SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (8005)9/14/2003 9:04:15 PM
From: Tom Clarke  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793841
 
Yes I know, I clicked on his link. A crony of yours, no doubt.

Read Juan Gato, he is eminently more edifying....



To: JohnM who wrote (8005)9/15/2003 12:19:33 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793841
 
Who knew? I thought this guy was "Mr Dullsville."


Pataki Emerges as Rainmaker for National G.O.P.
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ NEW YORK TIMES


WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — George W. Bush and national Republicans all but ignored New York during the 2000 presidential election. But this time around, New York's Republican governor, George E. Pataki, has managed to grab their attention.

Mr. Pataki has emerged from the sidelines of the national party to become one of its best fund-raising draws. By playing host to events at the most sophisticated salons in Manhattan and political nightspots in Albany, as well as employing his formidable political apparatus, Mr. Pataki has helped pump millions of dollars into the campaigns of Republicans across the nation. Among those benefiting from his fund-raising prowess are President Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader and bête noire of liberal Democratic New Yorkers.

This year alone, Mr. Pataki has helped raise $5 million for Mr. Bush's re-election campaign. He has also held fund-raisers in New York on behalf of more than 25 Republican House and Senate members in the past two years, as well as for four Washington-based Republican campaign committees.

His efforts will be on display on Monday, when his fund-raising team holds a $1,000-a-person reception at a Manhattan restaurant for Mr. DeLay, whose positions have drawn opposition from a host of New York politicians, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a fellow Republican. Then, Mr. Pataki will embark on a sprint in New York and across the country that Republicans say may bring in as much as $1.7 million for national Republicans.

For Mr. Schwarzenegger, Mr. Pataki arranged a lunch in August at the Four Seasons with one of his top fund-raisers, Charles A. Gargano, the chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, and with some of the city's top Republican money raisers and donors. The Pataki team has since been soliciting contributions, with donors assured of a chance to meet Mr. Schwarzenegger in November, when, the fund-raising literature states, he will return to New York as California's new governor.

Why Mr. Pataki is putting this kind of effort into raising money for Republicans nationally is an open question, even among some Republicans. Of particular interest is his support for those like Mr. DeLay, whose positions on issues like abortion rights, gun control and government spending differ sharply with those of many New Yorkers.

But people in both parties say one answer may be that Mr. Pataki can. Not only is he the governor of what has been dubbed the A.T.M. state, a reference to New York's reputation as being flush with political cash because of its heavy concentration of wealthy, politically active people. But Mr. Pataki, who is safely ensconced in his third term, has an extensive fund-raising apparatus and a donor list that is the envy of Republicans and Democrats alike.

That fund-raising operation, which, according to campaign disclosure statements, is very well compensated for its efforts, is a vestige of the political machine once controlled by Alfonse M. D'Amato, the former United States senator from New York.

Mr. Pataki's efforts on behalf of the national party have renewed speculation about his ultimate ambitions. Some say he is shopping to secure a spot in a second Bush administration. Others say he is seeking to protect the interests of New York, a Democratic stronghold, at a time when Republicans control the White House and Congress.

But Mr. Pataki's aides and supporters contend that he is simply being a good soldier trying to help his party.

"Governor Pataki believes in the principles of opportunity and freedom that the Republican Party represents, particularly under this president, and is going to continue to work to help the party and President Bush in New York and across the country," said Lisa Dewald Stoll, the governor's spokeswoman.

People close to Mr. Pataki note that he was not always as willing to put his skills to work for the national party, largely because it was dominated by fiery conservatives like Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, through much of his tenure as governor.

Mr. Pataki, they say, feels far more at home with the moderate tone the national party has adopted under Mr. Bush, who campaigned as a compassionate conservative and who has sought to make inroads in groups that have supported Democrats, including labor unions and Hispanic voters, a course that Mr. Pataki has followed himself.

Perhaps as important, Mr. Pataki has developed a friendly relationship with Mr. Bush, a classmate at Yale who recently invited the governor and his wife, Libby, to be weekend guests at Camp David, according to Republicans in and outside the Pataki camp.

Beyond that, Mr. Pataki has frequent telephone conversations with the president's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, who has called on the governor to press his network of donors to help support the Republican efforts in 2004, according to Republicans with ties to the Bush and Pataki camps.

"The governor is a lot more comfortable with the party now," said one of Mr. Pataki's closest advisers, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "He feels there's more room with this leadership for a diversified Republican Party." Mr. Pataki's fund-raising efforts on behalf of President Bush have been such that the Bush campaign recently designated him a ranger, a member of an elite group of presidential fund-raisers. (As the Bush re-election campaign seeks to amass the largest treasury in history, many of the president's best-connected supporters are competing for the honor of being designated pioneers, people who have raised at least $100,000, or rangers, those who have raised at least $200,000.)

Even critics of Mr. Pataki's fund-raising practices say they are impressed by the scale of his efforts. "Pataki is turning out to be the Lone Ranger," said Blair Horner, a lobbyist for the New York Public Interest Research Group who has raised concerns about the influence of money in politics. "The governor is pulling out all the stops on behalf of the Bush re-election effort." In the next few weeks, Mr. Pataki will embark on a fund-raising spree that New York Republicans say will leave little doubt about the crucial role he now plays in the national Republican Party's competition with Democrats for campaign dollars.

Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, a Buffalo-area Republican who is one of the most successful fund-raisers in Congress and who was designated a ranger by the Bush campaign, suggested that Mr. Pataki's efforts were forcing national Republican leaders to think twice about disregarding New York, a heavily Democratic state that rarely factors into the national Republican political calculus.

"The governor has made sure that New York is an impact player in this election through his fund-raising," said Mr. Reynolds, who is also the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "You just can't write New York off as a Democratic state."

The next phase of Mr. Pataki's effort begins on Monday at the "21" Club in Manhattan, at a luncheon by his fund-raising operation to raise money for a political action committee for Mr. DeLay, Americans for a Republican Majority. Mr. Pataki's advisers say they expect the event to raise $100,000 to $150,000.

Mr. Pataki will be the featured speaker at five events — three in California, one in Oregon and one in Washington State — sponsored by local Republican state committees as they gear up for the 2004 elections. The trip is expected to raise several hundred thousand dollars, according to the Pataki camp.

Then, Mr. Pataki will hold a $1,000-a-ticket reception for the Republican Governors Association on Oct. 2 at the Lighthouse at Chelsea Piers in Manhattan. The governor's advisers say that event is expected to bring in as much as $500,000.

Mr. Pataki will then be the host of a $1,000-a-person reception featuring Laura Bush at the Rainbow Room at Rockefeller Plaza to raise money for Bush-Cheney 04 Inc., the re-election committee that Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney created this summer. That reception is expected to bring in about $500,000, according to Mr. Pataki's political advisers.

Mr. Pataki is also scheduled to be the featured speaker at the Iowa Republican Party's annual fall dinner.

Republicans and Democrats alike say Mr. Pataki's fund-raising ability reflects the strong political apparatus he has built during his past eight years as governor, with the assistance of a handful of close associates who have been handsomely rewarded for their efforts.

Among them is Cathy Blaney, a top Pataki fund-raiser who Republicans say was introduced to the governor by Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Pataki's political mentor and a leading architect of his 1994 victory over Mario M. Cuomo, the Democratic incumbent at the time.

Between Jan. 15 and July 15 of this year, for example, Mr. Pataki's main campaign committee, Friends of Pataki, paid nearly $400,000 to Cathy Blaney & Associates, a Manhattan-based fund-raising firm, according to the latest campaign financial disclosure statements. That amount represents almost 25 percent of the roughly $1.6 million that the committee spent during the same six-month period, according to the statements.

Mr. Horner, of the New York Public Interest Research Group, said he found it most interesting that the payments signal that the Pataki operation had continued to employ costly consultants even though the governor had just been re-elected in November. He added that the payments highlighted a concern that his and other government watchdog groups had raised about the Pataki administration: that it has turned governing into a permanent campaign.

"The way the governor fund-raises allows him to kill many birds with one stone," Mr. Horner said. "He develops personal relationships nationally, lays the groundwork for political alliances he could use later and keeps his fund-raising apparatus employed and in fighting shape. He can do this because he has some of the wealthiest ZIP codes in America in his state. I think it would probably be hard for the governor of Arkansas to play at this level."

nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (8005)9/15/2003 2:10:23 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793841
 
Just watched "K Street" on HBO. Cleverly done. They had Carville prepping Dean for the last debate, then setting in the audience and Dean using one of Carville's lines, for real, in the debate. I will continue to give it a go. It is definitely for Junkies like us. Don't think it will draw a big audience.

Bye the bye, I watched HBO's new show, "Carnevale," just before it. It's 1934 America, a period I love. A tent show, a lot of supernatural. Think it will develop into a good show.



To: JohnM who wrote (8005)9/15/2003 2:53:04 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793841
 
Even Raspberry is dragged, kicking and screaming, along.

Vouchers, whatever trickery has brought them to Washington and whatever the downside might be, would extend them that choice. As a middle-class parent whose children attended both public and private schools, I can't see anything particularly noble about denying that same choice to children whose parents are poor

Give Poor Students a Choice
By William Raspberry

Monday, September 15, 2003; Page A23

The forum for Democratic presidential candidates was scheduled for Tuesday evening in Baltimore, under the sponsorship of the Congressional Black Caucus Institute.

So House Republicans, knowing a lot of anti-voucher Democrats -- including members of the fiercely anti-voucher caucus -- would be out of town, scheduled a vote on a plan to launch a five-year voucher experiment for D.C. schoolchildren. The pro-voucher forces prevailed by a single vote.

It was a classic dirty trick -- or, more charitably, extremely clever politics. It is one of the things I find offensive about the entire voucher effort.

The other is that the Republican-led Congress, many of whose members would never have tried to force vouchers on their home states, chose to foist this experiment upon the voteless District of Columbia. Most members of the city council opposed it. And Eleanor Holmes Norton, the city's elected delegate to Congress, couldn't even cast a vote on the controversial legislation.

It's galling that outsiders dictate the terms by which D.C. residents will educate their children.

But this question nags: Was this heavy-handed outcome bad for the children?

Vouchers, I know, have become the Moses' rod of politics: capable of dividing the electorate as efficiently as Moses parted the Red Sea. Democrats and the institutions that support them -- labor, teachers, civil rights organizations -- are overwhelmingly anti-voucher.

Their arguments focus on harm to public education. Some opponents believe that the driving force behind vouchers is a philosophical desire to get rid of public schools. Del. Norton more modestly contends that the $13 million for vouchers (in the Senate version) is $13 million that won't go to public schools that desperately need it.

D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams and Council member Kevin P. Chavous, both Democrats who have caught a lot of flak for their support of the voucher initiative, promise the public schools won't lose any funding to the voucher plan, even if it means making up the difference from elsewhere in the city budget.

Many Republicans, on the other hand, are fascinated by the idea of providing competition for the public schools, forcing them to improve or go out of business.

One side opposes vouchers because vouchers would hurt the schools most children attend (though a dismaying number of these partisans do virtually nothing else to help public schools). The other side supports vouchers because vouchers provide an escape from schools whose leaders will not or cannot improve them (though too often the only thing they do for the students in those schools is to advocate vouchers). Both sides do it for the children.

And both have a point. Money is fungible, and dollars spent on vouchers are dollars that won't be spent on public schools. But it is also true that money not spent on vouchers won't necessarily be spent on public schools. The D.C. voucher plan at least begins with new money.

For all my misgivings about some of the voucher advocates, there is something that troubles me about the anti-voucher crowd as well. Much of the opposition comes from middle-class folk whose own children attended (or had the option of attending) nonpublic schools. And the question that won't go away is: If choice is good for middle-class children, why is it bad for poor children who, without some sort of subsidy, may find themselves stuck in underperforming schools?

Stuck is the right word. Whenever there's an opportunity for poor parents to move their children out of low-performing schools -- whether that opportunity is a public subsidy (as in Milwaukee), a private scholarship or a low-cost Catholic school, there's no shortage of takers. The conclusion has to be that they hadn't left earlier because they had no choice.

Vouchers, whatever trickery has brought them to Washington and whatever the downside might be, would extend them that choice. As a middle-class parent whose children attended both public and private schools, I can't see anything particularly noble about denying that same choice to children whose parents are poor.
washingtonpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (8005)9/15/2003 3:27:27 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793841
 
This is where we will have fun, John. The "Hot Stove" league awaits!

washingtonpost.com
Next Year's Senate Races Giving Both Parties Reason to Worry

By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 15, 2003; Page A09

As Republicans and Democrats struggle to complete their lineup of candidates for next year's Senate elections, the two parties have a common set of problems: missed opportunities, bad luck and self-inflicted wounds that dim their hopes for significant gains.

In at least a half-dozen states, Republicans have failed to recruit their first choices -- and sometimes their second or third picks -- for races against potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbents. And, in Illinois, where a GOP-held seat is at stake, former governor Jim Edgar and others resisted White House pressure to run, bolstering Democratic chances for a gain.

In at least three states where Republicans once had high hopes, Democratic Sens. Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.) appear to be on the road to reelection because potentially strong GOP challengers -- Rep. Jim Gibbons (Nev.), Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former North Dakota governor Ed Schafer -- declined to run.

The Democrats have also had some recruiting disappointments. But their gravest problem is the retirement -- or possible retirement -- of incumbents in the increasingly Republican South, where the GOP swept open-seat races in 2002.

So far, three Democratic incumbents -- Zell Miller (Ga.), Ernest F. Hollings (S.C.) and presidential contender John Edwards (N.C.) -- have decided against running for reelection. Two others, John Breaux (La.) and Bob Graham (Fla.), another presidential candidate, have not announced decisions.

With Republicans controlling the Senate 51 to 48, Democrats need only two more seats to regain the majority they lost in 2002. (The Senate's lone independent, James M. Jeffords of Vermont, usually votes with the Democrats.) But they appear more likely to lose ground through retirements than to gain seats because of GOP vulnerabilities.

The situation suggests that Republicans will keep control of the Senate, but casts doubt on whether they will expand their majority sufficiently to take commanding control of the Senate, according to several independent analysts.

On balance, "I'd rather be in the Republicans' shoes, but, with the Senate this close, you can't give up too many opportunities," said Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report. "If Republicans could have capitalized on all the potential opportunities out there, they could have put themselves in the position of picking up three or four seats. Now, they're only in a position to pick up one or two seats."

Stuart Rothenberg, another independent analyst of congressional politics, figures Republicans could have picked up five or six seats if they had recruited their top-choice candidates. But now, he said, they seem to be looking at a gain of one to three seats.

The Republican and Democratic campaign committees acknowledge some setbacks but insist their respective parties are well-positioned to pick up seats.

Dan Allen, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the committee "feels good" about eight seats now held by Democrats, including Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), who may be challenged by former representative John Thune. Thune narrowly lost a Senate race last year.

"We're going to be on offense regardless, while Democrats will be on defense," Allen said. "With more and more open seats, it becomes harder and harder for Democrats to defend what they already have."

Brad Woodhouse, speaking for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said Democrats have not given up on retaking the Senate and believe they have strong candidates in the open-seat races. "You'd always rather run with a strong incumbent than defend an open seat," Woodhouse said. "But the fact is they [Republicans] have struck out all over the country in finding challengers . . . In contrast, we will be blessed with very strong candidates in our open-seat races."

It is not unusual for prominent figures to dodge pressure to run for the Senate, which is not everyone's favorite job -- or for senators to step down for a variety of reasons. Their personal decisions, however, can have a big impact on national politics.

In Nevada, for instance, Gibbons was the only prominent Republican who showed interest in challenging Reid, even though Reid -- the second-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership -- won by only a whisker in 1998. But Gibbon said no, and Republicans concede it will be hard to find another candidate with his potential.

In Georgia, the retiring Miller, who often votes with Republicans, probably could have won another term with ease. But now Republicans are favored, although not certain, to pick up the seat. Similarly, Breaux is regarded as a shoo-in if he runs for reelection. But if he does not, the race will become significantly more competitive.

Florida is a good example of both parties' plight.

Although polls indicate he has been weakened a bit by his presidential ambitions, Graham -- a former governor and three-term senator -- would be the favorite for reelection if he runs again. But even many Democrats expect him to decide against doing so.

On the Republican side, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel R. Martinez, a Floridian, successfully resisted pressure from the White House and elsewhere to run for the seat earlier this year. More recently, Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) bowed out of the race for Graham's seat, citing his father's illness. As of now, there is a crowded field of candidates on both sides, putting the seat in the toss-up column.

washingtonpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (8005)9/15/2003 3:34:25 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793841
 
Al's got the balls. Too bad he's the only one.

washingtonpost.com
Sharpton's Example

By David S. Broder

Sunday, September 14, 2003; Page B07

Early pre-primary debates, especially those where the stage is overstuffed with candidates, are notoriously poor gauges of the strength of rival contenders.

President Bush was anything but a dominant figure when he was one of six Republican aspirants in New Hampshire in December 1999. Baited by Gary Bauer and Steve Forbes on his alleged squishiness on abortion and taxes, he appeared to be on autopilot. Rarely did he command the debate scene as he came to control the nomination race.

So one should not draw too many conclusions from the performance of the nine Democrats who met in Baltimore last week.

But there was one thing I found revealing about their performance, and it had nothing to do with the way they dealt with Iraq, Israel, the economy, health care -- or each other.

I was riveted by their reactions when backers of Lyndon LaRouche, the leader of a fringe political faction and chronic candidate for the Democratic nomination, repeatedly interrupted proceedings at the Congressional Black Caucus debate with loud complaints about LaRouche's exclusion.

The only candidate who knew how to deal with this unprogrammed event -- the only one who figured out how to profit from it -- was, believe it or not, Al Sharpton. That doesn't erase the many liabilities he brings into the contest, but it does show he has a quality people crave in a president -- the ability to take charge of a situation. Democrats must wonder how to graft that leadership gene onto the others.

The first time the shouting broke out, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was speaking. He froze. So did almost all his rivals. Sharpton was the first person to find his voice. He told the hecklers, "Now, you all don't get to the Black Caucus debate and start acting up now."

The second outburst -- shouts of "Where is LaRouche?" -- came when Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut was answering a question. He just stood there looking pained. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean was quick-witted enough to comment, "I suspect he's in jail," where LaRouche had been on mail fraud charges. But again it was left to Sharpton to admonish the noisemakers.

Addressing the moderator, Fox News's Brit Hume, Sharpton said, "Brit, can we appeal to people? I mean, this is a historic night, the first time the Congressional Black Caucus had a debate. Would you all respect our right to be heard like we respected everybody else?"

A wave of applause signaled that most in the audience were glad somebody was taking charge.

Twice more, there were outbursts -- once interrupting Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and then Lieberman again.

All the victims turned to Sharpton for help. In stern tones, he told the offending members of the audience that the candidates would not "tolerate the continual breakup of what we are trying to say here tonight to the American people. . . . You've not done it at any other debate. You're not going to do it now. You're playing this phony liberal game, and you wait until our night to start acting up. We don't appreciate it. I don't care who's not on this stage. You're going to respect us on this stage because we've got something to say."

A relieved Lieberman said, "Well, first, let me say to my dear friend, Reverend Sharpton, amen." Sharpton joshed that he would take that as an endorsement.

There were two more brief raucous episodes, but Sharpton clearly had shamed some of the troublemakers.

More important, he demonstrated to the whole political world what is lacking in the rest of the Democratic field -- the spontaneity that marks a winner.

I had two flashbacks. One was to the presidential debate in 1976, when Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter stood like statues at their lecterns, afraid to move, to converse or even to smile, for the long minutes it took to repair the audio feed from the TV studio. That inability to deal with the unexpected shadowed both their presidencies.

The other memory was the 1980 debate in Nashua, N.H., where the first George Bush and Ronald Reagan were on stage when suddenly four other Republican contenders (who had not been invited to participate) walked in. Bush simply froze. Reagan -- who was part of the plot -- welcomed them, and when the moderator tried to cut Reagan off, he delivered the line, "I paid for this microphone, Mr. Green."

He got the name wrong, but by taking command when his opponent was tongue-tied, he virtually ended the Bush challenge.

The take-command reflex is a mighty useful trait when you are hoping to run against the commander in chief. That Sharpton is the only Democrat to display it does not augur well for the party's chances.

davidbroder@washpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (8005)9/15/2003 4:33:18 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793841
 
I was thinking about the Employers being forced to provide Health Insurance, and I suspect it may be the least bad of the choices involved. These people are getting care at emergency rooms, the State is paying for it, and no other relief is on the Horizon.

The Insurance scam that we need to break, that never comes up, is to make group Auto, Fire, Homeowners, and theft available. It would drastically lower rates, and the Insurance companies make sure it is illegal.

Imagine if your Homeowners Fire and Theft was brought to you by the Police and Fire Department of your town. This happened in the 19th century in some small towns. If you had a loss, they had to pay off. That would give them an interest in making sure you didn't have a fire or theft, wouldn't it?




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
latimes.com a d v




Blazing a Trail for Health Care
Groundbreaking moves in California and Maine may inspire more states to build up the political momentum to cover their own uninsured.
By Charles Ornstein and Sue Fox
Times Staff Writers

September 15, 2003

The passage of a landmark California bill that would require all but the smallest businesses to provide health insurance to their workers may give new traction to sputtering efforts in other states to expand health coverage, experts said Sunday.

The California measure, along with a new Maine law, offers hope for those seeking to reduce the number of uninsured Americans, now estimated at more than 40 million.

Federal lawmakers have largely shied away from expanding health-care coverage since the colossal failure of the Clinton administration's health-care reform plan of 1993-94. That has left state and local governments bearing many of the growing costs of caring for the uninsured and devising solutions of their own.

"We see little evidence from Washington that the current administration and current Congress are going to do anything about the huge number of uninsured people in the country," said E. Richard Brown, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, who consulted with drafters of the California bill. "I think there's growing sentiment that states need to do something."

In June, Maine Gov. John E. Baldacci, a Democrat, signed a law that aims to provide health insurance to all state residents by 2009. It also seeks to rein in medical costs by establishing voluntary price caps for providers, hospitals and insurers. Lawmakers in several states, including Maryland, Illinois, New Mexico and Wisconsin, are conducting studies or drafting legislation to expand health coverage that could be considered as early as next year.

Hawaii is so far the only state requiring businesses to provide health insurance for most employees working more than 20 hours a week. Massachusetts and Oregon lawmakers enacted similar laws but repealed them before they took effect because of strong opposition from businesses.

The California legislation — supported by doctors and labor unions and opposed by business groups — still awaits Gov. Gray Davis' signature and could face court challenges. Even if it passes muster, it would not begin to take effect until 2006.

Still, the leader of the Universal Health Care Action Network called the California bill "very, very positive."

"What we're seeing now is state leadership and creativity," said Dr. Ken Frisof, the group's national director. "California and Maine and some other states are beginning to show that it's, in fact, possible to get political momentum in this area."

The California legislation, approved early Saturday, would require employers to either purchase private health-care policies for workers or pay into a statewide pool that would purchase insurance on their behalf. The requirement would apply to employers with 200 or more workers on Jan. 1, 2006. Businesses with 50 to 199 workers would have until 2007 to comply, and employers with fewer than 20 workers would be exempt.

Employers with 20 to 49 workers would be exempt until the state provided them with a tax credit subsidy to help offset the insurance cost. Supporters believe the legislation would provide health coverage to 1 million of the 6.3 million uninsured Californians.

One of Several Bills

The bill was one of several in the Legislature to expand health coverage. The plans differed based on who would administer and pay for care — government or private business. The legislation that passed relies on businesses to fund the additional coverage.

By contrast, Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) sponsored a bill that would have created a state-run system to provide coverage for all residents. Kuehl had proposed paying for it with existing health-care dollars, along with a payroll tax. Her measure passed the Senate but was not considered by the Assembly.

Expanding health coverage is to Democrats what tax cuts are to Republicans — a core party concern. Universal health coverage generally refers to providing all people enough insurance for doctor visits and hospital stays. Some support a government health system, similar to Canada's and Britain's, while others favor a mix of public and private programs. Still others argue that the government's role should be limited to providing tax credits for people to spend on private health insurance.

Frisof said California may prove to be a unique case because Democratic lawmakers rushed to pass bills before the Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election, which could eject the Democratic governor from office.

Universal health care has been a hard sell. In November, voters in Oregon trounced a universal health-care initiative on the ballot, and Massachusetts voters defeated a similar measure in 2000. Years earlier, lawmakers in both states had killed laws that would have required employers to provide insurance.

The latest roadblock is money. Most states are now struggling with budget deficits and rising Medicaid enrollment. And many states are considering dropping low-income people from the public health insurance program to help balance their budgets.

"The Medicaid rate of growth is not sustainable and will destroy states," said Nelson J. Sabatini, secretary of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Even so, Sabatini said, he is working on a plan to give all Maryland residents basic health coverage. That can be done, he said, by limiting benefits but providing them to more people. Sabatini said he and his colleagues in other states are going to "watch very closely" what happens in California.

Davis said Sunday that he had not reviewed the health insurance bill but expects to act on it before the recall election. Although the governor estimated that 600 bills await his signature or veto, he called the health measure "one of the most important.

"In principle, I would like to extend health care to people," he said. "I'm proud that we've been able to enroll a million children in various health insurance programs that didn't have that opportunity before I was governor."

Business groups want Davis to veto the bill, arguing that it would saddle small companies with another financial burden when they are already struggling with soaring workers' compensation costs in an uncertain economy.

Michael Shaw, the assistant state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, said Sunday that if the governor signs the bill, a coalition of business groups may challenge it in court. Shaw said the measure appears to violate the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which prohibits state regulation of employee benefit and pension plans.

"We are going to be having meetings early this week to discuss a legal challenge," Shaw said. "We need to be prepared, if the governor signs it, to move quickly."

Proponents of the bill, however, said it was written to withstand judicial scrutiny. They contend the state will save money when the bill becomes law because businesses will help bear the cost of caring for the uninsured, which now falls to state and local governments.

"It's sending a signal to large employers that they do have an obligation to their workers," said Anthony E. Wright, executive director of Health Access, which lobbied strongly for the measure.

Candidates Weigh In

At the federal level, health-care reform has attracted considerable attention from Democrats running for the White House.

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri would require all employers to provide health insurance for workers, with tax incentives offsetting part of the cost. The plan, which would cost more than $200 billion per year to fully implement, is pricier than other proposals mainly because tax credits would also go to employers who already provide insurance.

The California measure "is obviously a step in the right direction," said Kim Molstre, a spokeswoman for the Gephardt campaign.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean would expand Medicaid to cover more poor people and give government subsidies to help others pay insurance premiums.

Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry would have the federal government pay to insure the poorest children if states agree to partially fund coverage for millions of working-poor families. Kerry also would give tax credits to small businesses to subsidize half the cost of insuring their workers.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut has suggested a new universal health program for children, dubbed "Medikids," that would guarantee coverage for all Americans through age 25.

Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has offered a less-costly plan to cover all children that would require many parents of uninsured children to pay part of the expense.

Some national politicians have yet to hear about the California bill. But once word spreads, experts anticipate other states will follow California's lead.

"There is this tendency among the states not to want to be the first and to also look to other states for models that they could adapt or use," said UCLA's Brown. "I think this becomes a model for action."



To: JohnM who wrote (8005)9/15/2003 4:55:00 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793841
 
Wonder if it is true? With, Bubba, ya never know.

What might have been
Bill Clinton on his near-miss with California government:

“In 1978, I was elected governor. I was the youngest governor in the country. I was 32 years old. I was dumb enough to think for a moment I was somebody. In 1980 I was the youngest ex-governor…You could have made a lot of money if you’d bought stock in me back then. Because my price was low.

“We had two-year terms. Everything that could go wrong did. Gray Davis had been Jerry Brown’s chief of staff. And he left. And Jerry Brown called me … and he said, ‘You ought to come out here and be my chief of staff.’ He said, ‘I can’t believe they beat you on that little tax increase.’ He said, ‘I’ll just let you run the governor’s office. You’ll have a great time and you’ll love California.’ I’ve often wondered what would have happened to me if I had taken the governor up on his offer.”

--from Clinton's speech on behalf of Gray Davis today at the First AME Church in Los Angeles. Clinton said this was a story even Gray Davis didn't know. I have never seen it reported, if it ever was.
sacbee.com



To: JohnM who wrote (8005)9/15/2003 5:31:25 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793841
 
Excellent Book Review on Posner's latest. Heavy going for those who are not Judicial Junkies.


'Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy': The Legal Theory of No Legal Theory
By ALAN RYAN - New York Times

LAW, PRAGMATISM, AND DEMOCRACY
By Richard A. Posner.
398 pp. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. $35.

Richard A. Posner is an extraordinary person. If he did not exist, it would be hard to believe that he could. He is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, and -- one would think -- a busy man. But he writes on almost every legal issue of the day, from Bush v. Gore to Roe v. Wade. He has published ''Public Intellectuals'' and a biography of Benjamin Cardozo. Thirty years ago, his book ''The Economic Analysis of Law'' began a revolution in legal theory whose effects are still being digested. Ten years ago, ''Sex and Reason'' scandalized just about everyone by coolly and rationally analyzing the way the law should treat sex and its consequences. Posner keeps up a rate of production of polemical essays on politics, law and moral philosophy that would do credit to an entire law school. He writes with a flair that puts most journalists to shame and a depth of knowledge that puts most professors to shame.

Putting professors to shame is what he excels at; it is a large part of the purpose of ''Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy.'' Although Posner teaches at the University of Chicago Law School, he uses ''academic'' essentially as a term of abuse. One target of his derision is the recent academic enthusiasm for ''deliberative democracy.'' Deliberative democrats think that what democracy involves is not the messy, noisy, winner-take-all of the electoral process, but a collective and cooperative search for the right answer to our common problems -- the sort of thing that Dewey wrote about for more than half a century. Posner's take on the matter is that the enthusiasts for deliberative democracy want to substitute the moral prejudices of professors for the wishes of the plain man or the slightly less plain politician.

His other target is the ''formalist'' view of law, which says that courts should always ask one question only: what does the law require? In the formalist view, there will always be a single answer, and the task of judges is to declare it. The present Supreme Court is addicted to presenting its decisions in formalist terms. But, Posner unflinchingly insists, although the court eventually made the right decision in Bush v. Gore, it gave such an incoherent and unconvincing account of what it was doing that it ultimately impaired its own authority. Conversely, in Clinton v. Jones, the court made a mistake that a pragmatic judge would not have made, because that decision opened the door to the whole sorry farce of the impeachment of President Clinton.

Posner's targets have nothing positive in common. The link is that they are the antitheses of what he wants to argue for -- legal and democratic pragmatism. True to form, he does not suggest that we should all run out and read the works of Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey (although he himself appears to have done so). He wants to argue for pragmatism in the ordinary sense of the term: paying greater attention to the consequences of what we do than to high principle, making institutions work a bit better on the assumption that perfection is out of reach and is, in any case, a dangerous goal.

Still, Posner is an intellectual to the end of his fingers, and like most others of the breed, he hates to leave his opponents in possession of any territory that he can seize. This means that ''Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy'' is several books in one. Roughly a third of it will be useful to students in law school who need a quick route into the role of pragmatism in American law. Another section of the book does some very neat work on the connection between what we nowadays call ''liberal democracy'' and what the ancients called ''mixed government.''

The founding fathers, Posner says, did not want to set up a democracy but a mixed government. That is in fact what they created -- with monarchical elements in the presidency, aristocratic elements in the Senate and Supreme Court and democratic elements in the lower house. The whole thing was intended to be a balance of interests in the way Cicero said successful republics must be. Some of us have said for 40 years that what we call ''representative democracy'' is what an earlier age understood as elective aristocracy. It is good to have Posner on our side.

The only regret is that he does little to spell out the reason for wanting populist elements in a mixed constitution -- essentially, that once you have agreed that government is a job for the full-time expert and that ''rule by the people'' is literally impossible, you need some way in which the ordinary man can stop the elite from walking off with the store. The London mob used to smash the windows of the rich; universal suffrage serves the same purpose with less damage. Posner writes only about the representation of interests, which is not the Athenian view that democracy was a mechanism for putting the fear of God into the ruling elite.

Posner's preferred account of democracy was provided by Joseph Schumpeter, the Viennese economist best known for his description of capitalism as propelled by ''gales of creative destruction.'' In exile in America during World War II, Schumpeter wrote ''Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy,'' a book with which Posner has fallen in love. At least, he has fallen in love with the two chapters in which Schumpeter destroyed what he called the classical theory of democracy and defended what he considered a realistic one.

Schumpeter argues that democracy is a system in which would-be rulers compete for the people's vote. The number of voters does not greatly matter; what matters is that the government is the winner of a genuinely competitive election. Posner, who is fascinated by economics, seizes on the way that Schumpeter's theory emphasizes competition between elites. It looks, as many writers have said, like the beginnings of an economic theory of democracy. And Posner has some interesting thoughts on ways in which we might make American democracy more competitive -- giving would-be third parties a fairer chance to enter the political marketplace, for instance.

But Schumpeter was not an enthusiast for making politics more competitive. He was profoundly distrustful of the ordinary man, whose views he thought irrational and ill informed, and he deplored the activities of that great American institution, the pressure group. Posner mildly criticizes Schumpeter for not saying enough about what should happen between elections. If you think that politics should operate like a market, it's a fair point; nobody makes once-and-for-all choices in the ordinary marketplace. In fact, the one thing that Schumpeter said about what should happen between elections was that the voters should not put pressure on government, but should simply allow it to govern.

Many readers of ''Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy'' may choose to leave Posner's discussion of democratic theory for last, turning first to his illustrations of pragmatic adjudication in action to see what the ''cash value'' of the theoretical chapters is. Posner's premise is that there is no such thing as legal reasoning. Lawyers and judges know a lot about legislation, previous cases and the like. But on all else, they should defer to experts in nonlegal fields, who provide the raw materials for interpretation and decision. But if there is no such thing as legal reasoning, what will limit judges from going off in any direction? A large constraint, Posner argues, is the need not to be overruled too often and too embarrassingly by a higher court.

The Supreme Court, however, cannot be overridden; it works with looser constraints than any other court. Its task is to make sensible decisions that will have good consequences for the country as a whole. In Bush v. Gore, for instance, there was a need to bring an end to the electoral mess, and there were ways of doing this discreetly. Justice Scalia is told off particularly severely for political ineptitude. Silence was the prudent position; his concurring judgment gave the dissenters a target and a chance to grandstand.

In Clinton v. Jones, the pomposity of the court's declaration that ''no man is above the law'' blinded the justices to the need to let quite a lot of people be a little above the law. Given what sexual harassment suits are like, Posner says, the president should have been protected while in office; a narrowly tailored immunity would have served the nation well.

These agreeably unprincipled views look less appealing when Posner turns to the erosion of civil liberties during emergencies. Here, the message is that civil libertarians should stop whining, and get used to the idea that in a crisis we have less freedom. No doubt -- though one would expect a thinker like Posner to regret the loss rather than celebrate it so enthusiastically. Still, his argument is an elegant illustration of what is lost by pragmatism's abandonment of principle. Perhaps we ought to be grateful for it, as just one more of Richard A. Posner's many provocations.

Alan Ryan is the warden of New College and a professor of politics at the University of Oxford.

nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (8005)9/15/2003 5:46:40 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793841
 
I have posted about 25 articles tonight. A new "High," I believe. There was just a lot of good stuff out there. It is 11:45 pm, and I give up for the evening. Have fun tearing them apart while I snooze.