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

Why President Obama was smart to reschedule his jobs speech - The Fix - The Washington Post

Image via Wikipedia

Why President Obama was smart to reschedule his jobs speech - The Fix - The Washington Post:

To summarize an excellent analysis by Chris Cillizza, here are three good reasons to move the speech from Wednesday to Thursday of next week:

1) - No one wins a process fight. .

2) - Get the last word. . .

3) - Pick your audience. . .

Readers will gain good insight from Cillizza's thinking here. It is also interesting to see how an excellent opening photo illustration can make a political point.

'via Blog this'

Related articles

• Barack Obama reschedules jobs speech after row with Republicans (telegraph.co.uk)

My post today is the latest from Propublica's investigation into "fracking."

ProPublica, a nonprofit journalism organization has a number of ongoing investigations. One I have followed is titled "Fracking - Gas Drilling's Environmental Threat." It is about "the promise of abundant natural gas is colliding with fears about water contamination.

Where I live in Texas is one of the most active gas drilling areas around. It adds revenue to our city and county coffers, but takes away from my feelings of environmental safety and protection of citizen interests. The series makes my point. This article is by Nicholas Kusnetz, written August 12, 2011.

Amplify’d from www.propublica.org

Report for Obama Questions Effectiveness of Gas Drilling Regulations

In sharp contrast with gas industry portrayals, the draft report released yesterday by a federal panel on shale gas drilling [1] explicitly acknowledges that current regulations may be insufficient to protect the environment and public health.

For years, the gas industry has said that drilling with hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, into deep shale formations is safe. The federal government has been caught in an awkward position, limited from regulating the industry by exemptions written into federal environmental laws, while also working to promote domestic energy production.

The draft report continues to promote drilling, but it comes down squarely on the side of stronger oversight. It notes serious environmental impacts from shale gas drilling and says it is "far from clear" whether federal and state regulations are protecting the public.

"If effective environmental action is not taken today," the report says, "the potential environmental consequences will grow to a point that the country will be faced (with) a more serious problem."

Many of the panel's recommendations already have been adopted by some states and members of the drilling industry over the last couple of years, including disclosure of chemicals used in fracking and better well construction.

Some go further. The report recommends that companies monitor air quality on drilling sites and publish those results. It also calls for limits on emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas and the primary component of natural gas.

"I think we're lifting the bar a bit," said John Deutch, chairman of the panel. Deutch is a former CIA director, has worked for the Energy Department and also sits on the board of two energy companies.

Across the board, the panel recommended making more information available to the public in order to create transparency and give a sense that progress is being made, Deutch said.

President Obama commissioned the report in March from Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who later appointed the seven-member panel. The panel was given 90 days

—ending Thursday—to come up with immediate steps that can be taken by regulators and drillers.

The report released yesterday doesn't recommend any specific regulations, leaving that to state and federal agencies. Many recommendations rely on industry cooperation.

"Whether and how these recommendations will be implemented is absolutely the critical question," said Matt Watson, senior energy policy manager at the Environmental Defense Fund. That organization's president, Fred Krupp, was the panel's only member from an environmental group.

The report is notable in part because of the makeup of the panel. Some environmentalists, academics and state lawmakers have criticized the group, saying that six of the seven members have financial ties to oil and gas companies [2]. Watson, who was not among that group of environmentalists, said the members' biographies could make the recommendations carry more weight.

"Some of them are quite bold," he said of the findings, "and it's noteworthy that a group like this panel, which is made up of members with very diverse backgrounds, would come to consensus."

Some aspects of the report are in clear conflict with industry characterizations. For example, the report says that the oft-repeated industry line—that fracking has been performed safely for decades—is insufficient to quell concerns. Instead, it says, the industry must monitor its own activities and make those results public.

The Independent Petroleum Association of America, an industry group, issued a statement calling the report a "useful starting point" for achieving improved safety. The group did not respond to a request for comment.

On the central question in the debate over fracking—whether millions of gallons of fluids injected deep in the earth can migrate through cracks and contaminate aquifers—the panel took a nuanced view. The report says there is a slight chance of that happening, but it does not rule out the possibility, saying "few if any" cases have been confirmed. Deutch said they chose the wording out of caution, not because they are aware of any cases.

"This all depends upon how prudent a person you are," he said. "If you say 'no cases,' one is going to turn up."

Some advocates said the panel's recommendations fell short of what is needed to protect the public. Dusty Horwitt, senior counsel for the Environmental Working Group, said he was disappointed that the report made no mention of the many exemptions for oil and gas companies from major environmental laws like the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act. While he supports many of the recommendations, he said it is unclear how they will translate into better practices.

"The question is, who is going to enforce some of these reforms that the panel is calling for?" he said. "We have laws on the books that could prevent some of the problems that the panel and others are interested in solving, but the panel was silent about those laws."

The report comes amid a robust public relations effort from the industry arguing that drilling and fracking are safe. As concerns have grown, companies have been running full-page spreads in newspapers [3] and putting ads on TV.

ProPublica has been reporting on the safety and environmental risks of gas drilling for three years. Previous investigations have detailed many of the problems addressed in these recommendations, including doubts over the climate benefits of natural gas [4], gaps in the disclosure of fracking chemicals [5] and problems with wastewater disposal [6].

Although many of the panel's recommendations have already been adopted or considered by state governments and the EPA, the report is significant in its acknowledgement of the threats, said Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"What's important here are the underlying findings: that there are problems that need to be fixed, and that they can be fixed."

Two of the most significant recommendations involve water use and air quality. The EPA proposed rules last month that would reduce emissions [7] of smog-forming and toxic air pollutants from many stages of the drilling process. The report calls for a broader approach that would encompass more operations and that would also limit methane emissions.

The panelists also called for a systemic approach to water use that would track every step from withdrawal to disposal. Most states do not track exactly how much of the fluids pumped underground in fracking returns to the surface as waste—as much as 90 percent can remain.

Other recommendations call for the creation of a public database linking to disparate sources of information on fracking and shale gas drilling, and for more research and development from the government (the Energy Department recently announced $10.3 million in grants for shale gas research [8]). Deutch said the proposals call for about $75 million in new federal spending on these initiatives.

The draft will be reviewed by an Energy Department committee next week before being finalized. Over the next 90 days, the panelists will use the recommendations to come up with specific advice for the Department of Interior, which regulates drilling on federal land, and the EPA. It will be up to those agencies to pursue any rulemaking they decide is necessary.

ProPublica Journalism in the public interest. Read more at www.propublica.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1byd7

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

Are you among those being watched?

Because of a long standing interest in the erosion of civil liberties since 9/11/01, this little blurb caught my eye. Sadly, there has been little change for the better from the Bush administration to the current Obama administration.

Amplify’d from www.democracynow.org

FBI Surveillance Dramatically Increases

Newly released government data shows that FBI surveillance is on the rise. In 2010, the FBI more than doubled the number of U.S. persons it targeted with National Security Letters. Meanwhile, the number of electronic and physical searches under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act increased by 13 percent. The secretive FISA court was asked to approve 1,506 requests last year for secret electronic surveillance—the court approved every one. Read more at www.democracynow.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a12ez2

More dibs and dabs to digest

An article that should disgust you -- A California Orange County (tea party activist) Republican allegedly sent an offensive Obama email (depicting the President as an ape) - from Yahoo! News.  The County Republican Chairman, Scott Baugh was quoted as saying,

. . . that he wants an ethics investigation into the incident.
"It's just highly inappropriate, it's a despicable message, it drips with racism and I think she should step down from the committee," said Baugh.

If you live in an area where there is a lot of drilling for natural gas, this recent study found that fracking for natural gas is more hazardous than burning coal - according to Yahoo! News.And finally, you will be amazed by the following three items:

1. Safes, cash washed up on Japan shores after the tsunami -according to an April 10 story from Yahoo! News. 
2.  We learn of a World War Two era German Dornier 17 bomber that was found intact underwater - from Yahoo! News Photos.
3. "The Little Things In Life" is the title of a set of 20 amazing photos from Live Science.  Immense magnification is the secret technique.

Powered by ScribeFire.

via ScribeFire

Posted via email from Behind These Links

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

Ag & HHS Secretaries roll out new food guidelines, five years in the making.

On Monday, Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack and Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, released new nutritional guidelines, the first in 5 years. The big push will be to lower the amount of salt we all eat.

As one who has struggled with high blood pressure (including fat feet and swollen ankles), I applaud the move. It is possible to control the amount of salt used in our own cooking and eating of raw fruits and vegetables, but not so with processed foods and restaurant meals. The food industry has believed that consumers prefer salty and fatty foods, but that is only because we have all been conditioned in that direction for most of our lives.

I applaud these new recommendations which, if followed, will go a long way to stop the conditioning of our kids at school and in fast food outlets.

Our nations future depends on all of us getting a lot more healthy through what we take into our bodies.

Amplify’d from news.yahoo.com

By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press

Mon Jan 31, 5:34 pm ET

WASHINGTON – You should eat less salt, the government says. A lot less.

The new dietary guidelines, issued every five years by the Agriculture and Health and Human Services departments, are telling people who are 51 and older, African-American or suffering from high blood pressure, diabetes or chronic kidney disease to cut the amount of sodium they eat daily to little more than half a teaspoon.

A number of major food makers have announced plans during the past few years to cut sodium in their products as pressure from health advocates, consumers and regulators has built.

Kraft Foods Inc., ConAgra Foods Inc., General Mills Inc., Heinz Co., Campbell Soup Co. and Bumble Bee Foods Inc. are some of the companies that have committed to lowering sodium levels. But it's often a multiyear process to dial down the sodium, largely so consumers do not detect the changes in taste.

It's unclear if those incremental changes will be able to cut enough to satisfy the new guidelines. The Food and Drug Administration has said it will pressure companies to take voluntary action before it moves to regulate salt consumption.

Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says the heightened interest in the dangers of too much sodium could help somewhat. But she believes the FDA will have to take action for the companies to reduce enough salt to matter.

"The companies are only going to do it if there's a really strong push," she said.

Consumers still have some control. To reduce the risk of disease from high sodium intake, the guidelines say people should:

• Read nutrition labels closely and buy items labeled low in sodium.

• Use little or no salt when cooking or eating.

• Eat more fresh or home-prepared foods and fewer processed foods, so they know exactly what they are eating.

• Ask that salt not be added to foods at restaurants.

• Gradually reduce sodium intake over time to get used to the taste.

Other recommendations in the guidelines are similar to previous years — limit trans fats, reduce calorie intake from solid fats and added sugars, eat fewer refined grains and more whole grains, consume less than 300 mg per day of cholesterol. The guidelines also recommend eating less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fats — full-fat cheese and fatty meats, for example.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said his department may come out with a new icon, but that won't be for a few more months. For now, the government wants consumers to focus on the guidelines themselves.

He says the recommendations — coupled with efforts from industry and other government campaigns for healthful eating, such as first lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" initiative — should bring about some change in the country's diet.

"I don't think it necessarily has to take a generation or two to see some progress," he said. Read more at news.yahoo.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/ao5xi

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

Who had the most clout in 2010? Check out these lists.

In case you were all taken up with the holidays, here is the app Klout's set of influencers for last year. There is a bit of sad irony in this story. One of today's headlines is that Steve Jobs, head of Apple is taking a leave of absence for health reasons. . . again. Not good news.

Amplify’d from klout.com

Most Influential Topics of 2010

December 29th, 2010 by Megan Berry

2010 was a landmark year for Twitter, as it moved away from being a novelty and became a mainstream tool for businesses and consumers alike. We analyzed the content produced over the past year to determine the most influential topics. At Klout, we believe that trends aren’t simply a factor of volume. These topics are not only shared widely, but shared by the top influencers on Twitter. These word clouds reflect the influence of these topics in shaping the year 2010 on Twitter.

These lists reflect the influential topics, but not sentiment. For some brands, such as BP and Toyota, becoming an influential topic reflects the controversy they encountered this year.

For a chance to dig in further, here are the topics ordered into top 10 lists:

Overall Topics: These topics reflect the pulse of 2010. While social media was a popular topic throughout 2010, others in the top 10 made it there from activity concentrated in one or two months. Discussion about Iran reached a peak in February, when it announced it would begin enriching uranium. Talk about Healthcare Reform peaked in March when the Health Care Reform Bill passed in the house and, of course, the World Cup peaked in June and July.

People: So who are the most influential people of 2010? Unsurprisingly, Barack Obama tops the list,

Companies: Coca Cola tops the list, peaking in July as they had a big campaign around the end of the World Cup.

Tech Companies: Twitter and Facebook beat out giants

TV Shows: The fact that Lost and American Idol top this list is no surprise

Music: Justin Bieber is a genuine Twitter phenomenon and dominates this list.

Products: The iPhone tops this list as the most influential product of 2010. The iPad comes in second, reflecting Apple’s dominance of this list.

Sports: The fervor around the World Cup made soccer the most influential sport of 2010.

Sports Teams: The Lakers won the championship this year so it’s no surprise they top this list. The Yankees fervent fan base makes them a consistently influential topic and, of course, the San Francisco Giants made it on the list when they won the World Series.

Cities: The most influential cities of 2010 reflect the top cities in the world – with London, New York City, and Los Angeles topping the list. Austin, Texas made it on the list due to a high volume of influential tweets surrounding SXSW in March.

Countries: The United States tops the list due to a consistent level of conversation.

Tags: The top tags of 2010 reflect the political nature of this year.

#tcot – Top Conservatives on Twitter

#p2 – Progressive 2.0 Read more at klout.com

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