I'm in. I got a slide rule (somewhere around here) and I know how to use it! If they can take down the Berlin Wall, and if we get moving now, this ought to be *relatively* easy. The second is the far bigger if.
I had a physical today and talked to my Doc about this mess. HIs attitude was simple. Healthcare is 14%-17% of the economy, depending on who is measuring. Any extra cost is projected to be 1/2 to 3/4 of 1 percent. Shouldn't we try something? Just reducing emergency care by providing normal care before the situation becomes an emergency should cover it.
I like it when a simple answer actually makes sense.
I like things that go BOOM! We can take down the wall. It will be fun.
I understand from MoveOn.org that there is a bill up on fair campaign finance reform. In the short tem, might be worth a try supporting that.
As they noted in their email: There is already a public financing bill, the Fair Elections Now Act, with significant, bipartisan support.2 Congress, which right now desperately needs to show that it's on the side of the voters instead of corporate interests, should rush to pass it. Will you sign our petition urging Congress to make sure our democracy represents the people, not corporations? Clicking here will add your name to this critical petition:
A link in their email went to this NY Times article. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?sudsredirect=true
Some intriguing things said by a Republican lobbyist there:
In practice, major publicly held corporations like Microsoft or General Electric are unlikely to spend large sums money on campaign commercials, for fear of alienating investors, customers and other public officials.
Instead, wealthy individuals and companies might contribute to trade associations, groups like the Chamber of Commerce or the National Rifle Association, or other third parties that could run commercials.
Previously, Mr. Noble of Skadden Arps said, his firm had advised companies to be wary about giving money to groups that might run so-called advocacy commercials, because such activity could trigger disclosure requirements that would identify the corporate financers.
“It could be traced back to you,” he said. “That is no longer a concern.”
Some disclosure rules remain intact. An outside group paying for a campaign commercial would still have to include a statement and file forms taking responsibility. If an organization solicits money specifically to pay for such political activities, it could fall under regulations that require disclosure of its donors.
And the disclosure requirements would moderate the harshness of the third-party advertisements, because established trade associations or other groups are too concerned with their reputations to wage the contentious campaigns that ad hoc groups like MoveOn.org or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth might do.
Two leading Democrats, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, said that they had been working for months to draft legislation in response to the anticipated decision. One possibility would be to ban political advertising by corporations that hire lobbyists, receive government money, or collect most of their revenue abroad.
Another would be to tighten rules against coordination between campaigns and outside groups so that, for example, they could not hire the same advertising firms or consultants.
A third would be to require shareholder approval of political expenditures, or even to force chief executives to appear as sponsors of commercials their companies pay for.
The two sponsors of the 2002 law tightening the party-fundraising rules each criticized the ruling.
Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, called it “a terrible mistake.” Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, said in a television interview on CNN that he was “disappointed.”
Fred Wertheimer, a longtime advocate of campaign finance laws, said the decision “wipes out a hundred years of history” during which American laws have sought to tamp down corporate power to influence elections.
They did it in Berlin, if we keep whacking away at it, then maybe it will come down whilst the politicians are still talking. The pundits can catch up with the rest of us after it's "PC" to do so.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-22 04:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-22 04:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-22 06:11 pm (UTC)I like it when a simple answer actually makes sense.
I like things that go BOOM! We can take down the wall. It will be fun.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-22 07:56 pm (UTC)As they noted in their email:
There is already a public financing bill, the Fair Elections Now Act, with significant, bipartisan support.2 Congress, which right now desperately needs to show that it's on the side of the voters instead of corporate interests, should rush to pass it.
Will you sign our petition urging Congress to make sure our democracy represents the people, not corporations? Clicking here will add your name to this critical petition:
http://pol.moveon.org/fairelectionsnow/o.pl?id=18673-17429075-DZHDAux&t=3
A link in their email went to this NY Times article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?sudsredirect=true
Some intriguing things said by a Republican lobbyist there:
In practice, major publicly held corporations like Microsoft or General Electric are unlikely to spend large sums money on campaign commercials, for fear of alienating investors, customers and other public officials.
Instead, wealthy individuals and companies might contribute to trade associations, groups like the Chamber of Commerce or the National Rifle Association, or other third parties that could run commercials.
Previously, Mr. Noble of Skadden Arps said, his firm had advised companies to be wary about giving money to groups that might run so-called advocacy commercials, because such activity could trigger disclosure requirements that would identify the corporate financers.
“It could be traced back to you,” he said. “That is no longer a concern.”
Some disclosure rules remain intact. An outside group paying for a campaign commercial would still have to include a statement and file forms taking responsibility. If an organization solicits money specifically to pay for such political activities, it could fall under regulations that require disclosure of its donors.
And the disclosure requirements would moderate the harshness of the third-party advertisements, because established trade associations or other groups are too concerned with their reputations to wage the contentious campaigns that ad hoc groups like MoveOn.org or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth might do.
Two leading Democrats, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, said that they had been working for months to draft legislation in response to the anticipated decision.
One possibility would be to ban political advertising by corporations that hire lobbyists, receive government money, or collect most of their revenue abroad.
Another would be to tighten rules against coordination between campaigns and outside groups so that, for example, they could not hire the same advertising firms or consultants.
A third would be to require shareholder approval of political expenditures, or even to force chief executives to appear as sponsors of commercials their companies pay for.
The two sponsors of the 2002 law tightening the party-fundraising rules each criticized the ruling.
Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, called it “a terrible mistake.” Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, said in a television interview on CNN that he was “disappointed.”
Fred Wertheimer, a longtime advocate of campaign finance laws, said the decision “wipes out a hundred years of history” during which American laws have sought to tamp down corporate power to influence elections.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-22 09:05 pm (UTC)