GOP, please don’t let Denny Hastert resign!

I got a local conservative talk show fired up and changed the whole tone of the call by making the following statement. "As a progressive I don’t want Denny Hastert to resign. (the host responded "really") No I don’t! A man who exploded the deficit, passed record spending, expanded government, passed CAFTA and No Child Left Behind, and now covered up a pedophile. Why would I want this guy to resign? I would rather run against him and ask America is this the guy you want running your government? Please conservatives keep your incompetent boggy man! I demand he announce he will not resign after the 2006 elections. LOL"

I got hung up on at that point. But the flustered host said "this is what we can expect from our leaders who have failed us". Before this the host was attacking Democrats bring up 26 year old scandals like Rep. Gary Studds. The most interesting things though was the change in the tones of the calls. Before I called they all were attacking Democrats as hypocrites. After the call they all started to sound worried. They started to wonder aloud if keeping a tarnished leader was good for the party. One guy picked up on my "demand he announce he won’t resign after the election" and asked what would happen if he is running congress after 2006?

I want Progressives, Liberals, and Democrats to take note, by attacking the nagging worry of Conservatives rather then engaging them head on you demoralize them. Attacking the GOP head on "cross fire style" doesn’t show your tough (note to Sunday morning talk show host), it in fact raises the partisan blood of Conservatives. Conservatives are "us verses them" people, tribal attacks aren’t effective. Making fun of them is. Conservatives especially the working class White men have a "Bill O’Reilly faux (fox) tough guy" image of themselves. Ridiculing them sends them in a tizzy. Notice that Keith Oberman ridicule of Bill drives him into crazy rages? I would submit that Democrats should joke around about how they hope the GOP keeps Denny Hastert. Play a little rope-a-dope. Don’t take it to far outrage still needs to be expressed. Make sure it’s done jokingly too or it will seem like "playing politics" but ridicule them. GOP needs to think of themselves as the strong party. Encouraging them to keep a week leader attacks their inner worries.

Gameplan: HOW to move the USA to Universal Healthcare

One of the areas modern Liberals and Progressives seem to be lacking in, is what I will call Game Planning. Almost all Liberals and the vast majority of Democrats back Universal Healthcare, but since 1993 we haven’t had a Gameplan on how to get there. I decided to pick the issue of Healthcare to illustrate Gameplanning for two reasons: one it’s a core Democratic issue and goal, and secondly it’s an issue where Democrats have show surprisingly little movement in addressing recently.

To illustrate how game planning works first lets look at the three methods of advancing policy. The first is sweeping change, FDR with Social Security, Johnson with Medicare/Medicaid, or Regan with Tax Reform. Unfortunately this type of reform requires not just for the public to view the situation as a crisis, but for them to see the issue as a personal crisis. This is why Clinton Healthcare reform failed, it’s also why Bush Social Security privatization scheme failed. People view both issues as in crisis but a MAJORITY of Americans haven’t personally been SEVERELY affected by the underlying issue.

The second approach is what I will call "incrementilism". This is the world of Centrist and Moderates. This approach attempt to pass small symbolic laws in the hopes it galvanizes the public to address the larger issue. In the wake of the fore mentioned of Clinton’s Healthcare and Bushes Social Security scheme a number of Blue Ribbon committees and small legal changes were enacted. Unfortunately most of these seem more intended to pacify the base, as if in order to say " look at me base voter, I still am working on the issue".

But the third method is what I will call Gameplanning. It involves advocating the passage of a number of "independent" bills. Each of these bills are capable of standing on it’s own merits. Each law unlike in incrementilism is actually hailed as "landmark" legislation by the public at large. None individually would rise to the level of a "major" overhaul, but if all are passed they would cement concrete change.

Conservatives have been attempting this strategy on public education. Pushing home schooling laws, vouchers, public "assistance" to religious schools, all laws pushed on their individual merits, but which are tied to there greater goal of dismantling the public education structure as we know it. Modern conservatism sees the government as a means to redistribute wealth from the public sphere to the corporate sphere. Conservative see the government as a funding source that can compel the raising of tax revenue which would then be paid to private companies. With this as their endgame we can better their strategy on Halliburton running Iraq, outsourcing IRS tax collections, to privatizing Public Education.

So how would Liberal Gameplanning work? The closest modern example was the "Reform Ohio Ballet Initiative" that attempted to change the way government worked in Ohio (redistricting reform, election monitoring reform) by passing four ballet initiatives. But by attempting to pass the four laws simultaneously it allowed opponent of the initiative to gang up together to defeat them. Arnold recently learned the folly of this strategy in California. Dividing Clinton’s Health care law into four bills would have resulted in a similar defeat. Allowing stakeholders of a system who oppose "reform" but who by themselves constitute a minority to unite in a coalition always spells defeat. They way to push reform is to isolate recalcitrant groups.

So again how would liberal Gameplanning work on Health care? This is how I would promote it.

1) Instead of pushing for the Federal Government to negotiate Federal Medicare drug prices under the new law, push for allowing individual states to negotiate for Medicare recipients in their respective states.

This would defuse the "Socialized Medicine scare crowd", because the counter argument "let’s trust local governments to solve their problems" resonates with a broad swath of the American public. Instead of a large single payer/negotiator that Americans see as lurking bureaucracy, 50 smaller more responsive payers would emerge. Offering states the right to "opt in" or chose whether they want to negotiate on behalf of their Medicare patients would be a "killer application" galvanizing voters in the States to vote in local pro-negotiation progressives. Allowing States to pool their Medicaid, state workers, and Medicare recipients would create a large enough negotiation body to hold down medical cost.

2) A Fannie May Style ( HFA) Re-insurer for Health Care

FHA mortgages allow millions of people to obtain home loans by having Fannie-May (a government-sponsored enterprise) buy mortgages from banks and repackaging them as bonds. I propose four government sponsored re-insurer that buy private health-insurance policies and repackages them as tax free-bonds ( limit the four combined to 50% of the market). Corporations get lower cost for their employees by spreading risk over large groups. Government re-insurers would allow individual policies to be written at low cost by combining them and spreading the risk. By having this done by a GSE you deflect critics who say this is a "government take over". Private insurers stay in business, and would support this just like bank’s support Fannie-May. Currently half of all mortgages are HFA’s, and 80% of all student loans are Sally-May’ People are comfortable with this system and wont react to them as they would a single-payer system. This allows the uninsured to buy private insurance at the same rate as large companies.
Millions of the uninsured who currently can’t afford private insurance would be able to do so. This would allow us to market a communal approach to Healthcare are a free market one. It would force Republicans who attack this program to answer the question ""Are you also against Fannie-May?" Not reinventing the wheel is always a wise political strategy.

3) Saving money through mandating an organ donation marker on all Health Care Cards.

A low cost means of saving Health Care money would be to implement a "Willing to be an Organ Donor " form and a corresponding organ donor marker on all Health Care Cards. According to research conducted by Mark Schnitzler, Ph.D., assistant professor of health administration at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and his colleague, Arthur Matas, M.D. "For the recipient of a living, unrelated donor kidney transplant, the estimated medical expense for 20 years following transplant is $277,600. The expected medical cost for a dialysis patient for that long is $372,179. The difference is $94,579. "
Using Dr. Schnitzler’s numbers, for every one additional increase in the supply of a kidney donor United Sates Health Care providers could save $94,579.00. Because one expiring patient can potential donate several organs, the real world cost savings for each additional donor would be much higher.

In order to capture these cost saving I propose the following course of action
At the time of a new signing or yearly renewal of all Health Care Policies they should include a "Request to be an organ donor form". The filling out of the form would be mandatory. The decision of weather or not to be an organ donor would of course be left to our customers themselves. The form would merely be prompting them to think about becoming an organ donor.

A small inconspicuous sticker or marking could be added to all Health Care Cards. This would signify that the patient is a potential organ donor. The cost to place this marking on all cards would be negligible. By increasing the number of willing donors the potential health care saving would be enormous. Shortening the time our customers who are awaiting donation are on the list would decrease costs for our company and our customers.

Publicizes this decision to all pertinent national organ donor association. This would shine a positive light on the program beyond the cost benefits to the company. I would also advise doing community out reach to religious groups who are opposed to their members receiving organ donation ( many Orthodox Jews are opposed to donation on religious grounds) in order to properly word the donation forms correctly. By co-opting them into the process it would elevate any fears or misconceptions.

Keep all donor information in a company database for any customers who feel uncomfortable with a visible marker on their card. I would attempt to co-opt privacy experts in this area to alleviate concerns by the public on a company keeping records of any organ donors.

Every movement needs a "common" sense feel good bill. This would be an example of one these common sense approaches. Millions of Americans are faced with the donation crisis, winning the support of this group with a low cost method would pay huge dividends. The fact that this group cuts across all racial, regional, ethnic, income, and religious groups makes it a huge winner.

Gameplanning in this way would be they way I would advice progressives to "sell" Universal Health Care. Each bill can stand on it’s own, but they all fit a larger narrative and policy goal. If they all passed they would constitute a serious reform of Healthcare, and bring us closer to the day all American have access to Healthcare. They also constitute a realistic chance of passing in our current political environment unlike Single Payer Health care which I am afraid doesn’t have the support of a majority of American at this time.

Black Incomes Surpass Whites in Queens
The NYT has a story which is an example of success for America, that is also a success story for a Liberal Black, Democratic, Immigrant heavy area.

In Queens, the median income among black households, nearing $52,000 a year, has surpassed that of whites in 2005, an analysis of new census data shows. No other county in the country with a population over 65,000 can make that claim. The gains among blacks in Queens, the city’s quintessential middle-class borough, were driven largely by the growth of two-parent families and the successes of immigrants from the West Indies.

But Queens is unique not only because it is home to about two million people, but also because both blacks and whites there make more than the national median income, about $46,000.

As the son of Jamaican immigrants I have long been advocating that immigration advocates stop focusing JUST on Hispanics when arguing about immigration. NOT ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE LATINOS.
Being Black I have also long argued that Liberal Black Leaders need to campaign around the success stories of Black liberals not just the problems we still face. The GOP has started to spin a powerful narrative that "Blacks need to fire their current leadership, because they have nothing to for their votes." I think we as Democrats do ourselves a disservice when we don’t highlight success stories such as Queens.

"Southeast Queens, especially, had a heavy influx of West Indian folks in the late 80’s and early 90’s," said Mr. Veron, who, like his 31-year-old wife, was born on the island of Jamaica. "Those individuals came here to pursue an opportunity, and part of that opportunity was an education," he said. "A large percentage are college graduates. We’re now maturing and reaching the peak of our earning capacity."
Richard P. Nathan, co-director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, called Queens "the flip side of the underclass."
"It really is the best illustration that the stereotype of blacks living in dangerous, concentrated, poor, slum, urban neighborhoods is misleading and doesn’t predominate," he said.
Andrew A. Beverage, a Queens College demographer who analyzed results of the Census Bureau’s 2005 American Community Survey, released in August, for The New York Times, said of the trend: "It started in the early 1990’s, and now it’s consolidated. They’re married-couple families living the American dream in southeast Queens."
In 1994, an analysis for The Times found that in some categories, the median income of black households in Queens was slightly higher than that of whites — a milestone in itself. By 2000, whites had pulled slightly ahead. But blacks have since rebounded.
The only other places where black household income is higher than among whites are much smaller than Queens, like Mount Vernon in Westchester, Pembroke Pines, Fla.; Brockton, Mass.; and Rialto, Calif. Most of the others also have relatively few blacks or are poor.
But Queens is unique not only because it is home to about two million people, but also because both blacks and whites there make more than the national median income, about $46,000.

I emphasized this last point because the George Allen Conservatives could try and paint the success of Queens as an example of Blacks getting ahead at the "expense" of Whites. But when both groups make more then the National average this type of assault rings hollow! I also want to emphasize that Queens especially Black Queens is overwhelmingly Liberal and Democratic. This helps to defuse the tired GOP mantra that people and groups become more conservative as they become wealthier.
There are areas of concern with this story for "immigrant bashers".

Despite the economic progress among blacks in Queens, income gaps still endure within the borough’s black community, where immigrants, mostly from the Caribbean, are generally doing better than American-born blacks.
…………
Immigrants helped propel the gains among blacks. The median income of foreign-born black households was $61,151, compared with $45,864 for American-born blacks. The disparity was even more pronounced among black married couples.
The median for married black immigrants was $84,338, nearly as much as for native-born white couples. For married American-born blacks, it was $70,324.

But I think the overall success story of Queens needs to become part of the Democratic narrative. The right type of Liberal Black leadership can and does work. Also Immigration doesn’t threaten Black neighborhoods in fact it can strengthen them. When the GOP ask people why Blacks still vote Democratic citing places like Detroit, Democrats should retort because of places like Queens, Prince George County Maryland ect. Yes we still need to acknowledge the serious work to be done for too many Black living in poverty in America, but we also need to celebrate out successes!