Southern Povery Law Firm: Troubling Uptick In Militia Activity

There was a time that militias were necessary for the defense of our young country. Most of the militia activity in recent history threatens the national welfare and what we believe is soul of our country: equal rights under the constitution, for all Americans and legal residents of the nation among other truly moral issues. 

Equally troubling, is the racist tint of the current movement, ironically called the "patriot movement," caused, it is believed, by the election of a black president.  After what the heroes of the civil rights movement of the late '50s and 60s, both black and white, went through to try to guarantee simple human rights and civil rights under our constitution, such as the right to vote, this development is nothing less that nauseatingly frightening!

To those of us who were politically active in the civil rights movement this development causes feelings of anger and of being fed up with having to "fight" the same battles over and over again simply to fulfill the promises of the founding of a nation based on freedom and basic human rights. 

Our country was founded on such high principles that even the founders themselves could not live up to its promise. Over the decades, we have struggled to live as they could not; more in the light of our founding ideas and principles. We have, at times, failed and have, at other times, succeeded. 

Still, it is apparent that we must continue the struggle to move beyond fear and hatred. Yes, the struggle continues to live according to the whispering of the better angels of our nature. It is not always easy but it is essential not only for the soul of our nation but for our own spiritual well-being as well.

We should never forget the lesson of WWII Germany. If we are not willing to stand for the basic human rights of our fellow citizens, for their freedom, as well as our own, we will have only ourselves to blame when our very lives are threatened by the fear and hatred of others. 

We are either all free and are guaranteed the same civil rights or we are not. 

The Southern Poverty Law Firm has stood for freedom from intimidation, and worse, for many years now and they deserve our support in whatever form we can offer it.

	The Militia Movement The Second Wave The return of the militias and the larger anti-government 'Patriot' movement Nativists to 'Patriots' Nativist vigilantes increasingly adopting the ideas of the 'Patriot' movement Terror from the Right 75 plots, conspiracies and racist rampages since Oklahoma City Download the report (PDF) The 1990s saw the rise and fall of the virulently anti-government "Patriot" movement, made up of paramilitary militias, tax defiers and so-called "sovereign citizens." Sparked by a combination of anger at the federal government and the deaths of political dissenters at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, the movement took off in the middle of the decade and continued to grow even after 168 people were left dead by the 1995 bombing of Oklahoma City's federal building — an attack, the deadliest ever by domestic U.S. terrorists, carried out by men steeped in the rhetoric and conspiracy theories of the militias. In the years that followed, a truly remarkable number of criminal plots came out of the movement. But by early this century, the Patriots had largely faded, weakened by systematic prosecutions, aversion to growing violence, and a new, highly conservative president. They're back. Almost a decade after largely disappearing from public view, right-wing militias, ideologically driven tax defiers and sovereign citizens are appearing in large numbers around the country. "Paper terrorism" — the use of property liens and citizens' "courts" to harass enemies — is on the rise. And once-popular militia conspiracy theories are making the rounds again, this time accompanied by nativist theories about secret Mexican plans to "reconquer" the American Southwest. One law enforcement agency has found 50 new militia training groups — one of them made up of present and former police officers and soldiers.   Authorities around the country are reporting a worrying uptick in Patriot activities and propaganda. "This is the most significant growth we've seen in 10 to 12 years," says one. "All it's lacking is a spark. I think it's only a matter of time before you see threats and violence." A key difference this time is that the federal government — the entity that almost the entire radical right views as its primary enemy — is headed by a black man. That, coupled with high levels of non-white immigration and a decline in the percentage of whites overall in America, has helped to racialize the Patriot movement, which in the past was not primarily motivated by race hate. One result has been a remarkable rash of domestic terror incidents since the presidential campaign, most of them related to anger over the election of Barack Obama. At the same time, ostensibly mainstream politicians and media pundits have helped to spread Patriot and related propaganda, from conspiracy theories about a secret network of U.S. concentration camps to wholly unsubstantiated claims about the president's country of birth. Fifteen years ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote then-Attorney General Janet Reno to warn about extremists in the militia movement, saying that the "mixture of armed groups and those who hate" was "a recipe for disaster." Just six months later, Oklahoma City's federal building was bombed. Today, the Patriot movement may not have the white-hot fury that it did in the 1990s. But the movement clearly is growing again, and Americans, in particular law enforcement officers, need to take the dangers it presents seriously. That is equally true for the politicians, pundits and preachers who, through pandering or ignorance, abet the growth of a movement marked by a proven predilection for violence.   Page:  1   2   3

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Fusion Center Freak Out:

This is the the first I've heard of them; these fusion centers. 

Any Pelican independents out there who have heard anything about this? Anyone else? 

If so, give out a shout to pelican693@gmail.Tell us what you've heard and what you think.

ACLU Uneasy With Big Brother's National Listening Party

Submitted by meg on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 2:47pm. Analysis

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

Mike German is not surprised you haven't heard of fusion centers.

German was an FBI agent until 2004 and is currently a national security policy advisor for the American Civil Liberties Union, yet he "had never heard of a fusion center" until 2007. He said the reason that he started investigating these intelligence centers for the ACLU was because he saw hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars going to support law enforcement activities that he couldn't define.

German said part of the problem is that "no two fusion centers are alike," making it hard to even talk about them. Even determining "whether something is a fusion center or not is iffy."

So what are they?

A fusion center is part of a network linking at least 800,000 federal, state, municipal and private security and law enforcement professionals who gather information about Americans in order to combat terrorism. Maybe one such person will stop and ask you why you're taking a picture of those power lines, or show up incognito to your religious meeting or anti-war demonstration. They might look at your credit report or your phone records. There are at least 58 centers, though some estimate there are as many as 70. They could be in a back room at your local police department, housed within a National Guard office or in a nondescript building down the street.

Do I sound paranoid?

Well, though German told me these centers "developed really quietly" in the years following 9/11, they are not a secret. The Department of Homeland Security has a brief and vague description of the centers on their Web site, notably putting the emphasis on "state and local." The department also recently issued a report detailing privacy threats posed by the centers. And all the examples of the instances related above have been documented in the media or by the ACLU.

German worked on an ACLU report about fusion centers published in December 2007. In the months that followed, news reports about the abuses the ACLU report anticipated started popping up around the country, so German compiled an update to the report in July 2008. With this week's news of the report leaked from a Virginia fusion center that warned of traditionally black colleges and peaceful religious and social change groups being potential hotbeds of terrorist activity, German said they're thinking about compiling another report.

The original idea of a fusion center network came out of the turf war over intelligence sharing after 9/11. Local law enforcement officials weren't getting security information from the Feds, so states set up these centers to gather and share information. In turn, the Department of Homeland Security was more than happy to have extra hands on the counterterrorism case.

There's no mission statement or clear set of guidelines for these centers, but in many cases they were envisioned as a repository for suspicious activity reports. If you've ever heeded those signs in public places to "say something" "if you see something," the information you gave out probably went to a fusion center.

Then came the "mission creep." Each center existed in a local area, each with its own individual problems. Some centers began to focus on border patrol; others volunteered themselves for the drug war. And then there's the inherent flexibility in the term "suspicious activity."

If these were merely call centers for concerned citizens to report to, German said he would have no problem with that. In fact, it's not the fusion centers themselves that are the real issue, but rather the sometimes illegal and unconstitutional activities that occur in clear violation of federal privacy statutes within and around the centers.

Supporters of third party presidential candidates such as Bob Barr and Ron Paul have been targeted for surveillance by these centers for no other reason than their political ideology. Mainstream ecological groups such as the Sierra Club and the Humane Society are being watched as eco-terrorists. One North Central Texas center alleged a terrorist conspiracy between a disparate group of hip-hop musicians, Muslim civil rights organizations, lobbyists, anti-war demonstrators, the U.S. Treasury Department and former Congresswoman and presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney.

(The above would be laughable, if it weren't so scary. Seriously; my mom volunteers for the Humane Society. On second thought, if there are any fusion center employees reading this, leave my poor mother alone! I swear she's not a radical!)

Amen. It's more than scary, it is terrorizing, and I thought that's what we are trying to avoid. If one finds oneself terrorized, does it matter, really, whether the threat is coming from our own government or from without.

The ACLU is calling for lawmakers at all levels to institute guidelines and oversight for these centers. They are also calling on the Department of Homeland Security to investigate the abuses that have been documented.
While there have been a handful of congressional hearings on fusion centers as well as local efforts to ensure the centers comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, specific instances of abuse have been largely glossed over by the government and ignored by the media.

"Where there are instances of abuse, there has been very little investigation," German said, specifically noting a case in Los Angeles where a few fusion center officials were court-martialed for stealing classified information, but the local law enforcement officers who were involved in the theft were never charged. 

"We are working with the executive branch to draw guidelines, and there is some progress there," German said.  He emphasized a "multifaceted" approach with state and local legislation plugging the time gap before federal action is taken.

This comprehensive approach mirrors the networking of many levels of jurisdiction at fusion centers themselves. German said the fact that these centers are considered neither national nor local allows them to "water down all the protections to the least common denominator." In states with strong privacy laws, fusion centers abide by less restrictive federal laws; in states with lax protections, the centers use local regulations.
Public-private collusion also allows fusion centers to skirt privacy laws. Law enforcement doesn't have the legal right to collect and store certain personal information because of its ties to government. Instead, fusion centers pay private companies, which own extensive stores of information about Americans' consumer and intellectual habits, to create and maintain searchable databases for the center's benefit.

"They have created this symbiotic relationship," German said. "If you combine [federal information gathering with private efforts], it is very dangerous to the individual." German said the privatization problem at fusion centers is not acknowledged as an issue by officials.

"This is one area that is being ignored by the federal government," German said.

It would be one thing if these fusion centers worked, but from all the intelligence reports German has seen, he's concluded that they haven't done anything to contribute to the country's security. On the contrary, German says they're becoming an obstacle to safety due to the public uproar over privacy violations.

"Law enforcement authorities are having to respond to the criticism rather than focus on security," German said.

Besides the distraction and lack of results, the basic math behind fusion centers may be flawed. The primary weapon at these centers is a method of sifting through information received from all these different sources that is called "data mining." The practice is very common among direct mail marketers and other small-scale commercial operations, but the ACLU report cites several independent studies showing that data mining is not at all a useful technique for the counterterrorism community. Instead, the ACLU found that data mining would only drain resources and implicate innocent citizens in imaginary plots.

OK, let's recap: We have local centers in almost every state in the country that engage in illegal and unconstitutional activities, cost hundreds of billions of dollars and that do not actually work to combat terrorism. The impetus for these centers may have been understandable at the time, but why are they still around?

German said the federal intelligence agencies are more than happy to have these local nodes to gather security information for them, saying it's like having 800,000 extra agents working for them. But Congress may have its own reasons for resisting a call to shut these places down.

"Fear is still driving a lot of our security policies," German said. He noted political pressure against reducing funds or projects combating terrorism is strong. Many expected the Democratic Congress to limit programs such as warrantless wiretapping, but instead "they've been expanded."

"To narrow any program [related to national security] is extremely difficult," German said.

Meanwhile the right wing of the blogosphere, already itchy from myths about "Obama's enemies list" and the expansion of Americorps into liberal "re-education camps," has broken out in a rash of paranoia over these fusion centers.

Where was all their concern when Bush and Cheney were calling the shots?  I remember right-wingers calling the guy, who blew the old whistle on the illegal domestic spying, as well as the NYT, traitors. Some even suggested the death penalty. Now, they are concerned. Did they learn nothing from what happened in Germany? When you fail to come to the aid of others, no one will be around to come to your aid when it comes to civil/human rights.

German said the ACLU is working with the executive branch to rein these centers in. But after years of operating in secrecy under the Bush Administration, I hardly think a set of guidelines is going to make the renegades at some of the more troubling centers behave. The best move President Obama could make -- from a security, civil rights, budgetary and public relations standpoint -- is to close these homegrown spy centers immediately. 

So, let me get this straight? This system of fusion centers are mostly spying for every reason on earth rather than terrorism, without which there would be no fusion centers....at least I hope not? Do I understand correctly that these centers are being manned by volunteers, many of whom may or may not know shit from shinola about what might be important or not, let alone how to connect dots? I mean, my god, look who they find worthy of being a target; maybe they are eco-terrorist....or Al Qaeda sympathizers. How does anyone come to the conclusion that peace activists are pro-Al Qaeda.? Not real ones. We are not any more in favor of one kind of terrorism than another. War is terror. too 

Anyone having any role in the events of 9/11 or the anthrax attacks should burn in the deepest recesses of hell, as far as I am concerned. 

Does anyone, think that shock and awe was any less terrifying for the people of Iraq than 9/11 was to the people of NYC and America? Even more so the anthrax attacks; anthrax was killing and attacking randomly, with the exception of the highly weaponized anthrax attacks on the Congress. Both targets were Democrats.

It wasn't neccesary. It was a war of aggression which is against just about every international treaty unto which we have signed. 

Bob Barr? I'm not crazy about the guy, but is he a threat to national security? I can't buy that one no matter how high the paranoia level gets. Ron Paul? Oh, puleeze. 

I'm not paying for this totally bizzare network of goofball "security" paranoids?  So, there's another reason for tax resistance to a terror run state, which, in few ways, resembles the America in which I was taught to believe, before they stopped teaching civics in school. 

Me thinks this came out of Adm.. Poindexter's Total Awareness Program, before it was supposedly scrapped. Did anyone really believe the unconstitutional program had really been scrapped? Of course not, it just morphed into the NSA domestic spying thingy (also data mining of all kinds of information belonging to the people of the USA) and, now, we hear about these fusion centers, encouraging anyone who sees something "suspicious," ( the meaning of which in no way clearly defined in national or state guidelenes, neither of which  serves any real practical purpose as a counterterrorism tool, at least not as it is being done.

My advice, for what it's worth to our readers; don't back down. Continue to speak the truth as you understand it, on you web site or blog and on others you visit. Do not be intimidated. 

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said that the pen is more powerful than the sword? Could be wrong about who said it, but I'm sure it was one of our founder guys. 

Time to take a stand...."and we won't back down."....

Let The Sun Shine In......

All 41 Senate Republicans Seek Veto Power Over Obama's Federal Judicial Appointments.

Republicans are the worst hypocrites in the world, bar none. Who cares what they think, by this time.

Stop the Obstruction; End the Filibuster.

Submitted by meg on Tue, 03/03/2009 - 1:31pm. Alerts

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
by Meg White

A letter signed by all 41 Senate Republicans was sent to the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy yesterday in which the GOP demanded inclusion in, and ultimately veto power over, the confirmation of the president's judicial nominees.

The demand was a sharp turn-around for Republicans, who had for the past eight years been calling for the swift confirmation of then-President George W. Bush's appointees.

The letter is couched in historical language, which notes that "our Democratic colleagues have emphasized [senate involvement in appointments] for several years" and "the principle of senatorial consultation (or senatorial courtesy) is rooted in this special responsibility, and its application dates to the Administration of George Washington." But the GOP's request for veto power of nominees before the judiciary even debates a particular appointment is far from the norm.

The letter gives lip service to themes of bipartisanship, saying they "look forward to working with" the president and that "the judicial appointments process has become needlessly acrimonious." However, what they demand is nothing short of minority control. The letter states that if Republicans "are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states" they will "not support moving forward," presumably threatening a filibuster.

(They are the ones who introduced the "Nuclear option, if they didn't get their way on Supresme court justices. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say.)

The phrase "senatorial courtesy" may sound better than "threat of filibuster," but as Politico points out, "the letter is an opening salvo in what could be a partisan battle in the Obama years." The public perception of the use of filibusters is perhaps reflected in this language of bipartisanship that insists upon senatorial courtesy "regardless of party affiliation." The letter emphasizes the idea of working together, when the true intent is more threat than peace offering.

(The Goopers are so full of it, it's hard to believe.)

The GOP's determination to oppose Obama's judicial appointments became clear a little more than a week after the 44th president was elected. As we reported back in November, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) pledged to get his colleagues on-board an aggressive filibuster campaign against what he termed "radical leftist" nominees he feared would come out of this new White House.

Yet, back in 2005, Kyl was firmly on the opposite side of this argument:

"This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people."

(This should be read back on the senate floor along with all the other blabber about nuclear options and such.)

In fact, the recent past offers many instances in which conservatives attempted to shame Democrats into abandoning filibuster rights in judicial appointments. The "senatorial consultation" referred to in the letter, also known as the "advice and consent" clause in the Constitution, was argued by supporters of Bush to mean that the Senate's role was to confirm or deny appointees, not offer advice. For a comprehensive run-down on the hypocrisy of GOP lawmakers and activists regarding this argument, see this blog entry at Right Wing Watch.

It appears White House Counsel Gregory Craig has begun his outreach to Republicans in the Senate over judicial appointees, but it is unclear whether the plan outlined in the GOP Conference letter will affect the nomination process.

Josh Glasstetter, communications manager for People For the American Way, told BuzzFlash that the White House has been in contact with his organization over this issue, but that he didn't think they'd want to go on the record about the letter.

"I don't think they're taking this very seriously, but it could certainly be a problem," he said.

Further, the striking of a bipartisan pose when it comes to the American judicial system is a new idea for Republicans. As Michael Greco, past president of the American Bar Association, and Patricia Wald, a former chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, pointed out in an October 2008 op-ed:

The Bush presidency has produced a right-wing judicial imbalance... Barack Obama has a different view of the role of judges from that of Bush and McCain. Obama, a Constitutional scholar, would likely appoint judges who respect the Constitution as he does -- particularly its core values of liberty and equality. Unlike Bush -- who dangerously has used "presidential signing statements" to decline to enforce new laws he does not like, thereby unconstitutionally usurping power from both Congress and courts -- Obama would ensure that courts safeguard the freedom of all citizens, independent from political influence of the executive branch and Congress.

A request for a comment from Leahy's office was not returned by press time. However, he released this statement in 2004 addressing Republican complaints over Democrats' supposed unwillingness to confirm controversial Bush appointees:

To put it charitably, these crocodile tears about judicial nominations are a tad disingenuous.

Let's review the record.

The earlier Democratic-led Senate confirmed more Bush judicial nominees than the Republican-led Senate has. In all, Democrats have joined in confirming 173 Bush judicial nominees -- 100 of them during the Democratic-led Senate.

So 173 have been confirmed. Six controversial nominees have been blocked. Two of them have been unilaterally appointed by the President during Senate recesses. One has withdrawn to rejoin a lucrative job with a law firm. That leaves three who have been blocked. One-hundred-seventy-three confirmed, to three blocked. Compare that to the more than 60 Clinton judicial nominees who Republicans blocked from even getting hearings, let alone votes.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

Christine Bowman contributed to this report.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Time to Step Up

We should not talk ourselves into a Depression, but in a time when factories are shutting down because consumers won’t buy their goods because people aren’t sure they’ll have a job in six months and the banks are pulling back on lines of credit, the government must be prepared to step up as the employer and lender of last resort. And those of us who still have jobs should be prepared to step up and support programs to put jobless Americans back to work, fixing streets and bridges and investing in other public works, if necessary, to get the economy moving again.

President Obama stepped up Feb. 24 in his speech to Congress. “What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more,” Obama said. “[A] day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here. Now is the time to act boldly and wisely—to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity.”

He outlined ambitious proposals to develop renewable energy resources to free the United States from dependence on foreign oil, to give working-class families a shot at higher education for their kids once again and to make health care available to everybody. We’ll use government to get us out of the current economic slump by proceeding with progressive initiatives.

Republicans, on the other hand, are still complaining that Herbert Hoover didn’t get a second term.

Obama has said he wants to cut the annual deficit in half by the end of his current term. He would achieve the reduction in part through withdrawal of troops from Iraq and restoring higher taxes on the wealthy.

But he should not let the conservative mantra of “pay as you go” overwhelm the need to stimulate the economy and put people back to work.

Obama inherited a deficit for 2009 of about $1.2 trillion, and his stimulus package probably will push it over $1.5 trillion, or about 10% of the nation’s gross domestic product. That would be the biggest deficit as a percentage of GDP since World War II, but it is still considered manageable. He hopes to cut the deficit to $533 billion by 2013, or about 3% of the gross domestic product, which is considered a sustainable level.

The Heritage Foundation noted last year, when it was still defending the Bush record, that the public debt as a percentage of GDP was 38%, which was below the 49% average from 1940-2008. (The Heritage Foundation figures do not include funds borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund or other federal government accounts.) The national debt (including all federal accounts) peaked at 110% of GDP in 1947 and got as low as 32.6% in 1981 before the Reagan and Bush I administrations doubled the debt to 66.2% of GDP in 1993, according to the White House budget office. Bill Clinton got the national debt down to 57.4% of GDP in 2001 before George W. Bush turned things around again with his combination of foreign invasions and tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush pushed the national debt to $10.4 trillion, 69.3% of the GDP.

Obama proposes to let Bush’s tax cuts for the rich lapse after 2010. He also would tax income from hedge funds and private equity partners at ordinary income tax rates, which are as high as 35% for people making $250,000 or more and will return to 39.6% in 2011. Now the hedge fund managers are taxed at the capital gains rate, which is 15% and will increase to 20% in 2011.

Obama noted that the $787 billion stimulus plan provides tax cuts for 95% of working families. Republicans voted against those tax cuts.

If conservatives want to balance the budget, Congress should restore the tax rates for the rich this year, but it also should restore the maximum tax rates to the pre-Reagan levels of 70% for top incomes of $1 million or more. The government needs the money and millionaires are the best able to part with it. After all, they are the ones who profited during the Bush years.

Congress also should adopt a tax of 0.25% on stock transactions, similar to a tax that has been in effect in the United Kingdom for decades. Such a tax could raise $150 billion a year, which would help pay for the bailout of Wall Street. Economist Dean Baker also has proposed a tax of 0.02% on the purchase or sale of futures contracts, which would discourage short-term speculation.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has a good proposal for a 10% surtax on the income of individuals above $500,000 a year, or $1 million for couples. That would raise more than $300 billion in revenue.

Congress also should reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act and re-regulate the financial markets and the Obama administration should enforce anti-trust laws to protect small businesses.

Obama apparently is backing off on plans to “fix” Social Security, which is fine by us. The Village Idiots in D.C. have been calling for reductions in benefits or raising the retirement age as they seek to undermine support for the retirement program. The Social Security Trustees have projected that the system is funded at least through 2041. If any adjustments are needed, they can be accomplished by lifting the cap on taxable income, which is $106,800 in 2009.

(The elderly and the disabled should not be penalized for the greed of the Wall Street greed gang or the corruption of the Bush administration)

Obama has signaled that he plans to go ahead with health care reform and is calling for Congress to make coverage universal.

Medicare is under financial pressure because of the soaring costs of health care, but broadening Medicare to cover all Americans could restore stability to the program. After all, Medicare already covers the most expensive patients—those aged 65 and older—and many of the 47 million uninsured Americans are younger and relatively healthy.

There is popular support for universal health coverage. Even a Fox News poll conducted Feb. 17-18 found that 66% said the federal government has a responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care. Unfortunately, Obama and Democratic congressional leaders appear to be focused on making private health insurance more affordable, along the lines of the Massachusetts model that mandates private insurance coverage. However, for advocates of a workable single-payer plan, there is still HR 676, the US National Health Care Act, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), which would expand and improve Medicare into a single-payer health plan that covers every American. The Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Healthcare (guaranteedhealthcare4all.org) is leading the effort to get Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Finance Committee, to open the health reform hearings to consider a single-payer solution.

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee has reported that expanding and upgrading Medicare to cover all Americans would create 2.6 million new jobs, infuse $317 billion in new business and public revenues and inject another $100 billion in wages into the US economy.

The economic recovery bill allocates $2 billion for community health centers. It also sets aside $300 million to provide incentive for physicians and dentists to practice in under-served communities and $200 million for other health-care professionals involved in primary health care. The bill includes $19 billion to develop a system of electronic health records and another $1.1 billion for research on which treatments work best for a particular disease. The measure allots $1 billion for a “prevention and wellness fund,” including $300 million for immunizations.

Now it’s time for Congress to show it is looking out for the general population instead of the insurance companies who are lobbying to keep their grip on the health-care dollar. Contact your House member to get him or her to co-sponsor HR 676.

From The Progressive Populist, March 15, 2009

Let The Sun Shine In......