• Advertisement

Brad Bannon: 4 Reasons Why Democrats Should Support Medicare For All

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) call for Democrats to campaign on and fight for a national single-payer health insurance program is just the remedy the doctor ordered for her party.

Here are the four reasons for Democrats to push the envelope on health care reform.

Medicare for all is good policy

ObamaCare provided health insurance to nearly 20 million Americanswho didn’t have it, but the law still leaves 26 million out in the cold. If TrumpCare replaces ObamaCare 22 million people will be unprotected by 2026, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Medicare for all means just that. Everybody would be covered.

The only way to lower healthcare costs is to take private insurance companies and their highly paid CEOs out of the equation. Economist Robert Frank recently pointed out in the New York Times that Medicare’s administrative costs are only 2 percent of its total cost.

Administrative costs for private insurance companies are about 6 times higher.

Medicare for all is good politics

Democrats must push aggressively on issues where we have a big advantage. A survey conducted in June by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal indicates that the biggest advantage Democrats have over Republicans is on health care. Americans think Democrats do a better job on healthcare than Republicans by a margin of 43 percent to 26 percent.

President Andrew Johnson once said Washington is 12 square miles surrounded by reality.

The conventional wisdom in the swampland is that Medicare for all is a health hazard for Democrats. But a national survey last month by the Kaiser Family Foundation found American supported the expansion of government run healthcare.

So, what are Democrats afraid of anyway?

A Fight for Medicare for all Demonstrates Democratic Determination

Trump won because he sounded and acted like a bull in a china shop which is what angry voters wanted. In contrast, Democrats walk on eggshells and don’t sound angry enough to shake things up in Washington. A push for universal health insurance is a great way for Democrats to prove that they’re not intimidated by D.C. conventional wisdom and a tough fight.

Leadership means Dems need more than blind opposition to Trump.

Republicans including Trump win with all sorts of push the envelope issue stands. During the campaign last year Trump and most successful GOP candidates pushed for repeal of ACA, even though few voters wanted to destroy Obamacare.

A poll conducted for National Public Radio last month showed that only a quarter of the public favored repeal while everybody else either wanted to fix Obamacare or even extend it.

Taking unpopular stands on issues demonstrates leadership and boldness to Americans who are frustrated with the status quo. The good news for Dems is that Medicare for all is more than twice popular than Trumpcare.

Medicare for all is easy to explain

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) was chairman of the committee that took the lead in the consideration of President Bill Clinton’s healthcare proposal. When he first saw the plan with more than a thousand pages Clinton submitted to Congress, he told his aide Lawrence O’Donnell that he could reform the healthcare system simply by deleting 3 words “65 and older” from the legislation that created Medicare health plan for seniors.

You can’t sell legislation that you can’t explain.

Medicare for all would be a lot easier to explain to the public than either Clinton’s or Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The Clinton and Obama proposals were incredibly complex. The bill the Clintons sent to Congress in 1993 clocked in more than 1,000 pages. The final version of the Affordable Care Act was 906 pages long.

In the fight for Clintoncare and Obamacare, the devil was in the details. Presidents Clinton and Obama both had a problem building support for health care reform because both proposals were so complex and difficult to explain. The lesson Dems need to take from past health initiatives is the KISS principle, keep it simple, stupid.

None of this will be easy but Dems need to get it done.

Truman proposed a health insurance program for seniors in 1945 and again in 1949. Medicare did not become law until Lyndon Johnson pushed Congress to enact it in 1965. LBJ had a big Democratic majority in Congress. Right now, Democrats are a minority in Congress.

The fierce battles over ObamaCare and Trump demonstrate that any health reform fight will be long, tough and polarizing. So, if Democrats take the time and trouble to fight, they might as well just go for the gold.

A big push for single payer health care insurance would take years but it is an opportunity Democrats can’t afford to miss and a responsibility the party can’t ignore.


Brad Bannon is a Democratic pollster and CEO of Bannon Communications Research. Campaigns and Elections magazine called him a mover and shaker in the political consulting industry. He hosts and contributes to the nationally syndicated progressive talk show, “The Leslie Marshall Show.” Bannon is also a political analyst for CLTV, the cable news station of the Chicago Tribune and WGN-TV. He is also a senior adviser to, and editor of, the blog at MyTiller.com. Contact him at brad@bannoncr.com.

Help Send Matt From The NH Labor News To Netroots Nation 2017

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and I in Providence RI for Netroots 2012

For seven years now I have been blogging and building up the NH Labor News to be the strong progressive news outlet that it has become.  While there are many people who contribute content to the NH Labor News, the majority of the work is done by me, on my free time.

Over the years I have asked for a little help from all of you to help offset some of the costs associated with running the site or to attend training classes.

Today is one of those days.

Next month I will be attending the annual Netroots Nation convention, in Atlanta Georgia.  Thanks to a generous donation from the United Steelworkers my ticket to the convention is covered.  However, this means that I must pay for travel and hotel charges on my own.

Help offset the cost of attending Netroots Nation in Atlanta by making a donation of $10, $20, or $50.

Click here to make a donation directly through PayPal.

A little information about Netroots Nation.

Netroots is one of the largest gatherings of progressives in the country.  The convention brings together labor unions, women’s health advocates, LGBTQ advocates, bloggers and organizers from across the country.  The three day convention hosts hundreds of different learning sessions on every progressive issue we are facing here in NH and across the country.  These classes help teach me how to better communicate our message as well as how to boost our reach through social media.  This is where I learned much of the information that I teach at some of the local trainings like the NH Progressive Summit.

Matt Murray And Gov. Howard Dean at NN14

Over the years I have seen Vice President Joe Biden, Sen Bernie Sanders, Sen Elizabeth Warren, dozens of Congressional Representatives, Governor Howard Dean, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, AFT President Randi Wiengarten, NEA President Lilly Garcia and faith leaders like the Rev Dr William Barber.

This year I am looking forward to seeing Vice President Al Gore, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI).

If you can, please make a donation to help offset the costs of this trip.  If you do not want to make a donation through PayPal, email me directly at NHLabor (at) Gmail.com and I can provide my home address where checks can be sent.

Thank You in advance for all your help and continuing to spread our message.


For groups looking to get an extra bang for your buck, donations of $75 or more, come with three months of free advertising on the NHLN.  Email me directly (NHLabor (at) Gmail.com) so I can send you an invoice for your records.

Leo W Gerard: American Workers Seek Enforcement, Not Protection

American workers have made a simple request of politicians for decades: stop the trade violations that kill American manufacturers and jobs.

Art by dzejdi, Getty Images

American factories and workers are willing to compete. They are able to compete. But the playing field must be level. American workers and employers can’t win when their rival is not a company but a country. U.S. manufacturers and unions have filed untold numbers of cases against trade law violators, and they almost always win. As a result, the United States now has 28 separate tariffs on a variety of Chinese steel products, and in January it filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization about China’s aluminum policies.

But China and other countries continue to violate and circumvent the rules. So now, President Donald Trump is contemplating invoking a section of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to ensure America can produce its own steel and aluminum for national security. Badmouthing this effort as protectionism are importers and 1 percenters. They’ve tried to characterize American workers and their employers as crybabies seeking protection. But no one is asking for protection.  American workers and manufacturers want trade law enforcement to establish fair competition and ensure national security interests.

Those who have been screaming “protectionism” like banshees since Trump announced that his administration would investigate whether to impose tariffs or restrictions on imports of aluminum and steel for national security contend free trade enriches all countries involved. But what they don’t say is who gets that money. In the United States, it has all gone to the already filthy rich.

Sure, the price of paper and furniture is cheaper at Walmart, but that’s pretty meaningless to the North Carolina furniture builders who lost their jobs when their factories moved to China and the Maine paper workers who lost their jobs when their mills closed because of underpriced, government-subsidized Chinese imports.

And it’s not just individuals. Free trade has devastated hundreds and hundreds of small American towns that depended on that now-closed factory or mill to employ the populace and pay municipal taxes.

Workers at the Century Aluminum Co. plant in Hawesville, Ky., know that well. They’ve watched their region deteriorate as the nearby Whirlpool factory moved to Mexico, costing 1,100 workers their jobs. Cheap unfairly traded Russian imports put a local steel mill out of business. Underpriced Chinese imports closed down the area’s furniture factories. And a glut of subsidized Chinese aluminum on the international market shuttered an Alcoa smelter in nearby Indiana last year, costing 600 workers their jobs.

Still threatened is the Century Aluminum smelter, the last left in the United States that makes the specialty metal needed to protect soldiers in Army Humvees from improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Twice over the past five years, Century has issued notices to its workers in Hawesville that it would close permanently. Luckily for the town of 1,000 residents, Century has been able to reverse course on both occasions. Still, it has furloughed more than 300 workers and scrapped unused machinery for cash. It is one of only five smelters still operating in the United States, just two of which are running at full capacity. That is down from 23 smelters 24 years ago.

Sometimes a town that loses a major employer gets a new one. But all too often it’s just not enough. When Ormet Corp. closed its smelter in Hannibal, Ohio, in 2013, more than 600 workers lost their jobs. Now a power plant is planned. But it will employ only about 20.

American aluminum and steel workers are highly skilled. The plants where they work – or once worked – are efficient and emit far less pollution than their Chinese counterparts. All things being equal, they should be able to compete. But all things aren’t equal.

Many foreign competitors receive aid from their governments that is banned under trade rules they agreed to abide by. This includes free loans from state-owned banks, free land from local governments and state-subsidized raw materials.

Because of such blatant and outrageous trade law violations, U.S. Steel last year asked the government to stop all imports of Chinese steel. In its petition, U.S. Steel described in detail Chinese officials stealing trade secrets and Chinese companies engaging in a practice called trans-shipping, which is sending steel through a third country where it is falsely marked as originating to illegally duck tariffs.

U.S. Steel was one of five companies, including a specialty steel firm and an aluminum corporation, that the Chinese government cyber attacked. The U.S. government has criminally charged five Chinese military officials with economic espionage for breaking into U.S. Steel computers and swiping information on company strategies.

Soon after the Chinese cyber-attack, one of the country’s largest steel firms, Baosteel, used U.S. Steel trade secrets to produce specialty metal for the car industry, then exported some of it to the United States, in direct competition with U.S. Steel.

This pattern of cheating certainly has not stopped. Within recent days, it was announced that a Chinese state-owned bank was giving a $2.9 billion bailout to the largest aluminum producer in the world, China Hongqiao, which is staggering after allegations of fraud.

Such government-subsidized Chinese aluminum and steel flooding the international market and depressing prices kills American jobs. Bob Prusak, president of Magnitude 7 Metals, put it this way, “My company just purchased an aluminum producer that was in bankruptcy. We’re trying to restart that facility. It is impossible for us to do that if other companies receive seemingly endless subsidies or benefits from markets protected through tariff and non-tariff barriers.”

That aluminum smelter is in New Madrid, Mo., and was owned by Noranda. At one point, Noranda employed 900 workers there. Its closure last year threatens to destroy the town of 3,000, located in what is already among the poorest parts of the state.

Enforcement of international trade law – not protectionism – could help Magnitude 7 Metals restore those jobs and save the area from devastation. Enforcement would help ensure that the United States can produce the specialty aluminum that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said is essential for production of F-35 fighter jets. Enforcement would help ensure that the United States can continue to produce the steel used in transformers crucial to electrical transmission. Only one domestic steel mill remains capable of forging that steel.

No American aluminum smelter or steel mill can remain in business just supplying the military. It must operate in a viable commercial environment. For that to happen, international trade rules must be enforced. A good first step in that direction would be imposing Trade Expansion Act penalties that are as strong as American defense must be.

Women Of Manchester Send Scathing Letter To Mayor Gatsas Over 2015 Rape At West High

Manchester, NH– Women of Manchester release an open letter to Mayor Ted Gatsas expressing shock over recent incidences.  For other women who wish to sign on please visit: www.ipetitions.com/petition/dear-mayor-gatsas.  Full letter text included below.

The Hon. Mayor Theodore Gatsas

1 City Hall Plaza

Manchester, NH 03102


Mayor Gatsas,

As women of varied ages and backgrounds who are mothers, sisters, daughters and residents of Manchester, we are writing to express our shock over your clear misunderstanding of the severity of any incident of sexual assault and why we expect better from the Mayor of our city.

On June 23rd, 2017, when asked by a Union Leader reporter about the rape of a student at West High School on September 30, 2015, you stated that you “didn’t know the severity of it.”

Police Chief Nick Willard and former Deputy Superintendent David Ryan have each publicly stated that they personally informed you on the day of and in the days immediately following the incident that a female student had alleged she was the victim of a rape at West High School.

When asked on June 26, 2017 by WMUR whether you knew about the rape, you replied that you “had been informed by email of a sexual assault, but at no point did anyone tell me of the severity of it. It could be a minor thing, a sexual harassment. It could have been someone forcing a kiss on someone or someone touching someone.”

While it is impossible to imagine that Chief Willard and former Deputy Superintendent Ryan are all mistaken or lying about their recollections of what they told you, please know that for the over 55,000 women who live in the city of Manchester, any form of sexual assault is severe. For you, the Mayor of our city, to think and say otherwise demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding and empathy that is unacceptable.

We can’t help but notice that the decision to keep this sexual assault hidden from the parents of West High students was made just a few weeks before the 2015 election for Mayor.

In the wake of any incident of sexual assault, it is critical that the Mayor of Manchester send a message that unwanted sexual contact of any kind is serious. It is a crime. There is no excuse. And there are no acceptable levels or degrees of sexual assault.

Respectfully,

  • Beth Hamilton
  • Samantha Ruth
  • Erin Kerwin
  • Mary Heath
  • Joan Reische
  • Liz Wester
  • Martha West Lyman
  • Anna Caron
  • Christine Stevens
  • Kerry Greene
  • Virginia Theo-Steelman
  • Marion Conery
  • Ashley Marcoux
  • Elizabeth Marcoux
  • McKenzie St. Germain
  • Jennifer Share
  • Patty Cornell
  • Sarah Duffley
  • Kari Thurman
  • Laurie DiCenso
  • Patricia Lynott
  • Corey Doherty
  • Laura O’Neil
  • Christy Slavik
  • Campbell Harvey
  • Marissa Chase
  • Kristen Bannister
  • Jan Sutcliffe
  • Lauren Smith
  • Mary Lynn Edwards
  • Jacqueline Chretien
  • Erin Martin
  • Alyssa Lynough
  • Amanda MacLellan
  • Laura Aronson
  • Voula Annas
  • Kathy Sullivan
  • Cheryl Carten
  • Marcia Garber
  • Susan Thompson
  • Patricia Findlen
  • Amy Kennedy
  • Elizabeth MacLellan
  • Elsie Raymer
  • Meredith Shevitz
  • Virginia Smith
  • Maria Law
  • Pam Jorgensen
  • Devon Dunn
  • Kathleen Goulet
  • Jill Teeters
  • Tara Chynoweth
  • Allison B. Nussbaum
  • Anne Armstrong
  • Phoebe Stone
  • Marcia J Lorang
  • Judy Reardon
  • Debbie Ashby
  • Debra Brown
  • Emily Ragsdale
  • Sue Corby
  • JoAnn Smith
  • Karen Rosenberg
  • Debbie Howe
  • Susan McKeown
  • Judith Pence

1) http://www.wmur.com/article/gatsas-acknowledges-receiving-email-phone-call-on-2015-sexual-assault-from-school-official/10224115

Concerned Citizens Confront Secretary of State Gardner Over Information Provided To Election Commission

Today a group of concerned citizens traveled to Concord to have a frank discussion with New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, Bill Gardner.  The group had serious concerns about the information being provided to the President’s “Election Integrity Commission” and what the information would be used for.

The commission sent a letter to all 50 states last week requesting them to release personally identifying voter information, which it will then make public. Gardner serves on the commission and last week stated he will give the voter file to the commission. The NH ACLU filed a lawsuit for a temporary injunction on the matter earlier today to prevent him from doing so.

Today when asked Gardner provided some new details into what the commission is doing and that he does not want to make this information public.

First, Gardner explained that Kobach issued a retraction letter, though he has not seen it yet.

 

Gardner went on to say that he does not approve of the ‘Election Integrity Commission’ plan to publicly distribute personal voter data.

“I will make sure that that information is not gonna be put in the public domain,” said Gardner.

It is clear that Gardner shares the concerns of these fellow Granite Staters.

 

The big question is: What does Kris Kobach want to do with this information?  Does Kobach plan to give this information to President Trump?

One Granite Stater asked, “Can you guarantee the current administration won’t be using that database in any way, shape, or form?”

Gardner responded, “We’ll have these discussions when there’s the first meeting,” implying he still does not know what the information is being gathered for.

Mo Baxley of Laconia then asked, “And you won’t turn over the information until those conversations.”

Gardner stated, “I want to make sure that this is not in the public domain, and what the guarantees are for that, and I expect that that is the case, and before it gets turned over, I will make sure that I’m satisfied that, that, that’s the case.”

 


Special Thanks to Granite State Progress for capturing all of this exchange on video.

Granite State Progress is a progressive advocacy organization that addresses issues of immediate state and local concern. Granite State Progress works as a communications hub for the progressive community to provide a strong, credible voice in advancing progressive solutions to critical community problems. Press releases online at www.GraniteStateProgress.org.

ACLU of NH Sues To Block Secretary Of State From Disclosing Statewide Voter Information

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire today sued to bar the New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner from illegally disclosing statewide information concerning New Hampshire voters.  The complaint can be found attached below.

On Friday, June 30, 2017, Secretary Gardner agreed to produce to the recently-created Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the “Commission”) statewide information concerning over 984,000 registered voters’ names, domicile and mailing addresses, and party affiliation, if any. This response ignored New Hampshire laws that place strict and binding requirements on how the State is to produce voter information.  (See RSA 654:31)

“The legislature carefully designed strict restrictions on the sharing of voter information for good reason: to protect voter privacy,” stated Representative Neal Kurk (R-NH), a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “These protections would be rendered meaningless by the transfer of this data to the Commission, which has established no security protocols and intends to post everything it receives online.”

Representative Kurk was involved in the crafting of the relevant statutes under RSA 654:31, which limit the prospect of mass dissemination of this statewide voter information in order to ensure that statewide voter information is only used for political purposes, not for commercial gain. (RSA 654:31(VI) explicitly prohibits voter information from being used for commercial purposes.)

“The Secretary of State has no statutory authority to release a copy of the statewide public checklist to anyone other than a political party, political committee, or candidate for New Hampshire office,” stated Senator Betty Lasky (D-NH), another plaintiff in the case.

RSA 654:31(II)-(III) only allows requesters to: (i) view the statewide public checklist on the statewide centralized voter registration database at the state records and archives center during normal business hours where requesters are prohibited from printing, duplicating, transmitting, or altering the data and (ii) obtain hard copies of the public checklist from local municipalities on a town-by-town/ward-by-ward basis at a fee of at least $25 per municipality or ward.

“The Commission is not entitled to special, unwritten exemptions from the Secretary of State that circumvent New Hampshire law,” stated Gilles Bissonnette, Legal Director of the ACLU of NH. “He must apply the law to the Commission no differently than he would apply the law to a regular member of the public seeking this information.”

The lawsuit, Kurk v. Gardner, seeks to bar the Secretary of State from disclosing this information without full compliance with New Hampshire law. It was filed in Hillsborough Superior Court South.

FINAL Filed Complaint (1)

Governor And Union Fail To Reach Agreement Leaving NH State Employees Without A Contract

The New Hampshire State Employees Association (SEIU1984) and the State of New Hampshire have failed to reach a contract agreement and workers are now working without a contract.

As of now the NHLN does not have any details on the negotiations other that what the SEA said in this brief statement issued on June 30, the last day of the fiscal year for the state of NH.

Today, our contract expires.

After months of bargaining, all Gov. Sununu can say is, “no.”

On June 28, 2017, our bargaining team met with the state for one last attempt in securing a contract. However, Gov. Sununu has shut the master bargaining team down at every turn – refusing any wage increases and responding with outrageous demands in return.

Wage increases? “No.” Keeping health care cost-saving incentives? “No.” The master bargaining team is even facing opposition in changing the capitalization of certain letters in the contract. Gov. Sununu’s team keeps saying “no.”

The governor and his team have made it clear they have no intention of working together to better the working conditions of state employees. They’re refusing to do anything to aid in recruitment and retention, dismissing improved standards for part-time workers, and threatening to end aspects of our preventive health care – even though it’s mutually beneficial. They’re willing to threaten the health and safety of state employees just to “get a win” for the governor.

We thought our top elected official would eventually work with us. We believed he had his employees’ best interests at heart. Our master bargaining team has worked tirelessly for over 10 months to develop a contract that benefits both state employees and the people they serve. We’re disappointed this administration doesn’t see the value in the individuals who keep this state running.

When it comes to helping real people—the people he depends on—Gov. Sununu’s favorite word is no.

The Governor had no problems cutting taxes in the State’s budget but his team is rejecting the idea of giving the people who actually do the work for the state a slight pay raise as unthinkable.

Our state employees deserve better than this. They deserve to be treated with respect and be allowed to bargain for fair wages and benefits.  If our state can afford to give tax breaks to the wealthy, then they damn well should be able to pay our state workers better.

Leo W Gerard: Veto The Cold-Hearted Health Care Bill

Donald Trump is right. The House health insurance bill is “mean, mean, mean,” as he put it last week. He correctly called the measure that would strip health insurance from 23 million Americans “a son of a bitch.”

The proposal is not at all what Donald Trump promised Americans. He said that under his administration, no one would lose coverage. He said everybody would be insured. And the insurance he provided would be a “lot less expensive.”

Senate Democrats spent every day this week pointing this out and demanding that Senate Republicans end their furtive, star-chamber scheming and expose their health insurance proposal to public scrutiny. That unveiling is supposed to happen today.

Republicans have kept their plan under wraps because, like the House measure, it is a son of a bitch. Among other serious problems, it would restore caps on coverage so that if a young couple’s baby is born with serious heart problems, as comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s was, they’d be bankrupted and future treatment for the infant jeopardized. Donald Trump has warned Senate Republicans, though. Even if the GOP thinks it was fun to rebuff Democrats’ pleas for a public process, they really should pay attention to the President. He’s got veto power.

Republicans spent the past six years condemning the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which passed in 2010 after Senate Democrats accepted 160 Republican amendments, held 110 bipartisan public hearings and conducted 25 consecutive days of public floor debate. Despite all of that, Republicans contend the ACA is the worst thing since Hitler. That is what they assert about a law that increased the number of insured Americans by 20 million, prohibited discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions and eliminated the annual and lifetime caps that insurers used to cut off coverage for sick infants and people with cancer.

The entire cavalry of Republican candidates for the GOP nomination for President promised to repeal the ACA, but Donald Trump went further. He pledged to replace it with a big league better bill.

In May 2015, he announced on Twitter: “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.”

In September 2015, he said of his health insurance plans on CBS News’ 60 Minutes, “I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”

In another 60 Minutes interview, this one with Lesley Stahl last November, he said, “And it’ll be great health care for much less money. So it’ll be better health care, much better, for less money. Not a bad combination.”

In January, he told the Washington Post, “We’re going to have insurance for everybody.” He explained, “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”

But then, the House Republicans betrayed him. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure they passed, called the American Health Care Act (AHCA), would cut more than $800 billion from Medicaid. It said people with pre-existing conditions and some older Americans would face “extremely high premiums.”

Extremely high is an understatement. Here is an example from the CBO report: A 64-year-old with a $26,500 income pays $1,700 for coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but would be forced to cough up more than half of his or her income – $16,000 – for insurance under the House Republican plan. Overall, premiums would increase 20 percent in the first year. And insurers could charge older people five times the rate they bill younger Americans.

House Republicans said states could permit insurers to squirm out of federal minimum coverage requirements, and in states where that occurred, the CBO said some consumers would be hit with thousands of dollars in increased costs for maternity care, mental health treatment and substance abuse services.

In the first year, the House GOP plan would rob insurance from 14 million Americans.

So much for covering everyone with “great health care at much less money.”

It’s true that President Trump held a party for House Republicans in the Rose Garden after they narrowly passed their bill. But it seems like he did not become aware until later just how horrific the measure is, how signing it into law would make him look like a rank politician, a swamp dweller who spouts promises he has no intention of keeping.

By last week when President Trump met with 15 Senate Republicans about their efforts to pass a health insurance bill, he no longer was reveling in the House measure. He called it “cold-hearted.”  He asked the senators to be more “generous,” to put “additional money” into their version.

Senators told reporters that President Trump wanted them to pass a bill that is not viewed as an attack on low-income Americans and provides larger tax credits to enable people to buy insurance.

Now that sounds a little more like the Donald Trump who repeatedly promised his health insurance replacement bill would cover everyone at a lower cost. Still, those goals remain amorphous.

The House bill is stunningly unpopular, almost as detested as Congress itself. President Trump seems to grasp the enormity of that problem. But even his calling it a “son of a bitch” doesn’t seem to have been enough to persuade senators that he’s serious about getting legislation that achieves his promises to leave Medicaid intact, cover everyone and lower costs.

Republican senators deciding the fate of millions of Americans must hear from Donald Trump that passing a health insurance bill that doesn’t fulfill his campaign promises is, shall we say, a cancer on the Presidency.

A veto threat would get their attention.

Even if the GOP thinks it was fun to rebuff Democrats’ pleas for a public process, they really should pay attention to the President who called the House health insurance bill “a son of a bitch.” After all, he’s got veto power.

Concord Lawyer And Executive Councilor Says ‘It Is Illegal To Give Voter Information Away’

Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky pens letter to Governor Sununu and Secretary of State Gardner citing New Hampshire law that prohibits the State from divulging the personal information requested by the Election Integrity Commission.

Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky

“The stakes are too high for state office holders of good conscience to remain silent in the face of this action,” said Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky. “As you know, claims of rampant voter fraud are baseless and defame the good people of New Hampshire.”

Many states have already rejected the Election Integrity Commission’s request to hand over personal information on every voter in the state, including: party registration, voter history, and the last four digits of the voter’s social security number.

Governor Sununu stated that New Hampshire would “comply” with the request from the commission sparking outrage from Granite Staters who are concerned about how this information is going to be used and the security of the data.

Secretary Gardner issued a statement on Friday that said:  “What is public is what has been public for decades. In this state, every town and city clerk must keep every checklist they use in an election for at least five years so that any citizen can go in and look at the checklists,” said Gardner.

Secretary Gardner is absolutely correct: anyone can go to the state’s archives and view the voter rolls, party affiliation, and voting history, but they cannot leave with it.

Lawyer and Executive Councilor, Andru Volinsky explained how a person can view the information in a letter to Gov. Sununu and Sec. Gardner.

“Pursuant to RSA 654:31, III, may view the statewide centralized voter registration database only during normal business hours at the state archives building, but may not print, duplicate, or transmit the data.”

“…While RSA 654:31-a makes some voter information public, it is subject to significant restrictions as, for example, law enforcement personnel may access information for investigative purposes.”

Volinsky also confirmed the fears of many Granite Staters.

“Once the Commission makes our voter information public, it will be subject to commercial exploitation.  No voter has given you permission to share voting information with commercial concerns.”

The Secretary of State’s office should be closed for the 4th of July holiday but that does not mean you cannot leave them a message.  Call them at 603-271-3242 (3243) and tell them you do not want your personal information shared by the state.

A full copy of Councilor Volinsky’s letter is attached below.

Volinsky Letter

NH Rebellion To March And Rally For Clean Elections

Kittery, ME – At 2:00 pm on Sunday, July 9, more than 100 committed “Granny D” walkers will gather at the John Paul Jones Historic Site (on US-1 in Kittery, Maine) to call for Clean Elections in New Hampshire.

The walkers will march one mile across Memorial Bridge to a rally in Market Square, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Speakers include:

  • Deane Rykerson: Maine State Representative and Clean Elections participant

  • John Rauh, founder of Americans for Campaign Reform and long-time federal and state advocate of Clean Elections

  • Rev. Eric Jackson, pastor of Brookside Congregational Church (Manchester, NH)

  • Liz Iacobucci, for Take Back Our Republic (www.takeback.org)

“We are marching to bring Clean Elections from Maine to New Hampshire.  Maine has had a system of clean elections since 1996, and it’s time for campaign finance reform in the Granite State,” said Olivia Zink, Executive Director of Open Democracy.  “Last year, political donors spent more than $62 million on New Hampshire elections — and that’s not even counting the presidential race.  With so much money being thrown at campaigns, how can individual constituents expect to have their voices heard?”

“Our NH Rebellion walks are a legacy of ‘Granny D,’” Zink said.  “We are continuing her work to restore democracy and ‘escort the bullhorns of big money from the room.’ This walk will put a spotlight on the success of Maine’s Clean Elections public financing system.”

“Campaign finance reform will happen because the public will demand it,” said John Rauh, the founder of Americans for Campaign Reform and a former Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate.

Founded by scholar-activist Lawrence Lessig, the NH Rebellion march project also draws inspiration from the “rebellion clause” of the New Hampshire Constitution, which empowers citizens “to reform the old or establish a new government” when laws serve a privileged few rather than “the common benefit, protection, and security of the whole community.”

Over the last three years, hundreds of reform-minded citizens have braved the elements and walked more than 40,000 miles in a “New Hampshire Rebellion” against big money in politics.

Reformers continue the work of the late New Hampshire activist Doris “Granny D” Haddock, whose historic cross-country walk for campaign finance reform at the age of 90 helped spark a citizens movement to pass the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

NH Rebellion is a project of Open Democracy, the Concord-based nonpartisan reform organization founded by Granny D. http://www.nhrebellion.org/about_doris_granny_d_haddock

To learn more about the NH Rebellion, please visit: nhrebellion.org.

To register for the walk, please visit http://www.nhrebellion.org/walk_and_rally_for_clean_elections

For details about the planned events, follow us on Twitter @nhrebellion and on Facebook at: facebook.com/nhrebellion.

  • Subscribe to the NH Labor News via Email

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 219 other subscribers

  • Advertisement

  • Advertisement