The Future of our Nation Examined Through the Eyes of Twitter

Do you ever worry about the future of our nation?
Re-reading my Twitter/HootSuite 2015 national news threads just now, proved to be alarming for me.

1. Budget War talk started early.
2. Republicans made head-spinning claims as soon as they took over.
3. Legislating under Republicans began with the meaningless Keystone Pipeline bill.
4. My own crazy state of Texas has not disappointed in its heartlessness this year.
5. The Secret Service admitted to having problems with alcohol.

The Republican budget that has just been introduced favors the "One Percent."  It would abandon large swaths of vulnerable people.  Even though they claim credit for an improving economy, Congress will do nothing to fix the essential infrastructure needed to support and continue that healthy economy.  The Keystone Pipeline benefits the Canadian economy.  Texas turns farther towards the extreme right as each month passes.  And we cannot protect the safety of the POTUS.  These realities reinforce my worry about what is happening to the USA in early 2015 .

But there are bright spots that should not be ignored.

• The Daily Beast writes: The Right Warms Up To Climate Change.
• We are understanding more about the brain.  This is Brain Awareness Week.
• Cory Booker continues to post tweets about possibilities.
• Anthony Snowden and Glenn Greenwald are still able to get together,
• Europe remains helpful to Iranian negotiation, even if Republican legislators are not.
• The state of Oregon made voter registration automatic.

Not all Congressional Republicans are stupid or corrupt.  Science continues to prevail.  Truth continues to have its brave apologists. We can count on our centuries old friend, Europe, to have our back.  Some states in the USA are not insane.  And optimists tweet.

 
Follow me at Twitter.

Ships careening out of control

Reflections on human systems failures: The Ship of State, a bunch of great big American Airlines airships, and a Carnival cruise ship have all been careening out of control.  It is always about peoples' handling of very complicated systems. The judgment of leaders is always key to what works and what does not work. 

. Contrast the potentially successful merger of US Airways and American Airlines with the two other utter failures we've seen this week.  Both events were ignominious failures of competency and systems: Senate Republicans successfully filibustered former Senator Chuck Hagel's Secretary of Defense nomination.  And the crippled Carnival ship was finally towed into port in Mobile, Alabama. I ended the day by watching the poor cruise ship dock. And I thought about the looming end of the month deadline for ending the sequester, while Congress just leaves town for over a week.

My feeling is disgust for the poor leadership exhibited by angry lawmakers and by two CEO’s in big travel corporations.  We see a bunch of small, nasty failures . . . very much akin to the red plastic bags and open buckets of human waste accumulating in the halls of the Carnival cruise ship

Is this the legacy we are leaving?

Think about the future we, our children and grandchildren, are facing.  Fairly recent news items chronicle a number of symptoms of our apparent decade-long decline:

• Stalled U.S. economic growth rate
• Higher rates of poverty in most states; children in LGBT families more likely to be poor
• Diminished health outlook due to obesity
• Decline in the earth observation sciences
• Increased government surveillance of citizens, including data captured by Google from Wi-Fi content, as well as increasingly unprotected electronic privacy of cloud Email
• U.S. use of predator drones is now officially reported, targeted for a significant infusion of government funds, and justified by authorities (including allowing targeting of U.S. citizens).

Never before has it been the case that we are leaving our descendants worse off than we were. . . economically and health-wise.  We have a diminished quality of life.  The gap between rich and poor has increased, as have the costs of health care.  The military-industrial complex, as President Eisenhower warned, is in the forefront of powerful influence in our nation.  The earth is on a dangerous path to increased warming.  And we as citizens enjoy less and less constitutional protection.  As a matter of fact, what on earth do we think we are doing?!

"Forward" is the new presidential campaign slogan of the Democrats. We are at the crossroads. If the November elections fail to reelect President Obama, fail to return Democratic control to the U.S. House of Representatives, and to switch various state legislatures, we will continue this sorry legacy.  We need to get back on track as soon as possible.

Entitlement programs are no longer off limits for cuts.

President Obama called for Medicare and Medicaid reform in his jobs speech to Congress. And Texas Gov. Rick Perry called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" in the previous night's Republican debate.

It looks like everything could be up for grabs in the bipartisan race to dismantle our Federal government's social safety net.

Original: www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/us/politics/09social.html A Bipartisan Move to Tackle Benefits Programs by JACKIE CALMES, nytimes.com September 8th 2011

At the same time, Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill expressed a willingness to wring savings from the long-untouchable programs during the first meeting of the special committee that is charged with recommending $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions over the decade. Then President Obama, in his address to a joint session of Congress on spurring job creation, reiterated his call for a plan reducing long-term debt with both changes in entitlement programs and taxes from the wealthy.

To the chagrin of many in his party, this summer Mr. Obama proposed changes in Medicare and Social Security that once would have been unthinkable for a Democratic president during his unsuccessful talks with the House speaker, John A. Boehner, for a “grand bargain” on cutting deficits. In return for the Republicans’ agreement to raise taxes after 2012 for the wealthy, Mr. Obama indicated that his party would support slowly increasing the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 from 65 and changing the formula for cost-of-living increases in Social Security to a less generous one that some economists consider more accurate.

Until Mr. Perry’s recent entry into the Republican contest, the debate over reining in the projected growth of the entitlement programs focused on the health programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Their projected costs, given the aging of the population and fast-rising medical expenses, are greater and growing faster than those for Social Security.

The turn in both parties toward tackling the cost of the entitlement programs has been building. In 2010, Congressional Democrats approved about $500 billion in future savings from Medicare to help pay for the new health care law, though Republicans attacked them for it in last year’s midterm elections. But the onset of the new deficit committee’s work and Mr. Perry’s scathing critique of social spending has added a new dimension.

At the first meeting of the House-Senate committee on deficit reduction, which is to make recommendations by Nov. 23 for a quick up-or-down vote in Congress, several Republicans said that entitlements were the main cause of annual deficits and should be the panel’s focus.

James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, a House Democratic leader on the panel, said that he was for “smart and compassionate budget cuts” and “ending military adventurism,” but that Congress must not shred Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

Separately, the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, Sander M. Levin of Michigan, circulated a memo listing two dozen options that could squeeze more than $500 billion out of Medicare in the next 10 years. Aides to Mr. Levin said that he was not endorsing the ideas but helping other Democrats understand the sorts of actions that could be taken. Read more at

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1cne9

What's in a name?

Today President called for Congress to "use common sense and compromise."  Neither legislative body yet seems broadly in the mood to do the dreaded deed, "compromise."  Why is that?  According to Dictionary.com, here are the four meanings of the word compromise:
1.  noun - a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
2.  noun - the result of such settlement
noun - something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multi-storied house.
4. noun - an endangering, especially of reputation, exposure to danger, suspicion, etc.: a compromise of one's integrity.


Compromise."  Look at the different ways the word can be defined between numbers 1 and 4, from agreement to endangerment.  No wonder it is something to be sought after by some and avoided by others.  Here is an illustration.  In his 8/4/11 - CQ Roll Call Daily Briefing, David Hawkings said,

. . . The first poll since the completion of the debt deal, conducted by Gallup for USA Today, shows 46 percent disapproval for the package and 39 percent approval. Among the all-important independents, 50 percent disapproved and 33 percent backed the compromise. The opinions on the left and right were predictable, but signaled that Obama and Biden had succeeded — at least initially — at framing the deal more to their base’s liking than Boehner and McConnell. While 58 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of liberals express support for the legislation, fully 64 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of conservatives say they opposed it. (The poll of 1,012 adults was taken Tuesday and has a 4 point margin of error.)

Notice that the term "debt deal" is more often preferred than the term "compromise,"  the result of a settlement between the parties.  On the previous day Hawkings did use the term "compromise" in a quote he included. Perhaps it is because there was precious little middle ground to be found between such different views. To quote,

QUOTE OF NOTE: “I don’t see any momentum for more compromise after this deal than there was before. Maybe less,” Mark Halperin said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” this morning — reinstated a month after being dropped indefinitely for calling the president “kind of a dick” on the air.

The two extremes along the political spectrum are afraid of compromise.  In an August 2  Roll Call article, steamed activists are planning to disrupt forums. To quote:

As leaders attempted to sell the rank and file on the parameters of the compromise, Congress struck with President Barack Obama, tea party groups and liberal organizations alike bristled and promised that they will not be forgiving come the next election.

Members of the rank and file are angry that their leaders struck any kind of compromise, despite the very real danger of debt default.  It seems they fear their reputations will be endangered by giving another inch of ground.  This is the rigidity of unbending ideology.  The results of such politics today were marked by a 500+ point drop on the NYSE.

Posted via email from Southwest Postings - 8/8/11

About time

The time is running out for raising the debt ceiling limit.  There is no real question about that from people who know the actual facts.  But for people who choose to remain willfully ignorant, the passage of time seems not to be a problem.  We have no really coherent energy policy in the face of persistent climate change, for example.
For those who hold our futures in their legislative hands, those who govern us, ignorance is no excuse  for bad behavior - "full-tilt Tea Party crazy" - as Salon's Joan Walsh described it.  Unfortunately, purposeful ignorance of the stark economic facts is an existential reality with which far too many of the new members of Congress seem quite comfortable.
Too many of our U.S. Senators and Representatives have been operating within a political time frame, not a governing time frame.  It would seem that they were working towards being reelected from the day they took the oath of office.  And their announced agenda has been to see to the defeat of President Obama in 2012.  Where does handling the nation's business come in to play? Cynical right wing extremists refuse to play their part in governance; it would seem they would choose to destroy the government, and the rest of us in the process.

It is about time that citizens make their voices heard about raising the debt ceiling.  The rest of the world is watching and waiting.  Democratic strategist, Donna Brazile said it well on Twitter,

"President Obama wants you to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let Congress know ASAP. Thanks."

It will not take much of your time to do your part.  To stop this Congressional dance at the edge of the world's economic cliff, the American people need only to make a little fuss.
Contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives.  You can even Tweet a message to your representatives.  Let your senators and representatives know that you will watch and hold them accountable for their votes. It is time for members of Congress to understand that the legislative actions they take, in the days between now and August 2, will have predictable consequences for them in the very next elections.

Posted via email from Southwest Postings

Does financial consumer protection have a chance?

Since the Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory reform bill was signed into law, vested interests have been trying to weaken it, kill it or emasculate it. Set to go into force today, we are waiting to see what happens. I am not optimistic.



The story is by Lois Beckett of the nonprofit news organization operating in the public interest:

ProPublica, July 20, 2011, 4:26 p.m

Amplify’d from www.propublica.org

Will Innovative New Financial Regulator Be Hobbled Before It Even Starts?

These heat maps show two model mortgage forms that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau posted on its website to illustrate the number of comments generated by each part. (Photo courtesy of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)

Want to know what people find most confusing about mortgage disclosure documents? Then check out these heat maps created by a new government regulatory agency.

e than 13,000 comments on the documents, and the maps show which parts of the fo

The heat maps show two model mortgage forms that the agency posted on its website [1]. Users left more than 13,000 comments on the documents, and the maps show which parts of the form generated the most comments—which may indicate, among other things, which parts are the most difficult to understand.

This more inclusive approach to regulation is one of the hallmarks of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [2], a politically contentious agency that will open for business this Thursday.

The agency is trying to draw in consumers, since one of its jobs is to make sure that consumers understand the financial deals they're making. It has a candy-colored website [2] that looks more like a social media start-up than a cluttered .gov page. It turned to Twitter [3] for a pre-launch "Open for Suggestions" campaign and then posted response videos [2] on its YouTube page [4].

"Its openness thus far suggests the tantalizing possibility that it could be the nation's first open-source regulator," New York Times personal finance columnist Ron Lieber wrote last week [5].

Created as a result of last year's financial reform law, the agency is supposed to be a "cop on the beat" overseeing consumer financial products such as mortgages, credit cards and payday loans.

But just how effective the bureau will be is still in question, in large part because of a partisan battle on Capitol Hill over how much power the agency should have to police banks and other financial institutions.

As part of a wider attack on last year's Dodd-Frank legislation [6], a group of Republican legislators have promised to block the bureau from operating fully unless its ability to police businesses is put under bipartisan control.

Republicans want to replace [7] the bureau's director—nominated by the president—with a five-member bipartisan board. They also want to make it easier for the bureau's rules to be overturned, while some are also demanding that Congress be given control over the bureau's budget.

Republicans have promised to filibuster the appointment of the bureau's director (the nominee is former Ohio attorney general, and Jeopardy star, Richard Cordray [8]) until their demands are met.

Like many other news outlets, the financial news service Bloomberg lambasted the changes in an editorial [9] on Tuesday, saying it would politicize the agency and make it slower.

The bureau "was designed to move quickly (like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.) and not ploddingly (like the SEC, where three commissioners must pre-approve nearly everything the agency does)," Bloomberg opined.

At the moment, the bureau gets its funding from the Federal Reserve. This is a good thing, Bloomberg concluded, because it means the bureau is "insulated from the partisan funding fights that have hamstrung the SEC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other regulators."

It's worth noting that the SEC, whose job to investigate and prosecute companies for financial fraud was expanded under Dodd-Frank, recently had its budget cut by $222.5 million [10] by the Republican-controlled House appropriations committee.

The bureau's opponents aren't backing down. Forty-four Republican senators have signed a letter vowing to oppose [11] the confirmation of any agency chief until the new regulator is restructured. On Tuesday, a key Republican senator described Cordrary, the current nominee, as "dead on arrival [8]." President Obama could bypass this issue by pushing the director through in a recess appointment [12]. (The Senate's current recess is on hold due to debt ceiling negotiations [13].)

Until the bureau has a confirmed director, its regulatory powers are limited in significant ways [14]. As the Los Angeles Times has noted [15]:

The agency won't have power, for instance, to crack down on mortgage brokers, some of which helped lead the nation into the housing debacle four years ago. It also won't have authority over other largely unregulated sectors of the financial services industry, such as payday lenders and remittance companies such as Western Union, that it was created to police.

But as the political battle rages on and media scrutiny focuses on Elizabeth Warren's political future [16], little attention has been given to what the bureau has actually done. And its initial efforts are interesting, especially because they show a commitment to open government [17] and real public engagement. (Ron Lieber noted [18] that its blog actually accepts comments—"unlike, say, the White House's.")

The bureau's mission is to create transparency in an industry dominated by confusing claims and mouse print [19]. Good design isn't just a perk here—it's fundamental to the bureau's regulatory efforts.

Case in point: One of the CFPB's top priorities has been streamlining [1] the federally required mortgage disclosure documents. If that sounds like a mouthful, it's worse on paper: two separate, complicated forms that are confusing for customers and, the bureau contends [20], also burdensome for many mortgage servicers to fill out.

The goal is to replace them with a single, two-page document that clearly answers the questions: "Can I afford this mortgage?" and "Can I get a better deal somewhere else?"

Two of the potential designs [21] for the new form [22] each have a note at the top, in bold print: "You have no obligation to choose this loan. Shop around to find the best loan for you."

The bureau's other projects [20] include improving transparency about credit card prices and fees, the exchange rates used for remittance transfers of money to other countries and the credit scores sold to consumers and creditors.

It's worth noting that, while the financial industry has lobbied heavily against the bureau [23], its efforts may actually help businesses in the long run.

In a recent letter [24] to shareholders JP Morgan Chase's chief executive, Jamie Dimon [25], noted that the company does not oppose the bureau. "If the CFPB does its job well, the agency will benefit American consumers and the system," Dimon told shareholders. "Strong regulatory standards, adequate review of new products and transparency to consumers all are good things."

New Yorker financial columnist James Surowiecki [26] has argued that the financial industry should see the creation of a bureau as a boon, not a threat [27]. "Meatpackers hated the Meat Inspection Act of 1906, but it rescued the industry from the aftereffects of the publication of ‘The Jungle,' " Surowiecki wrote. "At a time when Americans profoundly distrust the financial industry ... [the CFPB] could turn out to be the friend banks never knew they needed." Read more at www.propublica.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a18txa

Good news to begin your week from Ezra Klein - "Wonkbook" at the Washington Post: Government shutdown delayed.

One of my TV pundit favorites is Ezra Klein, a wunderkind bright as a shiny new copper penny. His blog is a roundup of the latest news items that are of particular interest to me, as a Progressive. His site has a good blog-roll and lots of good hot links. Here is a sample of his current work. Enjoy.

Amplify’d from voices.washingtonpost.com

At least for a few weeks. Late on Friday, House GOP leadership unveiled a two-week extension of government funding that cuts $4 billion -- but only goes after programs President Obama targeted for elimination in his budget. For Democrats, that's good enough. Reid spokesman Jon Summers, in a statement that should be taught in political flack school as an example of how to attack your opponent while agreeing with the reasonable compromise measure they've offered, said, "We are encouraged to hear that Republicans are abandoning their demands for extreme measures like cuts to border security, cancer research and food safety inspectors and instead moving closer to Democrats' position that we should cut government spending in a smart, responsible way that targets waste and excess while keeping our economy growing."

And it doesn't bridge the two essential arguments between the Republicans and the Democrats, which are how much spending to cut, and where it should come from. So we can't yet say that disaster is averted. But it is, at the least, delayed.

Events in the Midwest and Middle East could affect the recovery, report Neil Irwin and Michael Fletcher: "Just when the economic recovery seemed to gain momentum, two new threats have emerged that could undermine it. One has flared in the Midwest, the other in the Middle East. The standoff over benefits for public employees in Wisconsin, pitting Gov. Scott Walker (R) against unions and their Democratic allies, presages battles in many state capitals that could lead to hundreds of thousands of public jobs being cut nationwide...Budget cutting is already taking a greater toll than analysts had expected, according to figures released Friday by the Commerce Department...Political turmoil in Libya and other Arab nations, meanwhile, has driven the price of oil up 14 percent this week and is already starting to mean higher prices for American consumers at the gasoline pump. The price spike could buffet global financial markets if the upheaval spreads further."

Still to come: The Senate is taking up patent reform -- and it's proving surprisingly contentious; regulators asre beginning to define what count as 'essential benefits' on the health-care law; governors disagree on how flexible to make health care reform; there is little evidence that public workers are overpaid; the EPA emerges from the short-term spending bill unscathed; and the gritty, live-action Archie movie.

Even Republicans like budget director Jack Lew, reports Lori Montgomery: "At 27, Jacob J. Lew helped save Social Security. At 41, he helped cut a deal to balance the federal budget. During the Clinton administration, he became the only White House budget director in a generation to banish deficit spending. In a city suddenly crawling with would-be deficit-busters, even some Republicans recognize Lew as the real deal. 'You guys did an absolutely magnificent job of managing the nation's fiscal affairs,' Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) gushed when Lew, in his second stint as White House budget director, appeared last week before the House Budget Committee. 'It's true it was a Republican Congress, but give credit where credit is due. You guys did a great job.' Now President Obama has asked Lew to work that magic again."

Texas' education cuts show the cost of austerity, writes Paul Krugman: "In low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average. But wait -- how can graduation rates be so low when Texas had that education miracle back when former President Bush was governor? Well, a couple of years into his presidency the truth about that miracle came out: Texas school administrators achieved low reported dropout rates the old-fashioned way -- they, ahem, got the numbers wrong."

Regulators are starting to debate what constitutes "essential care", reports Avery Johnson: "Maggie Haslam's five-year-old autistic son, Drew, has undergone intense behavioral, physical and speech therapy that helped him learn to dress himself and communicate such concepts as 'over' and 'under.' The therapy greatly helped Drew, said Ms. Haslam, a public-relations agent in Silver Spring, Md. But was it essential? The next big issue for the federal health law as it moves toward implementation is how regulators will define so-called essential benefits—the basic medical services that health plans must cover under the law. The legislation gives 10 categories of care that plans must provide for customers of the health-insurance exchanges that are launching in 2014. But the law leaves details up to regulators, who are now starting to develop the rules."

More than half of all states want permission to cuts hundreds of thousands from their Medicaid rolls:

Arne Duncan is urging states to avoid education cuts; http://politi.co/eoR5OW

A product safety database could be killed in House cuts, reports Lyndsey Layton: "The first-ever government database of product safety complaints, which is scheduled to go public in two weeks, could be scrapped as a result of a budget amendment offered by a freshman member of the House. As part of the spending bill that passed the House on Feb. 19, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) won support for a measure to withhold money to implement the system, which is set to launch March 11. The database, which was welcomed by consumer advocates, would make public thousands of complaints received by the Consumer Product Safety Commission each year about safety problems with products, from table lamps to baby strollers."

The GOP's short-term spending bill does not target the EPA, reports Andrew Restuccia: "The short-term spending bill released Friday by House Republicans does not include language to block funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate rules or slash the agency’s budget. The continuing resolution (CR) would fund the government for two weeks while lawmakers work out a longer-term spending bill to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year. The Republican proposal would cut current spending by $4 billion. Democrats said Friday they were 'encouraged' by the proposal. The House passed earlier this month a broad continuing resolution that would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. The measure, which would cut current spending by $61 billion, includes a provision to block funding for EPA climate regulations." Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bs01u

Congressional conservatives are, again, out of step with public opinion. Winning the House was not this mandate!

Do you remember the story about leopards and spots? It is true. Republicans in the House are showing that they are still against the poor, against women, and against the environment.

The budget cuts they are demanding are pay-back for all the campaign contributions they received to win their seats. Throw in some culture war stuff and there is little left that qualifies as middle ground for cooperation with progressive Democrats.

Amplify’d from www.thedemocraticstrategist.org

TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira: Public, Conservatives at Odds on Cuts

Conservatives are about to launch their full-court press on budget cuts. But their problem is, the cuts they want are the diametrical opposites of the cuts the public supports, --- and vice versa. As TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira explains in his latest 'Public Opinion Snapshot':

...Their proposed cuts leave the military largely untouched while taking a meat axe to nonmilitary discretionary spending--that is, spending on areas such as education, energy, the environment, and poverty. As usual, conservative priorities are backward when compared to public opinion. In a fascinating new survey the Program for Public Consultation conducted, respondents were asked to make their own cuts (or increases) to a projected discretionary budget for the year 2015 with a $625 billion deficit. The top three areas for cuts were defense ($109 billion average cut), intelligence agencies ($13 billion), and Iraq/Afghanistan ($13 billion)--the very areas conservatives are going light on.

It looks like Democrats who hold the line on social spending while cutting the military budget will be on solid ground with their constituents, while conservatives who stand for the reverse will have some explaining to do. Read more at www.thedemocraticstrategist.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/aq1we

Congressional investigation of decision to deny coverage for brain injured troops - from ProPublica

ProPublica is a non profit news organization that offers the opportunity for us to republish its stories in total. Thanks to them for this story, now amplified.

Amplify’d from www.propublica.org

ProPublica Journalism in the public interest.

Congress to Investigate Pentagon Decision to Deny Coverage for Brain Injured Troops

WASHINGTON, D.C.--A key congressional oversight committee announced [1] today that it was opening an investigation into the basis of a decision by the Pentagon's health plan to deny a type of medical treatment to troops with brain injuries.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., the chairman of the subcommittee on contracting oversight, said she wanted to examine a contract issued by Tricare, an insurance-style program used by soldiers and many veterans, to a private company to study cognitive rehabilitation therapy for traumatic brain injury. Such injuries are considered among the signature wounds of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The study, by Pennsylvania-based ECRI Institute, found insufficient or weak evidence to support the therapy. Often lengthy and expensive, cognitive rehabilitation programs are designed to rewire soldiers' brains to conduct basic life tasks, such as reading books, remembering information and following instructions. ECRI's findings ran counter to several other studies, including ones sponsored by the Pentagon and the National Institutes of Health, which concluded that cognitive rehabilitation was beneficial.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, McCaskill cited an investigation [2] by ProPublica and NPR in December, which found that top scientific experts had questioned the Tricare-funded study in confidential reviews, calling it "deeply flawed" and "unacceptable."

"If true, these reports raise significant questions regarding the Department's award and management of the contract with ECRI Institute, and may have profound implications for hundreds of thousands of injured service members and their families," McCaskill wrote. "We owe it to our brave service members to find the truth."

The ProPublica and NPR investigation also found that senior Pentagon officials have worried about the high price of the care, which can cost more than $50,000 per patient. Some studies estimate that as many as 400,000 troops have suffered traumatic brain injuries in the war zones, though only a small percentage of them would need a full-scale program of cognitive rehabilitation therapy.

McCaskill joins a growing chorus demanding that Tricare reconsider its decision to deny coverage for cognitive rehabilitation. In recent weeks, the American Legion, the nation's largest veterans' organization, called [3] on Tricare to provide treatment. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee with oversight of the Middle East, sent a letter [4] to Gates asking for an explanation of Tricare's stance.

McCaskill was also one of the senators who signed a letter [5] in 2008 asking Gates to direct Tricare to begin providing cognitive rehabilitation to troops. This November, the Pentagon sent a response [6] to Congress informing them of the Tricare study's findings. George Peach Taylor Jr., then-acting assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, said the Pentagon would continue to study the treatment, with another report expected later this year.

In strongly worded response [7] on Jan. 19, McCaskill said that the senators who signed the original letter believed that enough evidence existed on the treatment's benefits to justify covering the cost for brain-damaged soldiers.

She asked for Gates to provide her committee with a series of documents on the contract and critical scientific reviews by Feb. 18.

"While we agreed that further research on cognitive rehabilitation therapy was appropriate, we also called on the Defense Department to err on the side of providing this proven treatment to service members," McCaskill wrote.

ProPublica and NPR have filed a similar request under the Freedom of Information Act, but Tricare has denied access to the documents, giving contradictory explanations [8] for why. ProPublica and NPR have appealed.

Tricare officials have said their decision to deny cognitive rehabilitation is based on regulations requiring scientific proof of the efficacy and quality of treatment. They have said that the study by ECRI highlighted a lack of rigorous evidence proving the therapy's benefits.

Tricare officials also noted that the agency does cover some types of treatment considered part of cognitive rehabilitative therapy. For instance, Tricare will pay for speech and occupational therapy, which plays a role in cognitive rehabilitation. Tricare officials deny that cost played any role in their decision. In a statement [9], Tricare said the care of troops was their "utmost" concern.

Tricare did not immediately return requests for comment on McCaskill's investigation.

ECRI defended its study. The non-profit institute, which has carried out numerous health reviews for Tricare, other agencies and hospital and medical groups, said they applied standard protocols in reviewing scientific literature about the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation therapy. ECRI provided a document explaining its review here [10].

"The issue of how well cognitive rehabilitation therapy works for traumatic brain injury is important," said Jeffrey C. Lerner, the president and CEO of ECRI Institute. "ECRI Institute is fully committed to providing information to the U.S. Senate on our report and methodology."

Inform our investigations: Do you have information or expertise relevant to this story? Help us and journalists around the country by sharing your stories and experiences.

by T. Christian Miller, ProPublica, and Daniel Zwerdling, NPR Jan. 21, 2011, 5:21 p.m. Read more at www.propublica.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/ao8a0

From President Obama:

This is the Email sent to me from Organizing for America/President Barack Obama.  I am posting it today because it provides a good summary of the main points of his State of the Union address to Congress Tuesday night , the 25th.  I have omitted any interactive elements.

Carol -- Tonight I addressed the American people on the future we face together. Though at times it may seem uncertain, it is a future that is ours to decide, ours to define, and ours to win. I know we will. Because, after the worst recession in decades, we see an economy growing again. Because, after two years of job losses, we've added private-sector jobs for 12 straight months -- more than 1 million in all. Because, time after time, when our resolve has been tested, we, as a nation, have always prevailed. Overcoming the challenges we face today requires a new vision for tomorrow. We will move forward together, or not at all -- for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics. Yet the story of America is this: We do big things. Just as the progress of the past two years would not have been possible without your hard work, we will not realize the agenda I described tonight without you. So as we continue this great mission together, and we set out the plans for how far we can go, I need to know that you are ready to work side by side with me once more. The last two years have been marked by unprecedented reforms and historic progress. But there is much more work to do. Moving forward, America's economic growth at home is inextricably connected to our competitiveness in the global community. The more products American companies can export, the more jobs we can create at home. This vision for the future starts with innovation, tapping into the creativity and imagination of our people to create the jobs and industries of the future. Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's. It's why I challenged Congress to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources. It means leading the world in educating our kids, giving each of our children the best opportunity to succeed and preparing them for the jobs of tomorrow. We must build a 21st century infrastructure for our country, putting millions of Americans to work rebuilding roads and bridges and expanding high-speed Internet and high-speed rail. We must reform government, making it leaner, smarter, and more transparent. And we must take responsibility for our shared debt, reining in our long-term deficit so we can afford the investments we need to move our country forward. That is the vision I laid out tonight. That is how we win the future. It is going to take a lot of work -- but I have no doubt we are up to the task. Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets. We unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs. This is our generation's Sputnik moment. Please stand together with me. It is because of each of you, who define the will of a people, that the state of our union is strong in the face of tough challenges. You are the reason our future is still bright in the face of deep uncertainty. And you are the reason I believe that future is ours to win. Thank you, Barack

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/anoo1

WaPo story of Top Dems predict Senate will OK the START treaty before year's end.

This is another piece of good news for the Obama administration, following the November election's bad news. Despite much wrangling and some real cliff-hangers, Congress is doing much its intended work. Republicans have had to decide whether to take the voters' "yes" (to getting things done) answer. There is a new breeze blowing through Washington, even if it is a cold winter blast at times.

Amplify’d from www.washingtonpost.com

WASHINGTON -- A top Democrat predicted Monday that the Senate will approve a new arms control treaty with Russia, but conceded that it will take "house by house combat" to collect enough votes from recalcitrant Republicans to prevail.

The comments by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., came a day after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he would oppose the accord, complicating President Barack Obama's prospects for achieving his top foreign policy priority.

Undeterred by McConnell's opposition, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced Sunday night that the Senate would vote Tuesday to end debate on the treaty and move to a final vote.

s to get their hands on a nuclear weapon," Reid said, adding that the debate soon "will com

"It is time to move forward on a treaty that will help reverse nuclear proliferation and make it harder for terrorists to get their hands on a nuclear weapon," Reid said, adding that the debate soon "will come down to a simple choice: you either want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists, or you don't."

The White House and Democrats are determined to win approval of the treaty before January, when Republicans increase their numbers in the Senate, dimming its outlook. During a rare Sunday session of the Senate, Democrats turned back a GOP amendment to change the treaty, which would have effectively killed it.

Several Republicans said Obama's letter to congressional leaders Saturday vowing to move ahead on missile defense carried considerable sway.

Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the accord - it is known as New START - in April. It would limit each country's strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, down from the current ceiling of 2,200. It would also establish a system for monitoring and verification. U.S. weapons inspections ended a year ago with the expiration of a 1991 treaty.

Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the Democrats' No. 2 leader in the Senate, and John Kerry, D-Mass., the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in news show appearances that they believe they have the votes to ratify the treaty.

After several hours of debate Sunday, the Senate voted 60-32 to reject a measure to add language on tactical nuclear weapons to the treaty's preamble, which would have forced it back to negotiations, dooming the accord. Republicans Bennett, Lugar and Tennessee's Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander voted with the Democrats. It marked the second time in two days that Democrats had stopped GOP amendments. Read more at www.washingtonpost.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/iyfb

Upheaval within and among nations is common these days --

An atmosphere of change within the past few weeks is pervading the family of nations, according to Reuters.  Leaders are forced to change, often by forms of protest or transformation of legislative bodies.  At times, however, change seems impossible.  

Elections almost always mean change, though it can be very slow.  Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have gone on -- and stopped -- for decades because of what happened in their elections. 

The election of a hardliner in Israel made negotiations between them and the Palestinians more difficult.  Now Israel's parliament is going to have to decide whether to halt settlement activity as a way of perhaps renewing stalled peace talks with the Palestinians. Iraq may finally be forming a working government, after almost a year of wrangling following its parliamentary elections.  Recently the United States elected enough members of Congress to change its balance of power from Democratic to Republican, necessitating accommodation by President Obama.  This election turned, in the opinion of many, on voter upset over the handling of the financial crisis by Congress and the Obama administration. 

The 2008 worldwide financial crisis meant huge change that persists to this day.  Member nations within the European Union are also in upheaval directly related to the financial crisis.  To again quote Reuters News Service (headlines):

• Italy - "Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, fighting for the survival of his government, said on Saturday he would seek a confidence vote in parliament after the 2011 budget has been approved."  Should Berlusconi lose the vote in either chamber of Parliament he would be forced to resign, and a new government would have to be formed.  He faces challenges from both the center right and the center left.
• France - "France's government resigned on Saturday in a procedural move designed to allow President Nicolas Sarkozy to inject some fresh blood into his cabinet and boost his re-election chances in 2012. . . Sarkozy emerged victorious from a drawn out battle with unions over pension reform but remains deeply unpopular with approval ratings below 30 percent."
• Germany - "Tens of thousands of people marched in cities across Germany on Saturday to protest against government policies and social inequality, a day before a key meeting of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU). . . Merkel's center-right coalition with the Free Democrats (FDP) has been dogged by infighting and made little progress on its campaign promises in its first year in power, leading to a slide in its popularity."  Big trade unions are protesting the "offloading the costs of the financial crisis."
• Ireland - "Ireland can manage on its own, the head of the International Monetary Fund said on Saturday, a day after euro zone sources told Reuters the former "Celtic Tiger" was in talks about a possible EU rescue."  However, "Ireland does not rule out rescue" from the European Union's Emergency fund, it later said.

Worldwide finances and democracy -- The United States has been far better off with Democrats in charge during the financial crisis , than we were under Republicans where it all began.  Voters threw out incumbent members of Congress willy-nilly, however, in 2010.  They voted in a number of fiscal/social conservatives as a form of protest against Democrats.  Voters in the European Union are also in various levels of protest meaning that their parliamentary forms of government come and go easier than in the U.S.  Finally, Iraqi voters' patience has been sorely tried as their infant democracy tries to find its way towards settlement of sectarian and oil money divisions.  We must hope that the democratic process is resilient enough to overcome the horrendous mistakes responsible for all this upheaval, that were made both by government and the private sector.

Posted via email from Southwest Postings