Statement of Venezuelan Gov't. on Ambassadors

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Ministry of People's Power for Foreign Affairs
Statement

The government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the government of the United States of America agreed to annul the measures taken in September, 2008 regarding their respective ambassadors in Caracas and Washington.

As a direct consequence of these simultaneous decisions, Ambassadors Bernardo Álvarez and Patrick Duddy will be able to return to their posts effective as of the present date.

The Ambassador of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to the United States Bernardo Álvarez will be returning to his post in Washington tomorrow, Friday, June 26, 2009.

Three questions for socialists

Three questions for socialists

by John Case

What is the objective of the economic reforms advocated by the Obama administration?

What measure of progress has there been, or can be expected, from the proposed reforms for the security and advancement of working peoples economic interests?

How do the goals of socialists and communists differ from Obama, and how are they the same?

To answer the first question, Larry Summers speaks for the administration:

"Let me be absolutely clear at the outset about two aspects of President Obama's approach about which he has been particularly consistent and firm since the crisis began while he was campaigning for president:

• The first is an unequivocal recognition that we only act when necessary to avert unacceptable –and in some cases dire –outcomes. Barack Obama ran for president to restore America's role in the world, reform our health care system, achieve energy independence, and prepare our children for a 21st century economy.. He did not run for president to manage banks, insurance companies, or car manufacturers. The actions we take are those of necessity, not choice.
• The second point on which the President has been unambiguous is that any intervention go with, rather than against, the grain of the market system. Our objective is not to supplant or replace markets. Rather, the objective is to save them from their own excesses and improve our market-based system going forward."

The most refreshing part of Summers' statement is the straightforward confession of conflict between goals, and necessity. The bias towards market solutions sits nakedly alongside the stark reality of serious market failures in critical sectors of the economic regime of the past 70 years: health care, financial services, auto, infrastructure, education, climate change preparation, and energy. The difficult challenges before the American people all mandate a sharp turn from the status quo. And that turn simply cannot avoid a substantial expansion of long-term public intervention commensurate with the scale of market failures. Even without the stubborn and unrelenting resistance of finance capital, the insurance and pharma industries, the bondholders of the auto industry, the oil and power industries, and other sundry so-called free market "fundamentalists" these challenges would be daunting. But working people and progressive forces, including important forces aligned with the Obama administration MUST mobilize sufficient, indeed overwhelming, pressure to defeat the resistance, pass the reforms, enforce them, and -- most important of all -- insure that they redress the massive losses in income and security that have been suffered in the past 30 years.

The right calls this creeping socialism. They are correct -- that's exactly what the minimum necessary social democratic reforms are, and there is no point in concealing it. However, contrary to the alarmist hysterics of the ultra right, incremental steps in a socialist direction do NOT mean the end of capitalism. Far from it -- universal not-for-profit health care, a green national energy and infrastructure policy, financial reform, very large investments in education and training will generate a new birth of capitalism in many areas of the economy. Innovation is vital to growth and human progress. Healthy, competitive markets play a critical role enabling science and technology to raise human productivity. In addition, with rising culture, human needs and wants --- reflected in the DEMAND side of the economy -- rise dramatically. Soon almost all industry will be "high-tech" industry, just as every science is now also part computer science. But insuring that the fruits of science and technology really meet human needs and advancement must be tested repeatedly in the furnace of actual economic demand. Markets are the only tools known for performing this task more or less spontaneously on a massive scale -- and it is critical that they thrive. Markets are human institutions that will persist as long as there are commodities and a division of labor in society. They are not products of natural law. They can and must be managed to serve human ends. Relieved of the crushing burdens of private health care, able to draw on a more skilled and educated labor force, provided with customers who have rising incomes and needs, given access to stable credit markets -- corporations and entrepreneurs will find a new boom in economic activity once the bankrupt vultures and dinosaurs of the last century are give a proper burial.

There are some -- thankfully a declining number -- on the Left who have long been infected with a caricature of socialism, and capitalism. They see capitalism as a fixed and unchanging system where efforts at reform are inherently futile -- forward progress will inevitably be crushed, impoverishment is ultimately absolute, and only a "revolutionary" transformation is capable of liberating working people from exploitation. Likewise socialism is pictured in no less idealized terms with virtually no connection to day to day struggles other than an opportunity to "expose" the "fraud" of reforms. For most of the past century working people in advanced capitalist countries have been ill-served by these tendencies, and in fact largely ignored them with the result that many are seriously marginalized. Despite the romanticized affections some in the marginalized left express for revolutionary movements against colonial and neo-colonial domination in the developing world, these movements, even when compelled to resort to arms in the absence of even minimal democratic rights, have actually been in the lead shunning dogma and devising radical innovations in mixed economic development. These efforts have produced unprecedented growth rates and been the primary cause of the reduction in world poverty rates in the past half-century.

The popular processes playing out now highlight the innovation with which masses of people in the US as well are relearning, renewing and updating the principles of socialist and social-democratic economics and politics. The aggressively anti-communist, anti-government, anti-regulation coalitions of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Thatcher, Bush and Bush have brought the international economy into a deep crisis. Some see this crisis "bottoming out" soon, but few, if any, see a path to actual recovery that markets alone, or even in the main, can find.

While literally millions are giving "socialism" a new look, and are dumping free market fundamentalism in the garbage bin of history, this does not mean they are turning to failed models of socialism -- such as the Stalin and Mao periods. Thus many are instead quickly discarding many of the terms of the past centuries' debates on socialism and communism vs capitalism as futile -- both the hysterical anti-communism of the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's, as well as dogmatic and unscientific tendencies within the Left.

The Second Question

When comparing the stated market-oriented goals of the Obama Administration AND its plain admission of the necessity of large scale public interventions no doctrine or received wisdom is needed to reveal the gigantic contradiction of interests between classes in US politics. And the comparison clearly identifies the main tasks facing the working class, and the Left of the United States:

1. Rapidly expand the power base of democratic upsurge needed to defeat right-wing, corporate efforts to block structural reform.

2. Consolidate the US progressive working class and social democratic forces behind the minimum program needed for recovering working class incomes, promoting peace, economic justice, security and stable growth.

One only has to inspect the compromises being discussed in negotiations between Obama and various Congressional forces on each major programmatic front to appreciate the absolutely vital importance of these tasks. The defeat of the mortgage reform bill sponsored by Senator Durbin -- the only relief to homeowners so far proposed in Congress -- demonstrated the power of the resistance. They would not even meet with Durbin, who concluded "They (financial sector lobbyists) own the place!"

The subversion of any serious consideration of the single-payer solution to the health care crisis by insurance and pharma forces, and their current contest --- "we can't afford it" --- against ANY public option, re-affirms this threat, in the face of overwhelming working class support.

The postponement of any cap and trade benefit to the environment for changing to renewable energy solutions for several years -- another demonstration.

The chorus of "socialism! socialism!" denunciations of Obama's assumption of ownership in GM and Chrysler, and the somewhat pathetic performance of the UAW leadership in the Auto crisis --both profoundly threaten the possibility of setting a new and healthy foundation for a domestic manufacturing resurgence.

The downgrading of the priority in passing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) shows that the big business and right-wing hatred and fear of worker self organization has already pressured the administration and Congress to consider disarming itself. Yet the ability of workers to organize and take control of their own fate is most powerful reform weapon in changing the direction of our nation toward rising incomes and wealth for working people.

The President's financial regulatory reform was greeted by lukewarm support on the Left, but the spokesmen of finance capital have made no secret of their determination to kill it -- accurately describing it as the biggest intrusion of federal regulation in financial capital markets in 70 years. It too faces an uncertain path in Congress.

The financial crisis, the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, health care, and energy policy all reveal the clear and sharpest points of contest in the class politics of this era. They are the test of whether the next 5 years will send us forward to enlightenment and progress, or failing victory, put us at risk of social chaos, and its handmaiden -- strife that could make Iran's conflicts look pacific.

In sum, these threats answer the second question: the Obama program is an opportunity for great progress. There have been some small but not insignificant victories -- but the key tests of progress are still in doubt. Their fate rests in our hands.

Lastly, in his Cairo speech, to the whole world, Barack Obama took the first, genuine steps backward from imperialist ideology, and the first genuine embrace of the principles of conflict resolution and non-violence in 100 years of our national history. It is impossible to underestimate the impact of this act for the peace of the world. Yet he, and we, have many enemies on this path. He is President. We are soldiers -- or not -- and only we can make the laying down of arms a reality.

The third Question

Karl Marx answered this question in words that ring true through 160 years:

"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. "

"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

In short there is NO distinction between the interests of socialists and communists of every persuasion, and the progressive, internationalist social democratic demands that also reflect the majority sentiments and interests of working people, in this era, in this time, in these next few years in the United States of America.

We must embrace the best of Barack Obama's vision as our own, and hold him in the light of necessity, and bar the forces of darkness from him with the multitudes.

Call today: Tell your Rep. to vote for clean energy

From RePower America:

Did you know that in just days the U.S. House of Representatives is going to vote on the most unprecedented clean energy and climate legislation in our nation's history? But, fossil fuel industries and their allies have launched a blatant distortion campaign on TV and behind closed doors to scare Congress from taking action.

Our leaders need to hear from us. I just called my Representative. Can you as well?

Just call 877-9-REPOWER (or 877-9-737-6937), and they'll connect you to your Representative after giving you talking points.

Let your Representative know that you want a cleaner and stronger economy today. Urge them to support the American Clean Energy and Security Act now.

White House writing new anti-discrimination rules

New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers
By JIM RUTENBERG
New York Times
Published: June 23, 2009

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for President Obama are quietly drafting first-of-their kind guidelines barring workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees, officials said Tuesday.

The guidelines will be in an updated federal handbook for managers and supervisors to be distributed and posted online in the next couple of months, and they could also be included in other materials for managers. They will list transgender people — those who identify their gender differently from the information on their birth certificates — as among several groups protected by antidiscrimination laws.

Though transgender men and women are not believed to make up more than a fraction of a percent of the federal work force, their inclusion in the discrimination guidelines is seen as a breakthrough by transgender and gay rights advocates.

Read more...

Labor backs LGBT non-discrimination bill

From the AFL-CIO:

Statement by AFL-CIO President Sweeney On the Introduction of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
June 24, 2009

The AFL-CIO strongly supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which Representative Barney Frank introduced today in the 111th Congress. This common sense legislation would bar discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

In far too many states, it is still absolutely legal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. While federal law protects working people from firing or penalization based on race, religion, national origin, gender and/or physical ability, no federal law exists to protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This means that in 30 states, it is legal to fire someone for being lesbian, gay or bisexual. In 37 states, it is legal to fire someone because they are transgender.

Because transgender people are so frequently vulnerable to employment discrimination, the AFL-CIO applauds their full protection in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009. It is just plain wrong for anyone to discriminate against or fire a worker based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and this legislation gives Congress the chance to make all such shocking discrimination illegal across boundaries.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is inconsistent with the principles of equal opportunity and equal employment that our movement has fought for. With the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender workers across this nation would have protection from workplace discrimination, protections that so many workers receive now only because of their union contracts.

The AFL-CIO is proud to stand behind this significant civil rights legislation that is urgently needed and long overdue. We look forward to working with others in the labor and civil rights communities to move this issue forward on Capitol Hill.

Iran's Assembly of Experts

The Assembly of Experts
TEHRAN BUREAU

The Iranian Constitution is a roadmap in which all roads lead to the Supreme Leader. He exercises control over all branches of the government and every division of the armed forces. He is appointed to the position for life, and his power is tied to age-old traditions of leadership in Shiite Islam. And yet, a single constitutional body can theoretically exercise ultimate power over the position of the Leader. That body is the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member council trusted with the responsibility to elect, and even dismiss, the Supreme Leader.

The first Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, never needed the Assembly, having gained his position through his role in the 1979 Revolution. It was the Assembly of Experts, however, that elected Ayatollah Khamenei, the current Leader, nearly two decades ago. It was a controversial choice, as Khamenei was not yet an Ayatollah, and lacking a major qualification for the position. Since then, the Assembly has existed as a virtually inactive body, meeting twice a year and releasing statements expressing satisfaction with its one, extremely important decision. Today, however, the Assembly once again is the center of attention, as it is perhaps the last governmental body not controlled by the supporters of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the powerful faction that has led his ‘election coup’ in Iran.

To better understand the current role of the Assembly of Experts, some background information is required.

In 2005, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani lost a lack-luster election to Ahmadinejad, a little-known provincial governor who had recently become the mayor of Tehran. Rafsanjani and Mehdi Karrubi, another candidate in those elections, strongly implied that they had lost due to widespread electoral fraud. Karrubi, who a few hours into the counting of the votes seemed to be heading for a run-off with Rafsanjani, famously remarked that he had closed his eyes for a siesta and woken up to discover that Ahmadinejad was now leading him in the polls. Nonetheless, the election results were certified and the defeated candidates accepted the outcome.

Read more...

US and Venezuela move forward on relations

From an exchange between a reporter and Ian Kelly, State Department spokesperson at the State Department's daily news briefing, June 24th:

QUESTION: What about Venezuela? She asked --
MR. KELLY: Oh, Venezuela, yeah, sorry. I think I have something on Venezuela. Yes.
Since Secretary Clinton and President Chavez spoke during the Summit of the Americas, both our governments have worked toward the goal of returning ambassadors to our respective capitals. We are currently taking the necessary measures to accomplish this goal. And we think that exchanging ambassadors is in the best interests of both countries. But I don’t have any names for you right now or dates.
QUESTION: So the decision is taken? It means --
MR. KELLY: The decision has been taken to – there was a – what happened was there was a – Assistant Secretary Shannon spoke to Foreign Minister Maduro, and we agreed to move forward. This was on June 22^nd, on Monday.

Howard Dean, President Obama, and Sen. Schumer step up to the plate

by Phil E. Benjamin

In front of a packed house at the Hunter College of Social Work in NYC, former Governor of Vermont and former head of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean made it clear: "Without a Public Health Insurance Option; Health Reform Legislation is not Supportable."

He said that the 2008 elections gave the Democrats the largest control of the House of Representatives since the 1940s and also a 60/40 split in the Senate. And, most important a President of the United States who has wide popularity. He said that there is not a separation between the Single Payer advocates and the need for a strong public health insurance option. Dean is bringing 300,000 petitions to the June 25th Washington, D.C. Demonstration taking place in the part in front of the U.S. Senate.

He said that the American people sent the strongest message possible and its time for the Democrats to do the right thing.

He pointed out what President Obama pointed out in his press conference today [see below], the Republications are for choice; well here is a choice.

On the delivery side of the health issue, keeping in mind that Dean is a physician; he is calling for far more Primary Care Physicians. He said that the AMA doesn't speak for these physicians since they are mostly specialists. Interestingly, Dean said that salaries of primary care physicians in the United Kingdom with Socialized Medicine get paid more than then the same doctors in the U.S.

Dean cited the recent NY Times polls where 72% polled called for a public, government run system option. This is a historic finding, Dean said.

In the question and answer period, Dean pointed out that the Massachusetts and Vermont plans are good as far as they go, but both need a public health insurance option to make them financially feasible.

Co-Ops and Triggers

Dr. Dean opposed both the Co-Op options being proposed by Senator Kent Conrad and those called for a trigger to kick in the public option.

In terms of delivery of health care, Dean pushing for more Community Health Centers.

A recurring theme of Dr. Dean in his formal presentation and in the answers to questions is that the problem this time is NOT the Republicans and the Insurance Carriers, is the Democrats who must vote by the people voted for them.

PRESS CONFERENCE
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
Tuesday, June 23, 2009

The last issue I'd like to address is health care.

Right now, Congress is debating various health care reform proposals. This is obviously a complicated issue, but I am very optimistic about the progress that they're making.

Like energy, this is legislation that must and will be paid for. It will not add to our deficits over the next decade. We will find the money through savings and efficiencies within the health care system -- some of which we've already announced.

We will also ensure that the reform we pass brings down the crushing cost of health care. We simply can't have a system where we throw good money after bad habits. We need to control the skyrocketing costs that are driving families, businesses, and our government into greater and greater debt.

There's no doubt that we must preserve what's best about our health care system, and that means allowing Americans who like their doctors and their health care plans to keep them. But unless we fix what's broken in our current system, everyone's health care will be in jeopardy. Unless we act, premiums will climb higher, benefits will erode further, and the rolls of the uninsured will swell to include millions more Americans. Unless we act, one out of every five dollars that we earn will be spent on health care within a decade. And the amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on everything else today.

When it comes to health care, the status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. So reform is not a luxury, it's a necessity. And I hope that Congress will continue to make significant progress on this issue in the weeks ahead.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's talk first of all about health care reform more broadly.

I think in this debate there's been some notion that if we just stand pat we're okay. And that's just not true. You know, there are polls out that show that 70 or 80 percent of Americans are satisfied with the health insurance that they currently have. The only problem is that premiums have been doubling every nine years, going up three times faster than wages. The U.S. government is not going to be able to afford Medicare and Medicaid on its current trajectory. Businesses are having to make very tough decisions about whether we drop coverage or we further restrict coverage.

So the notion that somehow we can just keep on doing what we're doing and that's okay, that's just not true. We have a longstanding critical problem in our health care system that is pulling down our economy, it's burdening families, it's burdening businesses, and it is the primary driver of our federal deficits. All right?

So if we start from the premise that the status quo is unacceptable, then that means we're going to have to bring about some serious changes. What I've said is, our top priority has to be to control costs. And that means not just tinkering around the edges. It doesn't mean just lopping off reimbursements for doctors in any given year because we're trying to fix our budget. It means that we look at the kinds of incentives that exist, what our delivery system is like, why it is that some communities are spending 30 percent less than other communities but getting better health care outcomes, and figuring out how can we make sure that everybody is benefiting from lower costs and better quality by improving practices. It means health IT. It means prevention.

So all these things are the starting point, I think, for reform. And I've said very clearly: If any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that's not a bill I can support. It's going to have to control costs. It's going to have to be paid for. So there's been a lot of talk about, well, a trillion-dollar price tag. What I've said is, if we're going to spend that much money, then it's going to be largely funded through reallocating dollars that are already in the health care system but aren't being spent well. If we're spending $177 billion over 10 years to subsidize insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, when there's no showing that people are healthier using that program than the regular Medicare program, well, that's not a good deal for taxpayers. And we're going to take that money and we're going to use it to provide better care at a cheaper cost to the American people. So that's point number one.

Number two, while we are in the process of dealing with the cost issue, I think it's also wise policy and the right thing to do to start providing coverage for people who don't have health insurance or are underinsured, are paying a lot of money for high deductibles. I get letters -- two, three letters a day -- that I read of families who don't have health insurance, are going bankrupt, are on the brink of losing their insurance; have deductibles that are so high that even with insurance they end up with $50,000, $100,000 worth of debt; are at risk of losing their homes.

And that has to be part of reform, making sure that even if you've got health insurance now, you are not worried that when you lose your job or your employer decides to change policies that somehow you're going to be out of luck. I think about the woman who was in Wisconsin that I was with, who introduced me up in Green Bay -- 36 years old, double mastectomy; breast cancer has now moved to her bones and she's got two little kids, a husband with a job. They had health insurance, but they're still $50,000 in debt, and she's thinking, my main legacy, if I don't survive this thing, is going to be leaving $100,000 worth of debt. So those are the things that I'm prioritizing.

Now, the public plan I think is an important tool to discipline insurance companies. What we've said is, under our proposal, let's have a system the same way that federal employees do, same way that members of Congress do, where -- we call it an "exchange," or you can call it a "marketplace" -- where essentially you've got a whole bunch of different plans. If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor. If your employer is providing you good health insurance, terrific, we're not going to mess with it.

But if you're a small business person, if the insurance that's being offered is something you can't afford, if you want to shop for a better price, then you can go to this exchange, this marketplace, and you can look: Okay, this is how much this plan costs, this is how much that plan costs, this is what the coverage is like, this is what fits for my family. As one of those options, for us to be able to say, here's a public option that's not profit-driven, that can keep down administrative costs and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price -- as one of the options for you to choose, I think that makes sense.

Q Won't that drive private insurers out of business?

THE PRESIDENT: Why would it drive private insurers out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government -- which they say can't run anything -- suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical.

Now, I think that there's going to be some healthy debates in Congress about the shape that this takes. I think there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly, that over time they can't compete with the government just printing money.

So there are going to be some I think legitimate debates to be had about how this private plan takes shape. But just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they're giving consumers the best possible deal, that they can't compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what's the best deal. That defies logic, which is why I think you've seen in the polling data overwhelming support for a public plan. All right?

Q I'm sorry, but what about keeping your promise to the American people that they won't have to change plans even if employers --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, no, no, I mean -- when I say if you have your plan and you like it and your doctor has a plan, or you have a doctor and you like your doctor that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.

Now, are there going to be employers right now -- assuming we don't do anything -- let's say that we take the advice of some folks who are out there and say, oh, this is not the time to do health care, we can't afford it, it's too complicated, let's take our time, et cetera. So let's assume that nothing happened. I can guarantee you that there's a possibility for a whole lot of Americans out there that they're not going to end up having the same health care they have, because what's going to happen is, as costs keep on going up, employers are going to start making decisions: We've got to raise premiums on our employees; in some cases, we can't provide health insurance at all.

And so there are going to be a whole set of changes out there. That's exactly why health reform is so important.

Senator Chuck Schumer's Floor Speech - Public Option in Health Care:

[Senator Schumer is charged by the House and Senate to Develop a Public Health Insurance Option plan.]

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the necessity of including a public option in the health care legislation Congress is currently drafting.

One of our top priories as we undertake health care reform must be increasing competition among health insurance companies in order to get costs under control and give consumers better choices.

A recent NY Times/CBS poll clearly shows that a large majority of the American people, 72% in fact, want a government-sponsored health care option that would compete with private health insurance companies. 72%!

What is even more incredible is that 50% of Republicans want a public option.

Do you know why so many Americans want a public plan? Because, despite what many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you believe, they don’t feel that they have affordable choices.

And fundamentally, this is what lies at the heart of our public plan proposal. We want to ensure all Americans have a guaranteed affordable choice when it comes to health insurance. And right now, too many of them don’t.

In many areas of the country, one or two insurers have a stranglehold on the entire market, which produces costly premiums and health care decisions that often serve the interests of the insurer, not the patient.

In fact, according to a study According to the American Medical Association, 94 percent of insurance markets are highly concentrated. That’s right, 94 percent.

This is why a public health insurance plan is absolutely critical: to ensure the greatest amount of choice possible for consumers, and provide at least one option that is patientâ€"not profitâ€"focused.

The public plan option is not about government controlled health care, socialism, or any of the other buzz words that have been tossed around as part of this debate. The public plan option is about offering Americans a choice in a market that far too often offers them none.

I’ll tell you the choices too many Americans do face â€" whether to pay for health insurance and healthcare or to pay for the other necessities of life. That’s not a choice anyone should have to make.

And maybe that explains why the American people don’t agree with the critics of the public plan. 50% of Americans think the government plan will provide better healthcare coverage than private insurance companies.

Let us be clear, a public plan need not have special built-in advantages. It would be a coverage option that would compete on an equal footing alongside private insurance plans in the market for individual and small business coverage.

If a level playing field exists, then private insurers will have to compete based on quality of care and pricing, instead of just competing for the healthiest consumers.

In this way, a public plan will accomplish many of our most important goals.

It will not waste money on costs incidental to providing healthcare. It will not focus on profits at the expense of the best health outcomes. Instead, it will spend money on improving health delivery, and on trying innovative technologies and systems in order to SAVE money.

It will force many insurers that have been shielded and protected from competition for far too long to compete with a plan that provides comprehensive care at an affordable rate.

It will, most importantly, give Americans a choice.

In fact, I think the thing that really scares opponents of the public plan option is choice â€" that Americans might choose the public plan. Because then the curtain might be pulled back on their friends at the insurance companies.

Americans will finally see the hidden costs that have caused their premiums to skyrocket; the wasteful spending that does not improve health outcomes, but fattens bottom lines; and the protection from competition that has been offered to private insurers over the last decade.

To truly reform our health care system, Congress must pass legislation that includes a public option. And a watered-down public plan is no public plan at all.

Music Review: Lucinda Williams and Neil Young

by

Eric Green

Lucinda Williams, "Little Honey"
2008, Lost Highway
&
Neil Young, "Fork in the Road"
2009, Reprise

Lucinda and Neil ROCK

Lucinda Williams and Neil Young have not lost their edge; the edge has only gotten sharper.

For Lucinda it is the music industry that has her more than a little been angry; for Neil it is the state of world, including his ever-present opposition to war and corporate greed.

Lucinda's, "Little Rock Star" has the following chorus: "Hey Little Rock Star; what don't you see; This is not all that it's cracked up to be; And I can't say I blame you; For throwing the towel in or buying more fame by cashing your chips in; But with all of your talent, and so much to gain; To toss it away like that would be such a shame."

She is clearly worried and upset with songwriter singers who put their standards aside to make it in the business.

"Even if you fake it to get attention; whatever it'll take to get them to listen; piss on your designer boots and designer leathers."

Get the picture?

But, her, "It's a Long Way to the Top" where Williams gives the message for her most recent CD. As she says "It's a Long Way to the Top if you wanna Rock 'n Role'" at the conclusion of this song which makes it very clear just how difficult it is to work as a singer, possibility making it and then keeping your own edge.

Elvis Costello joins Williams on "Jailhouse Tears." Their collaboration is musically perfect and the lyrics are very good.

The title song of the Album, "Little Honey" brings us to "Honey Bee," "Tears of Joy," "Real Love," and "Plan to Marry" Lucinda's songs to her life with love. These are all very nice and constitute an album to themselves, but the songs that relate to the trials and tribulations of being a songwriter and singer, I think, make this album even more special.

On thing that does link Williams and Young is there use of the four letter word, "F—k" in their songs to show raw emotion of rage, disappointment and fire.

In "Fork in the Road," the title song of the CD, Young makes it clear that he is still quite angry and remains angry that the wars are still going on.

He of course laments his growing older and his "pot belly" getting in the way of his driving his rig. And, it appears that he has been doing some driving around the country to keep in touch with people. But, then he drops that slice of life reports and says, "About this year; We salute the troops; They're all still there; In a fucking war; It's not good; Whose idea was that?"

And, then he turns he attention to the Wall Street bailout though the eyes of everyday people:

"I've got hope; but, you can't eat hope; I'm not done; Not giving up; Not cashing in; too late."

Then he points his deadly finger:

"There's a bailout coming but it's not for me; it's for all those creeps watching tickers on TV; There's a bailout coming but it's not for me."

Then he makes it personal:

"I'm a big rock star; My sales have tanked: But I still got you; Thanks; Download this; Sounds like Shit."

He takes an interesting swipe at the bloggers:

"Keep on bloging'; 'Til the power goes out; "Your battery's dead; "Twist and shout."

The other original songs on this album show that Neil Young is not a happy camper.

And, along with Williams, who seems to be very much in love….they are both continuing commentators on the scene they live in.

This period of time for the peoples' movements is hanging in the balance. The creative worlds of Williams, Young and the other great singers and writers of our day like Bruce Springsteen are joining the struggle.

Film Review: Taking of the Pelham 123

by Eric Green

A TALE OF TWO FILMS: 1974 to 2009

To elevate a film to the "ICON" level requires a lot of ingredients: An unusual location; New York City; compelling actors and an unusual story. There is no disputing that "Taking of the Pelham 123" is on that level.

Originally produced in 1974 this film gives an insight into NYC that few films were and are able to offer. Maybe that is why it remains so popular.

There was an attempt to do a television movie on the original novel, but it fell flat.

Now, in 2009, 35 years later, the film is back on the front burner of Hollywood films. This time it is a mega-film Hollywood event.

John Godey

The start of any cult film begins with the writer of the book that the film is based on. In this case, John Godey is the novelist, but it turns out that that is not his real name. That was a pseudonym for his real name: Morton Freedgood. Freedgood used the Godey name to write non-serious novels. Born in 1913, Freedgood died in 2006 at the age of 93. Not much is known about him, which also helps the mystique.

Directors and Producers

The 1974 version was directed by Joseph Sargent who did mostly television work after 1974 and even before. Gabriel Katzka and Edgar J. Schenick produced the film. In 2009, Tony Scott both directed and produced the film. Three other producers are: Steve Tisch, Todd Black, and Jason Blumenthal.

Tony Scott has long history of producing high intensity, major actors Hollywood films. If you like hose kinds of film, he did not disappoint on those points.

Both films contribute to the New York mystique. No question that the 1974 film's dark intensity and rather limited scope had one kind of delivery. The 2009 film utilizes the special effects and gimmicks that normally kill films. Fortunately, Scott did not succumb to most of them.

Both directors had superior actors to work with. And, both did a great job in utilizing their talents.

Sargent's cast of Walter Mathau, Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam, Hector Elizondo, Jerry Stiller and a very large, excellent, supporting cast kept you at the edge of your seat. The face of NYC is deeply in these characters,

Scott had even more high visibility, super stars at this fingertips: John Travolta, Denzel Washington, Luis Guzman, James Gandolfini and John Turturro. Scott's supporting cast was of the same size as Sargent's and with the same New York genre'.

All of the actors in both films did a truly great job.

Fortunately, both directors kept the film to a short, crisp period of time. There was no lulls.

True to the Reality

Both films brought viewers into the world of transit in the tunnels of NYC. But, it must be said that Scott, probably the screenwriter, Brian Hedgeland, took liberties with the on-the-ground reality that the 1974 screenwriter, Peter Stone didn't.

It was probably not really necessary to have the No. 6 train go to Coney Island. That is not where the No. 6, IRT goes….it ends at the Brooklyn Bridge. It would have taken a lot of track switching to get the No. 6, IRT on the Coney Island direction.

Mathau and Travolta

But, in the same way the Walter Mathau dominated the 1974 version, John Travolta does the same in the Scott version. Mathau was amazing; and, Travolta does the same.

This remake was worth it, even with the flaws.