Author: winningprogressive

Cross-posted at WinningProgressive

Yesterday, it was revealed that Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk’s campaign is planning to send “voter integrity squads” into African-American neighborhoods in Chicago and other Illinois cities in the run up to election day. While Kirk and other Republicans claim that such efforts are designed to prevent voter fraud, the evidence shows that it is actually a continuation of consistent efforts by Republicans to suppress voting in Democratic precincts throughout the country.

Conservatives have engaged in numerous efforts to try to suppress the Democratic vote, including:

• Caging – Caging involves sending letters marked “do not forward” to voters, compiling a list of all of the letters that are returned as undelivered, and then challenging the voters on that list when they show up to vote. This approach ignores the fact that the letters might be undelivered because of a mistake in the address list, or because the voter is a college student or in the military, rather than because of a problem with the voter’s qualification to vote. The tea party and other conservatives were found to be planning a major caging effort in Wisconsin for the 2010 election, and caging has been carried out by Republicans in Florida, Ohio, Philadelphia, and other areas in the 2008 and 2004 elections.

• Misinformation – There has been a long string of examples of information targeting Democratic or minority voters with misinformation designed to reduce their voting. Such misinformation includes phone calls announcing that polling places have been moved or fliers informing people of the wrong election day or that people with unpaid traffic tickets will get arrested if they try to vote. Such misinformation targeting Democratic or minority voters was found to be “widespread and deliberate” in the 2006 elections in Virginia, and an organization known as Womens’ Voices has engaged in such misinformation campaign in numerous states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina.

• Polling Place Challenges – Polling places in urban areas (which tend to be heavily Democratic), often have too few voting booths, leading to long lines that can discourage voters. These lines are made even longer by deliberate efforts to conservatives to challenge the qualifications of virtually every voter that shows up, with the intent of discouraging both the challenged voter and people who leave the line after staying in it for a few hours.

While Republicans attempt to justify such voter suppression efforts on the grounds that there is purportedly widespread voting fraud occurring, a five-year long investigation by President Bush’s Department of Justice found “virtually no evidence of any organized effort” to fraudulently impact federal elections and other analyses have similarly found no evidence of fraud. Instead, the Bush Administration’s five year effort led to very few arrests or convictions, and most of those were for simple mistaken efforts by non-eligible voters to register or vote.

While there is a complete lack of evidence of any significant voter fraud occurring in elections, Republican continued widespread efforts to suppress Democratic votes in 2008 and, as Kirk’s statements show, those efforts are likely to be replayed this year.

It is up to us to ensure that these Republican vote suppression efforts fail. To help make sure that every registered voter who wants to vote is able to, sign up for the Democratic Party’s voter protection effort, or volunteer to work on get-out-the-vote efforts for your local Democratic candidate. And, as always, write letters to your local newspaper editor and talk to your family, friends, and neighbors to make sure they have accurate voting information and are aware of the Republicans’ vote suppression efforts.

Cross-posted at WinningProgressive

When it comes right down to it, politics is about priorities – namely, what issues does a candidate or party spend its limited time and capital on while in power. By looking at the goals and issues that a candidate or party has prioritized working on in the past, you can often get a better sense of how they are going to govern in the future than if you just listen to their campaign rhetoric and promises.

For example, George W. Bush campaigned as a “compassionate conservative,” but once in office he tried to privatize Social Security, invaded another country on the basis of lies, provided tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy elite, and worked to continue to deregulatory zeal that had weakened our government over the past thirty years. President Obama, meanwhile, has focused his efforts on stabilizing and improving the economy, reforming health care, re-regulating Wall Street, increasing college affordability, and curbing bad consumer practices of credit card companies, payday lenders, and other financial institutions.

Even if what was achieved on each of those issues during President Obama’s first two years is not everything we progressives wanted, the most critical distinction is what issues were prioritized to be addressed under each administration. Under Obama, it was reining in health insurance companies, Wall Street, and questionable credit card company practices, expanding health care coverage and student loans, and working to overcome and lighten the blow of the Bush Recession. Under Bush, it was war, tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, and privatization. Plainly, we are more likely to achieve progressive goals under the first priority list rather than the latter.

I started thinking about this issue of priorities today when reading an article in the New York Times today about Ohio Democratic Attorney General Richard Cordray’s work to hold Wall Street accountable for the economic debacle that they created. Faced with widespread foreclosures, declines in pensions, and increases in unemployment due to the casino-like atmosphere that overtook Wall Street, Cordray has sought to recover funds from the Wall Street banksters whose fraudulent practices created those problems. And Mr. Cordray has been successful. As the Times explains:

Mr. Cordray in two years in office has demonstrated a willingness to sue early and often, filing lawsuits against global financial houses, rating agencies, subprime lenders and foreclosure scammers. He has wrested about $2 billion so far, a string of gilded pelts: a $475 million Merrill Lynch settlement, $400 million from Marsh & McLennan and $725 million from the American International Group.
. . . .

His office has returned money to investors, pension funds, schools and cities. And he has directed millions to agencies fighting foreclosure.

And other Democratic Attorneys General – including Lisa Madigan in Illinois, Tom Miller in Iowa, Roy Cooper in North Carolina, and Martha Coakley in Massachusetts – have joined the effort to hold Wall Street accountable.

On the other side of the aisle, Republican Attorneys General have had other priorities. In particular, 21 Republican AGs (along with a Democratic AG from Louisiana) have brought a series of borderline frivolous lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform legislation enacted by the Democrats. Apparently, these folks would rather fight legislation that made pre-existing condition exclusions and retroactive policy cancellations illegal, and will make affordable health insurance available to another 32 million Americans, than to work to hold Wall Street accountable.

Do you support Democrats’ efforts to prioritize taking on Wall Street rather than doing the bidding of insurance companies? If so, write a letter to your local newspaper editor, find your local Democratic candidate to canvass or phonebank for, and talk to your family, friends, and neighbors about your priorities in the November election.

Cross-posted at WinningProgressive

When President Obama took office in January 2009, the country had lost 3.6 million jobs since the Bush Recession began in December 2007. And job losses were accelerating, with 1.8 million total losses in the three months before President Obama’s inauguration, and an additional 1.2 million jobs lost in February and March 2009, before any of the Democrats’ policies really began to take effect. After March 2009, job losses began decreasing, and for the past nine months there has been net positive job growth in the private sector. In short, the stimulus package worked to stem the tide of job losses and to stop the economy from going into a complete meltdown.

But while private sector job losses have been halted, the American public is still justifiably angry about the employment situation, as unemployment remains too high, private sector job growth is not keeping up with population growth, and overall employment is slipping due to budgetary cutbacks in local governments.

With Congressional elections less than a month away, the question is where this anger should be directed. And the answer to that question is clear – toward the Republicans, who have launched a war on jobs that involved blatantly trying to obstruct every effort by President Obama and Congressional Democrats to achieve a full economic recovery. In particular:

• Republicans Eliminated 130,000 Jobs by filibustering the extension of the TANF Emergency Fund, which provided funding for small businesses, non-profits, and local governments to employ people.

• Republicans Obstructed Small Business Aid by filibustering legislation that provides a $30 billion small business lending fund and $12 billion in small business tax breaks. While the Democrats first proposed this legislation in February 2010, they were not able to overcome the Republican filibuster until September 2010.

• Republicans Filibustered the Most Effective Stimulus Available delaying the extension of unemployment benefits on multiple occasions. The Congressional Budget Office and other experts have identified unemployment benefits as the most effective stimulus policy because it puts money directly in the hands of people who will spend it almost immediately on necessary staples like food, gasoline, and rent.

• Republicans Triggered Layoffs of State and Local Public Servants by removing aid to state and local governments from the stimulus bill and filibustering an aid package proposed last summer to avoid layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and police officers. While the private sector has seen job growth throughout 2010, overall job numbers are down because cash-strapped local governments are laying off tens of thousands of people.

• Republicans Obstructed the Appointment of Qualified Nominees for 20 positions in the U.S. Treasury and three Federal Reserve Board of Governors positions, delaying the ability of the Obama Administration to operate at full capacity as it seeks to fix our economy.

In short, Republicans have done everything they can to try to prevent President Obama and the Democrats from implementing policies that will allow for a full economic recovery.

Fortunately, the American people have a prime opportunity to end the Republican war on jobs this November by rebuking the Republicans’ obstructionist policies and returning Democratic majorities to Congress. If you, like me, are angry about the continued high unemployment rates and sluggish economic growth, working these next three-and-a-half weeks to return the Democratic majorities is the most effective way to channel that anger. So, let’s get out there and volunteer, write letters to our local newspaper editors, and talk to our family, friends, and neighbors about how to end the Republican war on jobs.

Cross-posted at WinningProgressive

With election day only a month away, it is critical that progressives stand up and fight for candidates who are willing to fight for us in Washington. One such candidate is Joe Sestak, who is running for an open U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania. Admiral Sestak is a 31-year naval officer and current Congressman from suburban Philadelphia who beat Arlen Specter in the Senate primary.

Admiral Sestak is a proud progressive who publicly refers to himself as being from the “progressive wing of the Democratic Party.” His record on the issues bears that description out, as he has long fought for progressive principles. For example, Admiral Sestak:

• Long supported universal health care, in part because he realized the benefits of government provided health insurance when the Navy provided medical care for his daughter’s brain tumor. He voted for President Obama’s health care reform legislation and was a strong proponent of including a public option in the plan.

• Fought to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25.

• Is a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, which will increase workplace democracy by helping protect the right to unionize.

• Is a co-sponsor of legislation to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

• Has a 100% pro-choice voting record and was an original co-sponsor of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

• Is a strong advocate for legislation that supports veterans with health care, education, employment, and aid to their families.

• Was a chief co-sponsor of legislation that reformed student loans and increased Pell Grants by 25%

• Opposes efforts to privatize Social Security

• Supports extending tax relief for the middle class while opposing more tax cuts for the wealthy elite.

Admiral Sestak is also able to communicate progressive values in ways that attract voters who identify themselves as independents. The latest poll has Sestak leading his Republican opponent 41-30% among independents, and Sestak was recently endorsed by New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and former moderate Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.

Sestak is running against Republican Pat Toomey, a former Wall Street derivatives trader who believes that big businesses should pay no corporate taxes. Mr. Toomey is actively backed by the Club for Growth, a right-wing organization that he used to run, which aggressively flaunts its desire to privatize Social Security. A recent analysis of Mr. Toomey’s voting record when he was in Congress found that he was more right-wing than Rick Santorum, which Pennsylvania’s voters ran out of office just four years ago.

Recent polling shows that the race between Sestak and Toomey is virtually tied, with Toomey leading 45-42%, which is within the margin of error. Now is the time for progressives to step up and help send Joe Sestak to fight for us on health care, increasing the minimum wage, protecting Social Security, and defending the right of workers to organize. To help out, sign up here to volunteer, click here to donate, and go here to write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper in Pennsylvania.

Cross-posted at WinningProgressive

A new poll from Newsweek that came out on Friday holds a lot of good news for the Democrats:

• Among people who say they “definitely” are going to vote in the Congressional elections in November, Democrats lead 50% to 42%

• Among all registered voters, Democrats lead the generic Congressional ballot 48% to 43%

The Newsweek poll also holds good news for Democrats in that voters trust them more than Republicans on virtually every issue. As Newsweek describes:

Simply put, in the NEWSWEEK Poll, voters said they trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle pretty much every problem currently facing the country: Afghanistan (by 6 points), health care (by 12), immigration (by 2, though that figure is within the margin of error), Social Security (by 14), unemployment (by 12), financial reform (by 14), energy (by 19), and education (by 19). Voters even prefer Democrats to Republicans on federal spending (by 4 points), taxes (by 5), and the economy (by 10)–the GOP’s core concerns. The only area where Republicans outpoll Democrats is the issue of terrorism, where they lead by a 6-point margin.

Other good news in the poll includes that voters who are dissatisfied with the direction of the country are more likely to blame President Bush a lot (39%), rather than President Obama (33%). Given that Republicans are offering little more than warmed over Bush Administration policies in this election, those numbers do not bode well for the GOP. In addition, 62% of voters are not angry at their Congressperson and 60% are not angry at the Senator.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll from last week similarly showed better numbers for Democrats than Republicans:

• Only 8% of voters had a very positive view of the Republican party, with 23% having a somewhat positive view, giving the Republicans a 31% overall favorability rating.

• The billionaire-backed tea party had a favorability rating of only 30%.

• President Obama has a very positive rating of 29% and a somewhat positive rating of 18%, for an overall favorability rating of 47%.

• The Democratic party as a whole had a favorability rating of 37%.

• As for the economic problems facing our country, 56% of voters felt that President Obama inherited from George W. Bush the economic problems facing our nation while only 32% blamed President Obama’s policies.

In short, contrary to the spin of the conservative media, the polling data shows that President Obama is far more popular than the Republican party, that the American people trust Democrats far more than Republicans on the issues, and that Democrats are competitive and even leading the generic polling for the upcoming elections in November.

Now we just need to make sure these positive polling numbers turn into electoral results at the polls in November. If you’d like to help out, click here to find your local Democratic candidate to volunteer for, talk to our families, friends, and neighbors, and write letters to the editor of your local newspaper explaining why you want to continue the Democratic majorities that are moving our country ahead, rather than handing the car keys back to the Republicans who drove our economy into a ditch.

Cross-posted at WinningProgressive

Recently, my friend Jeff and I were working to identify a good short description of what progressivism is and why it matters. We came up with the following – keeping rat s**t out of baby food – which is shorthand for saying that progressivism is about using the tools of government to advance important individual and societal goals that individuals cannot reasonably achieve on their own and/or that the free market will not provide.

One hundred and four years ago, Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, which exposed the horrible working and sanitary conditions in America’s meat packing industry, including the significant amount of contamination that our country’s meat supply was subjected to. There is, of course, little that individuals could do on their own to make sure that the meat they ate was not contaminated, and industry refused to act. So, the government stepped up to help, passing the Federal Meat Inspection Act. A series of food safety laws have followed, vastly improving public health and making the U.S. food system one of the safest in the world. Protecting food safety remains a struggle, as Republican deregulatory zeal and industry lobbying have led to reductions in inspections and oversight. And proposed legislation to address recent declines in food safety is being held up by a single Republican Senator. However, overall our government continues to do a good job protecting the safety of our food supply – in other words, in keeping rat s**t out of baby food.

The food safety issue is an important one because it is a prime example of where the Republicans’ constant attacks on “government” run into reality. As Spandan C. over at The People’s View recently pointed out, the Republicans’ pledge to balance the budget, cut taxes, and protect Social Security, Medicare, and defense funding, would require the elimination of everything else the federal government does by 2020. While this result would please the tea partiers and their billionaire sugar daddies, it would not be popular with the vast majority of Americans, which is probably why the Republicans refuse to identify specific programs that they would eliminate.

So, the question to pose to people complaining generally about how we need to get rid of “government” is what functions of government they think should be eliminated:

• Food safety inspections and enforcement?
• Federal environmental laws that protect our air and water quality?
• The Safe Drinking Water Act, which ensures that the water that comes out of your tap is safe?
• National Parks?
• Medical care for our veterans?
• Student loans to help people be able to afford college?
• Our federal court system, which helps ensure that we are able to settle disputes peacefully?
• Construction and maintenance of highways and bridges?
• The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures your bank deposits up to $250,000 and oversees the operation of banks?
• Consumer safety laws that protect us from cars catching on fire or baby cribs collapsing on your baby?
• The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which coordinates responses to natural disasters?
• The Centers for Disease Control and National Institutes of Health, which oversee research into diseases, help develop cutting edge pharmaceuticals, and keep outbreaks of contagious diseases in check?
• The Food and Drug Administration, which helps ensure the safety of pharmaceuticals?

We can and should have debates over whether specific government programs should be reformed, shrunk, expanded, or eliminated, and how we improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the government programs we have. The political debate today, however, is about something much more basic – namely, whether government is bad and should be eliminated outside of the military, Social Security, and Medicare, or whether government can and should play a role in helping our country achieve things that individuals cannot achieve on their own.

In short, do you want the government to keep rat s**t out of the food your baby eats, or do you want to leave that up to the free market? If the former, now is the time to get involved and make sure Congress stays in the hands of progressive Democrats in November.

Cross-posted at WinningProgressive

President Obama on Tuesday held a rally in Madison, Wisconsin that was attended by nearly 30,000 people. The rally showed that, contrary to what the media wants you to believe, many Americans continue to enthusiastically support our President and the progressive change he is working to advance. As expected, the conservative media hardly even covered the event.

That tens of thousands of people would show up at this rally in a college town was not surprising given that President Obama and Democrats in Congress have taken important steps to help people go to college by improving the student loan system and making college more affordable. These achievements include:

• Ending Subsidies to Private Student Loan Companies – For years, the federal government has paid fees to private banks to provide loans to students. President Obama and the Democrats have made the student loan system more efficient by cutting out the middleman and having the federal government loan money directly to students. This change is expected to save approximately $68 billion in fees over the next 10 years.

• Increasing Pell Grants – Under the Democratic student loan reforms, much of the $68 billion in savings will be used to increase Pell Grants, which are needs-based grants provided to students seeking their first undergraduate college degree. The increased funding will allow Pell Grants to increase to nearly $6,000 per year by 2017 (from $4,700 in 2008), and will provide 820,000 more grants per year by 2020.

• Reducing Loan Repayments – A portion of the $68 billion in savings will also go to help reduce the burden of paying off student loans by capping the total repayments at 10% of annual income above a basic living allowance, which is one-third lower than the previous cap of 15%. For graduates who go into public service work, outstanding loans would be forgiven after 10 years of payment.

• Increasing Resources for Community Colleges – The student loan reform legislation include $2 billion in funding over four years for community colleges. In addition, last year’s stimulus legislation included substantial amounts of funding that states could use to support community colleges, and has been credited with helping community colleges survive the Bush Recession.

• Reining in For-Profit Institutions – For-profit institutions – like the University of Phoenix or DeVry Institute – have been growing significantly with 10% of the total college student population and nearly $12 billion in revenue every year. Too often, however, such institutions engage in shady recruiting and tuition practices that are good for the institutions’ bottom lines, but not for their students. As a result, students at for-profit colleges are much more likely to default on student loans than are students at other types of educational institutions. Democrats are seeking to end these shady practices by establishing a “gainful employment” rule, which would cut federal aid that could go to for profit schools if a significant portion of their students do not end up in gainful employment, and a ban on compensation incentives for student recruiters.

President Obama and the Democrats have a strong record of ending subsidies for banks that issue student loans, funneling the resulting $68 billion in savings into expanding student loans, providing aid to community colleges, and seeking to end shady practices at for-profit colleges and universities. If you support these efforts to make college more affordable, volunteer for your local Democratic candidate and write a letter to the editor to let people know about these

Cross-posted at WinningProgressive

Next week, One Nation Working Together, which is a coalition of progressive organizations, is holding a rally in D.C. to let our politicians and media know that the American people still strongly support the progressive change that we voted for in 2008. If you are able to attend, I urge you to sign up here. If you cannot make it to D.C., you can get involved in one of the many events occurring throughout the country by clicking here.

Many people see the One Nation Working Together rally as a reaction to the tea party rallies that have been held over the past year or so. But one key difference (among others) is that the One Nation Working Together rally represents a movement of Americans who support making our great country a fairer and more just place to live. By contrast, the tea party is little more than a paper tiger that is propped up by the billionaires and corporate front groups for whom the tea partiers are unwittingly doing their bidding.

That the tea party is just a paper tiger can be seen from the turnouts at their rallies over the past year or so that the tea party is so famous for. For example:

• On the eve of the historic health care reform vote in March 2010, tea partiers managed to turn out only 300 protestors in D.C.

• Turnout at this year’s tea party 9/11 rallies numbered in only the thousands

• Last year’s 9/12 tea party rally in D.C. was attended by only 60,000-70,000 people

• Glenn Beck’s ridiculous attempt to steal the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King had approximately 87,000 attendees

By contrast, progressive rallies have long had substantial turnout. For example:

• At least 1.5 million people attended President Obama’s inauguration, which easily beat the previous record of 1.2 million who attended President Johnson’s inauguration in 1964

• In March 2006, 500,000 people rallied for progressive immigration reform in Los Angeles, 100,000 in Chicago, 50,000 in Denver, 10,000 in Milwaukee

• 500,000 to 800,000 people attended a 2004 Pro-Choice rally in D.C.

• 200,000 people attended an October 2009 rally for LGBTQ equality

• 200,000 rallied in D.C. for progressive immigration reform in March 2010

Too often over the past year, progressives have cowered in fear of the tea party and other conservatives out of an apparent belief that they somehow represent the vast majority of our country. That fear needs to end because it is based on a falsehood of tea partier popularity. It is true that as progressives we do not have billionaires and corporate front groups to bankroll us or an entire media network like Fox to promote us. But what we do have is a large and committed group of millions of Americans who strongly believe in the progressive values that are shared by the majority in our country. We need to make that clear to our leaders and the media by turning out at the One Nation Working Together events next week, and then by working hard to win the elections in November.

Are you fired up about demonstrating that progressive values are widely held in our country and that the tea party is little more than a paper tiger? If so, attend a One Nation Working Together rally, volunteer for the Democratic candidates in your area, write a letter to the editor, and talk to your friends, family, and colleagues about why it is important to return a Democratic majority in November.

Cross-posted at WinningProgressive

In their recent “pledge” to drive up the national debt and return to the failed economic policies of the Bush Administration, Republicans pretended to be outraged by the continued high level of unemployment in the U.S. Of course, such claims of “outrage” are rich with irony given that the high unemployment resulted from the Bush Recession and that Republicans have engaged in nearly lockstep opposition to stimulus legislation, small business aid, and other Obama Administration efforts that have helped the economy recover. In fact job growth has begun to occur under President Obama’s leadership despite this lockstep Republican opposition.

A perfect example of the Republicans’ hypocrisy on the jobs issue is their refusal to extend the TANF Emergency Fund, which has provided employment to 130,000 adults for the past year and an additional 120,000 youths last summer. As part of the 2009 stimulus act, President Obama and Democrats in Congress included $1 billion that states could spend subsidizing salaries for unemployed people hired by small businesses, non-profits, and local governments. Republicans have filibustered every effort to extend that program for another year.

The TANF Emergency Fund was designed to not only increase employment, but also to ensure that people hit hard by the Bush Recession were able to continue to increase their job skills rather than going on public assistance. The program is widely viewed as the most effective stimulus spending possible, has helped small businesses maintain or expend in tough economic times, and has even received praise from a few Republican governors. While extension of the program for an additional year has passed the House, the Republicans in the Senate have filibustered every effort to extend it. Barring a sudden change over the next few days, on September 30, almost all of the 130,000 people currently employed through the TANF Emergency Funds will be unemployed, which shows you just how serious the Republican party is about helping the unemployed in America.

Are you outraged that Republicans would cause 130,000 Americans to lose their jobs at the same time that they are fighting to add $700 billion to the national debt in order to provide tax cuts to the wealthy elite? If so, volunteer for a local Democratic candidate and write a letter to your local newspaper editor to let folks know the truth about the Republicans’ dismal record on the economy.

Cross-posted at WinningProgressive

A key way to judge the effectiveness of a nation’s health care system is to evaluate what percentage of the populace the system covers. The health care reform legislation passed by the Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama goes a long way toward improving America’s standing on that factor by expanding health insurance coverage to 32 million more Americans.

As Winning Progressive previously explained, a major inadequacy in the pre-reform health care system is that, despite spending more on health care than any other country on the planet, the U.S. has by far the highest percentage of people who lack coverage. In 2000, there were 39.2 million uninsured Americans. By 2009, that number had increased to 50 million, which is approximately 16% of the American population. Much of the decline in coverage is because fewer employers are covering their employees. In 2000, 66% of employers provided coverage, but by 2009 that number was down to 58.9%. 28 million of the uninsured are small business owners, their families, and their employees.

The health and economic impacts of such high rates of uninsured are staggering. A recent study from Harvard Medical School found that as many as 45,000 Americans die every year due to a lack of health insurance. People who lack health insurance receive less preventative care, are diagnosed at later stages of a disease, and once diagnosed receive less therapeutic care and have higher mortality rates. In 2004, the American College of Physicians estimates that the society-wide economic value of the decline in health and longevity individuals suffer for each year without health insurance is between $65 billion and $130 billion per year. The uninsured do receive some health care – mainly through emergency rooms – and approximately $40 billion of that care is uncompensated, meaning the cost is picked up by either the government or the hospitals and doctors that provide it.

President Obama’s health care reform legislation seeks to drastically reduce the number of uninsured by expanding employer coverage and Medicaid, and by making sure that individuals who need to purchase health insurance are able to afford it:

• Encouraging Employer Coverage: The legislation works to encourage employers to provide coverage to their employees. For small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, an up to 50% tax credit is provided if the company pays for at least 50% of their employees’ health insurance premiums. Larger businesses are required to either provide their employees with health insurance, or to pay a $2,000 per year assessment for any employee that receives a tax credit for purchasing insurance on their own.

• Shared Responsibility: As the necessary accompaniment to ending pre-existing condition exclusions, the health care reform legislation requires individuals to have health insurance. Without such requirement, the pre-existing condition prohibition would be unworkable, as people would simply wait to purchase insurance until they have a major illness.

• Making Insurance Affordable: The legislation provides sliding scale tax credits to people earning up to approximately $88,000 for a family of four, or $40,000 for an individual, in order to limit spending on health insurance premiums to between 2 and 9.5% of income. The legislation also limits total out-of-pocket expenses to between $2,000 and $6,000 for an individual, and between $4,000 and $12,000 for a family of four.

• Creating a Fairer Insurance Market: Individuals and small businesses will be able to purchase insurance through state or national health insurance exchanges, in which it will be easy to make side-by-side comparison of the insurance options available. The exchanges will be overseen by the federal Office of Personnel Management and/or state-based non-profits to ensure fairness and transparency. This is the same approach to health insurance as is provided by the extremely popular federal employee health insurance program.

• Expanding Medicaid: The legislation expands Medicaid to make eligible anyone whose annual income is within 133% of the federal poverty level.

A recent analysis by the Rand Institute, a non-partisan think tank, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, projected that the health care reform legislation will succeed in expanding coverage and making health insurance coverage more affordable.

Do you support President Obama and the Congressional Democrats’ efforts to make health insurance more affordable and to cover an additional 32 million Americans? If so, write a letter to your local newspaper editor to let them know