So you want to cut Medicaid. Do you really? Part 2

Last week, I described how Medicaid is a joint federal and state program; that it used to be funding more by the federal government than the state, but that federal funds are drying up. I also asked my readers a few questions about their own families, hopefully, showing them that their own family might use or already be using Medicaid even if they are not poor.

I think that federal/state point is important because here in Illinois, we're always being told that our state programs are in trouble because our Democratic legislators caused a big problem, forgetting that Illinois was majority Republican long before it was majority Democratic, but no one every seems to care about that. However, the point is that the cut in federal funding is the problem we're having with Medicaid. That's because our federal legislators feel that war and tax cuts for the wealthy are more important.

Our federal issue discourse is about cuts, cuts cuts because multinational corporations that send jobs to India and China are the "job creators".

Well, guess what. Medicaid is a job creator too.

In 2009, the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a bi-partisan  data- driven, research and advocacy think tank, issued a report titled Medicaid Plays a Critical Role in Illinois' Economy. In the report, CTBA shows how Medicaid "has a positive ripple effect throughout the state and local economy." CTBA found that Medicaid has a multiplier effect meaning:

...Medicaid dollars circulated through the economy have a far greater economic impact than just direct reimbursement to pay providers of Medicaid services. Medicaid also pays for a portion of the wages paid to the professionals, technicians, custodians and administrators employed by health care providers. These wages are then used to pay mortgages, buy groceries, pay bills and buy goods and services in the local consumer economy. Medicaid reimbursement is also used to acquire medical and other supplies from local businesses. These funds are then applied to support employees of the supply companies. In essence, Medicaid spending generates business activity throughout the medical industry, supports wages for health care workers, fosters consumer spending, boosts state tax revenue and produces general economic output. The multiplier effect is enhanced with respect to Medicaid because new dollars – federal matching funds – are pulled into the state economy.

In 2009, this multiplier effect resulted in $46 Billion of additional business activity, $15.8 Billion in Wages and 385,742 jobs statewide.

Economists in Florida came up with similar findings, that Medicaid cuts are a job killer. The Illinois Hospital Association agrees that Medicaid cuts are a job killer in 2012 Illinois.Although, one cannot help but wonder if medical spending has become the new economic bubble for this decade as real estate was in the 1990s and early 2000s.

The downside of cutting state Medicaid is that the state cut will cut federal matching dollars coming into the state, having a reverse multiplier effect on Illinois' economy. CTBA also noted that late payments to providers has hampered the positive economics of Medicaid and that increased us of Medicaid comes from the "unaffordability of private coverage for many struggling families as health care costs creep upward."

So, we have seen how federal spending cuts have adversely affected state Medicaid programs and how cuts to those programs lessen federal matching. We have also seen how the combined cuts result in loss of economic activity and jobs. When your U.S. Congressman, Robert Dold, tells you that he's all about protecting the job creators, you might ask him what he's done to protect Medicaid, a true job creator.

Ten Ways to Tell if Your Political Organization is Really a Cult

I think we can be proud of our local Democratic political organizations. They allow for diversity of opinion, talents and activities. If someone is better at planning events, they can do that. If someone is a whiz on the phones for a candidate, they can do that. New ideas are welcome and all you have to do to be someone is to do something. Want to be a leader? Be one. Want to be a decision maker? Make Decisions. Supporters of different candidates are welcome and can come together and support the primary winner in the end. New members are sought, and often and overtly appreciated with member appreciations events and awards. Events are well publicized and well attended and other groups are often sought for co-sponsorship of event. Other groups events are publicized and members are encouraged to attend those as well.

I also admire organizations out in DuPage, Kane and down in central Illinois where they are similarly diverse and are working hard to support my cousin, David Gill for similar reasons and I have admire organizations I've been to in Boston and DC for the same reasons.

However, every now and again, I travel around the country, or go to a different political party's events and see how they operate. Sometimes, I've have had the feeling I've entered a cult rather than a meeting or event of a political group. Here's a list of cult characteristics. Below is my list of characteristics of political organizations that operate more like cults.

In my humble opinion, a political group may be in cult if it has all or some of the following characteristics:

1. Events and meetings are located and scheduled for the convenience of a few leaders, not publicized, and no directions or parking are provided or suggested. Eeew if we did all that, different people might show up.
2. The group pretty much does one thing and if that one thing is not your thing, they don't want you.
3. New members are rarely sought and are almost always friends of existing members. Members are discouraged from networking or having relationships or interests outside of the group.
4. The few new members who are accepted into the group almost immediately become part of leadership.**
5. The organization's newsletter, website or blog is written and edited by one person who is also the groups leader. No one else is encouraged or perhaps even permitted to write.
6. Candidates are supported based on relationships and friendships, not on ability or credentials and candidates who are not friends of the group are discouraged, ignored or given a really hard time even being allowed to present to the group.
7. Members are supposed to revere the leaders while leaders pretty much disdain the rank and file members.**
8. All decisions are made by leadership in closed leadership meetings. All decisions are final and group members are required to fully support the decision. No one ever plays the devil's advocate and no one ever says, "hey, wait a minute." It's pretty clear that anyone who does that will be drummed out.**
9. Candidate forums are mostly attended by candidates, other candidates, the same candidate's campaign managers, and group leaders. So, basically candidates are speaking to each other or people already involved in their campaigns, and no one really notices or cares or tries to change that situation for the future.
10. Successes, few though they are, are not studied for what went right and failures are never looked at as a teaching moment. The silver lining is found, the group is found to have acted correctly, and the formula never changes.

** Reminds me of the satire group in my high school, Students for Easter Island wherein everyone was an officer, new members had to have taken a particular English lit class called Satire and Man's Search for Utopia, and others were (jokingly) discouraged. They were lead by The Enlightened Despot. But, of course, that was intentional satire. No one actually listened to The Enlightened Despot. They didn't and didn't need to make all that many decisions. They only had one event, a yam sale fundraiser (it was pretty successful) to purchase a shrubbery for the school courtyard, and it was during high school wherein a person is allowed to be a little goofy.

If you look at this list and find your group is more of a cult than a political group, you might want to make a few changes in the areas I've described above, let your memberships grow, encourage different talents and activities and opinions. Mostly, study your successes and failures, don't hold on to your assumptions too tightly and think about new ways of doing things. Or, learn how ride an imaginary horse and say "Ni!"

So you want to cut Medicaid. Do you really?

With its history of anti-tax Republicans, tax-fearful Democrats and bowing to corporate extortion to keep jobs in the state, Illinois has underfunded pensions, unpaid vendors and health care providers, and has many other economic woes. So, once again, Medicaid has become a target. Medicaid is often on the chopping block, probably because the perception is that it helps poor people. Now, the lingo is that the cuts being made are to save the program. No need to change priorities.

What exactly is Medicaid? It's a joint federal-state program, basically, the national health care safety net for the poor, children, the disabled and seniors, but administered separately by each state.

Who pays for Medicaid? Medicaid is a joint federal state program. The federal government has traditionally contributed over half of the needed funds to the various state Medicaid programs, but federal funds have been disappearing. There was a federal reprieve in the 2009 stimulus bill, but now those funds are gone. So, the states have to make it up. More federal cuts are planned.

What does the House Budget do to Medicaid? Right now, there is no cap on Medicaid spending. The program is based on need and eligibility. The House budget favored by Republicans including Illinois Tenth  Congressional District Representative, Bob Dold, turns the program into a block grant that limits the amount of federal funds to a lump sum each year, subject to decreases as the political winds blow, and requires the states to make up the rest. The block grant proposal would cut Medicaid by one-third by 2022. To make up for the lost funds, the states would be given new flexibility to cut the number of people eligible, cap the number of eligible people who get the benefit, and cut the actual amounts paid out for the benefit of eligible and covered individuals.

What does Illinois Governor Quinn's Proposal Cut regarding Seniors and the Disabled in Nursing Homes or Supportive Living Facilities? The detailed list of proposed cuts can be found here. Because my focus is usually on the elderly and disabled in nursing homes or supportive living facilities, I'll detail some of those cuts here:

• Changing the Determination of Need (DON) for nursing and supportive living facility applicants. The DON is a two-part test that measures symptoms of mental functioning such as memory loss and the need for assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). ADL is a medical and legal term of art that includes bathing, dressing, grooming, toileting, dental care, transferring (getting around the house or from the house  to the car or elsewhere), cooking, laundry, other housework, shopping, managing money and all the things we all do every day to take care of ourselves. The DON also includes a measurement of how well needs are met through other programs (noting that Illinois is way down on the list of states that provide programs to assist people at home). The proposal increases the DON from 29 to 37. Here is an study by the Illinois Department of Aging that describes how the DON is scored and what the scores mean. The change could operate to eliminate people with moderate dementia. or people without dementia, but a moderate to severe problem with motor skills.
• Repeal law requiring ambulance service between hospitals and nursing homes.
• Moratorium on new admissions to intermediate care nursing facilities--about 15,000 mentally ill people will find no place to live.
• Eliminate mental health programs for nursing home residents.
• Eliminating bed holds for nursing home patients temporarily transferred to the hospital.

What does all this mean to the average Illinoisan? If you're ok with Medicaid cuts because you're not poor or feel the poor get too many benefits at your expense, think about this: As was pointed out by one of the providers who does needs evaluations for the state here, the changes would make the average 65-year-old incontinent woman with cataracts and arthritis who needs help with cooking and taking medications ineligible for nursing home or supportive living assistance.

Do you have a member of your family who is elderly or disabled? Do you think you will always be able to take care of that person at home? Do you work? Would you have to keep your elderly and/or disabled loved one alone for long periods of time each day? Can you afford in-home daytime help without state assistance? What would the home look like if your elderly or disabled loved one was left to his or her own devices all day? Would medications be taken as directed? Would reasonably nutritious meals be made? Dishes washed? Would you be worried about the senior or disabled person setting the house on fire? Forgetting to lock doors or opening doors to strangers? How do you feel about changing adult diapers? Would your parent feel demeaned by having you, his or her child, changing the diapers? What if the only person able to be at home was one of the grandchildren? Ok if it's a 20 year old? How about a 16 years old?

Ever have to get the nursing home to send grandma to the hospital? I did several years ago when I was young and unaware of Medicaid rules. My grandmother became very ill one day when I happened to visit. She was so ill, I became alarmed, and we called an ambulance to take her to the hospital. There was no way I could have managed her in my car, so I felt lucky that there was available ambulance service. Turned out that she was in fact quite ill. She was in the hospital for several days, but what were we forced to worry about? That she'd lose her room at the nursing home. I had no idea that I might have risked her room, and it didn't really matter because she was too ill for me to ignore the issue for Medicaid rules. Turned out that I was lucky because there were limits to how few days the room could be empty before the home would have pushed her out. What will happen to people in similar situations when the limits are removed? Could my family have afforded the daily nursing home rate, about $60K each year then? Could yours? Remember it's probably more now.

What if you're the person who becomes disabled or grows elderly and infirm? Do you think you'll be able to keep your home, health or dignity without assistance? How will you feel about asking your children if you can move in and if the grand kids can give you the 4:00pm diaper change?

Do you think perhaps the country needs to change its priorities away from tax cuts for the wealthiest people and corporations, and unending war, so that seniors and the disabled can be adequately cared for?

They Only Care When I Question Their Power

A comment to my last post said I should have simply asked senators to vote yes to the Buffet Rule rather than pointing out that someone from senate.gov spent 45 minutes on my blog yesterday. I asked senate.gov if they perhaps had something better to do such as the Buffet Rule vote.

House.gov spend a fair amount of time here too yesterday.

In total, senate.gov spent far more that 45 minutes I pointed out. They kept coming back, probably to see the comments. You see senate.gov was interested in my blog yesterday because an earlier post questioned whether Mark Kirk's staff and other Republicans were attributing comments, thoughts and actions to him without his participation or knowledge, and questioned whether these people should be creating a back story for him if it's not true. Politics, not policy.

And that's the point. Nothing they seem to do over there at senate.gov (or house.gov) has anything to do with policy or governing for the good of the American people. It's all politics.

It's all politics and no one even questions whether senate.gov should be spending so much time reading this blog or whether it's even legal for them to do so. No one questions why senate.gov never seems to care about this blog when the subject is the importance of health care reform or preserving Social Security or Medicare. They only care when I question their power.

Wouldn't you think they had better things to do than sit on my blog

For goodness' sake, there's a big vote in the Senate on the Buffet Rule, they're supposed to vote on it next in the House. Wouldn't you think these people have better things to do than spend time on my blog?

We've Had Two Women Presidents. Does Illinois Have a New Senator?

Have you ever hear of Edith Bolling Galt Wilson? Galt Wilson was arguably the first woman president of the United States. Pretty ironic given that her husband, Woodrow Wilson was widely protested by the suffrage movement just a few years prior to his stroke and her taking the reigns of power.

Galt Wilson described her role in the government as a "stewardship", not exactly a constitutional post. It appears that she served as a filter through which each and every issue and presidential decision passed. She decided what he saw and what he didn't and decided which of his ideas and comments was communicated back.

The Wilson Administration maintained that although Wilson's body was incapacitated, his mind remained clear, but press releases were vague and revealed nothing of substance. It was later revealed that Wilson was unable to concentrate for any significant period of time, "unable to do more than listen, dictate letters, talk for a few minutes, and scrawl his signature." (When the Cheering Stopped: The Last Years of Woodrow Wilson (New York: Morrow, 1964).

Do you think that it was ok that everything to and from President Wilson was filtered through his wife?

The second woman president was none other than Nancy Reagan who served when husband Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's, and possible stroke, brought his condition to the point where he couldn't function as President.

Do you like the idea that a spouse and staff hid a president's serious condition from the public? Failed to take action under the Twenty Fifth Amendment on presidential succession? Be honest, would your answer change if we were talking about the other party? If it were Clinton or Carter and not Reagan?

What about what's going on in Illinois right now with Senator Mark Kirk?

We all know that Kirk had a stroke on January 21, 2012. We all felt bad about it too and wish him well, and some of us thought about getting him a puppy until his condition seemed too unclear to be sure he could manage one. No one was pushing for Kirk to resign office, not even me, and no one is doing that now. It's just that this last article by John Presta, for the Examiner, brought home just how odd this situation is becoming.

The article describes a press conference held by Kirk's staff on April 11, 2012, first described by Greg Hinz on Crain's and repeated on Capitol Fax. Crain's cannot be described as a Democratic paper, nor can Hinz be described as a liberal, progressive or Democrat. Presta seems like a progressive, and perhaps not a Kirk fan, but that doesn't seem to be his driving force here.

It's Hultgren's and Kirk's staff's comments that seem odd. Hultgren hadn't even seen Kirk prior to his appearance to deliver Kirk's staff's report on the Illinois economy. When asked for an update by someone who had actually seen Kirk, Hultgren's comment was: "Okay. We'll put that request in, any other questions while we're waiting? I don't have anybody in the room to be able to respond to that." Kirk's Staff told reporters to ask RIC, a rehab facility that most certainly will not answer questions about the condition of any patient, "and then almost literally fled from the room." This doesn't sound like a group of people trying to be up front with Illinois about Kirk's condition?

I'm all for giving Kirk time to recover. However, I do have a problem with attributing actions and comments to Kirk that many not be his. Kirk's tweets no long sport the qualifier "[Staff]". Is Kirk tweeting or at least coming up with the tweet that someone else may be typing? I would have no problem with someone else doing the typing. I'm just wondering whether or not Kirk is coming up with the comments being attributed to him.

There's more I'd like to know. What does Kirk himself know about the economic report that was released? Why would he take his time and energy to work on state issues when he might not even be handling his own federal job? They say Kirk applauded the signing of the Stock Act. Did he really? The March 20 Issue of "The Kirk Report", Kirk's little email update on his office claims that he's working on veteran's unemployment by holding a jobs caucus with Sen.Joe Manchin. The email links to this page with claims that Kirk sponsored a veteran's jobs fair. Has he done anything or said anything about it or even know about it? I have a Google News Alert on Mark Kirk, had one for years, and it's still every bit as active as it's been the entire time. News reports attribute positions on Iran, the economy, immigration and visa rules, Amtrak and much much more to Kirk. Are they his positions? Does he even know about them?

I'm not saying Kirk needs to get up out of his rehab facility bed and tackle the problems of the nation or the state this minute. I'm just asking whether you think it's ok for Kirk's staff, family and loved ones, with the press to help them, attribute ideas, comments and actions to Kirk that may or may not be his. If Kirk is acting as remote-operating senator, doing the job, but giving folks direction on physically getting things done, great, good for him. But if he's not, I'm not sure I think people should be fabricating a back story for him.

With our national history of hiding leaders illnesses, should we be wondering if our new senator is Dodie McCracken, post-divorce female companion of Mark Kirk? If not Dodie, then who?

I'll be glad to entertain comments if they stick to the point, and my question is different from the one Rich Miller asked on Capitol Fax about whether the media should pressure Kirk's office to give an update on his condition and prognosis. My question is whether you think it ok for ideas, comments and actions to be attributed to Senator Kirk that may not be coming from Senator Kirk? Feel free to comment about Wilson and Reagan too.

Alice Paul, Lucy Burns and the Unconstitutional Imprisonment for Petty Offenses to Suppress a Movement

I'm re-posting this movie review because there is going to be a special free screening of Iron Jawed Angels in Highland Park:

Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2012Time: 7:00 pm

Location: Highland Park Theatre, 445 Central Avenue, Highland Park

To RSVP email Personal Pac.

Note: This review does contain some spoilers, but if you do not already know the story of the Nineteenth Amendment, you should learn about it.

I recently watched the movie, Iron Jawed Angels, the 2004 movie starring Hillary Swank as Alice Paul, one of the founders of the National Women's Party, the group that eventually won the vote for women.

When you think about women's suffrage, you probably think about Susan B. Anthony and the National American Woman Suffrage Association. You would be correct as Anthony and NAWSA led the charge starting in the 1890s. However, Alice Paul and Lucy Burns put the movement over the top from 1912 to 1920 with their courage in the face of both anti-suffrage hecklers and wartime censorship laws.

Protesting during wartime was particularly dangerous as President Wilson enforced censorship laws cloaked as petty offense laws to clamp down on women seeking the vote and protesting union laborers in the lead-up to and during WWI. The story is pretty close to the story of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as groups like Wikileaks and Occupy are being censored and put down, Occupy through unjust and unconstitutional arrests for petty crimes like staying in a park after 11:00pm.

Alice Paul

For protesting the White House on behalf of women's suffrage during WWI in 1917, Paul, Burns, and several other women, were arrested for obstructing traffic. They were sent to  the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia when they refused to pay the fines. Conditions were bad enough at Occoquan, but on arrival, several of the women were beaten and chained to the bars on their cells. When some of them went on a hunger strike to protest their unconstitutional imprisonment, and contined denial of legal counsel, they were force fed, early 20th century style--basically raw eggs and milk forced down their throats with a garden hose while their mouths held open with a crude metal clamp. When injuries made the original method impossible, they put the tube up the woman's nose. It was brutal as the victims were vomiting and bleeding during and after the procedure.

In addition to the forced feedings, Alice Paul was kept awake with hourly flashlight checks that went on all night, and was given repeated psychological examinations for persecution mania which would have allowed authorities to transfer her to an insane asylum. Lucky for Paul, the doctor in charge (ultimately) refused to buy into the Administrations wishes. Would a doctor buy in today? Before you answer, note that doctors participated in the concealment of torture at at Guantánamo Bay.

Lucy Burns

The press finally got ahold of the story and Americans were astounded and disgusted. The public clamor, and an attorney who filed a habeas corpus lawsuit on behalf of Paul, forced the situation Eventually 8 separate suits were filed. The Wilson Administration offered a settlement involving removing the political prisoners to the local jail where conditions were better, but the women refused to withdraw their habeas corpus petitions. They went to court and received a favorable ruling on their removal from the workhouse to the local jail, but they refused offered paroles because they were offered in light of their delicate condition as women. The suits went up on appeal, and in 1918, the arrests and imprisonments were ruled unconstitutional.

The government lost, basically, because they turned a minor inconvenience to pedestrian traffic into a major offense as if the women had intentionally started a riot. They also lost because the allegations were unconstitutionally vague. Now, governments and courts avoid the unconstitutional vague defense with specific public park laws that keep protesters to specific places and specific times. These laws are upheld as constitutional police powers, but they still amount to overstating an offense and are still used for censorship. For more on the NWP women's arrests and workhouse conditions, take a look at this book and this article (which you have to download to a pdf file, but it's free) on the subject.

Would Americans be astounded and disgusted by the similar treatment of protesters today? I'm guessing not as the media pushed, and many Americans have gone along with the story that torture is perfectly fine, and protesters are criminals while murders are not.

Would the lawsuits that vindicated the women have been maintained, or the imprisonment have been so ill-regarded by the public had the women not been white and middle class or wealthy? There is a reason behind Republican initiatives to shrink and eliminate the middle class. They'd like to see people not part of their 1% club to be relegated to wearing suspicious "suicide hoodies" and unable to afford counsel or gain public sympathy. It's a great way to aggregate wealth and prevent the rest of us from seeking and obtaining justice.

One interesting note about the Nineteenth Amendment that gave women the right to vote nationally is that it took both the militant NWP and the older, more conservative and more connected NAWSA to get the Amendment through Congress and adopted by enough states to make it part of the US Constitution. Women's suffrage was an old issue by the nineteen teens. Women had been told to "be patient" over and over again. NAWSA was wrapped up in its ties to the Democratic Party and stood down when Wilson was up for election and reelection. The younger women of NWP were sick of waiting and had learned more militant tactics working in the UK. NWP brought the issue back on the table with their wartime protests comparing Wilson to Kaiser Wilhelm, but it was the more connected NAWSA that ultimately won Wilson's support for the Amendment. The American people were upset about the treatment of the NWP women  at Occoquan, but President Wilson owed the women of the NAWSA for their continued support.  He ended up supporting the Nineteenth Amendment as a war measure. That's something that the members of the Ilya Sheyman campaign should ponder now that they feel without a voice.

Sad, but we have to ask.

Iron Jawed Angels gets 2-3/4 cat treats. Hillary Swank gives a good performance as Alice Paul as a smart, strong, but feminine character. Paul's friendship with Lucy Burns is well depicted. The love story with McDreamy from Gray's Anatomy falls flat. The story moves quickly. However, I felt that the film's direction was off-base. There are a lot of very modern, stylized shots that simply do not fit the era depicted.

A Recipe for Changing the Conversation: Test Kitchen

In the prior post, I made my argument that the primary election did not change the conversation in our district. New issues have sprung up organically, the Lake County jail scandal and the volatile weather. Have you see that apart from the few freeze warnings we've had over the past couple of weeks after weeks of unseasonably warm weather, we've also had wildfire warnings. I told my dad he doesn't have to retire to California because it has retired to him.

But I digress.....

Subjects that progressives want to talk about have been decidedly off the table. We used to have a pretty vocal anti-war group out here that could muster up quite a crowd, but it appears to have fizzled as many of it's leaders went off to defend health care reform without the reform or moved into a failed candidate campaign. We still have several good educational events about various topics, but they're mostly attended by the same people and that will never change the conversation in a way big enough to matter.

So, how do I think we can change the conversation?

Doing what Occupy should be doing, but isn't.

Yes, I think Occupy is a good idea, but they're doing it wrong. I don't fault them for doing it wrong because they're doing what they've seen done in the past. They're protesting and doing some civil disobedience like their parents did to avoid being drafted to Vietnam until they became investment bankers and were happy to send other people's kids to needless foreign wars.

So, what do I think Occupy should be doing?

Occupying.

I'm not talking protests and I'm not talking civil disobedience. I'm talking about getting involved in the community.

Don't stand outside some bank with a sign and a bullhorn. Stand inside the bank as an employee who refuses to do illegal and immoral things and say something when your bosses require you to.

Don't silently sit in your church, temple or synagogue or mosque upset about what's being said. Get up and say something. There are likely others who agree with you, but they're too scared to say anything too because they don't know you're out there.

Go you library board meetings. Don't you remember that man out in the Vernon Hills area who was on the library board removing books that didn't fit his right wing views? He was finally voted out, but only because people who attended the meetings saw what he was doing and said something, first to each other, and then to the local paper. Also, take a look at what's on the shelves at your local library. I've seen an entire row of Ann Coulter books on a shelf, but no Thom Hartmann or Matt Taibi anywhere to be found. Why is that? What's with all the Christian fiction in Deerfield when we have a lot of other religions represented in the community?

Go to school board meetings. Teachers could use the support. Also, some pretty right wing stuff is getting by us in the schools. We're always told no politicking in the schools, but people on the right do it without shame and no one stops them.

One of my pet missions is to encourage people to go to court. I'm not saying to protest or disrupt courtrooms, but go and watch. In some foreclosure and eviction courts there's no one there but plaintiffs' attorneys, unrepresented defendants and the clerk and the judge. The plaintiffs' attorneys, the clerk and the judge get to know each other pretty well and no one's watching what that relations turns into. Might be a good idea for people to see what goes on in those courtrooms.

We have local chambers of commerce. The US Chamber is a disaster of Koch Brothers and big oil lobbyists, but if we were part of our local chambers, we could bring the other perspective to our local business communities and stop local support of the US Chamber.

Progressives and liberals should not be outside their communities looking in, protesting and looking like outsiders and trouble makers, getting arrested for civil disobedience when the real criminals are inside. We need to occupy our communities, really occupy them from within, make our voices heard.

Conversation Changer?

I'm reading little in the progressive blogosphere from the outside groups that tried to control our congressional election. As predicted, after a brief mea culpa from the outfit that did the poll for them that seemed to involve quantum theory, the Bold Progressives have simply ignored their goofy poll and turned their attention to more interesting races. Both Moveon and Howard Dean have moved on. Only the local, Chicago DFA has much to say about it's effort in the great north and northwest. They're claiming a small victory because they "saw the conversation change in the Tenth."

I decided to take a look at the conversation myself. Did it change?

I have to agree that on one topic the conversation did in fact change. People in the district are clearly discussing how much they hate negative robo-calls. Yes, that is some sort of accomplishment, I guess.

Low voter turnout has been on people's minds, but does that mean there's been a conversation change or there's no conversation to have changed? Or is it that voters care, but they don't know what to think or still feel too powerless to make a difference?

More changes? Well, there's a lot of talk about a tacky sign in front of a restaurant in Deerfield. However, most of the conversation out here is about how to fill up empty retail space. The aggregation of electricity is also under discussion. I learned yesterday that an entire sub-industry of electricity salespeople has popped up and that the municipalities aggregating are pinching some of that business.

Bob Dold is running from the Tea Party to the US Chamber of Commerce (see my prior post), but I think we have to credit the opponent of the claimed conversation changers. It was Brad Schneider who re-interated Dold's tea party ties in his mass mailings. Dold dumped the tea parties for the piles of money he can get from corporate interests that he cannot get from tea partiers who, when left to their own devices, are no better at raising money, perhaps worse, than progressive groups.

In Northbrook, they're talking about beg bugs, which I guess oddly helps Bob Dold, and the library is raising the overdue fees. In the northwest, they're talking about a tunnel to alleviate problems with speeding drivers and a pedestrian trail. Sewer and water fees are going up in Lindenhurst. They mayor of Beach Park died and the proposed local ball team failed to get up and running in Zion. Then, there are the ever-present crime stories.

In a glimmer of sunlight, we're seeing hybrid PACE buses. I don't remember that being an issue in the campaign, though. Speaking of sunlight, people have been talking about the volatile weather and have renewed concern over global warming, but only because reality has set in, having nothing to do with any political groups' talking points.

The Lake County jail scandal is still under discussion. That is a good thing that has come out of the recent election, but it wasn't those outside congressional race focused groups who brought that up.

On the local health care front, we're seeing talk about health care cooperatives. Those were the plans pushed by some Republicans and Blue Dogs in Congress back in 2008 and 2009 and were rejected by progressives as too expensive for having pools that were too small to reduce prices effectively, and for failing to cover too many medical issues. Here was my June 2009 post on health care cooperatives. Now with the potential of losing the non-public option, Democratic version, those co-ops are starting to look pretty good.

Now, one could correctly argue that the mainstream media isn't all that great an arbiter of a community's conversation, but it's one indication. I've also been to a few events and meetings of various local and non-political organizations. I haven't heard a lot of new discussion about progressive issues. I'm not hearing the conversations at the grocery store or in local restaurants. My neighbors aren't beating down my door to discuss the issues and I live in a fairly political area. Let me know if you live in or have been hanging around the district if you have heard new conversations. I'm all ears.

My point is that, apart from extreme hatred of robo-calls, no the conversation has not changed out here, not in any long term meaningful way. I'm not saying this just to burst anyone's bubble, but to point out that perhaps progressives need to change the way we look at elections. Aren't we sick of dancing this same dance?

Maybe the biggest failure of the outside progressive groups' foray into the Illinois Tenth District was that they talked a lot, but failed to listen to what people out here are thinking about, talking about and worrying about. Another possibility is that they seem to jump on the bandwagon of anyone who can recite the talking points and really jump on the bandwagon of someone who has joined their group and hung out with them. Is someone a good candidate because he has a few beers at your local hangout once a month? Isn't that a bit too internally focused, particularly if you're trying to affect elections outside of your own natural reach? Were we just a membership drive for DFA, PDA and PCCC?

Maybe we need those young people who flock to the Chicago event/parties and candidate campaigns each election season to stick around and do some of the everyday work that needs doing. Maybe we need some of them in lower level offices, get some experience, earn the local communities' trust, help people see that they can have power and what they can do with it, and then move up to the higher offices. The necessary corollary to that is also true, people in office need to take next steps and actually move up. Anyone running for lower office should understand that if we're going to support them, they need to commit to doing what it takes to move up.

I'd suggest that these out of district progressive groups would be welcome at an issue forum, or to help monitor elected officials town halls or voting records or to help down ballot races. But if they want to continue to get involved up here in any real way, they probably should not be telling their members what a great job they did by changing the conversation because they didn't. That takes a lot of work over time. To have the conversation change elections it also takes getting good candidates, good meaning that they've been around here for a while (a real while not a few months) and accomplished something.

Bob Dold (R-US Chamber of Commerce)

Last week we found out that Bob Dold doesn't really want to represent the people of the Tenth District. He's not all that interested in legislating for new and good jobs, infrastructure and modernization. He'd rather spend his time helping put the unemployed together with those low-paying, benefits-lacking jobs already out there.

Now, we know why. Dold just won an award for really representing the US Chamber of Commerce, a powerful pro-big business lobbying organization, and a member of ALEC, the people who brought us the Stand Your Ground law that continues to protect the killer of Trayvon Martin.

The US Chamber is also tied to American Crossroads, a 527 organization that gets that Citizens United protected anonymous funding to help Republicans win elections with lies, race baiting and smear. The group gets its advice from guys like Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie.

Among the Chamber's strategic initiatives are:

• Weakening of RICO laws
• Deregulation of the financial industry and halting investigations on what led to the 2008 financial crisis (ie against regulation of derivatives)
• Anti-clean energy "education" and fighting greenhouse gas standards
• Creation of the Institute for 21st Century Energy, a fake grassroots organization dedicated to global warming denial and smearing of clean energy initiatives.
• Against fair pay for women and family leave.
• opposition to health care reform, even hospitalization for children, and of course
• opposition for any type of regulation of business or corporations.

Here is nice list of the Chamber's work in action that comes with a petition asking Google to quit the group.

So, congratulations Bob Dold, for the US Chamber of Commerce's recognition of your work, and lack thereof,  to help anti-environment, anti-health care, anti-anti-corruption.

Dold and the US Chamber claim they are fighting for small business, but make no mistake, this is not about your small local business. It's about big big business, oil companies, large financial institutions, large health care insurers and providers.

Bob Dold: Headhunter, but Not a Congressman or If Bob Can't Do More than Ilya's Already Doing, Then Why Do We Keep Him In Congress When We Booted Ilya from the Race.

A commenter in my prior post felt I was remiss for not crediting Bob Dold for his jobs fairs.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Bob Dold, Congressman, is doing nothing. He's not working on a single piece of legislation to stimulate the economy to bring jobs to the district. He's not working on our district's infrastructure to bring jobs, improvements and modernization to our district. No, he's not because he and his party want Obama to fail more than they want us to succeed.

However, Bob knows that the economy is a big issue in the district and people want to see action. So, what is he doing?

He's participating in little jobs fairs. Apparently, he's attended a few in Waukegan and Round Lake. It's not that  Bob himself is actually creating or finding the jobs. He's pretty much just lending his name to them and shaking hands to get votes. They're more like campaign appearances, but desperate people are supposed to be grateful for the crumbs.

Funny thing is that the Community Connection in Waukegan, sponsored by the Tenth Dems and started (in part)  by little Ilya Sheyman works on helping people get jobs too. That, of course, none of the Republicans (and many Democrats) felt was enough to make young Ilya a congressman. Bob Dold is a grown up adult supposed experienced businessman, incumbent congressman. I would hope he's doing more than Ilya.

No stimulus bill, no infrastructure bill, no re-regulation of the financial sector to increase the safety in that industry and create jobs. No trade protection for US manufacturing. No incentives for employers to do business in the US rather than overseas, or disincentives to stop US businesses from shipping jobs overseas. Nothing to get good well paying jobs with benefits back into the district. Just a bunch of little jobs fairs so a handful of people can connect to get already existing low wage, no benefit jobs.

Bob Dold's little jobs fairs are an insult to the American people and the people of this district. They are a gimmick, most notably used by failed gubernatorial candidate Scott Lee Cohen, when you've got nothing else to offer, and in this case pure cover for Bob Dold's do nothing party in the doing nothing House.

Do Nothing Bob Dold Called an Endangered Incumbent

The Fix included IL-10's Bob Dold in its list of endangered incumbents standing over President Obama as he signed The STOCK Act into law yesterday. the STOCK Act outlaws insider trading by Congressmen. Insider trading was already illegal (ask Martha Stewart), but tolerated in Congress for many years. This new law reiterates that insider trading by Congressmen is illegal as if Congressmen were previously some special group to which laws do not apply.

The STOCK Act got through the do nothing House because it does next to nothing. Even the Wall Street beat of the mainstream media thinks it's a joke. Daily Markets reports that the penalty, loss of pension, is almost an incentive to break the law. Money Morning goes through what the law could have done, but the watered down version that was passed does not.

It appears that Bob Dold just needed his mug to appear in the media wearing a suit and standing next to the President in connection with something because it hasn't been connected to much of anything since he started in 2011. He's gotten his name attached to some of Kirk's old languishing stuff that ratchets up the conflict with Iran and ends trade protections for US sugar, because God forbid we protect any American made product. Perhaps sugar prices would stabilize if Dold was more concerned about the coroporatization of what was supposed to be an American sugar coop.

Dold has sponsored the March of Dimes commemorative coin (which I would have thought would be the dime itself). He's recently gotten his name attached to an amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act. It's another pro-corporate no-brainer which basically helps foreign regulators who don't understand the concept of the indemnification agreement and helps The Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. keep its monopoly as a trade repository for Credit Default Swaps. Perhaps Dold should be more courageous and promote some real regulation for CDOs.

It must be hard to be caught between his tea party past and his moderate district. What to do? Bob hasn't figured that one out yet.

More of Bob Dold's Tea Party Past

Bob Dold is on the run, but not from liberals or progressives. He's running from the tea parties that supported him in his 2010 freshman election.

The Palatine Tea Party helped Dold with meet and greets. They even had Michelle Bachmann shout out to his supporters.

That must have been quite a thrill for them. I guess with Palatine out of the district, Dold doesn't have to worry about them any more, but wait, Bob Dold is also out of the district. That always seemed to matter so much to Republicans. By the standards of the 2006, 2008 and 2010 elections, Republicans should be supporting Brad Schneider who is from Deerfield, smack dab inside of the district. Yet, Republicans magically don't care about residency now. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Dold's supporters cry and beat their chests claiming he's not a tea party candidate, but Republicans seem to think he is. The Illinois Conservative Examiner called Dold the tea party backed candidate as late as November  17, 2011:

On Capitol Fax back in July 2010, they said that some of Bob Dold's staffers came right out of the tea party. I found some evidence of that. Dold's legislative correspondent was on the board of Chicago Young Republicans when they touted their Tax Day Tea Party aboard one of the tall ships at Navy Pier. The same guy touted the Joliet Tea Party Forum on Facebook. And of course, it was a Dold staffer who asked the Northern Illinois Patriots, a tea party group, to rank Dold low to help him hide his tea party connections. On Capitol Fax, they also pointed to this tea partier as a vocal Dold supporter, but it looks like he's soured on Dold while his staffer insisted no no, Bob's really with you. Isn't Facebook fun?

DCCC did a study of Dold's votes and found him squarely within the tea party agenda, whether he calls himself a member or not.

I wonder if even more tea parties have any hurt feeling about Dold's love 'em and leave 'em and love 'em, but only privately, attitude toward them.

On another note, a Dold staffer seemed to be joining the ranks of Hoody Kitten, sporting a hoody to hide himself after sneaking into a Democratic Township endorsement session.