OlsonOnline

Worth reading --health care, Iran, charter schools

A medical hiatus starting tomorrow means this is my last post for awhile.  So read these, if you please, during my absence.

On health care:

• Dave Lindorrf writes that Obama's "unwillingness to lead" on the issue of single payer health care will lead to his "Health Reform Waterloo."

• Pierre Tristam claims that Obama "...plays into the rhetorical ambushes of reform's enemies..." when he says stuff like this to the American Medical Association:

"...there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe ... that it's important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth."

In other words, Obama himself conflates "single payer" with "government run health         care."  

• Meanwhile, a New York Times/CBS poll finds that most Americans "support" a "government-run health insurance option."  That means "single payer."

On Iran:

• Most discerning news readers know that the Khamenei -Mousavi stand-off in Iran does not herald the beginning of the overthrow of Iranian theocracy.  Mousavi was, after all, a principal player in the 1979 revolution that brought the mullahs to power. Phil Wilayto offers an economic -and class-- perspective to the conflict:

"Why is there so little discussion of the issue of class in this election? Is it because so many professional and semi-professional commentators on Iran are themselves from the same class as Mousavi's supporters, and so instinctively identify with them?"

What Wilayto means is that Ahmehdinijad appeals to poor Iranians, Mousavi to the wealthier and better educated.  He also points out that Mousavi is for more rapid privatization of the economy, which puts him in conflict with the Iranian Constitution.  It decrees that all "large scale industries", like oil and gas, should be owned by the state, which enables the government to "fund a vast social safety net" for the poor.

On charter schools:

• Another study shows that charters do worse than their traditional public school counterparts in raising the achievement of students.

• And Caroline Grannan, in a comment to my last charter school post, argues that charters, at least in California, serve a much smaller percentage of special needs students than traditional public schools.  And they often get more money per student than the publics.

That's it for now.

Health care on 'The Stump': It's single payer, stupid!

You've heard all the stories about how Medicare and Medicaid are on the ropes, that doctors refuse to see patients from Medicaid because its reimbursements are so paltry, that both programs are essentially being SUBSIDIZED by the private insurers because they spend far more money than they take in, and so on and on and on.

Bottom line, say the critics, is that government-funded health care, a public option or single payer, would give us more of the same --a massive government bureaucracy that would collapse under the weight of its obligations.

Pure and utter baloney. 

There are only two problems with the existing public health programs:

• They're underfunded.

• They serve the poor and the elderly, not the young and the healthy.

That will change --dramatically-- once the for-profit insurers are pushed aside by a far more efficient public entity --think Medicare with a 3% administrative overhead (and NO profits)--  where all Americans, the healthy and the frail, are in the same insurance pool.

How can the cost of health care not go down?  The for-profit health industry skims $350 billion off the top for its investors before any health care at all is delivered!

Dr. Peter Mahr, over at 'The Stump', asks:

"So what do we do with a health care non-system that is a big money maker for insurers, some hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry but leaves one in seven people lacking insurance and most with insurance that is too costly and inadequate? How do we repair a delivery system that is expensive, focuses on moneymaking services rather than primary and preventative care and has little emphasis on evidence-based medicine?"

The answer is simple and straightforward:  Single payer, stupid!

And a few days ago on 'The Stump', Stephen Gregg, a self-described "free marketer", called Medicare a "very sweet deal":

" ...the initial Medicare signals seem favorable, bordering on a breath of fresh air:

--Stable premium increases.
--Ubiquitous access to almost any provider in the country.
...

--Ability to switch carriers, no questions asked, once a year.
--So far, decent public-private customer service throughout.
--Very little uncertainty as to whether I am covered for all the possibilities.

"It's a challenge to argue that Medicare is an inferior alternative to a more responsive and dynamic private sector."

So there you have it.  Both 'Stump' posts, needless to say, brought out the anti-government critics.  But national polls indicate that single payer, or at the very least a public option, have the support of a majority of the American public.

Now its up to the the pols --and Obama-- to see it through.

The truth about taxes in Oregon

From Sunday's Oregonian:

"Oregon businesses will continue to enjoy one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation even after the Legislature voted last week to raise their taxes."

That doesn't matter to Republicans who call any business tax increase a "job killer."  Or to Democrats like Mark Hass who howled that the tax increases should be temporary.

Temporary?  That simply means that in short time, the regressive Oregon tax code would revert to this:

"...individuals now carry nearly two-thirds of the state and local tax burden."

It wasn't that long ago that the income tax, Oregon's primary revenue source, was split about evenly between businesses and individuals.

And remember this:  poor Oregonians pay a higher share of their income in total taxes than the richest Oregonians.  That's the very definition of a regressive tax code.

When the anti-taxers fume about an overhaul of Oregon's system of taxation, what they're really talking about is making the system even more regressive than it already is.  Tax reform to them means a sales tax --the most regressive of taxes-- and a cut in the income tax --the most progressive of taxes, especially if it's done right. 

The legislature's move to raise the marginal tax rate on couples making more than $250,000 was a step in the right direction, a step toward tax fairness. 

*************************************

The mantra of the anti-taxers, like Russ Walker's FreedomWorks Oregon, is this:

"Only by reducing taxes and regulations, and making Oregon a more business-friendly state can we achieve the goal of real economic growth, and real prosperity for Oregonians."

"Only by reducing taxes... ."  That worked well under Reagan and Dubya, right?  Well, maybe not so much.  Here's a comment from a recent Blue Oregon post on taxes in Oregon:

"Yes, cutting taxes always results in drops in unemployment. I mean, look at 1982, after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. The national unemployment fell from 7.6% to 9.7%.

"And look at 2002 after the Bush tax cuts of 2001, then the unemployment rate fell from 4.7% to 5.8%.

"All I can say is, God save us from any similar drops in unemployment."

It's nice to have those stats at your finger tips.  But then again, all you have to do is read the newspaper to realize how disastrous Republican tax and economic policies have been.

***********************************

And then there's the O's Susan Nielsen throwing fuel on the anti-tax fire that still burns hot in Oregon.  Here are some comments from her latest column:

"Democrats also are pushing their luck on taxes."

"They open Democrats to criticism that they're too eager to confiscate people's earnings. They also make the Democratic party (not to mention the state itself) less attractive to doctors, lawyers, potential business recruits and other professionals who are already worried about higher federal taxes -- and who get wet whenever anyone decides to 'soak the rich.' "

I probably don't need to remind you that Nielsen is on the editorial board of Oregon's largest daily newspaper.  Her Sunday column certainly found favor with the rabid right.

Just read the comments.

Dems versus Dems, redux

On Monday I wrote that the "real obstacles" to health care reform are corporate Democrats, not Republicans.

Chris Bowers agrees:

"Stop telling me how bad Republicans are--we don't need a single one to pass the public option. ...

"...until then, I really have grown sick of progressives telling me about the latest stupid thing that fell out of Limbaugh's mouth. He is not the problem right now. Democrats like Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, and Arlen Specter are. If the Democratic leadership is either unwilling or unable to pressure enough of those types of Democrats into passing the lowest bar of progressive governance, then it is time to redirect our activism into less partisan and /or less electoral directions."

Amen!

Maybe we should add Ron Wyden's name to the list of problem Dems on health care reform.

(Speaking of backsliding Dems, what's with Oregon State Senator Mark Hass*?  First he threatens to blow up the legislature's tax increase on corporations and wealthy individuals, then he backs down.  Constituent pressure?  Party pressure???) 

*(Is Hass the new Senator from Nike?  His opposition to the "permanent" tax increases echoes the postion taken by the old Senator from Nike, Ryan Deckert, now head of the Oregon Business Association.)

Why charter schools can NEVER be models for school reform

Let me be more specific. 

When I say "models for school reform," I mean the reform of American universal public education.  Although charter schools are technically "public" schools, they operate outside the system.  That means, unlike traditional public schools, they are under no obligation to serve all students.

And they don't.  Despite lotteries and laws that prohibit selective enrollment by charter schools, "creaming," as the skimming off of better students is called, is built into the charter school application process.  Even to enter a lottery, parents must take the time and effort to "apply."  They must show an interest in enrolling their child in an alternative to the assigned neighborhood school.  That in itself narrows the range of students likely to enroll in a charter school.

How likely is it that children with parents who don't give a damn will become charter school students?

In a comment to the PPS Equity post "Charters and PPS", Rose cites other hindrances:

"The lottery system itself automatically excludes large populations: poor families without fixed addresses ... foster kids, homeless families, parents who are ELL or illiterate, and of course all those who are too busy, overwhelmed, or not sophisticated enough to stay aware of mandatory meetings, deadlines, and application processes."

As does Ken:

"Considering the lack of transportation to charter schools, parents must either live within walking distance, drive their own children, or find a carpool. This is simply impossible for many families: single mothers, some working families, families without access to individual transportation methods (cars), etc. Expanding charter schools would almost necessarily leave these children behind... ."

Nationally, the problem of charter school "creaming" is more apparent.  Two parent school activists from the San Francisco Bay area have written that charter schools "exclude the most challenging students" (and here):

"Enrollment at all charter schools is, by law, entirely by request. No student is assigned to a charter school by default. That means 'self-selection' occurs at all of them, inherently, by definition.

"That is, parents who care about their kids' education enough to make the effort to learn about and request a school are the ones whose kids attend charter schools. Parents who don't have it together ... do not choose charter schools. Thus their kids -- ...likely to be the most challenged and challenging -- are left in the traditional public schools."

In their second post they say that it's "...amply documented that charter schools all over the country... dramatically underserve special education students... ."

That's certainly true here in Portland. 

Initial enrollment is only part of the problem with limiting the range of students in charter schools.  There's also the issue of "attrition."

Caroline Grannan, one of the Bay Area activists, claims that the nationally renowned Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools, particularly the nine operating in California, lose a good chunk of their students each year, presumably their most problematic students:

"...any school that loses 77 percent of its most academically challenged subgroup, its true target students, is not solving the problems of public education. And any school that could keep 23 percent of a subgroup and disappear the rest could easily see that subgroup's achievement soar, no matter what pedagogical methods it used."

Grannan, citing an SRI International study, repeats the claim here:

"Sixty percent of the students who enter the Bay Area KIPP schools in fifth grade leave before the end of eighth grade ... . And the study also confirms what some might suspect -- it's consistently the lower performers who leave."

So there you have it --"creaming" and attrition should be reasons enough to discount charter schools as models for reform.

Someone please tell Barack Obama and his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, both big fans of charter schools. 

A shout out to Pink Martini

In the spirit of the O's ex-movie critic, Ted Mahar, who used to say, "And now for something completely different," here's Barry Johnson on the multiple virtues of Portland's own Pink Martini:

"I've always admired this band -- for its rhythm, classical music virtuosity, party spirit and deep knowledge of seldom-walked paths of pop music history. But for me, they were one more pleasant diversion in an Age of Excess, with its billionaires, luxury goods, gigantic corporate expense accounts, casual greed, corruption and conspicuous consumption. ...
"But in the wash of sound and beat Tuesday, I realized that Pink Martini meant something new to me now. It offered a ticket for a couple of hours to an imaginary place where everyone looked great, knew how to dance, understood several languages and worked together harmoniously."

That's right, Barry. 

It doesn't hurt that Thomas Lauderdale and China Forbes write some really good songs, too.  Like this one:

Dems versus Dems on health care

Who are the real obstacles to overhauling the American health care system?

If you say Republicans, you're wrong.  There aren't enough of them left in Congress to affect the outcome of pending health care legislation.

No, the real obstacles to effective and affordable health care for all Americans are ...Democrats!  Not all of them.  Just the "moderate" or corporate Dems who oppose single payer or even the possibility of a government-backed public option insurance plan. 

The Associated Press says that the two factions are on a "collision course" when it comes to health care reform:

"The conflict between the liberals and moderates is over the contours of a new public insurance plan that's likely to be included in a health care overhaul. ...

"The disagreements underscore steep challenges ahead as Congress rushes to meet Obama's goal of passing a health care overhaul that keeps down costs and extends coverage to 50 million uninsured Americans."

Single payer advocates, who want to take the profit out of health insurance, are skeptical of the public option.  As long as the private insurers are still in business, they say, a government-backed insurance program is likely to attract the least healthy Americans, thereby driving the cost of the program up.  

According to Helen Redmond, that's what happens when you mix private and public insurance programs.  She quotes the founders of Physicians for a National Health Program on the impact of private insurance impact on Medicare:

"A quarter century of experience with public/private competition in the Medicare program demonstrates that the private plans will not allow a level playing field. Despite strict regulation, private insurers have successfully cherry picked healthier seniors, and have exploited regional health spending differences to their advantage."

Single payer advocates, says Redmond, also object to a public option for other reasons.  Among them:

• It doesn’t make health care a human right that can never be taken away.

• The system would continue to have multiple payers and therefore the complexity and gaps in coverage that are inevitable when there are numerous bureaucracies to navigate.

Speaking of the public option, Robert Reich reports that the moderate Maine Republican Olympia Snow has convinced some Dems, including Oregon's Ron Wyden, to sign on to a plan concocted by "Big Pharma and Big Insurance" for the public plan to "kick in years from now,"  but only if the private health care industry fails "to bring down healthcare costs... ."

Reich says that " 'years from now' in legislative terms means never."  

"Everybody in, nobody out!" Video of Kershner's arrest at single payer protest

"Everybody in, nobody out" is the chanted slogan of the single payer movement.

Opponents of single payer have turned that around to mean everybody (if they're single payer advocates) out of the town hall meeting with Blumenauer and Howard Dean.

But maybe they mean everybody in jail.

And speaking of timid Democrats...

I have to hand it to the Democratically-run Oregon legislature for pushing forward with legislation to raise the Oregon corporate minimum tax, the marginal tax rate on the biggest Oregon corporations, and the marginal income tax rate for wealthy individuals.

It's about time, I say.

Republicans call the tax increases "job killers."  I beg to differ.  Not raising state revenue is the real job killer  --think corrections workers, teachers, and others in the pubic sector whose "jobs" are on the line if the state budget is drastically cut.

Republicans, of course, don't believe that government jobs are real jobs.  That reminds me of a conversation I has a few weeks ago with a relative of my brother-in-law, an ultra-conservative who happens to be a well-off dentist from the Puget Sound area.

He claimed that government workers don't produce anything of value, therefore they don't contribute to the economy. By "value" I assume he meant commodities that can be bought and sold.  If so, what I should have said in response, but didn't, is, by that definition, many private sector workers produce nothing of "value" either.

Like dentists.

Like lawyers and accountants, dentists provide services.  So do teachers and other government workers.  One can debate whether dentists provide more economic bang  for the buck than teachers, but few would argue that teachers are simply drags on the economy.  Like dentists, they pay taxes and buy stuff --commodities-- that keeps the economy moving.

Oregon Democrats would do well to ignore Republicans until they have something reasonable to say about the realities of modern economies.

Harry arrested at single payer protest

Word comes from my friend Anne Trudeau that Harry Kershner, radical leftist (although he calls himself a centrist in step with the majority of Americans) was arrested at yesterday's single payer health care protest at Portland Community College, Cascade Campus, where Earl Blumenauer and Howard Dean were speaking.  (Or as Harry would say, "lying their asses off".)

Say what you want about Harry, who many view as a dogmatic ideologue.  But never deny that Harry Kershner has the courage of his convictions:

He walks his talk. 

That's more than can be said about most of us who share his views on health care, American foreign policy, and the disgusting timidity of our elected Democratic political leaders.

"A Broader, Bolder Approach" to school reform

"Evidence demonstrates, however, that achievement gaps based on socioeconomic status are present before children even begin formal schooling. Despite impressive academic gains registered by some schools serving disadvantaged students, there is no evidence that school improvement strategies by themselves can substantially, consistently, and sustainably close these gaps."

--A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education

"Taken together, however, these effects suggest a cumulative disadvantage for lower-class children that depresses average performance, even with high-quality instruction. In other words, on average, with equally high-quality instruction, children from disadvantaged families will achieve at lower levels than those from families without these disadvantages.

"Research thus suggests that strategies to improve lower-class children’s performance will be more effective if they combine school improvement efforts with policies to narrow social and economic inequalities."

--Richard Rothstein, background paper, A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education 

In my last post I wrote how a group of market-friendly neoliberals has been anointed by the media as school "reformers."  The "reforms" they propose can be summed up succinctly:

• opposition to teachers' unions; and
• advocacy of accountability, merit pay and charter schools.

Real "reformers", many of whom are signatories to the statement they call "A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education," dismiss the quick and simplistic reforms of the neoliberals and propose more comprehensive solutions to the low school achievement of poor and minority students.  Many of those solutions involve the health and well-being of children in the five years before formal schooling typically begins. 

They argue that until we enact social policies designed to ameliorate the debilitating effects of poverty on the ability to succeed in school, no amount of tinkering with school structure and pedagogy will close the achievement gap. 

In short, the problems associated with poverty cannot be addressed by education alone.

It would be helpful if school boards, including the Portland Public Schools Board of Education, would acknowledge that reality and stop blathering on about how the policies they adopt are designed with an eye on "closing the achievement gap."

That said, public schools can do a better job in helping students learn.  That won't be accomplished, however, by pushing test-based accountability, teacher merit pay, or charter schools.

(I said I would address those issues, particularly charter schools, in subsequent posts.  And I will, but circumstances here at home have prevented me from blogging as frequently as I would like.)

Charter schools, merit pay, and the "three stooges"

"Stooges" is how Jim Horn of School Matters described the three "unlikely comrades" featured in The Nation's excellent article, "The Selling of School Reform." 

Who are the three stooges?  Two Republicans --New York's Mike Bloomberg and Newt Gingrich --and Al Sharpton.  What the three have in common is that all are failed presidential candidates.  And this:

"The three are spokesmen for the Education Equality Project (EEP), an advocacy group that has attracted widespread media attention since its June 2008 launch, in large part because of its bipartisan call for policies like merit pay and the expansion of the charter school sector."

Other prominent members of EEP include up and coming young Democrats Corey Booker and Adrian Fenty (of Michelle Rhee infamy) who believe in applying free market principles to education and call themselves "reformers."  I call them what they really are --neoliberals, just like Bill Gates and Eli Broad, who, whatever political party they affiliate with, are nonetheless rich and not at all shy about using their wealth to force market-based reforms on the nation's public schools.

That means accountability, merit pay, and charter schools.

That brings us back to the EEP, the Education Equality Project, which is all about the "achievement gap."  Just what is the "achievement gap?"  It's the difference --or gap-- in scores on standardized achievement tests between the rich and the poor, the white and the non-white. 

That, too, is what accountability is all about --test scores.  Good schools get good test scores.  Lousy schools don't.  (That's where charters come in, but more on that later.)  Test scores also factor into merit pay.  How do you know who the good teachers are?  They're the ones with high scoring students.

Never mind ample evidence showing that an overemphasis on testing for accountability narrows school curricula.  What's taught is what can be tested.  Music?  Art?  Foreign languages?  PE?  They take back seat to the obsession with literacy and numeracy.

That's especially true in poor, high minority enrollment schools and school districts.

Real reformers --not the neoliberals-- take a decidedly different view.  From The Nation article:

"They [let's call them 'progressive reformers'] believe teachers and schools will not be able to eradicate the achievement gap between middle-class white children and everyone else until a wide array of social services are available to poor families. They envision schools as community centers, offering families healthcare, meals and counseling."

In other words, as I wrote sometime back, the schools alone cannot be held responsible for every social  ill.  If we want to close the achievement gap in this country, we better close the income gap. 

The free market "reformers" have adopted the mantra "no excuses," which in effect discounts poverty as a factor in the lower achievement of poor students.  Low expectations and lousy teaching, say the "reformers", are the culprits, not poverty.  Of course, they're wrong --dead wrong.  Research, and even 'hard science', provides abundant evidence that poverty plays a huge, and mostly negative, role in a child's education.

So what about charter schools?  Suffice it for now to say that although, as Scott Lehigh writes on Boston.com in praise of a recommendation to remove the "caps" on charter schools in Massachusetts, "some Boston charter schools" have improved the achievement of low income students, many --probably most-- have not.  In fact, most research indicates that charters do no better than traditional public schools in closing the  achievement gap.

There are other problems with the charter model as well.  More on that in subsequent posts.

The latest on single payer

The founders of Physicians for a National Health Program published a study in the August, 2003 edition of the  New England Journal of Medicine contrasting the administrative costs of health care in the United States and Canada.

The results?  Total administrative costs covering six categories --for example, insurance overhead, hospital administration, practitioner administrative costs-- for the United States:

$1059 per capita.

For Canada:

$307 per capita

Conclusion?

"...the difference in the costs of health care administration between the United States and Canada is clearly large and growing.  Is $294.3 billion annually for U.S. health care administration money well spent?"

Hmmmm.  Is the answer .... NO?

*************************

Recently Tim Carpenter of Progressive Democrats of America took on Fox News Channel's Megyn Kelley over the issue of single payer health care.  Here's the video:

Fox News, as you would expect, is anti-single payer. Kelly spouts the usual right-wing "talkng points" about long waits in Canada for vital surgeries.  Are they true?

Warren Pease responds to the notion that single payer would "result in long waiting lists for even the most mundane procedures:"

"But, as usual, corporate mass media is lying through its bleached teeth. If that vision of health care hell were true, all other Western democracies would exhibit shorter average life spans, higher rates of cancer and heart disease, higher infant mortality rates, lower birth weights, fewer average healthy years, failing mental health programs and far more serious epidemiological incidents than does the US. Since the opposite is true in all cases, it seems fair to conclude that single-payer, universal-access works, this cobbled together disaster we call a health care system is not getting the job done and that we're being ill served by US media yet again."

Under the for-profit "disaster" that passes for health care in this country, people, even the ones with health insurance like Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year old girl who was denied* a liver transplant by Cigna HealthCare in order "to maximize its profits," actually do die.

*(Cigna did eventually relent, but just hours before young Nataline expired.  Good PR for Cigna.  Not so good for its client.)

'Tough love' for Obama

I consider my frequent critiques of some of President Obama's policies --the misguided ones-- a form of "tough love." After all, I voted for him. And he wants to hear from his supporters, right?

Here's the Progressive Congressional Caucus' Donna Edwards urging progressives to "find their voices."

Here's the line I like:

"As progressives we haven't quite found our voice in terms of offering the appropriate critique of this administration.  And you know what?  He needs us to do it.  And the reason he needs us is because it will make him  a stronger and better President.  It will make him more progressive.  It will make him less likely to have to always bow to the conservative wings not just of the Republican Party but of the Democratic Party. 

Paul Karsh is one progressive who has raised his voice "to let [Obama] know where we need to hear his voice" with this open letter. It reads in part:

"I need your voice to stand up against torture and stand for the rule of law. ...

"I need your voice to do something about service people who have served our country with honor and distinction, and who have skills that our services desperately need, being discharged for being openly gay. ...

"I need your voice to allow the option of single-payer to be part of the discussion of health care reform."

Dick Cheney and "Why they hate us"

'They' being Middle East Muslims, especially those who have taken up arms against the American presence in the region.  In his speech to the American Enterprise Institute (in defense of torture), Cheney explained the roots of Arab resentment:

"They have never lacked for grievances against the United States.  Our belief in freedom of speech and religion…our belief in equal rights for women…our support for Israel… — these are the true sources of resentment."

Not so, says retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern, at least not entirely.   They hate not our freedoms, but our policies, particularly American  "support for Israel."   Cheney, McGovern says, got that part right, a deliciously odd admission coming from the man responsible for undermining so many of our vaunted freedoms and civil liberties.  

Not that those on the left haven't tried to convince the "they-hate-our-freedoms-crowd" of the damage done by American policy on Israel-Palestine.  The complaints of leftists, however, are cavalierly dismissed as rants from the "blame America first" fringe.

Even when terrorist masterminds like Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef explain that their animosity toward the U.S. is almost entirely due to its Israel policy, who takes them seriously?  They're terrorists.

But what if the same policy criticisms were voiced by the U.S. Department of Defense itself?  Would people then sit up and take notice?  Perhaps.  And therein lies the genius of McGovern's piece on Cheney.

McGovern, you see, has unearthed a U.S. Defense Science Board report written just two months after 9-11, and then sent directly to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2004, two months before the fall presidential election.  Here's an extended quote from the report --page 48:

"American direct intervention in the Muslim World has ... elevated the stature
of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

• "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the ... support for ... tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

• "Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that 'freedom is the future of the Middle East' is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

• "Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination."

Sound familiar?

The report, now declassified, was suppressed by those in charge --and according to McGovern-- by the mainstream media. 

But hey!  We're still in Iraq.  We're still in Afghanistan and bombing targets in Pakistan.  We still support Middle Eastern kingdoms and dictatorships.  And... our policy toward Israel shows no signs of changing.

So maybe, just maybe, the conclusions in the report will, at long last, do some good. 

Worth reading: Albert Einstein on socialism, 1949

Some excerpts:

"...nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called 'the predatory phase' of human development. ... Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. ...

"Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. ... As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. ...

"I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. ... Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules."

Little has changed since 1949.  The near collapse of Western market-based economies in the last year is evidence of that. 

That leaves me to wonder how the libertarians, objectivists and "teabaggers" would respond to Einstein's carefully crafted defense of what he terms socialism, and his harsh critique of the predatory nature of capitalism.

(Also worth reading is this Monthly Review article, "Albert Einstein, Radical: A Political Profile.")

Lots of Dems, little progress

From Chuck Sheketoff's op-ed in today's Oregonian recommending the suspension of Measure 57 to help solve Oregon's budget problem:

"Oregon already tops all states in terms of the share of general fund dollars devoted to putting people behind bars, and it spends more on prisons than on higher education -- one of only four states in the nation to do so."

Meanwhile Steve Duin writes that Democrats in the Oregon legislature are offering little more than a "tepid response" to the budget crisis.  They've done nothing about the "kicker", failed to raise beer taxes, and have only talked about the possibility of raising much-needed revenue from corporations and wealthy individuals.

And prisons?  Legislators are

"...planning to cut Healthy Start of Oregon by more than twice as much (on a percentage basis) as they're cutting the Department of Corrections... ."

Sheketoff warns cuts to education and the social safety net may backfire:

"One of the bitterest ironies of Measure 57 is that, if implemented, it may end up making Oregonians less safe over the long run."

Let's see.  Oregon has a Democratic Governor and Democratic majorities in both the state House and Senate.  Haven't we been told --repeatedly-- that if we liberals only elect more Democrats to public office, our problems will be solved?

That brings me to Barack Obama and health care.  As a state legislator he pronounced:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.

"We may not get there immediately, because first we've got to take back the White House, and we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."

"We" means Democrats.  Well, the President is a Democrat, and both the House and the Senate have been "taken back", overwhelmingly, by the Dems.  Just like in Oregon.

So what's standing in the way of implementing a single payer system of national health care?  The Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, along with scores of other Congressional Dems in thrall to the private health care industry

There's a lesson to be learned there by all partisan Democrats. 

The Constitutional sins of Barack Obama

Charles Krauthammer has it right:

"If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush. Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program. ...

"As in his rhetorically brilliant national-security speech yesterday claiming to have undone Bush's moral travesties, the military commissions flip-flop is accompanied by the usual Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy."

The right-wing Krauthammer undoubtedly approves.

Those on the left, however, were "stunned" by Obama's embrace of military commissions --or tribunals-- and even more shocked at his announcement that he would develop a "legal framework" to justify preventive --or prolonged-- detention.

Constitutionally speaking, how is that any different than the Bush administration soliciting legal opinions to justify torture, which Obama seems disinclined to investigate, let alone prosecute, even though torture is clearly a crime both domestically and internationally?

Here's the Center for Constitutional Rights' Michael Ratner:

"The president wrapped himself in the Constitution and then proceeded to violate it by announcing he would send people before irredeemably flawed military commissions and seek to create a preventive detention scheme that only serves to move Guantanamo to a new location and give it a new name."

And the Center's Shayana Kadidal:

"Preventive detention goes against every principle our nation was founded on. ... The new president is looking a lot like the old."

Speaking of torture, The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild writes

"Barack Obama is fast becoming an accessory after the fact to the war crimes that the Bush Administration has committed."

That's true on a number of levels.  But you only hear it from the left.  Or from those well-versed in law, especially Constitutional law.  And therein lies the ultimate irony.

Barack Obama taught Constitutional law.  He knows what passes Constitutional muster and what doesn't.  Yet the "new" tools he says we need to combat the threat of terrorism all apparently involve the undermining of Constitutional rights.  

In short, as the anti-left Wall Street Journal concluded last February, Obama is "...erring on the side of keeping the country safe rather than appeasing the political left." 

"Appeasing the left" is right-wing speak for taking steps to protect Constitutional guarantees of fundamental civil liberties. 

The sins of Barack Obama: Health care

Criticism of Barack Obama's backsliding on "change" has come mainly from the left, particularly from the alternative media and the blogs.

Here's one example which pretty well sums up Obama's ambivalence toward single payer national health care.  Health care is one of the many pressing issues Obama has failed to address in any substantive manner.

Jerry Policoff, a Pennsylvania advocate for single payer, looks closely at Obama's response to a question about single payer at a town hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico.  He then deconstructs Obama's rationale, point by point, for excluding single payer from the discussion.

• Single payer would be "too disruptive" to the system.

The system means "employer-based" health care, which Policoff calls a "total failure."  Obama knows this.  He knows that "18% of our workforce" is uninsured.  And that the cost of providing health benefits places a huge burden on American business.  He knows that employers would gladly forgo their roll in paying for employee health care. 

Obama further knows that one reason Americans stay in jobs they hate is the fear of losing their health care insurance

That's hardly a system worth protecting from "disruption."

• American health care is too big a piece of the economy to "tamper" with.

Indeed, health care as currently delivered IS a big part of the economy.  But Policoff says that's all the more reason to switch to single payer:

"...transitioning to a single-payer model would almost certainly radically reduce the currently bloated cost of healthcare in the United States both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP.

"What possible justification could there be to  preserve a system that costs so much and leaves tens of millions of people without health coverage and tens of millions more underinsured?"

The answer to that is self-evident.  The private health care industry pours hundreds of millions of dollars into political campaigns in order to protect its profits.  In short, they literally buy off the legislators in charge of health care reform.

• It would be unfair to deprive people of their current health care if they are satisfied with it.

Policoff calls that "pure disinformation and fear-mongering," a  parroting of the PR "talking points" of private health care interests.   Policoff says,

"The only problem with this seemingly common sense approach is that most people are happy with their current coverage because they have never been in a situation that tested it. ...

"How are we doing people a favor by letting them keep the coverage they are 'happy' with, if down the road that decision may lead to them losing their homes or being forced into bankruptcy when their insurance fails to cover the cost of catastrophic illness that befalls them or their loved ones?"

(The number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is catastrophic illness.)

Policoff maintains that with his high approval ratings, Obama could force Congress to enact true universal health care reform.  Yes, he "could."  But will he?  All indications are that no, he won't. 

And that calls into question Obama's commitment to real health care reform.

UPDATE:  Apparently the health care industry has reneged on its pledge to take steps to drastically reduce the cost of medical care.  And Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina has produced ads attacking Obama's health care plan.

What excuses now remain for Obama's defense of the existing system?  We shall see.

Why speaking six languages is NOT an indicator of the quality of one's education

Now that yesterday's non-election* of school officials is in the books, let's turn to another pressing educational issue --Why American schools suck.

The author, Blue Oregon semi-regular contributor Jenson Hagen, may have "studied six languages," but in this post he speaks a language he probably hasn't studied, at least not formally --gibberish!

See if you can make any sense of what he's saying:

• American schools suck.

• We need to change our system.

• But we ignore the European and Asian formats.  "Wholeheartedly."

Hagen doesn't bother to explain just exactly what those "formats" consist of.  One can only infer that languages in Europe are taught earlier.  But what's this about shoving

"...general math and English at kids and expect[ing] them to acquire a capacity for business, engineering or journalism[?]"

As I said, gibberish!

*(The voter turnout in Multnomah County was a whopping 15%!)

UPDATE:  Here's a comment from the always reliable Darrell Plant on Hagen's post:

"Budget cuts over the past 40 years are really what cut into language instruction, not some fantasy about the demands of public school teachers unions."

Vote!

No, not Vote Dammit! which brings to mind Willamette Week and its idiotic endorsements.

But anyway, if you're like me, you wait til the last minute to vote and then walk your ballot over to a local library.  And I know many of you HAVEN'T yet cast your ballots.  So this is a last minute reminder.

If you live in Beaverton, you must vote for Kris Alman for school board.  I wish Kris lived here in Portland, more specifically, I wished she lived in Trudy Sargent's Zone 6 somewhere up on Mount Tabor.  As it stands, write in the name of Moss Drake as a replacement for Trudy.

Also vote for Scott Bailey in Zone 5.  He seems to know a hell of a lot more about school district politics, and what needs to be done to improve them, than his opponent, Pam Knowles.

If you truly want change on the board, don't vote for Martin Gonzales in Zone 4.  Either of his opponents --Rita Moore or Steve Buel-- would likely argue effectively for much needed changes in district policy.  (If you don't want a split vote in the zone containing many of the district's poorest schools, then vote Rita.  She appears to be running the more vigorous and visible campaign.)

Less than seven hours til the drop-off boxes close.  So get cracking!

Blast from the past: Does PPS know what it's doing?

(Thanks to Lakeitha Elliott)

Yesterday I wrote that the last reconfiguration of Jefferson High School had "been no less than disastrous."

Portland Public Schools board member Ruth Adkins agrees, or at least she did three years ago when she co-authored this Tribune op-ed piece bemoaning that newspaper's support for school closures and the dismantling of "successful" small school programs at Jeff:

"As we ... pointed out..., the previous round of reforms and special academic programs were working well including the highest increase in test scores of any school in the city ... . There was no need to throw all this work and dedication out the window and start from scratch.

"Moreover, how do we know the new programs/academies will actually result in increased enrollment... [?]  ... more than 70 percent of Jefferson-area parents who send their children outside the neighborhood were never surveyed as to what would bring them back.

"Unfortunately, it appears that Jeff is headed toward privatization... .Privatization is threatening our district: increased numbers of charter schools, private foundation/grant money influencing major policy decisions, and a top-down 'business' model for our schools."

The piece proved prescient.  Jefferson's enrollment has flatlined.  One of its single sex academies has closed.  Test scores (for whatever they're worth) and graduation rates haven't improved.  Academic offerings are scant.

So much for the reform of Jefferson.

The community at Saturday's gathering realize what's happened.  And that's why they demand a return to a comprehensive* high school like those found in wealthier areas of the city.

The question remains:  Is the district listening?

*(Small schools within schools are not at all incompatible with comprehensive academic and elective offerings.  The key is to allow students in small communities of learning, which typically focus on core academics, access to course offerings within the larger school.) 

School board candidate Rita Moore speaks up for equity

(Thanks to Lynn Schore)

In response to Kim Melton's coverage of yesterday's "community conversation" at Jefferson regarding the district's plan for redesigning its high schools, Rita Moore, Zone 4 school board candidate, stepped up with a timely response in a letter to Melton.

It reads in part:

"Just read your article on today's meeting and I wanted to say thank you.  After 4 hours of remarkably shallow discussions of the models and an additional hour talking with District leaders about the principal situation at Roosevelt, I appreciate your highlighting the level of frustration that was present in the room. ...

"Most disappointing, both Carole (Smith, Superintendent) ... refused to take the opportunity handed to [her] by several members of the community to apologize for subjecting poor and minority students to experimental structures and sub-standard curricula.  Carole came close, but the "mistakes were made" formulation just won't cut it and she needs to understand that.  Until District leaders are willing to take responsibility and then take steps to fix the problems they have created, we will never be able to establish trust.  And many of us will remain forever skeptical of both the intentions and the competence of the District to provide the kind of education that all our children deserve."

Here's the problem as I see it.  Community meetings --or "conversations"-- are basically useless.  They're devices used by the district to give the illusion that district stakeholders have a say in policy.  In reality, district administrators know what they want to do, know what they're going to do, and despite outcry from the "community", they'll go ahead and do it, the consequences or bruised feelings be damned 

The "real" Jefferson community had no say in the re-reconfiguration of its secondary programs.  And how did that work out?  What the district did to Jefferson High School, the very place this latest "community conversation" took place, has been no less than disastrous.  Is it any wonder then, at Saturday morning's meeting, that

"...the underlying pain and frustration ... emerged over the way Portland has redesigned high schools and moved staff at schools such as Jefferson and Roosevelt[?]"

Until district administrators and school board members address school inequities directly --a good start would be to  discontinue the neighborhood-to-neighborhood school transfer policy-- all the community conversations in the world will be of no help whatsoever.

And speaking of the school board, remember to vote.  You have my recommendations here and here. 

Ed Schultz steps up for single payer

Many consider Big Eddie a rube from the hinterlands, but in this segment at least, he outdoes either of his progressive MSNBC stablemates--Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow-- by demanding of the President,

"President Obama: Do you support excluding people from the [health care] discussion?"

Here's the video:

The object of Ed Schultz' ire, Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus, has taken plenty of money from the health care industry. Here's the breakdown:

From the insurance industry: $1,170,313;
health professionals: $1,016,276;
pharmaceuticals/health-products industry: $734,605
hospitals/nursing homes: $541,891;
health services/HMOs: $439,700.

Stand confesses its sins

(Post UPDATED below)

As I was listening to a really cool music video promoting school funding carried on the Stand for Children website, I noticed an option listing all of Stand's "successes" since it started operations here in Portland several years ago.   Sooo, I just had to peruse it.  And here's what I found:

"22 May, 2003  Portland, OR
Endorsed and helped elect a slate of School Board candidates based on School Improvement Platform."

The "slate" of favored school board candidates, three of whom are still serving, "improved schools" by closing a bunch of them and consolidating others in a rushed and ill-conceived K-8 plan, courtesy of the superintendent --Vicki Phillips-- the "slate" enthusiastically hired.   Phillips also hired some not so good principals --Jefferson's Leon Dudley comes to mind-- and forced a top-down reconfiguration of Jefferson and other of the district's poorest high schools.

Some "School Improvement Platform."

Anyway, here's the song composed and sung by Reynolds School District teachers Suzanne Chimenti and Brenda Fletcher.  Now THAT's a success.

UPDATE: Back in 2006, Shannon Campion of Stand's Portland chapter said, 

"There's a significant victory to be gained by having parents and the broader community recognize that schools need to be closed."

Others disagreed, including Portland School Foundation's Cynthia Guyer, who eventually resigned as head of the Foundation.  At about the same time , Willamette Week published leaded documents indicating that Vicki Phillips planned on closing eleven more neighborhood schools.  (Here was my take on that.)

However you look at the spate of school closures and consolidations --some still defend them, others remain bitterly angry-- it's a real stretch to call the election of the "slate" of school board members responsible for hiring Vicki Phillips a "success." 

The numbers don't lie: Why we need a public health care option

A recent report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows just how bad American health care is compared to other developed countries. 

Consider, for example, the data on health insurance coverage on page 32 of this section of the OECD report:

• The United States ranks ahead of only Mexico and Turkey in the percentage of people covered --85%.

• The remaining 27 countries cover 100% --or nearly 100%-- of their citizens with publicly paid-for health care.  (In Germany, 10% are covered privately.)

• Only 27% of Americans have public health insurance, probably Medicare or Medicaid, while 57% are covered with private plans.  That leaves roughly 15% of the populace with no health insurance at all.  

According to the report, the numbers of uninsured vary by income and age:

"Data from the US National Health Interview Survey indicate that about 30% of persons aged less than 65 years who are deemed poor or near-poor do not have health insurance  compared to 10–15% of middle income and 5% of high income persons."

For that, Americans spend far more money on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other developed country.  That's why we need the public insurance option on the table in discussions of American health care reform.

Here's a good summary of some of the quality of life rankings from the OECD report, courtesy of our diligent (and progressive) friends at A Tiny Revolution:

US rankings out of the 30 OECD countries (1 is best; 30 is worst -- worst as in Somalia-like). The names of the countries even more Somalian than the US appear in parentheses.

Infant Deaths: 28 out of 30 (Mexico, Turkey).

Life Expectancy: 24 out of 30 (Mexico, Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Czech & Slovak Republics).

Health Expenditures: 1 out of 30.

Poverty Rates: 28 out of 30 (Mexico, Turkey).

Child Poverty: 27 out of 30 (Mexico, Turkey, Poland).

Income Inequality: 27 out of 30 (Mexico, Turkey, Portugal).

Obesity: 30 out of 30.

Incarceration: 30 out of 30.

Work Hours (ranked in ascending order): 30 out of 30.

Height (women): 25 out of 30 (Mexico, Turkey, Korea, Portugal, Japan).

Height (men): 24 out of 30 (Italy, Spain, Mexico, Portugal, Korea, Japan).

SEIU sells out to private health insurers

Andy Stern of Service Employees International Union calls the much ballyhooed plan to "lower" health care costs a "game changer."  And why not?  His organization brought together the various for-profit health care groups that came up with the plan.

If Stern and SEIU, a union representing mainly low wage workers, buy into Big Health and Big Pharma's PR blitz, they're clearly being duped.   As Robert Pear writes for the New York Times News Service

"If history is a guide, their commitments may not produce the promised savings. ... None of the proposals are enforceable, and none of the savings are guaranteed."

In other words, the savings initiative "secure[s] a seat at the table" for the health care industry without any guarantees that it will bear results.  What it will do, however, is give insurers the leverage to oppose any "public" option in health care reform.

What a deal.

James Ridgeway calls the whole thing a "scam":

"Do you see a pattern here? None of these changes would make a dent in the industry’s bottom line--and what’s more, they could even enhance profits, by encouraging government-funded programs to help private companies streamline their bloated bureaucracy (much of which would instantly become superfluous under a public, single-payer system)."

And he's right.  The only guaranteed way to  lower the costs of health care AND to cover everyone is with a single payer system.  If profit isn't taken out of health care, basic health services will never be affordable for everyone.

Some will argue that a system like Medicare-for-all will drive a stake through a huge part of the American economy.  Not true.  The pharmaceutical giants will still be in business.  And so will the private insurers, who can offer enhanced coverage for those willing and able to pay more. That's the way it works in many countries with true universal health care, where private companies are forbidden to profit from basic, and essential, services.

Private American insurers don't like that.  And neither do many of our legislative "leaders", especially those who take massive amounts of money from the health care industry.  Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, is a good example.

Despite the fact that a majority of Americans want a single payer system because, in the words of Ralph Nader, they "...like the free choice of doctors and hospitals that many are now denied by the HMOs", Baucus refused to schedule testimony in health care hearings from any supporter of single payer.

Here's what happened when eight audience members, "most of them physicians and lawyers," stood in protest:

That's American representative democracy in action.

More Wingard

(Again thanks to Ken Libby.)

Wingard denies global warming with a "clever" House floor speech.



You may be wondering how Wingard was elected to the state legislature. Well, he wasn't, at least not initially. He was appointed by the Washington County Commission in a trumped up proceeding that made a mockery of the democratic process.

A month later he ran as an incumbent and squeaked by with less that half the vote.

Now Rep. Wingard is doing his libertarian best to push school choice (the Rose Friedman Educational Opportunity Tax Credit Act) --and charter schools-- through the legislature.

Matt Wingard (Libertarian- Cascade Policy Institute) defends virtual charter school

And in the process, Wingard trashes Portland's Jefferson High as the "worst performing high school in Oregon."



(Thanks to Ken Libby.)

More endorsements: Not Trudy, not Martin for school board

I note that Ruth Adkins has endorsed both Trudy Sargent and Martin Gonzales, both school board incumbents, for reelection. 

I say so what.  What's Ruth going to do?  Go on record as opposing her board colleagues, one of whom --Trudy-- is assured of winning since she has no challenger?  Martin, too, is quite likely to retain his seat.

It would be political suicide for Ruth to badmouth either.  (She did endorse Scott Bailey.)

I have no such qualms.  Neither Trudy nor Martin are likely to support any change of substance in the next four years to ensure that all students in the district, regardless of circumstance, have the same  educational opportunities.  Poor schools will continue to lose enrollment and programs.  Wealthy schools will continue to grow in popularity --and enrollment.

In short, unless some decisive changes are made in the district's transfer policy, nothing will change.  Therefore, I oppose the reelection of either incumbent.

Since Trudy has no opponent, the only option is a protest write-in vote.  One name that has emerged is a fellow named Moss Drake.  People tell me he's smart.  When he speaks he's worth listening to.

As for Zone 4, both Steve Buel and Rita Moore are challenging Martin Gonzales.  Since both are active in the PPS Equity community, I won't recommend one over the other.  Buel would likely spoil the school board tea party with his outspokenness, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing at all.

Rita would undoubtedly prove more collegial.  But no one can question her commitment to equity.  And she's got a Ph.D from Columbia, for godssakes!

Vote for either Buel or Moore for Zone 4.  If neither actually wins, their combined total vote might well surpass Martin's total.

That would send a message, wouldn't it?