Left In Lowell

I didn’t have time last week to talk about Niki Tsongas’ response to the questions raised from her comments at Greater Lowell Area Dems (boy, is that a convoluted sentence or what? to say nothing of the links therein). But if I had, it probably would have been a lot like Charley’s response:

As to the substance of her post … well, there really wasn’t much. She correctly identifies the problem (47 million uninsured, more underinsured, high cost of coverage). But her proposed solution is not that of a leader who understands the issues at hand, but of a blind follower: Just do what Massachusetts did — after all, it’s good enough for Deval Patrick, Obama, and Edwards, and they’re all good people.

Besides the fact that the jury is still definitely out regarding the Mass “universal” (and I put that in quotes because it’s not entirely true) care plan, there were serious red flags even as the thing got out the starting gate. For instance, is the most efficient way to deliver health care to go through the private industry? Isn’t that just one more middle man getting his cut before the care is delivered? Not a good use of taxpayer money, in my opinion, just a revenue-stream giveaway to big business that addresses none of the real issues, like cost of care (and big pharma), and doesn’t seem to address quality problems either. So what will we be getting? Well, basically, an individual mandate forcing people who cannot afford it to buy health insurance from the very same people who suck at delivering it in the first place. And Tsongas expresses confidence in this plan?

Maybe this is the emerging “issue” in this race - certainly, I bet we can distill differences on each candidate’s position on how to end the war, or on trade and foreign policy - and perhaps health care doesn’t deserve to be the all-consuming pivot point. However, I do know how important this issue is to me personally, after six years of being one slip-n-fall shy of medical cost hell as an uninsured self-employed worker, and I know it’s real key to the wages and budgets of workers, businesses, and governments alike.

Dick has more on the Sun article which came out today looking at each candidate’s position. I note that Eileen Donoghue has rather echoed Tsongas. Sure, she and all the others support “universal health care” in principle, but that devil is in the details. How is this not going to be a giveaway to big business? How do you address the inherant conflict of interest between the core right to quality health care versus some HMO’s bottom line? That conflict plays itself out in cutting out the riskiest members (or making them pay through the nose), in denying care outright, or in tying a patient up in red tape so deep Jacque Cousteau couldn’t dive it.

Is it any more “impossible” to get the private health care industry reformed (read: regulate them properly so they can’t screw people in this most important of services) than to get single-payer health care? Not until the candidates that pander to the health care industry lose enough elections. Because those corporations have lots of money to fight to keep the status quo, which suits them - and their ever-increasing profits - just fine.

I know it would be a tough slog to totally remake our health care system now that the big corporations are entrenched. I know reform should go slow, if only because reducing private insurance means thousands of layoffs of health insurance workers (that 20%+ administrative overhead employs a lot of people). But if we give in before we even begin, then we start from a position of total weakness and once again, nothing will ever change except the exact details of what bandaid to use the next time. The Mass health care plan is the biggest bandaid yet. And inevitably, we’ll be back in another decade or two, with this same lament about how little quality even insured citizens get for their hard-earned dollar, never mind the thousands of uninsured, and how much it’s costing our economy. Do we ever learn from our mistakes?

[Update: Regarding this phrase from Tsongas - “…Massachusetts Universal Health Care Plan, which was supported by Deval Patrick when he was a candidate for Governor and that he continues to strongly support today” - Patrick always spoke of it with serious caveats. He supported the plan as a first step. He also talked about its major flaws and gaps, too. I wouldn’t quite say that’s a ringing endorsement of the MA plan.]

Although we’ve got plenty on our political plate in Lowell, with the 5th CD and the city council race, when something really telling happens in the very early ‘08 Presidential race, it should be noted. And these quotes from Richardson are highly disappointing, given his very credible foreign policy resume, and the admiration from the blogosphere, many of whom believe he’s a credible candidate:

Two recent stories illustrate the bumbling reality of Richardson’s campaign, and how it contrasts with his glowing résumé. The first concerns the Guv’s dumbass decision during last week’s debate to name Byron “Whizzer” White — one of the two dissenters in Roe v. Wade, and a dissenter from the majority in Miranda — as his model Supreme Court justice. Yet that’s not the worst part. When pressed to square his professed admiration for White with his alleged support for reproductive freedom and civil rights, Richardson made two more boners. Which one bothers you more?

A) He cited the fact that White “was an All-American football player besides being a legal scholar” as a justification for describing the often retrograde White as his model High Court member;

B) He apparently doesn’t really know or care about Roe, given that he excused his White pick by saying, “White was in the 60s. Wasn’t Roe v. Wade in the 80s?”

I can’t find another source other than the samefacts.com one for the second quote, though Mark Kleiman appears to have been liveblogging the CA Dem convention, but if true, it’s got to be numbered among the most stupid statements from a presidential candidate on our side. Richardson seriously doesn’t know when Roe was decided? And lists one of the dissenters as his model Justice but doesn’t know White’s judicial history because he thinks Roe is less than three decades old? Do I want a woman’s right to choose in the hands of someone who doesn’t even know its most basic history?

Saturday’s Lowell Sun had an article by Michael LaFleur on the “tennis controversy.” In case you missed it, the City is renting out to a private group, 3 of the 8 tennis courts at Shedd Park for part of the day and evening throughout the summer. The City web site has the details.

LaFleur writes, “Robert Hatem, a tennis enthusiast and frequent local radio commentator who also was an applicant for the Lowell city manager’s job that Lynch won last summer, said the deal amounts to ‘using public facilities for private profit’.”

On Friday, Mr. Hatem called in the WCAP morning radio show to question Mayor Bill Martin, who was making his monthly Friday appearance, about the decision. During the conversation, Mr. Hatem encouraged all tennis players to attend Tuesday’s City Council meeting. At that moment, I pictured the City Council chambers filled with constituents dressed in their tennis whites, waving their rackets.

In exchange for renting out the 3 courts for part of the day, the City will get financial compensation and more importantly, Lowell kids will have an opportunity to take lessons for free.

The majority of the City parks have tennis courts with Shedd Park having the largest number, I think. Some of the City courts are in better condition than others; and some are used more frequently than others. For example, the three tennis courts on Gorham Street at O’Donnell Park are empty most of the time. Those courts are in good condition with excellent night lights and plenty of parking. So I do not think the problem is a lack of tennis courts.

During last week’s meeting, in answer to a question from the City Council, City Manager Bernie Lynch explained what the program was about. Tomorrow night the City Council will take up the issue again; there is a motion on the agenda from City Councilor Bud Caufield, that requests the “Manager [to] provide complete explanation re: Lease of Tennis Courts at Shedd Park.”

I must be missing something because I do not understand what the controversy is about. I do not see it as disruptive to the life of the City; on the contrary I see it as adding to it. I am not a tennis player but if I were, I would make that small sacrifice and let 3 of the 8 Shedd Park courts be used part of the day for the good of the City. I hope the model works and next year we can expand the program to include other sports. If we do not want our taxes to go up or our services to be cut back, we need to come up with new revenue streams, and this is one of them.

Well, we have our first major refusal by a high-level Bushie to a Congressional subpoena (Condi). As many have noted, the recourse via the courts to force testimony under that subpoena goes to the US District Attorney for D.C. Those same US Attorneys which, if you’ve been following national news, appear to have their independence compromised.

Dkos’ Kagro X notes that there is another, non-executive-branch option (quote via the Congressional Research Service’s “Congressional Oversight Manual” (PDF):

Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.

But in a new post, Kagro also says it’s up to us to educate our US Rep and Senators, because they don’t appear to have known about this statute:

Does your delegation know what inherent contempt is?
by Kagro X
Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:56:53 AM PDT

That’s a serious question. And it’s not meant to impugn anyone’s intelligence or integrity. The plain fact is that sometimes, you’d be surprised what you know about that your Represenative or your Senators don’t. To be sure, they’ll sometimes amaze you with their knowledge of legislative arcana. But the truth is that the schedule of a legislator is tight, and casual perusal of the blogs just isn’t something they often have time for. Which means that if you’ve been reading (here or elsewhere) about the looming crisis in enforcement of the Congressional subpoena power, and have thereby gained an understanding of the “inherent contempt” process, you may actually know considerably more about it than your representatives in Congress.
[…]
There have got to be more Members who know about the process that we just haven’t heard from yet. But so far, the only Member of Congress I know who’s been thinking anything other than “we’ll take ‘em to court” when the Bush “administration” defies Congressional subpoenas is Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina. As chairman of the Investigations and Oversight subcommittee of the Science and Technology panel, he’s run into “administration” intransigence that’s just as brazen and stunning as any of the high-profile situations we’re witnessing at Judiciary and Government Oversight, but without the “sexiness” of involving the “A-list” cabinet members. He’s been working quietly, behind the scenes to make his colleagues aware of his read on the situation, but it’s an uphill battle. Everyone’s busy, and everyone’s freaking out. But not everyone is convinced, as both of us are, that the courts are not likely to clarify the situation for us, at least not in time to actually do anything about it.
[…]
So, what to do? I’m inclined to go with the old stand-by: write your Members of Cong