recent inflammatory comments, the Republican Party held a political fundraiser that raised over $15 million dollars where a second rate actor called Obama “dangerous” and made many other hate-filled comments about our President.

We all remember the Sarah Palin rallies during the 2008 Presidential campaign where the crowd contained numerous Right-Wing nut jobs who shouted “kill him” when Obama’s name was mentioned. We all know about the Right-Wing conspiracy theories that contend Obama is a secret Muslim and/or not really an American citizen. We saw hundred if not thousands of signs to this effect at the McCain-Palin rallies in 2008 and at the Fox News/Republican sponsored anti-tax “tea parties” earlier this year. The man who committed the political murders at the Holocaust museum in DC wrote in support of these whack-job Right-Wing conspiracy theories on the Free Republic.com web site!

I have personal reasons to believe that the Anthrax Mail killer of 2001 was in part inspired by Right Wing talk radio shows like Neal Boortz and/or Right-Wing nut job websites like Free Republic.com. Sarah Palin intentionally taps into this political paranoia and Right-Wing political extremism with her over the top rhetoric. Her political career in Alaska has always been connected with extremist and political fringe groups. No other major political figure in America is as closely connected to political extremist groups as Sarah Palin.

Read more

Delaware State Worker Pay Cut Fight: Part 2

Written by: Stephen Crockett on Jun 10, 2009 10:38 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Montco DFA, Essex County, NJ, DFA, Progressive Democrats For Delaware, Hunterdon DFA, Union County for Democracy

The fight against the proposed 8% pay cut for state employees in Delaware has grown dramatically in scale and intensity in recent weeks. This week, the State Workers United for a Better Delaware coalition has scheduled a Legislative Commitment Rally on Thursday, June 11^th on the Legislative Mall in Dover, Delaware.

The crowd will begin gathering at 4pm. Speeches and the public signing of a No Salary Cut Commitment Pledge by legislators will commence at 6pm. At the time of the writing of this article more than a dozen legislators have already announced support for the pledge.

Organized labor has been rallying strongly behind the state workers in opposition to the pay cuts.  Union leaders believe that the budget deficit can be solved without resorting to massive pay cuts for workers in Delaware. They have not been shy about proposing numerous alternatives and criticizing the basic unfairness of placing an excessive burden on a relatively under-paid group of workers.

Traditionally, state government employees have been paid significantly less than either federal government employees or workers in the private sector. They traded job security for significantly lower pay. Union leaders think that asking underpaid employees to further reduce their wages cannot be justified for the vast majority of state employees.

Amos B. McCluney, Jr., Chairman of the UAW Local 1183 Retiree Chapter and former Delaware State House member stated, “As a former Delaware state legislator, I realize that not all state workers can afford a pay cut. Lower paid state workers are the guys who are already maxed-out. They are already living paycheck to paycheck. If you cut their pay 8%, they would have to drop their 401K, get an inferior healthcare plan and still not be able to keep their bills current.

Read more

Take Action on "THE" Climate Bill Now, Take Back our Economy

Written by: Rachel Dawn Scharf on Jun 4, 2009 4:10 PM EDT

Linked to groups: Manhattan Young Democrats, Democracy for Maryland, Hudson DFA, GLOBAL WARMING IS CHILD ABUSE, DFA Reno/Democracy for Nevada

Get Involved: Fax your representatives today!

The Waxman-Markey bill, a piece of legislation being pushed hard by utility and financial industry lobbyists, lacks progressive energy efficiency plans both in the short and long term.  Please take action today as Congress is claiming they're not hearing enough from us.  Our elected officials work for us, let us take this opportunity to remind them of that. 

From our friend Ted Glick, Policy Director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and Co-founder of the United States Climate Emergency Council, here are the facts:

A Common Person’s Guide to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

By Ted Glick

On May 21st, following months of work, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA), a 932-page piece of climate legislation. There have been mixed reactions from environmental and climate groups, but most groups are in agreement that it needs to be strengthened going forward. For some groups the problems they see with the bill have led to their public withdrawal of support. These groups include Greenpeace USA, Public Citizen and Friends of the Earth. The Chesapeake Climate Action Network also does not support the bill in current form.

Below is a summary analysis of the main features of the bill.

-Cap and Trade System: The bill would establish a “cap-and-trade” system which sets mandatory and declining limits on greenhouse gas emissions over the next 40 years. By 2050 it projects reductions of 83% from 2005 levels for the United States. It does this primarily through the establishment of 1) a “cap” on emissions and the annual issuance by the government of permits to emit greenhouse gases, both of which—the cap and the emissions permits--come down steadily year after year, and 2) a tradable market to buy and sell those permits to emit global warming pollution. That’s why it’s called a “cap-and-trade” system.

-Wide-Open Buying and Selling: Significantly, this market is open to anyone, not just those entities which emit greenhouse gases. For example, Wall Street firms whose primary purpose is to make money for their investors can buy and sell pollution permits. Anyone, whether Goldman Sachs or John Q. Public, can get into this newly-created market. From page 430 of the bill: “The privilege of purchasing, holding, selling, exchanging, transferring, and requesting retirement of emission allowances, compensatory allowances, or offset credits shall not be restricted to the owners and operators of covered entities, except as otherwise provided in this title.” Especially following the sub-prime mortgage/credit/banking crisis, there is concern among many people, including some on Capitol Hill, about the potential for this system to be abused by those out to make quick and big profits.

-Goals and Targets: The document states that one of its prime objectives is to help the world “avoid atmosphere greenhouse gas concentrations above 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent; and global surface temperature 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the pre-industrial average.” However, a growing number of scientists, journalists and climate activists believe that we need to reduce emissions more deeply if we are to have a good chance of avoiding climate catastrophe.

-2020 Targets: It projects a 17% reduction in greenhouse gases (ghg) from 2005 levels by 2020. This is about 3% below U.S. ghg levels in 1990; 1990 is the baseline year used by the nations of the world. There is an additional 10% reduction of ghg’s projected via investments in the prevention of deforestation outside the United States, and there could be a few percent more reductions through other means. This could add up to about a 20% reduction by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. The world’s international climate negotiators have called for industrialized countries to reduce their emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020.

-Upstream, Downstream: It appears that the cap is a mix of “upstream” and “downstream.”  “Upstream” means the earliest point at which carbon fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) or other global warming pollutants enter the economy; “downstream” means at a point further along. An “upstream” cap reduces the number of covered entities and makes it easier to reduce or eliminate leakages from the system. A summary of the document says that it “establishes a market-based program for reducing global warming pollution from electric utilities, oil companies, large industrial sources and other covered entities that collectively are responsible for 85% of U.S. global warming emissions.” It describes a “covered entity” as one which emits at least 25,000 tons of ghg emissions annually.

-Offsets: There is a very large provision made for “offsets.” An “offset” is when a company contributes money for a renewable energy, energy efficiency or other “clean energy” project somewhere else instead of reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions. This piece of legislation allows for up to 2 billion tons worth each year, which is more than 27% of the U.S.’s total annual ghg emissions. The offsets would happen in both the U.S. and in other countries; up to ¾ of them could be in other countries. There is much controversy over offsets; a recent study, for example, reported that between 1/3 and 2/3 of them under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty, were for projects that likely would have happened anyway. If fossil fuel companies used all of the offsets, there would likely be no, or very little, actual reductions of carbon emissions by these companies until the middle of the 20’s. This would be the case even if ghg emissions permits were auctioned.

-Free Pollution Permits: A huge percentage of the permits to emit ghg’s will be given away rather than sold via an auction. Only 15% of the permits will be auctioned for roughly the first 15 years or so of the program, despite President Obama’s strong support for a 100% auction during his campaign and for the first couple of months of his presidency. Coal companies are the big winners; “local distribution companies,” which are overwhelmingly coal-related, and “merchant coal” companies receive 35% of the permits, also known as “allowances” (as in an allowance to emit global warming pollution). The 30% to “local distribution companies” represents 90% of total electric utility emissions. This system will remain in place until 2030, with a five-year phase out between 2026 and 2030. Other global warming polluters who receive free allowances are local natural gas distribution companies (9% of the permits), “energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries” like steel, paper, aluminum and cement (15%), oil refiners (2%), and coal companies to “cover the costs of installing and operating carbon capture and sequestration technologies”(2% from 2014-2017 and 5% after that). This adds up to about 65% of the allowances being given for free to carbon polluters, 50% to the fossil fuel industry directly.

-Consumer Protection?: Interestingly, most of these free allowances to carbon polluters are described as “consumer protection” even though no consumer organizations were advocating for this plan. The advocates for it were representatives like Congressman Rick Boucher of Virginia who received over $176,000 from the coal industry for the 2007-2008 Congressional election cycle. Since the passage of this bill out of committee Boucher has said publicly that that the legislation will “create the opportunity for increasing coal production.” The legislation assumes that coal companies and other large corporations can be trusted, or regulated, to pass along to consumers the savings they will gain from the free permits they will be given. And remember that they can sell these emissions permits, or allowances, on the cap-and-trade, carbon/ghg market that is being set up.

 -More on Consumer Protection: A statement by Public Citizen on this bill contained this sentence: “The committee’s plan to distribute allowances to coal utilities will set up a legal fight in all 50 state utility regulatory commissions over how exactly the money will be returned to families and how much utilities can skim off the top—a fight that anti-poverty and consumer groups lack adequate resources to wage, given the army of lawyers utilities hire and the millions in campaign contributions that they make.”

-Coal Wins: Coal companies are big winners under this legislation. They receive 35% of emissions permits for free via Local Distribution Companies and merchant coal. They also receive 5% of the funds raised by the overall legislation by 2018, following a 2% allocation from 2014-2017, which will cover the costs of installing and operating carbon capture and sequestration (ccs) technologies. CCS is a technology that 1) barely exists, 2) is roughly a decade from perhaps being commercially viable on a large scale, 3) surrounded by serious safety questions as far as leakage into underground drinking water, earthquake-caused massive releases, etc. It involves the pumping of billions of tons of liquefied carbon dioxide into the earth, or under the sea. New coal plants built from 2009-2020 would be required to capture 50% of their carbon emissions but not until 2025. Plants built after 2020 must capture 65%. It is certain that, a dozen or so years from now, if these provisions are not changed, the coal industry will be expending tens of millions of dollar in advertisements, campaign contributions and lobbying to extend those deadlines if it turns out that extensive carbon capture and sequestration is not possible.

-Other Free Allowances: In addition to the free emissions permits (allowances) given to polluting industries, others receiving free allowances that can then be sold on the cap-and-trade market are:  1.5% of them to states for programs to benefit users of home heating oil and propane; approximately 7-8%/year through the 20’s to states for renewables and energy efficiency programs; approximately 2%/year through 2025 to the automobile industry for electric vehicles and other advanced technology and deployment; 1% for “Clean Energy Innovation Centers;” 5% to prevent tropical deforestation; 2% for domestic adaptation and 2% for international adaptation to the negative impacts of a changing climate; and ½ of a percent for worker assistance and job training. These figures are generally for the first 10 years of the program; most are increased after that first 10 year period.

-Penalties: There is a penalty established for any covered entity that does not have sufficient emissions credits to cover its actual emissions. The penalty is “twice the fair market value of emissions allowances established for emissions occurring in the calendar year for which emission allowances were due.” It is possible, given the ups and downs of markets and product prices, that there could be years when fossil fuel companies can make more money by using more carbon-based fuels than they have permits for and then paying the penalty.

-National Academy of Sciences Review: Provision is made for an overall review of the entire program and how well it is working by the National Academy of Sciences. This is a good thing, but not so good is that this is projected as happening every four years. Given the accelerating pace of climate change, as indicated most dramatically by what is happening with Arctic sea ice, a more frequent assessment by NAS seems called for. After the NAS assessment, the President is charged with submitting legislation to Congress based on NAS recommendations as far as any acceleration or adjustments to the overall program.

-Renewables and Efficiency: There is a renewable electricity/energy efficiency requirement for states of 20% by 2020, a minimum of 12% renewables and 8% efficiency. This is a reduction from a roughly 40%-by-2025 proposed renewables/efficiency standard in the initial draft discussion document put out by Henry Waxman, chair of the committee, on March 31^st. The Energy Information Administration, a government agency, has estimated that as a result of existing state laws and other factors, there could be more renewable energy generated without this federal renewable energy provision than with it. If this provision is passed it would supercede existing state renewable energy and efficiency laws which exist in about half the states. Concerns have also been expressed about the exemption of nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and storage from the baseline against which renewable energy increases are measured. A more positive feature is that the bill does call for the development by several federal departments of plans for the siting of offshore renewable energy facilities, a potentially huge source of clean energy.

-Hybrids and Electric Cars: The document calls for various kinds of infrastructure support for the development of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, such as plug-in hybrid charging stations, retooling factories to manufacture electric vehicles and purchase of batteries.

-Energy Efficiency: There is a broad program of support for energy efficiency standards and investments across the economy and society. This seems to be one of the strongest aspects of the overall piece of legislation. Building codes are improved 30% by 2010 and 50% by 2016.  $500-$3000 per household is provided for families which weatherize their homes to reduce energy use at least 20%. Similar financial support is also provided for weatherization of commercial buildings. Up to $10,000 per house is provided for installation of renewable energy technology. Natural gas utilities must use 1/3 of the value of their free permits for energy efficiency programs.

-EPA Restrictions: There are serious restrictions on the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do its job. According to an analysis by the Sierra Club, the bill “eliminates EPA authority under the Clean Air Act to set performance standards for CO2 from sources covered under the cap, including coal-fired power plants. The bill does set modest standards for new coal plants. Additionally, the bill eliminates the existing requirement that new and modified sources of ghg’s undergo a case-by-case review process that requires stringent ghg limits.” The bill prohibits any greenhouse gas from being listed as a “criteria pollutant” or a “hazardous air pollutant.” These are all very problematic provisions.

-Green Jobs and Worker Assistance: There is little in the bill that is directly about green jobs or worker assistance. There is an increase in funding for the Green Jobs Act from $125 million to $150 million. 1/2 of a percent of the funds from the program for the first 10 years will go to help workers displaced as a result of the transition away from fossil fuels.

-Smart Grid: The bill enacts various measures to strengthen the development of a “smart grid,” which means the modernization of our electricity and transmission system so that it can better use digital information and technology, better integrate small-scale renewable energy, incorporate “demand response” and energy efficiency mechanisms, and in other ways strengthen the capacity of the electrical grid to be more energy efficient, consumer-friendly and effective.

-Mass Transportation: This is very little in this legislation that is directly supportive of mass transportation. It does require states and localities with more than 200,000 people to establish goals for reducing ghg’s in the transportation area, with little clarity about the financing available for this work or accountability mechanisms.

-State Powers: The bill bars states that have already passed such legislation to implement or enforce a cap on greenhouse gas emissions between 2012 to 2017, but it does allow regulation of emissions by other means during this period.

-Adaptation: Funding for both domestic and international adaptation to the negative impacts of a changing climate is provided for. For the first 10 years 2% of the funds raised from the program will go for international adaptation and the transfer of clean energy technology to developing countries. Another 2% for the first 10 years will go to domestic adaptation, including in the areas of public health, state programs, safeguarding wildlife habitats, protecting endangered species and preserving freshwater and coastal ecosystems. A number of environmental groups believe these percentages are too weak, particularly for international adaptation and technology transfer.

There is no question but that there are positive things in this piece of legislation. There are also many negative things, some of which environmental, climate, labor and other groups will attempt to correct as this bill moves through various House committees and onto the House floor.

There are alternative approaches to the cap-and-trade model. One of them which the Chesapeake Climate Action Network supports is what is known as cap-and-dividend (http://www.capanddividend.org). The other main one is a carbon tax and dividend approach (http://www.carbontax.org).

Take Action Today!

In Solidarity,

Rachel Dawn

--

MS Candidate 2010, Specializing in Sustainability Management & Government Relations
Senator Elect, University Student Senate
Milano, The New School for Management and Urban Policy
Co-Founder, Net Impact New School University
Program/Policy Consultant, New York Restoration Project
201.707.6558
“A nation that continues year after year to spend more on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reaching Out to the College Community

Written by: Stephen Crockett on May 31, 2009 8:44 PM EDT

Linked to groups: Democracy for Lancaster, Union County for Democracy, DFA/Greater Bowie DEMOCRATS, Democracy for Maryland, Democracy for Montgomery County

I believe that Democratic organizations, progressive groups and labor unions need to increase their outreach efforts aimed at American colleges and universities. Campuses provide a very large percentage of campaign volunteers. They are the source of nearly all future opinion-makers including journalists, book authors, officeholders, business leaders and policy experts!

Generating a better understanding of progressive policies and politics early can only strengthen the prospects for progressive change over the next few generations. Organizing potential activists while in college and educating them should not be an "on and off" effort centered around Presidential election cycles.

The effort should not rely on students seeking out organizations like the College Democrats, ACLU or the AFL-CIO. The organizations should be seeking out students to engage with in a systematic way. Civil Liberties groups, environmentalists, civil rights organizations, campaign reform advocates, peace groups, human rights activists, etc should all be mounting issue awareness campaigns, recruiting and organizing activities on almost every American campus.

Professional marketing and promotional services devoted to the college market are available. I own and manage College Marketing.com http://www.CollegeMarketing.com which offers a diverse mix of public relations, advertising and promotional services.

As host of Democratic Talk Radio and Editor of Mid-Atlantic Labor.com, I understand the progressive political community. I want to see it effectively reach the vast majority of American college students with our messages.

If you represent a progressive organization, I might be able to help you grow your exposure on college campuses locally, regionally or nationally. We can promote the growth of organizations. We can help potential candidates get their campaign messages to college students and academics.

We can promote issue advocacy messages. Trade policy, healthcare, labor laws, the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting, clean elections, taxation, employment, poverty, energy policy, foreign policy and almost any specific policy position can benefit from postering college bulletin boards, distributing flyers or placing ads in college newspapers with targeted messages. Many more customized creative public relations efforts can be executed by College Marketing.com.

We can increase traffic to blogs and political web sites. We can help drive book sales or subscriptions to progressive magazines or newpapers. We can promote music and movies with progressive content. We can motivate students to lobby.

You will not have to rely on volunteers who may or may not properly execute your projects. Your professional staff will not be diverted from their other important activities. You will have professional expertise with decades of experience in reaching the college community with advertising, promotional and public relations campaigns.

Your effort can reach a large number of campuses if desired or be scaled much smaller based solely on your needs. All of our efforts are customized to meet your specific campaign needs. Costs will usually be very, very reasonable.

Please call me at 443-907-2367 or email me at demlabor@aol.com to discuss your needs and how we can help meet them.

In solidarity,

Stephen Crockett

Delaware State Worker Coalition and Allies Fight Massive Pay Cuts: Part 1

Written by: Stephen Crockett on May 25, 2009 6:26 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Lower Bucks for Democracy, Morris County DFA, Birmingham DFA / PDA, Hunterdon DFA, Democracy for Howard County

Most states are facing tough economic times and having great difficulty balancing state government budgets. This is certainly true in Delaware and surrounding states. Pay cut proposals for state workers were floated in Maryland and Pennsylvania but quickly rejected. Other solutions managed to at least temporarily stem the tide of red ink were found without unduly punishing state employees.

In Delaware, the Democratic Governor Jack Markell has put his political weight behind a massive 8% pay cut for state workers. The proposal is almost universally opposed by every labor union in the state and the vast majority of the progressive community. The reception for the massive pay cut proposal in Democratic Party circles has been fairly cool to outright hostile. Opposition to the pay cuts has been growing and getting increasingly organized.

All those opposition groups contend that the Governor did not give enough consideration to alternatives like tapping the Rainy Day Fund, the detailed set of proposals by State Representative John A. Kowalko, Jr. commonly referred to as the “Kowalko Plan” or specific ideas coming from actual state employees. Alternatives have been either under-reported or utterly disregarded by most of the media in the state. Representative Kowalko has offered to present his plan to any group of citizens in the state desiring to learn about the “Kowalko Plan.”

The State Workers United for a Better Delaware is a coalition of labor organizations in opposition to the proposed 8% across the board pay cuts for state workers.  Included in the coalition are the Delaware State Troopers Association, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 81, the Delaware State Education Association (DSEA), DSEA-Retired, Teamsters Local 326, the Correctional Officers Association (COAD), Communications Workers of America Local 13101, the State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), FOP Lodge 3, FOP Lodge 10, FOP Lodge 11, the Delaware Attorney General Investigators Association and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 27.  The proposed pay cuts will impact 33,000 state workers in Delaware.

According to police sources, an estimated 2,500 state workers and supporters rallied in front of Legislative Hall in Dover the evening of May 6, 2008 to officially launch the coalition.  This was one of the largest labor union crowds gathered in Delaware in recent memory.

Read more

Analysis of Private Health Insurance Industry $2 Trillion “Savings” Proposal

Written by: Scott R on May 13, 2009 8:44 PM EDT

Linked to groups: Democracy for Florida, Democracy for Illinois, Netroots Activism!, Democracy for America Miami-Dade (DFAM), California for Democracy

The private health insurance industry proposes to reduce health care spend and slow rate increases over the next 10 years to provide $2 trillion in “savings”?

Let's analyze what that might mean.

Analysis of Private Health Insurance Industry $2 Trillion Savings Proposal

The purpose of this analysis is meant to provide grounding, and further the discussions and progress of US health care reform.

Please note that all statistics are rounded to make the calculations and comprehension of the concepts more straightforward.

Please provide feedback to make this information more correct and useful.

US Private Health Insurance Industry $2 Trillion Savings Proposal

The private health insurance industry proposes to reduce health care spend and slow premium increases over the next 10 years to provide $2 trillion in savings.

2009 US Health Care Spend

Total 2009 US health care annual spend is widely accepted to be US $2.5 trillion.

US Private Health Insurance Industry Market

Today, 1200 US private health insurance companies make up the US private health insurance industry that insures 60% of the US population, or 180 million Americans.

Approximately 180 million Americans are covered by private health insurance.   At an estimate of $10,000 per person per year, that amounts to roughly $1.8 trillion annually.  

At $1.8 trillion annually, the private health insurance industry administers 70% of the total $2.5 trillion US health care annual spend. 

Whether for profit or non profit, the private health insurance industry is lucrative. In fact, of the $1.8 trillion private health insurance industry, 31% goes directly to private health insurance industry administrative costs and income.  So, for every US health care dollar spent by privately insured Americans, an average of 31 cents goes to the US private health insurers' administration and income, or approximately $580 billion annually.

If the private health insurance industry continues to administer 70% of the US health care industry at $1.8 trillion annually over the next 10 years, the total 10 year private health insurance industry would be $18 trillion at current US health insurance industry premiums and health care costs (obviously assuming no growth or reduction in the private health insurance and health care industries). 

Also, if the private health industry continues a 31% administrative costs and income at $580 billion annually over the next 10 years, the health insurance industry would receive $5.8 trillion for administrative costs and income at current US health insurance industry premiums and health care costs (once again assuming no growth or reduction in the private health insurance and health care industries). 

However, the US health care industry is estimated to grow as much as 60% or to a total of $40 trillion over the next 10 years.  

If the private health insurance industry continues to administer 70% of the total US health care annual spend over the next 10 years, the total private health insurance industry would be $24 trillion.  

And if the private health insurance industry maintains a 31% overhead over the next 10 years, a total of over $7.7 trillion would go directly to private health insurance industry operational costs and income. 

Over the next 10 years, the private health insurance industry could potentially see a $24 trillion industry that includes $7.7 trillion operational costs and income.

Does it really cost $7.7 trillion to write policies and process health care bills?  

With a potential total industry of nearly $24 trillion over the next 10 years, I am not surprised that the private health insurance industry proposed $2 trillion in reduced spending and slower premium increases. That's less than 10% in an industry that is projected to grow 60%.

US Private Health Insurance Industry Overhead

How does the private health insurance industry realize a 31% overhead today?

The 180 million Americans with private health insurance are statistically healthier, wealthier, and have less costly medical conditions (e.g. not terminally ill like a larger segment of those on Medicare, etc.).   By taking advantage of advances in information technology, automating business processes, and setting policies to deny coverage and insure the young, healthy, and wealthy is where the private health insurance industry realizes 31% overhead for administrative costs and income.

US Medicare and Medicaid/SCHIP Markets

How does private health insurance overhead compare to Medicare and Medicaid/SCHIP?

Medicare covers 45 million seniors or 15 percent of the US population. At an estimate of $10,000 per person per year, that amounts to $450 billion annually (including unfortunately $60 billion in fraud annually), with an overhead of only 3% or $13.5 billion annually due to no income requirement or excessive administrative costs and salaries. 

Medicare has some excesses and inefficiencies.   Also, seniors are statistically an unhealthier segment of the US population, while many require more expensive long term health care, especially the terminally ill.  The fact that this segment of the US population is growing the fastest will make matters even more complicated in the very near future. 

Medicaid/SCHIP costs are $300 billion annually (also including unfortunately $40 billion in fraud annually) for 30 million children, families, and seniors who are 65 or older, blind or disabled and have limited income, or roughly 10 percent of the US population.  At an estimate of $10,000 per person per year, that amounts to roughly $300 billion annually, with an overhead of only 3% or $9 billion annually due to no income requirement or excessive administrative costs and salaries. 

Medicaid/SCHIP also has some excesses and inefficiencies.  Additionally, low income groups are statistically an unhealthier and less literate segment of any population, and administering health care coverage and treatment can be more challenging.   Regrettably, this segment of the US population is also growing.