Delaware Way

HAPPY WINTER SOLSTICE!

2009-12-21T04:53:00.000-08:00

( images via google)

Something Is Up With The California Miwok Tribe; Can You Help By Signing A Petition For Intervention?

2009-12-19T11:07:00.000-08:00

Please consider signing this petition to give the California Miwok Tribe some breathing room and hopefully some mediation ~

Justice for the California Valley Miwok Tribe (Petition)
The entire tribe, elders and children included, is going to be removed by force from their land with no place to go. They are forced to barricade themselves in the tribal office. Using filing cabinets and anything else they can use to secure the building in hopes to protect their culture, their people, and basically everything they have. We ask that Miwok tribe be allowed to stay in the land they have lived on for 7 years and be given the chance to dialogue with the appropriate legislatures and/or officials about the matter.

~*~

Senator Kaufman's Amendment To Protect Americans from Health Care Fraud Gets Into Final Bill

2009-12-19T10:13:00.000-08:00

(presser)

Kaufman Amendment to Protect Americans from Health Care Fraud Included in Final Package

Includes provisions to strengthen tools to investigate, prosecute and punish health care criminals

WASHINGTON, D.C. – An amendment to combat health care fraud through improved enforcement, introduced earlier this month by Senator Ted Kaufman (D-DE) with Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Arlen Specter (D-PA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Tom Harkin (D-IA), was announced Saturday as part of the final package of amendments expected to be included in the Senate health care reform bill.

The amendment – which includes key provisions from the Health Care Fraud Enforcement Act introduced by Sen. Kaufman in October – would further strengthen the government’s capacity to investigate and prosecute waste, fraud and abuse in both government and private health insurance that drains between $72 and $220 billion from the system annually.

“As we take steps to reform our health care system and increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance, we must be proactive in combating the health care fraud and abuse that exists today,” said Sen. Kaufman. “Americans pay the costs as taxpayers, and through higher health insurance premiums. This amendment will provide needed tools for reducing those costs through effective investigation, prosecution, and punishment of health care fraud.”

“For more than three decades, I have fought in Congress to combat fraud and protect taxpayer dollars,” said Sen. Leahy. “This provision will provide prosecutors with needed tools for the effective investigation, prosecution, and punishment of health care fraud. We in Congress must do our part by ensuring that, when we pass a health care reform bill, it includes all the tools and resources needed to crack down on the scourge of health care fraud. This provision is an important part of that effort.”

The amendment makes straightforward but critical improvements to the federal sentencing guidelines, to health care fraud statutes, and to forfeiture, money laundering, and obstruction statutes, all of which would strengthen prosecutors’ ability to combat this particularly destructive form of fraud. These improvements include:

o Sentencing increases: The bill directs the Sentencing Commission to increase the guidelines for health care fraud offenses, by 20-50% for crimes that involve more than $1,000,000 in losses.
o Redefining “health care fraud offense”: The bill includes all health care crimes within the definition of “health care fraud offense,” regardless of where they are codified. (ERISA, drug marketing, and kickback crimes are currently not included) This change will make available to law enforcement the full range of antifraud tools, including criminal forfeiture and obstruction penalties, to combat these offenses.
o Improving whistleblower claims: Kickbacks lead to unnecessary and risky medical care and pervert the doctor-patient relationship. This bill clarifies that all payments made pursuant to illegal kickbacks are false for purposes of the False Claims Act.
o Creating a common-sense mental state requirement for health care fraud offenses: Some courts have held that defendants must be aware that their conduct violates a specific provision of criminal law in order to be held accountable. This bill restores the original intent of Congress that a person is guilty of a health care offense if he knowingly does what the law forbids.

In the wake of the financial crisis earlier this year, Sen. Kaufman introduced similar legislation to strengthen tools and increase resources available to federal prosecutors to find, prosecute and jail those who committed financial fraud. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, introduced with Sens. Leahy and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), was signed into law <http://kaufman.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=a1179231-5189-4791-8cbb-1d943d8ab8f3> by President Obama on May 20.

~*~

Reid's Amendment's CBO Score

2009-12-19T09:59:00.000-08:00

From DKos: parsing some of the fine points and the CBO scoring.

And Jon Walker examines the short falls that produced the CBO score ~

~*~

The Nelson Text: Manager's Abortion Amendment

2009-12-19T08:12:00.000-08:00

Shorter Harry Reid: (Atrios) compromise: poor women will only die from stupak in red states
TPMDC reports ~ ''SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.

(a) STATE OPT-OUT OF ABORTION COVERAGE.-- ''(1) IN GENERAL.--A State may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition. (2) TERMINATION OF OPT OUT.-- A State may repeal a law described in paragraph (1) and provide for the offering of such services through the Exchange.
(b) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.--(1)VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.-- (A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this title (or any amendment made by this title)-- (i) nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year; and ''(ii) subject to subsection (a), the issuer of a qualified health plan shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of such benefits for the plan year.
'(B) ABORTION SERVICES.-- (i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.--The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.--The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.-- ''(A) IN GENERAL.--If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following
for purposes of paying for such services: (i) The credit under section 36B of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance
payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act). (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of
thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the
advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act).
(B) ESTABLISHMENT OF ALLOCATION ACCOUNTS.--In the
case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan shall--
(i) collect from each enrollee in the plan (without regard to the enrollee's
age, sex, or family status) a separate payment for each of the following: (I) an
amount equal to the portion of the premium to be paid directly by the enrollee
for coverage under the plan of services other than services described in
paragraph (1)(B)(i) (after reduction for credits and cost-sharing reductions
described in subparagraph (A)); and (II) an amount equal to the actuarial value
of the coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), and (ii) shall
deposit all such separate payments into separate allocation accounts as provided
in subparagraph (C). In the case of an enrollee whose premium for coverage under
the plan is paid through employee payroll deposit, the separate payments
required under this subparagraph shall each be paid by a separate deposit.
(C) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.-- (i) IN GENERAL.--The issuer of a plan to which
subparagraph (A) applies shall establish allocation accounts described in clause
(ii) for enrollees receiving amounts described in subparagraph (A). '(ii) ALLOCATION ACCOUNTS.--The issuer of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies shall deposit-- (I) all payments described in subparagraph (B)(i)(I) into a separate account that consists solely of such payments and that is used exclusively to pay for services other than services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i); and (II) all payments described in subparagraph (B)(i)(II) into a separate account that consists solely of such payments and that is used exclusively to pay for services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i).
(D) ACTUARIALVALUE.-- (i) IN GENERAL.--The issuer of a qualified health plan shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average
actuarial basis, for including coverage under the qualified health plan of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i). (ii) CONSIDERATIONS.--In making such
estimate, the issuer-- (I) may take into account the impact on overall costs of
the inclusion of such coverage, but may not take into account any cost reduction
estimated to result from such services, including prenatal care, delivery, or
postnatal care; (II) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage were included
for the entire population covered; and (III) may not estimate such a cost at
less than $1 per enrollee, per month.
(E) ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH SEGREGATION REQUIREMENTS.-- (i) IN GENERAL.--Subject to clause (ii), State health insurance commissioners shall ensure that health plans comply with the segregation requirements in this subsection through the segregation of plan funds in accordance with applicable provisions of generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office. (ii) CLARIFICATION.--Nothing in clause (i) shall prohibit the right of an individual or health plan to appeal such action in courts of competent jurisdiction. '
(3) RULES RELATING TO NOTICE.-- (A) NOTICE.--A qualified health plan that provides for coverage of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) shall provide a notice to enrollees, only as part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of enrollment, of such coverage.
(B) RULES RELATING TO PAYMENTS.-- The notice described in subparagraph (A), any advertising used by the issuer with respect to the plan, any information provided by the Exchange, and any other information specified by theSecretary shall provide information only with respect to the total amount of the combined payments for services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) and other services covered by the plan.
(4) NO DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION.--No qualified health plan offered through an Exchange may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions
(c) APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.-- (1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.
(2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding-- '(i) conscience protection; '(ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and '(iii) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.
(3) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.--Nothing in this subsection shall alter the rights and obligations of employees and employers under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
~*~

Reid Gets His 60; Jury Still Out On What Is Actually In The Senate Health Care Reform Bill

2009-12-19T07:49:00.001-08:00

Karen Tumulty posts some early bullet points from DEM staffers ~

The manager's amendment builds upon the strong bill we already have.
Protects our good coverage, cost, and affordability numbers
· Reduces Deficits – estimated to save over $130 billion first ten and roughly $650 billion second ten
· Expands Coverage – over 94 percent of Americans under 65 years of age, including over 31 million uninsured
· Reduces Costs - most Americans will see their health care costs reduced relative to projected levels
Makes health care more affordable for Americans by expanding small business tax credits
· $12 billion increase
· Begins in 2010
· Expands wage thresholds for tax credits
Demands greater accountability from insurance companies/ creates more choice and competition
· Medical Loss Ratio 85/80 percent – Insurance companies will be forced to spend more money on care and less money padding their bottom line.
· Starting immediately children cannot be denied health coverage due to pre existing conditions
· Insurance companies who jack up their rates will be barred from competing in the exchange.
· Give patients the right to appeal to an independent board if an insurance company denies a coverage claim
· Health insurers will offer national plans to Americans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees health plans for Members of Congress.
· Provides significant resources for Community Health Centers

Salon's early take ~
But Nelson also says he isn't necessarily on board for the long haul. "This cloture vote is based on a full understanding that there will be a limited conference between the Senate and House," he told reporters Saturday morning. "If there are material changes in that conference report, different from this bill, that adversely affect the agreement, I reserve the right to vote against the next cloture vote." That's not likely to please House progressives, who are hoping to use the conference committee to undo some of the damage Nelson and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., did to the bill on the Senate side.
(h/t Eschaton)

~*~

Jud Bennett Writes: How Transparent Is The Sussex County Government?

2009-12-19T06:27:00.000-08:00

From Joan Deaver ~ 12/14/09 Poll -

Does Sussex County's government meet your standards of transparency?
Yes-15%
No - 70.2%
In some areas - 14.3%
Total votes: 238

The CAPE GAZETTE runs a weekly poll on its website showing that 70.2 % of the respondents say Sussex County’s government does not meet their standards of transparency.

I have been discovering that the county seems to work only for developers and shuts out the people. I vow that I will do all I can to bring the people into the process. As of this time I have put my findings in a list of things to be done at the county. I invite you to look at the list and let me know what else should be added to it and if you have any other comments.

GOALS FOR SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL as RELATED to me by my CONSTITUENTS.

Adopt practical & fair regs for homeowners living on leased land.
Adopt a stormwater ordinance requiring correct drainage for all new building, not just for new developments.
Find ways to bring the people into the land use process at every level.
Adopt ordinances under the land use plan (1 year overdue).
From a constituent: “I would like to see a real master plan for zoning that is adopted with hearings & is followed. I would like that master plan to show DelDOT proposals for roads. I think people moving in here have a right to know what to expect in the future. “
New development must have adequate infrastructure to support it.
Have a planning department with certified land use planners in it.
Have evening council hearings so that more people may attend them.
Adopt a law for widespread notice of potential land use changes.
Surrounding property owners must be notified by first class mail 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing. This is especially for nonresident property owners who have no opportunity to read the ad placed in local papers who by the absence can't read the posting on the property in question.
Post detailed agenda items such as addresses & brief description of projects, in advance of hearings.
Have a list on the County website of all applications for all land use changes when submitted, with a status on all until completion.
Require that plans be complete ten days before all hearings so that the people know what is being considered at the public hearing. No last minute changes.
Council hears applications for land use changes only AFTER P & Z Commission votes if not, then why have a P& Commission? (By the way, P & Z commissioners are not professional planners.)
Have a time limit at public hearings for presentations by applicants’ attorneys, and/or reps so that the people don’t have to wait an undetermined amount of time to wait to be heard.
From a constituent:“All new developments public or private should have roads built to state standards, be of a minimum of 28 feet in width, & have curbs of 1 foot on each side.”
Buyers in a new development should be told that they are responsible for upkeep of the roads & sediment ponds.
Discontinue private roads built in new developments.
Create a County Board of Ethics w/rules for recusing, requirements to report gifts & other favors from applicants &require candidates & officials to complete an ethics questionnaire about any possible connections that may create a conflict of interest.
Require that trees that are removed for development are replaced, or funded for replacement on a 2 for 1 basis.
Let DNREC regulate buffers around waterways—stop the lawsuit.
Update drinking water ordinance to state standards.
New minor subdivisions on roads would have an expiration date.
From another constituent: "...stop approving projects that violate the law of the State of Delaware about building on Unmarked Human Remains & archaeological sites."
Require a County permit before demolishing a structure. None is required at this time.
From a constituent: “HOW ABOUT A NOISE ORDINANCE FOR SUSSEX? I believe Wilmington or an upstate County, City has one. It is about time Sussex passed one or put one on the table for discussion. We're in need of a noise ordinance in this area. Can anything be done to enact or encourage one? We do have a few examples where we could use one.”
From a constituent, “How about a County Diversity Policy that recognizes the growth, innovation & creativity it will generate for Sussex County.”
Since 2001, 45% of Council’s approvals have been in Level 4 zones where the State does not plan to build roads or schools. The taxpayer will bear this burden.
Former county employees-turned-lobbyists, lobbyists & those who represent applicants receive no special privileges for going "behind the counter" into county files & into administrative & council offices.
From a constituent, “If the county had a legal department, then you & any citizen could seek opinions and/or interpretations of county code & regulations by just calling the department & asking. Now, the legal counsel for both the commission & the council is some sort of contractual agent, who works for the commission or the council, not for the county. If there were a legal department, one of its functions would be to give a legal opinion on the applicable county code vis-a-vis any application regarding zoning or proposed land uses. If there were a legal department, you could ask them what constitutes 'substantial improvement' & they would read the relevant code & find out. If it wasn't clear, they'd tell you that & then you could start the process moving to change that, if you felt it was important. If there were a legal department, the code could be cleaned up. It really needs it.”

~*~

Early Reaction To Nancy Wagner's Bid For Dover Mayoral Post? "Nancy, Thanks But No Thanks!"

2009-12-19T05:24:00.000-08:00

WNJ writes ~ Delaware government: Wagner interested in becoming Dover mayor Ex-state representative's issues: Cooperation and tough budgets

Former Rep. Nancy H. Wagner says: "The ethics committee never said I did anything wrong."

This lady is dreamin'. THE HUBRIS!!

~*~

Associated Press Reports On Stolen Auschwitz Sign

2009-12-19T04:07:00.000-08:00

The "defining symbol of the Holocaust" ~

The sign read "Arbeit Macht Frei" — work makes you free — a grim Nazi slogan etched in the minds of millions......The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a leading Jewish human rights group, urged Poland to intensify its investigation and bring the thieves to justice.
"The fact is that the 'Arbeit Macht Frei' sign has become the defining symbol of the Holocaust, because everyone knew that this was not a place where work makes you free, but it was the place where millions of men, women, and children were brought for one purpose only — to be murdered," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the center's founder and dean. More than 1 million people were killed in gas chambers, from forced labor, or starvation and disease at the camp set up by the Nazis in occupied Poland during World War II. Most of the victims were Jews but they also included Gypsies, Poles, homosexuals and political prisoners.
The camp was liberated by the Soviet army on January 27, 1945. Polish officials plan to mark the 65th anniversary of that liberation next month with somber ceremonies at the site.

~*~

Kaufman To FCC: WHYY Should Earn Its License

2009-12-19T03:32:00.000-08:00

(presser)

Senator supports Wilmington ’s challenge that WHYY is “required to be responsive to local needs”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Days after the city of Wilmington filed a complaint contesting WHYY’s broadcasting license, U.S. Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) took to the Senate floor Friday and urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to hold the public broadcaster accountable for covering local news and public affairs where it is licensed: in Delaware.

“At the core of the FCC’s licensing policies – right from the beginning – is the principle that every community of appreciable size needs, and deserves, its own television station,” Sen. Kaufman said. “These stations that are granted free use of the public airwaves are required to be responsive to local needs. Each has a duty to determine the programming appropriate for its viewing community and then make its programming decisions based on those needs.”

WHYY Channel 12 is Delaware ’s only Very High Frequency (VHF) station and receives free use of the public airwaves as well as support from tax revenues. In the past 40 years, WHYY’s Delaware-oriented programming has declined from 16 1/2 hours per week, to 3 1/2 hours, and now to only 30 minutes of locally-produced programming.

WHYY has defended its decision by saying it is increasing Delaware-based coverage on the Internet and its FM radio station.

“WHYY has had the audacity to rationalize its cut in local programs by saying it will provide more Delaware-focused stories on its Philadelphia-licensed FM radio station and online. This is not an acceptable substitute,” Sen. Kaufman said. “This plan leaves entirely unserved those who look to television for information about their local community,” Sen. Kaufman added. “Reporting through other media is not the same as reporting on television.” Sen. Kaufman also pointed out that WHYY-TV has:

Identified itself on its own Web site as being based in Philadelphia
Cancelled the only nightly public affairs program covering Delaware
Closed its Dover bureau
Put its Wilmington office up for sale
Moved almost all of its employees out of state
Located its main studio in Philadelphia
Been listed as a Philadelphia , not Wilmington , station on the Web sites for both the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)

The Senator added that the FCC’s lack of repercussions for public broadcasters that snub their community license “emboldened” WHYY to decrease its local coverage. He urged the FCC to use this opportunity to protect the public interest and require broadcasters to produce locally-focused programming. “

The FCC needs to reassert its role to insist that licensees – companies that get free use of the public airwaves – take their responsibilities to serve the public interest seriously,” Sen. Kaufman concluded on the floor. “If they do not, we will see more stations like WHYY take advantage of lax policies. We will have more citizens in more communities left with little-to-no locally-produced, locally-focused programming. I strongly encourage the FCC to use this chance and act decisively to protect the public interest.”

Full text of the statement below:
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to speak about television and to alert my colleagues to a troubling situation. Recently, the only VHF television station licensed in Delaware cancelled the one nightly public affairs program covering Delaware issues, closed its local studio, and moved almost all of its employees out of state. That station – WHYY-TV -- did this even though the community that it is supposed to serve first, that should be its primary focus – is Wilmington , Delaware . This is offensive and wrong. These and other actions led the City of Wilmington last week to challenge the license renewal of WHYY. I understand and commend the city’s complaint, and I hope it will
bring about better service to Delawareans.
Frankly, I think WHYY was emboldened to make these changes by the weakened oversight of the regulatory agency charged with making sure that broadcast stations serve the public interest: the Federal Communications Commission. If this sort of snub to the community of license proceeds with no repercussions, we could be seeing less and less local service from stations all across the country.If the requirement to serve the public interest has no meaning, if the broadcast station provides its community of license with nothing more than what we can get from a national cable, satellite, or internet channel, then the public is getting a bad deal for giving away spectrum at no charge.
At the core of the FCC’s licensing policies – right from the beginning – is the principle that every community of appreciable size needs, and deserves, its own station. As a nation, we have licensed dozens of broadcast stations to cities all across America . We do not have nation-wide broadcast channels. You get that on cable channels like HBO or Discovery. TV channels are local. These stations that are granted free use of the public airwaves are required to be responsive to local needs. Each has a duty to determine the programming appropriate for its viewing community and then make its programming decisions based on those needs. That’s the deal!
Broadcasters are temporary trustees of the public airwaves. For that privilege, they must serve their own communities.It is exactly because broadcasters must address local issues and needs that the FCC required cable companies to carry local broadcast channels. For the same reason, satellite carriers have been restricted in their ability to bring distant network signals into homes that should be receiving their local stations. Yet, unless the FCC steps up and makes it clear to broadcasters that their duty to serve the public interest is real and includes making programming decisions that are responsive to their communities of license, I fear that the public is going to lose out and that local needs will go unmet.As long as stations think that they can get away with doing less, they will be tempted to do less. If there are no consequences to ignoring their obligations, they will likely take short-cuts, and our communities will be the worse-off for it. If that happens, our historic allocation of channels all across the country, designed to ensure community-oriented service, will become a sham.
I call these concerns to the attention of my colleagues today because this is what is happening in my own home town of Wilmington . We have one VHF station in Delaware . It is Channel 12, WHYY-TV. Its city of license is Wilmington , and it is a public television station.WHYY-TV was not always on Channel 12. In fact, it started out on a UHF channel in Philadelphia . But, in the 1960’s, when the commercial station operating on Channel 12 in Wilmington ran into problems, WHYY beat out the competition for the VHF license. It was no secret that WHYY made this move, not because it wanted to relocate from Philadelphia to Wilmington , but because it wanted to move from a UHF channel to a stronger VHF channel with greater viewership. But this move, nonetheless, was tied to a promise that the station’s primary duty was to serve the interests and needs of the people of Wilmington , its new city of license. Unfortunately, it has been a near-constant struggle for our community to get the attention promised.
When its license was first granted, WHYY agreed to present 16-1/2 hours per week of Delaware-oriented programming. By the time its license came up for renewal in 1978, though, it was providing less than 3-1/2 hours per week. As renewal of its license was challenged, WHYY added some additional Wilmington-oriented programming. Nonetheless, the FCC conditioned the grant of its license on demonstrating a commitment to local programs broadcast from Wilmington, rather than Philadelphia .WHYY was again chastised for failing to serve Wilmington during its 1983 license-renewal proceeding. The criticisms touched on such issues as the location of its main studio; its station log, staff, and management; the production of non-network programming; and the amount of locally-produced programming focused on Delaware . The FCC ordered WHYY to base personnel in Wilmington capable of addressing the many failures.
With the diminishing of FCC oversight of broadcasters’ responsiveness to local needs, WHYY’s service to Wilmington diminished as well. Its main studio has long been in Philadelphia , and the web sites for both the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting Service list it as a Philadelphia station. In June this year, WHYY announced it was closing and putting up for sale its studio in Wilmington , closing its news bureau in Dover , and eliminating most of the 16 employment positions in Delaware.
In short, it is virtually leaving our state and its city of license.WHYY’s programming decisions also mock its community of license. Gone is the daily late-afternoon report that focused on issues of interest to those living in and around the Wilmington area. Today, Delaware ’s only VHF station has committed to producing merely a single 30-minute weekly program focused on our state. That program is scheduled to air at 10:00 p.m. on Fridays and be rebroadcast over the weekend. And, if you look at the listing of locally-produced programs that are touted on WHYY’s web page, you would be hard pressed to find programs focused on Wilmington.
WHYY has had the audacity to rationalize its cut in local programs by saying it will provide more Delaware-focused stories on its Philadelphia-licensed FM radio station and online. This is not an acceptable substitute. This plan leaves entirely un-served those who look to television for information about their local community. Reporting through other media is not the same as reporting on television, and to do so WHYY does not need a TV license. The people of my state feel short-changed, and they should. Especially because WHYY operates a non-commercial educational television station that receives support from tax revenues as well as individual and corporate donations. The public expects
the licensee will be responsible and attentive to the obligations it holds to its community of license. WHYY has failed in this regard. Those of us who live in Delaware understand that we are situated in one of those areas in the country where the airwaves are crowded. Also, television channel assignments to major cities in adjacent states have left little room in the spectrum for allocations to communities in our own state. I know other states face this same problem.The television stations to which Delawareans tune their sets predominately broadcast out of Philadelphia and Salisbury , Maryland. These out-of-state stations, however, owe only a secondary obligation to address the needs of their Delaware viewers.
Mr. President, broadcasting in this country is coming through a significant transition. But the promise that comes with digital transmission should mean states like Delaware – and communities like Wilmington – will receive more attention to their local needs and interests, not less. The allocation of a channel to a particular community must bring with it some special duty, or else it has no meaning at all.The FCC needs to reassert its role to insist that licensees – companies that get free use of the public airwaves -- take their responsibilities to serve the public interest seriously. If they do not, we will see more stations like WHYY take advantage of lax policies. We will have more citizens in more communities left with little-to-no locally-produced, locally-focused programming. The complaint filed last week against WHYY’s license provides the FCC with a perfect opportunity to give real meaning to a broadcaster’s obligation to its community of license. I strongly encourage the FCC to use this chance and act decisively to protect the public interest.

Plus, WNJ editorial and article ~ Only the politicians will gain by WHYY's lack of coverage

~*~

Democracy for America Writes: Voters Revolt: Deliver The Message To Your SenatorNow

2009-12-19T03:29:00.001-08:00

We just got back the numbers from DFA's joint national polling with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and the results are striking: Voters Revolt! Only 33% of voters approve of the Senate's current plan to pass a bill without a public option but with a mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance. The good news is the poll shows Democrats the roadmap to victory: 59% of voters still support a healthcare reform bill with a public option.

~*~

Environmental Defense Fund: Follow Up On Copenhagen By Pressuring Senate To Act

2009-12-19T03:20:00.000-08:00

From the inbox ~
President Obama reached an agreement with world leaders at the climate conference in Copenhagen to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius and to require countries to list their national actions and commitments to achieving emission reduction goals.
EDF President Fred Krupp issued the following statement in response:
Today's agreement leaves the U.S. in control of its own destiny. We have
always known that the path to a clean energy economy goes through Washington, D.C. As President Obama said today, strong action on climate change is in America's national interest.
It's the Senate's turn to speak next. Whether we move ahead with a common-sense plan to create new manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and reduce dependence on foreign oil is not up to other countries; it's up to us. A year from now we can be further ahead or further behind, and the Senate will make the difference.
Today's agreement takes the first important steps toward true transparency and accountability in an international climate agreement. The sooner the U.S. speaks through Senate legislation, the sooner we can set the terms of engagement for talks to come.
There is much work to be done. But, if it wasn't already clear, it is now: The 21st century will be a clean energy century. The question before us is what role will America play in developing the technologies and clean energy solutions in the coming decades?
It's up to us to urge our Senators to follow the leadership of President Obama and seize this opportunity to cap our carbon emissions, create millions of jobs and unleash our clean energy future. You can do two things right now to help:
Go to our Operation: Climate Vote hub page to find various ways to take action.
Make a Year-End donation to help give us the resources we'll need to continue the fight in Washington and get us over the goal line.
Thanks for your activism and support, Environmental Defense Fund

~*~

Frieda Berryhill Writes: A Christmas Present For Utah, Savannah River Site's Depleted Uranium

2009-12-19T02:59:00.000-08:00

The Salt Lake City Tribune 12/11/2009
Trainloads of depleted uranium will soon be on the move,

rolling over the objections of cities on the way to the Utah burial site.

SALT LAKE CITY --- Utah Gov. Gary Herbert sent Energy Secretary Steven Chu a letter Tuesday asking him to halt the shipment of nearly 15,000 drums of low-level radioactive waste from the Savannah River Site for disposal in Utah. ………The Department of Energy is circumventing state regulators' efforts to ensure a private disposal facility in Utah 's west desert can safely dispose of the depleted uranium, said Mr. Herbert, a Republican.
A Nov. 17 presentation given to the Savannah River Site Citizens Advisory Board said the first train would contain 5,408 drums and that all shipments would be completed by late spring 2010. ( depleted uranium is not LOW LEVEL waste, it has a half life of 4.5 BILLION years)
Depleted uranium is different from other waste EnergySolutions Inc. disposes of at its site because it becomes more radioactive over time for up to a million years….
From the New York Times ~

….Some advocates of cleaning up the nation’s nuclear legacy, a mammoth task that is expected to take decades and cost up to $260 billion to complete,……( this estimate of $260 Billion is totally unrealistic , Nuclear waste demands a hierarchy of guardians literally forever. )

…The tensions have spurred a wide-ranging investigation by the Department of Energy’s inspector general and a host of bitter accusations, including one that led toan inquiry into whether one stimulus official had really threatened another bysaying she wanted to shoot him. (Tension are getting high as the whole scandal is beginning to dawn on those in charge)

1987: DuPont notifies DOE that it will not continue to operate and manage the site.
1989: Westinghouse Savannah River Company assumes management and operation of site facilities.
The site currently has about 36 million gallons of high-level liquid waste in 49 tanks .

`
According to DOE these tanks are aging.

Now fast forward: Can you picture the BLAME GAME, when the chickens come home to roost, when no one takes responsibility for the cleanup of nuclear waste from 104 commercial nuclear power plants. Waste, which is lethal for thousands of years.

To push this “Helluva way to boil water” the Government, yes, you the taxpayer assumed responsibility for this waste. When the plants have long stopped to produce electricity where is the incentive to appropriate the hundreds of $Billions to remove these poisons from our communities, I dare anyone to put a Dollar amount on the final cost.

Since many of these plants sit near or on Earthquake faults the immediate damages could be staggering.

Cheap, clean nuclear power, I don’t think so !!!!

~*~

TPM Reports: White House And FDA Don't Deny Dorgan's Accusations That Drug Reimportation Letter Was Political (Ethically, FDA Should Be Apolitical)

2009-12-18T15:03:00.000-08:00

(Sargent and TPM images)

TPM gives Carper's 'faked' FDA PhRMA letter some legs today ~ Did White House Pressure FDA To Help Kill Measure To Make Drugs Cheaper?

`

TPM posted a copy of the FDA letter addressed to Tom Carper.

~*~

`~`

Susie (Suburban Guerrilla) talked to the White House about killing the Dorgan amendment ~

about the recent maneuver to block imported drugs. I called it “shameless,” not only because Candidate Obama ran on the issue of allowing Americans to buy cheaper drugs from Canada, but because the FDA already does site inspections in those same plants they were calling unsafe. (Basically, in order to sell any drugs in America, your manufacturing facility must meet the same standards as an American plant.)
I was pleasantly surprised to hear that they would be submitting an HHS bill in the near future – they’d “just this week” gotten funding to address any safety concerns, but more importantly, to start putting an infrastructure in place to import drugs.

~*~

Netroots Not So Crazy In Waiting To See The Final Bill Before Worrying About Whether To Support It

2009-12-18T14:46:00.000-08:00

From Kos ~ What bill do you think you're supporting?
We're at the point, I think, where you strip this thing of anything remotely controversial and pass whatever is left -- maybe tougher rules against rescissions, some regulatory reform, etc. But as far as substantive reform, we live in a legislative world were a majority can't accomplish shit because idiotic rules prevent government from governing. And we can't resort to reconciliation because we live in a world in which procedural tactics that were okay for Republicans, are somehow off limits for Democrats

...But on more immediate matters, it's time for people to stop supporting the current bill until we know what it will actually look like. Because it doesn't just enable its opponents, but will also leave you looking stupid when that bill turns out to be nothing more than a backdoor expansion of abortion restrictions, and assorted other horrors.

~*~

Politico On West Virgina Senator: Coal, Hard Realty

2009-12-18T10:29:00.000-08:00

Senator Robert Byrd does an about face ~
“Change has been a constant throughout the history of our coal industry,” Byrd said in the 1,161-word statement. “West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it or resist and be overrun by it. One thing is clear: The time has arrived for the people of the Mountain State to think long and hard about which course they want to choose.”

In almost any other state, Byrd’s remarks might not have caused such a stir. But in West Virginia, where the coal industry — even in its currently diminished form — accounts for 30,000 jobs and more than $3.5 billion in gross annual product and provides roughly half of all American coal exports, according to the state coal association, his statement reverberated across the political landscape.

~*~

No He Dint!

2009-12-18T05:11:00.000-08:00

For those who join me in disgust and wonder at the hubris of Barack Obama's 'mushroom cloud moment' with Charles Gibson the other day, here's an enlightening bit to ponder from the Hill's pundits blog ~

~*~

Think Progress Reports On Bi-Partisan Legislation To "Rebuild The Wall Of Glass-Steagall"

2009-12-18T04:41:00.000-08:00

From the inbox ~

ECONOMY -- McCAIN INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO REPEAL FINANCIAL DISASTER CAUSED BY HIS FRIEND PHIL GRAMM:
Yesterday, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John McCain (R-AZ) introduced legislation to reinstate the firewall between commercial and investment banks. "We need to rebuild the wall of Glass-Steagall so banks will stop diverting resources to Wall Street speculation and get back to more business lending to main street," Cantwell said. The legislation puts McCain in an awkward position, given that the firewall that had existed until the late 90s was torn down by his good friend, former senator Phil Gramm.
It was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that allowed financial institutions to abolish all of the significant rules put in place at the time of the Great Depression designed to prevent a repeat of the crisis. The law is often blamed for helping Wall Street firms grow into the too-big-to-fail institutions that exist now. Gramm was one of McCain's closest economic advisers during the 2008 presidential campaign. McCain addressed the awkward position this legislation puts him in after embracing Gramm's economic philosophy for years, "I've talked to Senator Gramm, my oldfriend Senator Phil Gramm many, many times on many issues. ... I'm sure that Senator Gramm probably does not agree with this legislation. It doesn't change our relationship."
It's unclear whether the McCain-Cantwell plan has support in Congress. The Obama administration seems unlikely to embrace the reform, since it "does not attribute the current crisis to the law's repeal, and dismisses the idea that reinstating it would have any impact on the financial sector." Yesterday, a senior U.S. treasury official declared that "going back to Glass-Steagall would be like going back to the Walkman." In addition, Obama's head of the National Economic Council, Lawrence Summers, strongly supported the repeal in 1999. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke also opposes the Cantwell-McCain legislation.

~*~

Economic Recovery Board Chair, Paul Volcker, Says White House-Congressional Overhaul Is "Worthless To Society And Dangerous To Economic Health"

2009-12-18T04:29:00.000-08:00

Baseline Scenario blog writes ~ Paul Volcker Picks Up A Bat

Volcker, legendary former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board with much more experience of Wall Street than any current policymaker, was blunt: We need to break up our biggest banks and return to the basic split of activities that existed under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 – a highly regulated (and somewhat boring) set of banks to run the payments system, and a completely separate set of financial entities to help firms raise capital (and to trade securities).

This proposal is not just at odds with the regulatory reform legislation then (and now) working its way through Congress; Volcker is basically saying that what the administration has proposed and what Congress looks likely to enact in early 2010 is essentially — bunk.

Speaking to a group of senior finance executives, as reported in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, Volcker made his point even more forcefully. There is no benefit to running our financial system in its current fashion, with high risks (for society) and high returns (for top bankers). Most of financial innovation, in his view, is not just worthless to society – it is downright dangerous to our broader economic health.

(h/t Think Progress)

~*~

Rallies Across America Call For Getting Health Reform Done Right - Affordable, Accountable, Quality Health Care Insurance For All

2009-12-18T04:13:00.000-08:00

(presser)

HEALTH REFORM SUPPORTERS RALLY NATIONWIDE TO SAY FINISH THE JOB AND FINISH IT RIGHT
Nearly 50 events in 31 states remind Congress if the insurance companies win, we lose

Washington, DC - Health care reform supporters from SEIU, AFSCME, Change that Works, AFL-CIO, and other Health Care for America Now (HCAN) partners held nearly 50 different rallies and events in more than 30 states today to tell Congress it’s time to make sure health care reform gets done and gets done right. As the holidays approach and the Senate gets closer to passing health care legislation, families and businesses across the country can no longer wait for good health care they can afford. Pro-reform advocates and organizers are calling on their elected officials to help see the process through and make essential improvements so everyone can celebrate health care reform in the New Year.

Events varied from state to state with some supporters holding 24-hour “Round the-Clock for Reform” rallies, some staging holiday-themed actions, and others releasing reports highlighting how insurance companies waste premiums on non health care-related expenses. For example, activists and health care leaders sang holiday carols outside Senator George Voinovich’s (R-OH) office in Columbus to draw attention to the problems in the Senate bill and to urge the public to call House Members and ask them to finish the job and pass health care reform that improves affordability, does not tax benefits, and forces insurance companies to follow the rules. In Atlanta and Savannah, Georgia, health care activists staged a Finish the Job filibuster, standing outside Senator Johnny Isakson’s (R-GA) and Congressman John Barrow’s (D-GA) offices reading the names of health care victims and telling their stories.

All emphasized the need for Congress to finish the job and finish it right which means passing legislation that makes health care more affordable, does not tax benefits, holds insurance companies accountable through strong regulation and the choice of a strong public health insurance option, and requires employers to pay a fair share of good coverage for their employees.

“We have an urgent need to fix health care, but we also need to make sure we do it right,” said Richard Kirsch, National Campaign Manager, Health Care for America Now. “We are looking to Congressional leadership and the White House to make sure health care reform delivers on the promise of making health care more affordable for our families, businesses, and nation and holding the health insurance industry accountable.”

~*~

The Economist Calls For Full Senate Debate On Federal Reserve Chairman's Unemployment Strategy Before Any Vote To Reseat Bernanke

2009-12-17T15:55:00.000-08:00

Bernanke made it out of committee today but his expectation of 4 - 5 more years of high unemployment may not win him much love on the Senate floor.

(h/t Atrios)

~*~

AFL-CIO President Turns Up The Heat On The Senate; Champions A Public Health Insurance Option

2009-12-17T15:06:00.000-08:00

Greg Sargent writes ~ AFL-CIO Statement Blasting Senate Bill Statement by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka On Health Care Bill
December 17, 2009
The labor movement has been fighting for health care for nearly 100 years and we are not about to stop fighting now, when it really matters.
But for this health care bill to be worthy of the support of working men and women, substantial changes must be made. The AFL-CIO intends to fight on behalf of all working families to make those changes and win health care reform that is deserving of the name.
The absolute refusal of Republicans in the Senate to support health care reform and the hijacking of the bill by defenders of the insurance industry have brought us a Senate bill that is inadequate: It is too kind to the insurance industry.
Genuine health care reform must bring down health costs, hold insurance companies accountable, assure that Americans can get the health care they need and be financed fairly.
That's why we are championing a public health insurance option: It is the way to break the stranglehold of the insurance industry over consumers that has led to double digit premium increases virtually every year.
Employers must pay their fair share.
And the benefits of hard-working Americans cannot be taxed to pay for health care reform-that's no way to rein in insurance companies and it's the wrong way to pay for health care reform.
Those are the changes for which we will be fighting in the coming days.
The Senate bill does some good things: It will provide health insurance to 30 million more Americans and provide subsidies to low income individuals and families. Benefits will have to meet minimum standards and insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions or impose lifetime or unreasonable annual limits. The bill also includes some relief for plans with early retirees as well as delivery system reforms that may lead to lower costs over the long haul. And Senate leaders have made a commitment to close the Medicare prescription drugs donut hole which is so costly to seniors.
But because it bends toward the insurance industry, the Senate bill will not check costs in the short term, and its financing asks working people and the country to pay the price, even as benefits are cut.
The House bill is the model for genuine health care reform. Working people cannot accept anything less than real reform.

~*~

Ruh Roh, Carper Is Smack In The Middle Of A Brewing Scandal Over Allegedly "Faked" FDA Letter "Probably Drafted Somewhere Else, Like The White House"

2009-12-17T12:48:00.000-08:00

David Dayen is also waiting on a response from the White House
~~~~~
If you think the air was thick leading up to Byron Dorgan's reimportation amendment that Tom Carper "worked hard to crush" ~ ...
"I don't think that's going to get my vote," Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said when HuffPost asked about the reimportation amendment. He said that even though he is a supporter of reimportation, he is concerned that if it passes it could blow everything up.As Carper put a hold on the amendment, biding time to get the votes to defeat it. .
Where DEM noes struggled to justify their vote as Ryan Grim reported ~ Doughnuts For Dorgan: Drug Reimportation Killed In Deal That Might Get Cheaper Drugs For Seniors ~
HuffPost asked Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who is generally supportive of reimportation but voted against, why he did so. "The colloquy yesterday, between Leader [Harry] Reid and Chairman [Max] Baucus and Chairman [Chris] Dodd, did not happen in a vacuum," said Whitehouse, carefully choosing his words. A colloquy is a public conversation on the Senate floor that often is used to ratify a deal struck in private.What was the subject of the colloquy?
"Closing the doughnut hole," said Whitehouse. A senate Democratic aide confirmed that the doughnut-hole move was largely made in exchange for votes to kill Dorgan's amendment. "That was more or less the arrangement," he said. (The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
The deal was reportedly cut months back ~

Earlier this year, the administration struck a deal with PhRMA and the Senate Finance Committee limiting the industry's hit to $80 billion over ten years. The deal has never been officially confirmed, but the Huffington Post reported at the time that the White House agreed to oppose re-importation. The Senate Finance Committee bill, as well as the merged bill sent to the floor by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), stuck to that deal.

The memo ~

Well, this story has just gotten a lot foggier. David Sirota writes ~ Dorgan Accuses White House of Unethically Politicizing Safety Warnings From the FDA. As for Tom Carper, last week HuffPo reported that ~

Carper asked the FDA for its opinion on Dorgan's amendment and the administration wrote back on December 9 that it opposed it. The Wall Street Journal: "In a letter to Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg also said overseeing importation would be 'resource intensive.' The letter was a response to a request by Sen. Brownback, who in the past has opposed reimportation of drugs." Dorgan responded by calling the FDA letter "completely bogus" (Mundy, 12/9).

The Seattle Times wrote ~

Even before Dorgan introduced it Tuesday night, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent senators a letter saying the plan would be "logistically challenging" to implement and raises "significant safety concerns."Dorgan said he was surprised by the letter because Obama co-sponsored Dorgan's proposal in 2007 as a freshman Democratic senator from Illinois. In addition, Dorgan noted, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel sponsored another version of the bill that same year as a Democratic House member from Illinois.

And back to Open Left today ~

We've been aggressively covering the crazy story of the Obama administration crushing drug importation legislation that President Obama campaigned on as a presidential candidate and supported as a U.S. Senator. Now, days after the administration colluded with the pharmaceutical industry to kill the measure, one Democratic senator is making an extremely serious accusation.
The Food and Drug Administration is supposed to be one of those science-based agencies somewhat removed from politics - specifically to protect the integrity of its declarations on health and safety issues. That's why this story from the Wall Street Journal is very problematic:
...Last week, [Dorgan] said he heard rumors that the FDA was going to send a letter objecting to drug importation on safety grounds, which he has said is a bogus reason. He said he called FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, who said she knew nothing about such a letter. He said his timeline shows that a letter, signed by Hamburg questioning the safety of drug imports, was sent 24 hours later to a few senators who opposed importation. That piece of paper became a rallying cry for other senators who voted down Dorgan's amendment.
"I think the letter was prompted, probably drafted somewhere else," like "the White House" Dorgan said.
With a comment rescue ~

It's a letter purportedly from the FDA which the FDA commissioner knew nothing about - that's not spin, but a real document.
...Anyhow, I do hope this is a genuine "scandal" as you say. It's certainly scandalous, but people seem to expect that regulatory agencies exist to further political agendas rather than serve citizens: yet another way the Obama administration is helping to undermine public faith in government. People talk about the political price for prosecuting the criminals in the Bush II administration, but the real costs of doing nothing are far greater in the fomenting and reinforcement popular cynicism.

~*~

Senate Bill Will "Force People To Buy Extremely Expensive Poorly Regulated Junk Insurance"?

2009-12-17T10:27:00.000-08:00

Jon Walker shows why no one should confuse the Netherland's version of decent mandated health care coverage with the U.S. Senate's ~
Listed here are only some of the ways the system produced by the Senate bill falls way short of the Dutch health care system. If the government promised everyone access to well regulated, high quality insurance with a $200 deductible and monthly premiums of $150, I would definitely be supporting the individual mandate. The problem is that the Senate bill will force people to buy extremely expensive poorly regulated junk insurance. The individual mandate is morally and politically wrong until the government lives up to its end of the social contract. On that front, the Senate bill is a failure.
[Note: A fair amount came from the Dutch ministry on health http://www.minvws.nl/en/themes/health-insurance-system/default.asp]

~*~

Unhappy SEIU Tells Obama To “Fight Like Hell To Deliver Real And Meaningful Reform To The American People"

2009-12-17T09:03:00.000-08:00

Everyone is chattin' up SEIU President Andy Stern's letter to members this morning. The Plum Line's Greg Sargent's got it, HuffPo has it, FireDogLake has it, and it's over at the Daily Kos ~ SEIU: Obama Must Remember His Own Words From Campaign

~*~