News and Current Events

Daniel Weintraub: Californians support major change in health care

Sacramento Bee
By Daniel Weintraub -
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, June 28, 2007

Although nearly nine out of 10 Californians who have health insurance say they are satisfied with their coverage, a large majority of voters would make major changes in the way health care is delivered in the state, according to a new independent poll to be released today.

Nearly three in four adults say they would support a proposal to require everyone to have health insurance, while sharing the cost among employers, health care providers and individuals.

Two out of three, meanwhile, would favor a system of national health insurance, even if it would require higher taxes, the poll found.

The survey by the Public Policy Institute of California questioned 2,003 state residents from June 12 through June 19. The results for the full sample have a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points.

About 81 percent of Californians have insurance, and of them, 49 percent report that they are “very satisfied” with their coverage. Another 38 percent say they are “somewhat satisfied” with their insurance. And only 36 percent say they are worried about losing their coverage. Yet many remain concerned about the stability of the system, and about their ability to pay their health care bills in the future.

With most people facing higher and higher health insurance premiums, and with the daily news full of stories about insurance companies rejecting people seeking coverage who have pre-existing health conditions, the issue has become a question of security. Even people who are fairly comfortable with their own situation fear they will not have health insurance or be able to afford health care when they need it.

“For the average Californian, the issue of concern is the uncertainty about the cost and the future of health care,” said Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute and director of the poll. “That is what is leading them to say they want reform.”

Seventy-five percent of adults think the number of people without insurance is a “big problem.” And that concern crosses party lines. Eighty five percent of Democrats, 78 percent of independents and 63 percent of Republicans see the lack of universal health insurance as a big problem.

Seventy-one percent of California adults, moreover, are somewhat or very concerned about being able to afford health care when a family member gets sick.

Given those numbers, it’s not surprising that 72 percent also think the system needs “major changes.” Eighty-one percent of Democrats, 70 percent of independents and 59 percent of Republicans feel that way.
About two-thirds, 66 percent, say they would favor a national health insurance system, even if it meant paying higher taxes. Thirty percent said they would oppose such a system. Democrats (78 percent) and independents (64 percent) were strongly supportive. But only 35 percent of Republicans say they want the federal government to take responsibility for their health care.

Support was more widespread for the outlines of a plan proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, even without voters being told that the popular governor was behind it. Schwarzenegger’s plan would require all Californians to have insurance, and it would require employers to provide coverage for their workers or else pay a tax to the state. Doctors and hospitals would also be taxed to help expand coverage for the poor.

Seventy-two percent of adults, including 81 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents and 52 percent of Republicans, said they would support such a plan.

“In concept, they support it because they don’t see it as taking away from what they have as much as adding some security and certainty for the future,” Baldassare said. “The concept of covering everyone is popular with Californians. The idea of spreading the costs is also popular.”

But so far, Schwarzenegger has not been able to translate that overwhelming public support into any movement in the Legislature.

Democratic lawmakers have criticized his plan as too friendly to the insurance industry, and they don’t like the idea of requiring individuals to take responsibility for obtaining coverage, even with hefty subsidies for the poor and the working poor. They have proposed an alternative that would put more of the financial responsibility on employers.

Republican legislators don’t like the idea of taxing employers, doctors or hospitals, or requiring anyone to buy health insurance or provide it for someone else. Instead, they have offered a collection of ideas designed to give consumers more control over their health care. And while Democrats say the governor’s proposal does not go far enough in regulating insurance company practices, Republicans say they think it goes too far.

Although detailed negotiations are only now getting under way, the three-way stalemate among Democratic and Republican lawmakers and the governor threatens to block any action this year.

But today’s poll results suggest that the issue is not going to go away. If legislators and the governor cannot agree on a plan this year, it seems certain that one or more interest groups will try to put something on the ballot in 2008. And with voters inclined to support universal coverage, a proposal to overhaul the health care industry would start with a significant amount of political good will.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Young Americans Are Leaning Left, New Poll Finds

New York Times
June 27, 2007
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE

Young Americans are more likely than the general public to favor a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage, according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll. The poll also found that they are more likely to say the war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion.

The poll offers a snapshot of a group whose energy and idealism have always been as alluring to politicians as its scattered focus and shifting interests have been frustrating. It found that substantially more Americans ages 17 to 29 than four years ago are paying attention to the presidential race. But they appeared to be really familiar with only two of the candidates, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, both Democrats.

They have continued a long-term drift away from the Republican Party. And although they are just as worried as the general population about the outlook for the country and think their generation is likely to be worse off than that of their parents, they retain a belief that their votes can make a difference, the poll found.

More than half of Americans ages 17 to 29 — 54 percent — say they intend to vote for a Democrat for president in 2008. They share with the public at large a negative view of President Bush, who has a 28 percent approval rating with this group, and of the Republican Party. They hold a markedly more positive view of Democrats than they do of Republicans.

Among this age group, Mr. Bush’s job approval rating after the attacks of Sept. 11 was more than 80 percent. Over the course of the next three years, it drifted downward leading into the presidential election of 2004, when 4 of 10 young Americans said they approved how Mr. Bush was handling his job.

At a time when Democrats have made gains after years in which Republicans have dominated Washington, young Americans appear to lean slightly more to the left than the general population: 28 percent described themselves as liberal, compared with 20 percent of the nation at large. And 27 percent called themselves conservative, compared with 32 percent of the general public.

Forty-four percent said they believed that same-sex couples should be permitted to get married, compared with 28 percent of the public at large. They are more likely than their elders to support the legalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana.

The findings on gay marriage were reminiscent of an exit poll on Election Day 2004: 41 percent of 18-to-29-year-old voters said gay couples should be permitted to legally marry, according to the exit poll.

In the current poll, 62 percent said they would support a universal, government-sponsored national health care insurance program; 47 percent of the general public holds that view. And 30 percent said that “Americans should always welcome new immigrants,� while 24 percent of the general public holds that view.

Their views on abortion mirror those of the public at large: 24 percent said it should not be permitted at all, while 38 percent said it should be made available but with greater restrictions. Thirty-seven percent said it should be generally available.

In one potential sign of shifting attitudes, respondents, by overwhelming margins, said they believed that the nation was prepared to elect as president a woman, a black person or someone who admitted to having used marijuana. But they said that they did not believe Americans would elect someone who had used cocaine or someone who was a Mormon.

Mr. Obama has suggested that he used cocaine as a young man. Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and a candidate for the Republican nomination, is a Mormon.

By a 52 to 36 majority, young Americans say that Democrats, rather than Republicans, come closer to sharing their moral values, while 58 percent said they had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, and 38 percent said they had a favorable view of Republicans.

Asked if they were enthusiastic about any of the candidates running for president, 18 percent named Mr. Obama, of Illinois, and 17 percent named Mrs. Clinton, of New York. Those two were followed by Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican, who was named by just 4 percent of the respondents.

The survey also found that 42 percent of young Americans thought it was likely or very likely that the nation would reinstate a military draft over the next few years — and two-thirds said they thought the Republican Party was more likely to do so. And 87 percent of respondents said they opposed a draft.

But when it came to the war, young Americans were more optimistic about the outcome than was the population as whole. Fifty-one percent said the United States was very or somewhat likely to succeed in Iraq, compared with 45 percent among all adults. Contrary to conventional wisdom, younger Americans have historically been more likely than the population as a whole to be supportive of what a president is doing in a time of war, as they were in Korea and Vietnam, polls have shown.

The nationwide telephone poll — a joint effort by The New York Times, CBS News and MTV — was conducted from June 15 to June 23. It involved 659 adults ages 17 to 29. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points for all respondents.

The Times/CBS News/MTV Poll suggests that younger Americans are conflicted in their view of the country. Many have a bleak view about their own future and the direction the country is heading: 70 percent said the country was on the wrong track, while 48 percent said they feared that their generation would be worse off than their parents’. But the survey also found that this generation of Americans is not cynical: 77 percent said they thought the votes of their generation would have a great bearing on who became the next president.

By any measure, the poll suggests that young Americans are anything but apathetic about the presidential election. Fifty-eight percent said they were paying attention to the campaign. By contrast, at this point in the 2004 presidential campaign, 35 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds said they were paying a lot or some attention to the campaign.

Over the last half century, the youth vote has more often than not gone with the Democratic candidate for president, though with some notable exceptions. In 1984, Ronald Reagan won his second term as president by capturing 59 percent of the youth vote, according to exit polls, and the first President George Bush won in 1988 with 52 percent of that vote. This age group, however, has supported Democratic presidential candidates in every election since.

The percentage of young voters who identified themselves as Republican grew steadily during the Reagan administration, and reached a high of 37 percent in 1989. That number has declined ever since, and is now at 25 percent.

“I think the Democratic Party is now realizing how big an impact my generation has, and they’re trying to cater to that in some way,� Ashley Robinson, 21, a Democrat from Minnesota, said in an interview after she participated in the poll. “But the traditional Republican Party is still trying to get older votes, which doesn’t make sense because there are so many more voters my age. It would be sensible to cater to us.�

That a significant number of respondents said they were enthusiastic about just two of the candidates — Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton — to a certain extent reflects that both candidates have been the subject of a huge amount of national attention and have presented the country with historic candidacies. Mr. Obama would be the first black president and Mrs. Clinton the first woman. Other candidates could begin drawing attention from this group as the campaign takes a higher platform.

More important, though, at least for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama is the impression this group has of them. In the poll, 43 percent of respondents said they held an unfavorable view of Mrs. Clinton, a number that reflects the tide of resistance she faces nationwide. By contrast, only 19 percent said they had an unfavorable view of Mr. Obama.

Marjorie Connelly, Marina Stefan and Dalia Sussman contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/washington/27poll.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182919547-D+3tW+dFg8Ha7kbBssj23Q&oref=slogin

Judge Orders Prison Time for Ex-Interior Deputy

Washington Post Staff Writer
By James V. Grimaldi
Wednesday, June 27, 2007; Page A02

A federal judge rejected the tearful pleas of the former second-ranking official in the Interior Department yesterday and sentenced him to 10 months in prison for a felony conviction of obstructing a Senate investigation into corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

“You are not above the law,” U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle told former deputy interior secretary J. Steven Griles as he asked for forgiveness.

Special Report

Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist at the center of a wide-ranging public corruption investigation, was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison on March 29, after pleading guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that required him to provide evidence about members of Congress.

Griles pleaded guilty in March to lying to the Senate about his relationship with Abramoff. In the plea agreement, prosecutors recommended a sentence of five months of house arrest and five months in prison.

But Huvelle imposed a sterner penalty of 10 months in prison and a $30,000 fine. She said she wanted to send a message to deter wrongdoing by high-ranking government officials. Defense attorneys had asked for three months of home detention, community service and a “reasonable fine.”

Griles, 59, the highest-ranking federal official convicted in the Abramoff scandal, apologized for his actions and cited 24 years of public service. “This has been the most difficult time,” Griles said, pausing to break down in tears, “in my life. My guilty plea has brought me great shame and embarrassment. I have lost my business, my income and, most importantly, my reputation.”

The judge said that years of public service were no cause for leniency. “You held a position of trust as number two in the Department of Interior, and I will hold you to a higher standard,” Huvelle told Griles. “I find that, even now, you continue to minimize and try to excuse your conduct and the nature of your misstatements.”

After the judge left the packed courtroom, Griles sought comfort from his wife, Sue Ellen Wooldridge, a former Interior Department solicitor and former assistant attorney general.

Griles, who is not cooperating with the federal investigation, was introduced to the now-convicted lobbyist by a girlfriend who ran an advocacy group co-founded by former interior secretary Gale Norton and financed by Abramoff’s Indian tribal clients.

The government contended that Abramoff thought that if he and his tribal clients contributed money to the group, then he would gain special access to Griles through the girlfriend, Italia Federici.

Federici pleaded guilty this month to tax and perjury charges and agreed to cooperate with the government. She admitted to acting as a go-between, shuttling information and lobbying requests from Abramoff to Griles. The government alleged that Abramoff raised thousands of dollars for Federici’s group—the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA)—just before Griles became deputy secretary.

The government said that Griles had asked for $100,000 for CREA and Abramoff solicited the funds from his tribal clients. Griles said that while he helped raise money earlier, he was unaware of those 2001 contributions to CREA on eve of his joining the Interior Department. He said he learned of them later when Federici stopped acting as a conduit between the lobbyist and Griles.

With her brow furrowed, Huvelle expressed disbelief several times that Griles did not know that Abramoff was funding CREA at a time he was romantically involved with Federici.

Griles stood in the front of the courtroom and said Abramoff was no different from any lobbyist who came before him as the top deputy to then-Secretary Norton. “I had more contact with many, many lobbyists—more than Jack Abramoff,” Griles said.

Barry M. Hartman, attorney for Griles, told the court that the actions Griles took involved “normal, appropriate contacts with lobbyists,” and that his only offense was not being truthful to the Senate about his relationship with Federici. Griles’s attorneys disputed as “inaccurate inferences” government assertions that Griles pushed Abramoff’s lobbying requests as he urged the lobbyist to hire his friends and bankroll a girlfriend’s plan for a charity.

But Huvelle dismissed the defense attorneys’ arguments. She also questioned government lawyers at one point about whether they accepted too lenient a plea from Griles. “The agreement you have with the government is a very favorable one,” Huvelle told Griles.

DeLay wins round in Texas court

By KELLEY SHANNON, Associated Press Writer
June 27, 2007

The state’s highest criminal court on Wednesday refused to reinstate a dropped conspiracy charge against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Two charges — money laundering and conspiring to launder money — remain against the former congressman. He resigned last year amid allegations that he violated campaign finance laws to funnel $190,000 in corporate contributions to Republicans in the state’s 2002 legislative elections.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled 5-4 against reinstating a count of conspiracy to violate the state’s election code.

A state district judge threw out that charge in December 2005 after defense lawyers argued that the law DeLay was accused of violating didn’t take effect until 2003. A regional appeals court upheld the judge’s decision.

DeLay said the ruling brought him “thankfully closer” to a resolution of the charges and repeated his longstanding contention that the prosecution is politically motivated.

“What (Travis County prosecutor) Ronnie Earle accomplished is no rookie error. It’s a political attack using our legal system as the primary weapon,” DeLay said in a statement issued from Virginia, where he now lives.

“The damage he has done to my family and my career cannot be rectified, but the courts have recognized a significant portion of the injustice and ruled accordingly,” he said.

Rudy Magallanes, a spokesman for Earle, said the prosecutor’s office was reviewing the appeals court opinion and he had no immediate comment.

DeLay’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said he was pleased with Wednesday’s ruling but sorry it took so long.

“Ronnie Earle indicted Tom DeLay for a crime that didn’t exist, wasn’t on the books,” DeGuerin said.

Lawyers are arguing about the remaining charges before an appeals court, and no trial date has been set. DeLay, who represented Houston’s southwest suburbs for more than 20 years, is charged along with co-defendants John Colyandro and Jim Ellis.

Texas’ 2002 legislative elections gave the GOP a majority in the state House of Representatives, giving the party its first speaker, Tom Craddick, since Reconstruction.

In 2003, Craddick and other Republicans pushed a congressional redistricting plan engineered by DeLay through the Legislature, and Gov. Rick Perry signed it into law.

Report blasts U.S. for failures in fighting terrorism

CNN.COM
POSTED: 10:08 p.m. EDT, June 25, 2007

Story Highlights
• Report does not discuss problematic countries by name
• Report says more U.S. cash is fighting drugs than terrorism
• Government Accountability Office interviewed FBI, other sources
• State Department, White House directives not being followed, report says

WASHINGTON (CNN)—A just-released report slams the federal government for failing to coordinate the work of U.S. law enforcement agencies overseas to fight terrorism.

The Government Accountability Office found that in one country a lack of clarity about the roles and responsibilities of the FBI and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency may have compromised several investigations intended to identify and disrupt potential terrorist activities.

The GAO did not name the country in its report.

The White House has long issued directives asking that U.S. law enforcement agencies assist foreign nations’ anti-terrorism efforts.

But the report finds that embassy and law enforcement officials told the GAO “they had received little or no guidance” on how to accomplish that.

The issue of roles and responsibilities “remains unresolved and is still subject to ongoing debates within the administration,” it said.

The 2003 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism instructed the State Department to develop and coordinate U.S. counterterrorism policy abroad, but the report says that was not done.

The 2004 Intelligence Reform Act shifted that responsibility to the National Counterterrorism Center and, although a general plan has been drafted, it has not yet been implemented.

“As a result of these weaknesses, LEAs [law enforcement agencies], a key element of national power, are not being fully used abroad to protect U.S. citizens and interest from future terrorist attacks,” the GAO concluded.

For national security reasons, the GAO did not name the four countries its investigators visited, describing them only as having “key roles in combating terrorism.”

In all four there was more U.S. funding devoted to fighting drugs than to fighting terrorism, the report said

In one country, described as an “extremely high terrorist threat to American interests globally,” the State Department provided six times more funding to stop illicit drugs and crime than it did for anti-terrorism assistance, the report said.

In another country, an embassy official said most training and assistance funding from the U.S. was dedicated to counter-narcotics efforts “even though drugs were no longer a strategic concern in that country.”

Also, the report revealed that information about terrorists is not always shared or acted on.

Generally, embassies retain “pre-9/11 structures” for information-sharing and collaboration, the report said, and have not been reconfigured “in a collective effort to prevent another terrorist attack on the United States or its interests.”

An “extremely high terrorist threat,” nation had never been asked to try to identify or disrupt any of the terrorists on the most-wanted lists of the departments of State or Defense, or of the foreign nation itself, an FBI official told the GAO.

The agencies involved blamed these discrepancies on shortages in staffing and funding, according to the report.