My preference is that House Democrats pass the Senate bill and then run their fixes through the reconciliation process. But I think there is an argument that the current health-care bill has been terribly compromised by the months of controversy, the shady deal with Ben Nelson, the ambivalence of key legislators, the endless meetings with industry players, the wasted time, and the collective freak-out of congressional Democrats in the aftermath of Scott Brown's election.

There is another option.

Democrats could scrap the legislation and start over in the reconciliation process. But not to re-create the whole bill. If you go that route, you admit the whole thing seemed too opaque and complex and compromised. You also admit the limitations of the reconciliation process. So you make it real simple: Medicare buy-in between 50 and 65. Medicaid expands up to 200 percent of poverty with the federal government funding the whole of the expansion. Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy.

And that's it. No cost controls. No delivery-system reforms. Nothing that makes the bill long or complex or unfamiliar. Medicare buy-in had more than 51 votes as recently as a month ago. The Medicaid change is simply a larger version of what's already passed both chambers. This bill would be shorter than a Danielle Steel novel. It could take effect before the 2012 election.

If health-care reform that preserves the private market is too complex and requires too many dirty deals with the existing industries, then cut both out. But get it done. Democrats have a couple of different options for passing health-care reform this year. But not passing health-care reform should not be seen as one of them.

Link to Original Article

The numbers in the Research 2000 exit poll released Wednesday by MoveOn.org and Democracy for America speak for themselves: The Massachusetts election was not a call to go back to conservatism. It was, as Robert Borosage on our site said earlier today and as such commentators as Katrina vanden Heuvel are saying, a call for Democrats to be bolder, more audacious and unapologetic in pursuing the populist reforms the public thought it was going to get after the 2008 elections.

The poll focused on Massachusetts residents who voted for President Obama in 2008 but who either voted for Senate republican candidate Scott Brown or did not vote at all. These responses from Brown voters should stand out:

• Generally speaking do you think Barack Obama and Democrats in Washington, DC are delivering enough on the change Obama promised to bring to America during the campaign?

Yes 31%
No 57%
Not sure 12%

• Do you think Democrats in Washington, D.C. are fighting hard enough to challenge the Republican policies of the Bush years, aren’t fighting hard enough to change those policies, or are fighting about right?

Not Enough 37%
About Right 21%
Too Hard 15%
Not Sure 27%

• If the Democratic Congress passed a bill that laid down stronger rules of the road for Wall Street and cut bonuses for the executives of companies that received government bailouts, would that make you more likely or less likely to vote Democratic in the 2010 general election?

More likely 53%
Less likely 14%
No effect 33%

 

Read more
Add comment (0)
Hits: 75

Federal Legislation

Democracy Restoration Act of 2009 (HR 3335)
Rep. John Conyers

Democracy Restoration Act of 2009 - Declares that the right of a U.S. citizen to vote in any election for federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless, at the time of the election, such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility. Provides for enforcement and remedies for violations of this Act. Specifies that: (1) nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit a state from enacting any state law that affords the right to vote in any election for federal office on terms less restrictive than those terms established by this Act; and (2) the rights and remedies established by this Act shall be in addition to all other rights and remedies provided by law, and shall not supersede, restrict, or limit the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Prohibits any state, unit of local government, or other person from receiving or using any federal grant amounts to construct or improve a place of incarceration unless that person has a program to notify each U.S. citizen incarcerated in that person's jurisdiction, on release from such incarceration, of that individual's rights under this Act.

Link to Full Bill Text

Senator Russell Feingold

Democracy Restoration Act of 2009 - Declares that the right of a U.S. citizen to vote in any election for federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless, at the time of the election, such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility. Provides for enforcement and remedies for violations of this Act. Specifies that: (1) nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit a state from enacting any state law that affords the right to vote in any election for federal office on terms less restrictive than those terms established by this Act; and (2) the rights and remedies established by this Act shall be in addition to all other rights and remedies provided by law, and shall not supersede, restrict, or limit the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Prohibits any state, unit of local government, or other person from receiving or using any federal grant amounts to construct or improve a place of incarceration unless that person has a program to notify each U.S. citizen incarcerated in that person's jurisdiction, on release from such incarceration, of that individual's rights under this Act.

Link to Full Bill Text

Virginia Legislation

Current legislation to amend the Virginia Constitution as it relates to voting rights for ex-offenders.

Legislation relating to expungement of criminal records

Senator Yvonne Miller
SJ 62 Constitutional amendment; restoration of civil rights for persons convicted of felonies

Constitutional amendment (first resolution); restoration of civil rights. Authorizes the General Assembly to provide by law for the restoration of civil rights for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies who have completed service of their sentences subject to the conditions, requirements, and definitions set forth in that law. The present Constitution provides for restoration of rights by the Governor. The amendment retains the right of the Governor to restore civil rights and adds the alternative for restoration of rights pursuant to law.

Full text:
01/12/10 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10103240D pdf

Status:
01/12/10 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10103240D
01/12/10 Senate: Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections
01/19/10 Senate: Continued to 2011 in Privileges and Elections (15-Y 0-N)

Senator Donald McEachin
SB 70 Criminal conviction record; person convicted of certain offenses to petition for expungement

Expungement of criminal conviction record. Allows a person convicted of certain criminal offenses to petition to have his conviction expunged after a five-year period has expired following the conviction, upon a showing that his opportunities for employment, education, or professional licensure are prejudiced by the existence of the criminal record. Expungement would not be available for someone convicted of a violent felony, a DUI-related offense, an offense for which registration on the sex offender registry is required, or domestic violence.

Full text:
01/04/10 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10103277D pdf

Status:
01/04/10 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10103277D
01/04/10 Senate: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/12/10 Senate: Assigned Courts sub: Criminal

Delegate Betsy Carr
HJ 116 Constitutional amendment; restoration of civil rights for persons convicted of felonies

Constitutional amendment (first resolution); restoration of civil rights. Authorizes the General Assembly to provide by general law for the restoration of civil rights for persons convicted of felonies who have completed service of their sentence including any period or condition of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The present Constitution provides for restoration of rights by the Governor. The amendment retains the right of the Governor to restore civil rights and adds the alternative for restoration of rights pursuant to general law.

Full text:
01/13/10 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10102460D pdf

Status:
01/13/10 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10102460D
01/13/10 House: Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections

Delegate Algie T. Howell
HJ 6 Constitutional amendment; restoration of civil rights for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies

Constitutional amendment (first resolution); restoration of civil rights. Authorizes the General Assembly to provide by law for the restoration of civil rights for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies who have completed service of their sentences subject to the conditions, requirements, and definitions set forth in that law. The present Constitution provides for restoration of rights by the Governor. The amendment retains the right of the Governor to restore civil rights and adds an alternative for restoration of rights pursuant to law for nonviolent felons.

Full text:
11/19/09 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10100322D pdf

Status:
11/19/09 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10100322D

Delegate Rosalind Dance
HJ 16 Constitutional amendment; restoration of civil rights to persons convicted of felonies, etc

Constitutional amendment (first resolution); restoration of civil rights. Authorizes the General Assembly to provide by general law for the restoration of civil rights for persons convicted of felonies who have completed service of their sentence including any period or condition of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The present Constitution provides for restoration of rights by the Governor. The amendment retains the right of the Governor to restore civil rights and adds the alternative for restoration of rights pursuant to general law.

Full text:
12/28/09 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10101654D pdf

Status:
12/28/09 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10101654D
12/28/09 House: Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections

As Democrats continued to grapple with the consequences of their loss in Massachusetts, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday eliminated the most obvious avenue for completing health-care reform, saying the House will not embrace the version of the legislation already approved by the Senate.

"I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi told reporters after meeting with her caucus. "I don't see the votes for it at this time."

Pelosi (D-Calif.) had struggled to sell the Senate legislation to reluctant Democrats since Tuesday, when Republican Scott Brown's upset victory in the Massachusetts Senate election cost Democrats their filibuster-proof Senate majority. House approval of the Senate package would have delivered the bill quickly to the president's desk, allowing Democrats to move on to job creation, their election year priority.

But many House members could not be persuaded to back the Senate version. They demanded that the Senate pass a separate bill amending the health-care legislation before they consent to support it.

Pelosi described her members as vehemently opposed to a provision that benefits only Nebraska's Medicaid system, language added to win the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). Also problematic are the federal subsidies the Senate would offer to uninsured individuals, which some House liberals view as insufficient, and the excise tax it would impose on high-value policies, which could hit union households.

The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions.

E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats.

A Justice Department inspector general's report due out this month is expected to conclude that the FBI frequently violated the law with its emergency requests, bureau officials confirmed.

The records seen by The Post do not reveal the identities of the people whose phone call records were gathered, but FBI officials said they thought that nearly all of the requests involved terrorism investigations.