LACROSSE, Wis. — Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney is attacking rival Rick Santorum as a friend of "big labor" as they campaign in Wisconsin, where a fight over labor unions is fueling a bitter recall effort aimed at Gov. Scott Walker.

Santorum, in turn, is aligning himself with the embattled Republican governor, a play for a party base that he hopes will carry him to victory in the GOP presidential primary on Tuesday.

"As you know the fight against big labor led by Gov. Walker isn't over, here in Wisconsin," a voice says in an automated Romney telephone call. "I was shocked to find out that Rick Santorum repeatedly supported big labor and joined with liberal Democrats in voting against right-to-work legislation during his time in Washington."

Romney, with help from a well-funded allied group, is pointing to union-friendly votes by the former Pennsylvania senator. His swing back from confronting President Barack Obama to attacking his main GOP rival comes as a Marquette University poll shows him overtaking Santorum in Wisconsin by an 8-point margin, 39-31.

In Michigan and Ohio, Romney criticized Santorum's 1996 Senate vote against so-called right-to-work legislation, which provides that people cannot be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. The recession has hit hard in both states, and labor unions are unpopular with Republican primary voters there.

Wisconsin is Santorum's last chance to keep alive his claim that he can go toe-to-toe with Obama in the industrial heartland. Romney edged Santorum in Michigan and Ohio and soundly beat him in Illinois last week.

The pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future is spending $2.3 million on television ads attacking Santorum and added a spot this week mentioning his right-to-work vote.

Santorum has said as a candidate for president that he supports a national right-to-work bill, and that he opposed it in the Senate because he didn't want to undermine Pennsylvania's opposition to the policy. Santorum represented southwestern Pennsylvania in the House for two terms and then won two terms in the Senate from the strong union state. Romney supports national right-to-work legislation.

"Calling Rick Santorum a friend of labor is like calling Mitt Romney a conservative. Neither are true," Santorum told reporters Wednesday.

Organized labor and Democratic critics targeted Walker, a Republican elected in 2010, after he won approval last year in the GOP-controlled Legislature to effectively end collective bargaining for public employees. Campaigns for and against Walker have consumed months of television advertising and have overshadowed Tuesday's presidential primary.

Republican National Committee member Mary Buestin of Mequon, Wis., said GOP activists are lining up with Walker, and said any hint of waffling on union issues is not good for a presidential candidate.

"I think when people find out he voted that way, even if he has come around since then, it will hurt Santorum," said Buestin, who lives in a GOP-heavy Milwaukee suburb.

University of Wisconsin political science professor Charles Franklin, who conducted the Marquette poll, said GOP sentiment is heavily anti-union.

"The GOP primary electorate is very positive toward Scott Walker. So anything that differentiates a candidate and puts space between them and Walker is not good for the primary coming up," Franklin said.

Santorum worked vigorously this week to endear himself to supporters of Walker, who is locked in a tight battle to retain the governorship.

"Gov. Walker ... is leading. He is leading this country with his courage, his ability," Santorum said in Bellevue, Wis. "He is willing to stand up and fight the bullies. I come from southwest Pennsylvania. I represented the old steel valley of Pittsburgh. I know what it's like."

Outspent roughly 4-1 in the state by Romney and his allies, Santorum needs to rally Walker supporters to his side to have hope of prevailing in Wisconsin.

Aides to Romney noted how he campaigned for Walker ahead of the 2010 election, as well as Republican senators also targeted in the recall, including his state campaign chairwoman, state Sen. Alberta Darling.

Santorum has won a string of caucuses and primaries in the South and Midwest, where his socially conservative profile has appealed to evangelical conservatives more than Romney's more moderate, economic-focused message.

Santorum campaigned in conservative western Wisconsin on Wednesday and planned to return Friday.

Romney was planning to make his first campaign trip to Wisconsin on Friday. He talked for 30 minutes to thousands of Wisconsin voters in a telephone conference call Wednesday.

During the call Romney joked about an awkward familiarity with the state, where his father, as president of American Motors, moved all production. Later, when running for governor of Michigan, the elder Romney was walking in a parade where the marching band only knew the University of Wisconsin fight song.

"So every time they would start playing `On, Wisconsin! On Wisconsin!' my dad's political people would jump up and down and try to get them to stop," Romney recalled with a chuckle.

The Democratic National Committee later accused Romney of joking about closing the Michigan motor plant.

___

Elliott reported from Wisconsin.

A.B. Stoddard, The Hill
Irony alert "” President Obama gets a boost no matter what the Supreme Court decides on his politically toxic healthcare reform law. The high court either upholds Obama's signature domestic accomplishment, imprinting it for history, or it overturns the law, thereby breaking a big stick with which the GOP planned to beat Obama this fall. Should front-runner Mitt Romney become the GOP nominee, what's left of the stick would more likely resemble a Q-Tip. Although a final ruling is nearly four months...

Doyle McManus, LAT
Op-Ed Obama is shown speaking during a town hall meeting on healthcare at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee on Aug. 20, 2009. (Alex Wong/Bloomberg / March 28, 2012) March 29, 2012In 2009, President Obama was asked whether the individual mandate in his healthcare plan was really just a tax in disguise. "I absolutely reject that notion," he responded.But if the president had been brave enough back then to call a tax a tax, his...

E.J. Dionne, The New Republic
WASHINGTON -- Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.Senator, excuse me, Justice Samuel Alito quoted Congressional Budget Office figures on Tuesday to talk about the insurance costs of the young. On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts sounded like the House whip in discussing whether parts of the law could stand if other parts fell. He noted...

"Southern Democracy" is in trouble!

Certainly the Democratic Party in the South is not "dead" in the technical sense of total, terminal collapse. But as the current, unfolding election season demonstrates, the excitement and energy of partisan politics lies mainly in Republican campaigns in the South, while the historically-dominant Democrats mainly sit and stew in envy. And such has been the case for a while. So my blunt rhetorical title is a legitimate setup for talking about the state of the Democratic Party in this region.

In coming posts, I will deal with critical questions facing Southern Democracy. This analysis will probably be most interesting to Southerners, politicians, and scholars who study regional politics; but I hope that other readers will find it informative and positively provocative.

Historic decline of Southern Democracy.

I use the term "Southern Democracy" to refer to the entrenched Democratic Party as the historic ruling regime -- and more recently its competitive primacy -- in Southern politics and governance for much of our nation's history.

The institutionalized Democratic Party dominated regional affairs, as a whites-only entity, for almost a century after Reconstruction until the civil rights movement of the 1950s-60s; then absorbing new black voters, the Democrats exercised majority control through the 1970s and into the 1980s. Even as the Southern electorate shifted toward GOP candidates in the 1990s and at the dawn of a new century, Democratic politicians, organizations and voters continued as robust players in the eleven states of the Old Confederacy.

Throughout, Southern Democrats have conducted themselves as a stubborn, contrarian version of their national party. For a long time, the Solid South maintained partisan electoral loyalty as part of a strange gentlemen's agreement with their national party leaders to preserve regional autonomy on racial matters; later on, they conducted an uneasy, awkward relationship with the national party. All the while, Southern Democrats usually went their own way on issues of concern to more progressive partisans.

But the South turned a sharp partisan corner in Election 2010; and Southern Democracy clearly faces more painful adjustments in 2012 and thereafter.

So it is worthwhile to ask whether the traditionally dominant party is going to survive for the long term as an effective player, in competitive parity with the Republicans, in the Southern states. Or, are Southern Democrats devolving into permanent minority status as the loyal blue opposition in a really red region?

Yellow-Dogged optimism.

It is clear that hard-core, progressive Southern Democrats -- the "Yellow Dogs" -- are defiantly optimistic about their philosophy and future, as revealed in remarks to the news media and among themselves at party rallies.

As a reminder for those who don't keep up with Southern politics, the term "Yellow Dog" is an honorific reference to faithful partisans who would vote for a yellow dog before pulling the Republican lever. It goes back to the blind allegiance of the Solid South to the Democratic Party after the Civil War; and it is reserved today for unabashed champions of progressive politics. Yellow Dogs have long been and are still the heart and soul of the Democratic Party in every Southern state. By comparison, the "Blue Dogs" are a relatively recent incarnation who practice moderate-to-conservative politics, much to the consternation of the party core. (More about this family feud later in my assessment.)

The conventional wisdom among Yellow Dogs is that "We've got to refine our message and shout it out loudly and proudly." They claim that Republicans have bamboozled Southern voters; and once Democratic loyalists explain things clearly in terms of common-sense economics, most Southerners will see the light and flock back to the traditional party of the people. Some organizational activists emphasize that "We've got to revitalize our grassroots operations." Others are more opportunistically hopeful: "Just wait! The Republicans will screw things up bad soon and we'll be back in power just like before."

A cautionary assessment.

I'll not dwell further here on these scenarios other than to acknowledge that they all have some merit. But I doubt that Yellow-Dogged optimism will be enough for successful comeback of Southern Democracy.

I also know that I'm opening a contentious argument by even questioning, as a long-time Democrat, the future of Southern Democracy. Many Democrats and Republicans disagreed with my sentiments when I was in politics; and they undoubtedly will challenge my cautionary assessment of the current situation and my recommendations for the future. I hope my friends and critics will respond in constructive manner to the questions presented here.

The critical questions.

Being an ex-professor, I'll deal with the issue socratically, by asking critical questions and interjecting my own sentiments at certain points in a series of discussions over the next few posts. Answers, or non-answers, to the following key questions may reveal how Southern Democracy will fare as a political force in the years ahead:

1. How serious is the current plight of Southern Democracy?

2. Do Southern Democrats want to be practical players or ideological voices?

3. Can Southern Democrats survive the legacies of race and racism?

4. Can Yellow Dogs and Blue Dogs rekindle their romance?

5. Will National Democrats dump the white working class?

6. Is there a future -- short term or long term -- for Southern Democracy?

Stay tuned for the next post about Southern Democracy in peril!

Author's Note: This is the first post in a series about the future of the Democratic Party in the South.

For the past three days, the political world has been largely focused on the Supreme Court, and the arguments over whether President Obama's signature legislative achievement is constitutional or not. At the heart of the argument is the "individual mandate," a section of the law which would require Americans to pay more money on their income taxes if they could afford health insurance but chose not to purchase it from a private company.

In the 2008 presidential election campaign, Barack Obama disagreed with Hillary Clinton on this issue. Clinton was for the individual mandate, Obama was not. Once he got elected and started wheeling and dealing with the insurance industry, however, Obama agreed to include the individual mandate in the law now universally known as "Obamacare."

While we're all waiting for the verdict from the Supreme Court, I thought it would be worthwhile to dig into the actual origins of the concept of the individual mandate. Now, the idea itself may have been around for much longer than the documentation I could find online, but the real political push behind the idea seems to have started in 1989, from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation.

Stuart M. Butler, who at the time was Heritage's Director of Domestic Policy Strategies, wrote the second chapter of a position paper with the title "A National Health System for America." (Heritage has a PDF version of this document you can download from their website.) The document was over 100 pages long, and envisioned a "consumer-oriented, market-based, comprehensive American health system" that would become "the model for the entire industrialized world." It was a strictly conservative plan, as evidenced by the inclusion of the idea of replacing Medicare with a voucher system (the same thing Paul Ryan is now championing, in other words).

In his chapter "A Framework for Reform," Butler lists three elements which would be required to remold the American health care system into his conservative vision for the future. The very first of these, in full (chapters referenced are from the same document):

Element #1: Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs.

This requirement would imply a compact between the U.S. government and its citizens: in return for the government's accepting an obligation to devise a market-based system guaranteeing access to care and protecting all families from financial distress due to the cost of an illness, each individual must agree to obtain a minimum level of protection. This means that, while government would take on the obligation to find ways of guaranteeing care for those Americans unable to obtain protection in the market, perhaps because of chronic health problems or lack of income, Americans with sufficient means would no longer be able to be "free riders" on society by avoiding sensible health insurance expenditures and relying on others to pay for care in an emergency or in retirement.

Under this arrangement, all households would be required to protect themselves from major medical costs by purchasing health insurance or enrolling in a prepaid health plan. The degree of financial protection can be debated, but the principle of mandatory family protection is central to a universal health care system in America.

Help would be provided in two ways. First, the tax code would be amended, as Chapter 3 describes, to give tax relief to individual purchasers of health insurance or prepaid plans and to provide tax credits for out-of-pocket expenses. Second, government would aid those who, because of income or medical condition, find the cost of protection to be an unreasonable burden. Such aid could take the form of vouchers for purchasing insurance or state-managed systems as described in Chapter 5.

The requirement to obtain basic insurance would have to be enforced. The easiest way to monitor compliance might be for households to furnish proof of insurance when they file their tax returns. If a family were to cancel its insurance, the insurer would be required to notify the government. If the family did not enroll in another plan before the first insurance coverage lapsed and did not provide evidence of financial problems, a fine might be imposed.

In the mid-1990s, of course, the Democrats attempted health care reform. The most famous of these attempts was Hillary Clinton's, but many other Democrats also proposed plans of their own in Congress. By 1994, Butler (now listed as "Vice President and Director of Domestic Policy Studies" at Heritage) wrote a critique of the individual mandate included in one of these Democratic bills, although it's interesting to note that he doesn't seem to be against the concept itself, rather choosing to complain about the projected costs to families of the plan. Constitutional questions aren't even raised.

By 2003, congressional Democrats had failed in their health reform efforts (and Obama's election was still five years in the future), so it was safe once again for conservatives to back the individual mandate. At this point in time, Butler's title at Heritage was "Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy Studies," and he was testifying before the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Here, however, he specifically points out at the beginning of his testimony that the views he is expressing are his own and not the official position of the Heritage Foundation. During his testimony, Butler gives even more detail on how he sees the individual mandate working:

The current social contract should be replaced with a more rational one. In a civilized and rich country like the United States, it is reasonable for society to accept an obligation to ensure that all residents have affordable access to at least basic health care -- much as we accept the same obligation to assure a reasonable level of housing, education and nutrition.

But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan -- one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.

The obligations on individuals does not have to be a "hard" mandate, in the sense that failure to obtain coverage would be illegal. It could be a "soft" mandate, meaning that failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits and other government entitlements. In addition, if federal tax benefits or other assistance accompanied the requirement, states and localities could receive the value of the assistance forgone by the person failing to obtain coverage, in order to compensate providers who deliver services to the uninsured family.

The individual mandate which was included in Obamacare is so close to what Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation initially suggested that we can honestly say there is no appreciable difference between the two. The only real difference is whether Republicans supported the idea or not. When it was branded as a conservative idea from a conservative think tank, then Republicans embraced the idea as requiring "personal responsibility" from all those deadbeats out there who were getting a free ride on the taxpayer's dime. These were the days when "reforming welfare" was a big deal, and Republicans tended to lump a lot of things under the dreaded "welfare" label, to give some rhetorical context.

But when Democrats agreed to the idea -- in the 1990s, and then later when Obamacare was being debated -- Republicans decried the idea and refused to support it (to put all their histrionics and hyperventilating over Obamacare's mandate in the mildest terms I can manage). That, it seems, is really the only thing which has changed over time. The idea itself hasn't changed in any appreciable way from what was proposed in 1989. Republicans' support of the idea, however, waxes and wanes depending on who proposes it.

Well, to be fair, I should say "those Republicans who are not named Mitt Romney," as Mitt is truly in a class by himself when it comes to supporting... and then not supporting... the idea of the individual mandate. But that's a subject for an entirely different blog post.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post

 

Now that the president has pivoted to jobs and growth, will there be any more pivots away from them in the second term? Will the lure of the Grand Deficit Bargain return? And if it does, how much is Obama willing to give up to sign it? Millions did what he asked in the first campaign and voted their hopes, but how many were hoping for the Grand Bargain we really got?

Hope is great, but what the country needs in an Obama second term is not hope, but real change.

It's difficult to assign psychological motive when it comes to political tactics, but based upon the collective behavior of far-right conservative Republicans, we can only deduce that a considerable number of them are bullies and ought to be treated as such.

What other conclusion can we draw when they regularly attack children and ordinary citizens who aren't involved in the day-to-day political discourse? I'm not talking about low-level drones who lurk in blog comment sections and various other dark corners of the Internet -- disguised behind cowardly pseudonyms. I'm talking about the top-shelf players. Fox News hosts, AM radio talkers and various Internet commentators.

Naturally there are exceptions to every rule, but nearly every time there's a news story involving a child or group of children, the far-right erupts into a shameless frontal assault against the kids. In fact, there are almost too many examples to list here.

Trayvon Martin is the latest in a long roster of conservative targets. This week, various conservative media sources have made specious accusations about the character and motives of an unarmed kid who was shot dead. Arguably the easiest target in America is a dead black teenager: unable to posthumously defend himself and whose race makes him a lightning rod for all sorts of slack-jawed character assumptions, racial stereotypes, backhanded "unintentional" racism and white resentment.

So the far-right has naturally taken the path of least resistance here and is thumbing through Trayvon's tweets and photos -- and even his menswear -- to determine whether he had it coming.

Geraldo Rivera thought Trayvon's clothing might have invited the shooting. Rush Limbaugh and others have tried in earnest to connect Trayvon to the Black Panthers via, strangely enough, President Obama. Drudge posted sensationalistic headlines about Trayvon's past while illustrating the links with a "grills" photo of Trayvon which was obviously meant to feed anti-black "gangsta" stereotypes. Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller released what are purported to be Trayvon's tweets. Glenn Beck's The Blaze posted an entire list of infractions Trayvon might have committed at his high school. The list includes homicide, sexual harassment and armed robbery.

The absurd notion that somehow Trayvon's unsubstantiated "record" might somehow justify George Zimmerman's actions are totally indicative of the kind of bullying and racial dog-whistles we've observed from these people on countless occasions. And, by the way, it's this kind of behavior that's dooming the far-right to the margins of reasonable debate while fracturing the Republican Party.

As I wrote earlier, this isn't the first time a child has been targeted by the right. There's a long history of far-right aggression against both children and adult "noncombatants."

Sandra Fluke, whose reputation was assassinated in the right-wing media, is an ordinary citizen who simply delivered some brief remarks to members of Congress. For her obvious crime the right-wing media, and most notably Rush Limbaugh, declared war on a woman who hadn't ever appeared on cable news or talk radio or even maintained a blog. Easy, then, for the far-right to draw blood by means of overwhelming the so-called enemy with the full force of right-wing radio and television. How can anyone new to the scene, irrespective of age, race or gender, expect to fight back against a trained and monied right-wing attack machine? Limbaugh and others know this, so, to them, it's an easily winnable fight.

In addition to his infamous rants against the late Dr. George Tiller, Bill O'Reilly and his brigade of stalking underlings have made a career out of lurking in parking lots awaiting everyone from school principals to low-level nobodies. Here are some of his noncombatant victims:

Homeless Veterans, 1/31/08: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters confronts the group outside of Fox News headquarters as they try to deliver a petition to O'Reilly.

Helen Jones-Kelley, Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, 11/6/08: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters follows Jones-Kelley -- after she refused to talk to him -- to a fire station, where a police chief intervenes to stop the harassment.

Jenna Kern, Member of the Unitarian Universalist Church, 8/21/08: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters confronts Kern in her driveway outside of her home.

Rev. Michael Pfleger, Catholic Priest, 4/3/08: O'Reilly producer Porter Berry confronts Pfleger outside of his church.

Dr. George Garcia, Boulder High School Superintendent, 5/29/07: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters confronts Garcia on a wooded road away from his school.

Bud Jenkins, Boulder High School Principal, 5/29/07: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters confronts Jenkins in the parking lot of his school.

Dr. Helayne Jones, Boulder High School Board Member, 5/29/07: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters confronts Jones inside of her garage as she tries to enter her home.

Pedro Irigonegaray, Attorney for Dr. George Tiller, 11/7/06: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters confronts Irigonegaray outside of his law office.

Just recently, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh mocked Malia Obama, imitating her voice with what can only be described as the most annoying sounds in the world -- ever.

Speaking of Beck, he once outed an Islamic private school in Northern Virginia when the school's sole newsworthy trespass was that an application to expand its campus was approved by the local zoning board. But Beck went on an extended googly-eyed, sarcasmo rant (lots of "maybe it's just me but... ") about the school being a de facto training camp for would-be terrorists, and even invoked September 11th imagery -- collapsed buildings and the like -- in the process. It's a grade school where large groups of children go for seven hours a day. Really smart. Outting a school for "terrorists" on the ultra-conservative Fox News Channel on a show that was viewed by loyal conspiracy wackaloons during a time when anti-terrorist fear-mongering and militant anti-Muslim hatred is at an all-time high. Worse, the school is full of children who then became potential targets. All because the school's zoning application was approved.

Rewind to 2009 during the health care reform debate when an 11-year-old girl asked President Obama a question during a town hall meeting about the "mean things" she observed on various protest signs outside. Michelle Malkin and other conservatives swooped into action, investigating and exposing the girl and her parents for being "Obamabots."

For whatever reason, this discussion always circles back to Malkin. The far-right blogger wasn't the first to stalk and attack children, but she certainly popularized it during the Bush era debate over expanding the SCHIP program. You might recall how Malkin famously stalked a 12-year-old accident survivor named Graeme Frost after he appeared in a commercial supporting SCHIP, the children's health insurance program.

The list goes on and on. World Net Daily attacked a high school play. Anti-choice activists targeted the child of a landlord who rents space to a women's clinic. Limbaugh, once again, attacked a 13-year-old boy and called him a "Nazi stormtrooper." The entire right-wing media Kraken was released on 11-year-old Marcelas Owens after he attended the Affordable Care Act signing ceremony. I won't even get into the jokes about Chelsea Clinton during the 1990s.

And they engage in these tactics without shame or apology.

You will not find this kind of bullying from high profile talkers with this degree of frequency anywhere else in the American political discourse. Why? In the absence of integrity, intelligence or empirical arguments, the last resort of a mindless posse is to target children and defenseless bystanders. It's because their policy positions and bumper sticker sloganeering is increasingly thin and indefensible, so they attack those who are unable to fight back. The alternative is to take on capable and experienced opponents who can potentially disprove and debunk their crapola ideas. But they're too cowardly for that.

Sadly, as the far-right becomes increasingly self-satirical and marginalized, this will get worse -- but only as long as it sells. The far-right knows its audience and the mob loves it. Think about that. Children are fair game and it's good for ratings. The sooner these unserious thugs and bullies are called out for their disgraceful tactics and banished from any and all debates of consequence, the sooner the rest of us can get on with thoughtful and reasonably passionate arguments about the future of the nation.

Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast, with Bob Cesca and Chez Pazienza.
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!

If the individual mandate cost $25 a month, would the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act be debated in the U.S. Supreme Court this week? Perhaps not.

The individual mandate is a distraction from the real issue that the health care reform law didn't fix: health care is too expensive and unaffordable.

See what Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said on ABC News last January when she was asked what people should do when their health insurance premiums increase too much.

She replied, "They should contact the governor of their state and state legislature demanding that those laws be changed."

The health care reform law didn't really make health care affordable. It papered over the real cost with subsidies.

Why isn't health care affordable? Health care has caught the Wall Street fever and become just like the banks. See how health care and the banks operate the same way, documented in The Battle Over Health Care: What Obama's Reform Means for America's Future.

Just like the banks, health care has its own price bubbles, toxic assets, too-big-to-fail syndrome, conflicts of interest, the ratings game, and the tendency to privatize gains and socialize losses.

The result? Even with the reform law and subsidies, the cost will still be high for many Americans.

A single 60-year old woman earning $48,000 won't be eligible for subsidies and will pay more than $10,000 a year for health insurance, in addition to out-of-pocket expenses.

A family of four with a 40-year old head of household earning $48,000 will pay more than $3,000 a year even with subsidies.

Health care reform merely transferred the risk of bankruptcy of individuals to the risk of bankruptcy of the federal government. And there is nothing in the health care reform law to stop the bleeding.

This is what Americans should be protesting about -- call it Occupy Wall Street Health Care.

Rosemary Gibson led national quality and safety initiatives at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, NJ for 16 years. She is the author of The Wall of Silence and The Treatment Trap: How the Overuse of Medical Care is Wrecking Your Health and What You Can Do To Prevent It.

Greg Holyk, ABC News
Mitt Romney trails Barack Obama by 19 points in basic popularity as the 2012 presidential contest inches closer to the main event, with a record 50 percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll now rating Romney unfavorably overall.Thirty-four percent hold a favorable opinion of Romney, the lowest for any leading presidential candidate in ABC/Post polls in primary seasons since 1984. His unfavorable score is higher than Obama ever has received; it’s been exceeded by just one other Republican candidate this year, Newt Gingrich, and by only one top candidate in 28...

The Truth-o-Meter says: Half-True | Santorum accuses Romney of favoring high gas prices in Massachusetts

How is Mitt Romney similar to Barack Obama? He likes high gas prices, according to rival Rick Santorum. Campaigning in Wisconsin ahead of the state primary, Santorum spoke to a crowd in Racine on March 25, 2012. In this video clip, he skewers Romney’s past statements on gasoline prices and what to do about them. "Who said, when he was governor of Massachusetts, we are going to have to live with high gas prices, it's a good thing because it will reduce consumption, we don't want to produce any more gasoline? That ...

>> More

BURBANK, Calif. -- Whatever happened to Ron Paul?

Jonah Goldberg, National Review
White Hispanic." That's how the New York Times, Reuters, and other media outlets have opted to describe George Zimmerman, a man who would simply be Hispanic if he hadn't shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The term, rarely if ever used before this tragedy, is necessary in telling the Martin story in a more comfortable way.What's the comfortable way? It's the way the blame for Martin's death belongs squarely at the feet of "the system." And "the system" is a white thing, don't you know?For instance, in a...

Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune
It is customary in the wake of a major racial eruption to say that we Americans need to have a national conversation on race. Yet the fury surrounding the death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin shows why it is so hard for us to hold that conversation.The shooting of the unarmed 17-year-old has sparked nationwide protests and reignited chatter all the way to the White House about racial profiling, gun laws, hate-crime laws and even the risks of wearing a hoodie, especially if you're a young, black male outside after dark.

Dick Morris, The Hill
Outside the Beltway, polling indicates a massacre of Senate Democrats is in the offing in the 2012 elections. Currently, Rasmussen's polls have Republicans leading Democrats for eight Senate seats now held by Democrats. Nelson is 6 points behind Mack in Florida, McCaskill is 10 behind Steelman in Missouri, Tester is 3 behind Rehberg in Montana, Brown is 4 behind Mandel in Ohio. And, for open seats, Allen is 3 up on Kaine in Virginia, Bruning is 20 ahead of Kerry in Nebraska, Thompson is 15 ahead in Wisconsin, and either Berg or Sand will undoubtedly win in North Dakota. Additionally, the...

Erin McPike, RCP
National Democrats and Mitt Romney may have something in common this week: Both are apparently trying to distract the intense media focus on the three-day Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of the national health care reform law.Romney, considered vulnerable on health care reform, has sought to make an issue out of President Obama's professed need for "space" from Russian leaders to deal with missile defense negotiations. (Though Romney has gotten support in his efforts from the Republican National Committee, House Speaker John Boehner issued a warning to the GOP...

Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic
More than any Supreme Court case in memory, the health care lawsuit has produced a tangle of constitutional positioning, with both the Obama administration and its challengers at various points contradicting themselves and making arguments they can't possibly believe. There is plenty of blame for this situation to go around: You can blame the lawyers and politicians on both sides; you can even, in some respects, blame the Supreme Court justices themselves. But, whoever is responsible, it's clear that the two-year litigation marathon over health care has served to cloud and confuse...

LOS ANGELES -- Laptops and iPads containing sensitive information about Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney's campaign were stolen from an SUV in San Diego last week.

The electronics were stolen last Friday from a rental car parked car in San Diego, the Romney campaign confirmed Tuesday. The items belonged to two Romney campaign staffers. The thefts were first reported by KGTV, a local San Diego TV station.

Two laptops, two iPads and two handheld radios were taken.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul called the incident an "unfortunate inconvenience" but said the campaign wasn't worried about the release of any sensitive information. She said the campaign didn't suspect the items were stolen for political reasons.

Infighting between US intelligence agencies delayed a secret plan to tap every phone in Afghanistan that could have helped prevent the September 11 attacks, a senior Conservative MP has claimed.

Speaking in the House of Commons on Wednesday evening, David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, said the American government then attempted to cover up its embarrassment by shutting down a series of court cases, including one in London, that arose from the intelligence operation.

Davis was using the case to provide a warning against proposals by the British government to bring in similar powers in courts that would suppress any embarrassing intelligence failures.

He told MPs that in 1998, the Taliban decided Afghanistan needed a new phone network. As no domestic companies had the necessary expertise, they invited foreign companies to bid for the rights to build the network. The company they chose was called Telephone Systems International.

Based in New Jersey, TSI was owned by one Ehsanollah Bayat, a Kabul-born American citizen - who unknown to the Taliban was also an FBI informer.

TSI was awarded the exclusive licence to build and operate Afghanistan’s new telephone network, including domestic, international, mobile and landline calls.

Davis said that while Bayat had the money he did not have the expertise, so enlisted two Britons, Stuart Bentham, a former officer in the Corps of Royal Engineers and Lord Michael Cecil.

Bentham and Cecil agreed to take on the job in exchange for shares in TSI, amounting to about 30% of the company.

"With their man now in charge of Afghan telecoms, the FBI saw a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to gather intelligence on the Taliban and, of course, al-Qaeda," Davis said.

"The plan was simple: the Taliban wanted American equipment for their new phone network, so the FBI and NSA - the National Security Agency - would build extra circuits into all the equipment before it was flown out to Afghanistan for use. "

The MP for Haltemprice and Howden told the Commons that this would allow the FBI to record or listen live to every single landline and mobile phone call in Afghanistan.

"The FBI would know the time the call was made and its duration, the caller’s name, the number dialled, and even the caller’s PIN.

"The FBI would also be able to monitor the telephone gateways channelling international calls in and out of the country - gateways already being used by Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and their associates, thanks to the satellite phones given by Mr Bayat to Taliban Ministers as gifts."

This secret operation to tap every single phone in Afghanistan, begun in 1999, was known as Operation Foxden.

However the project was delayed when on July 4 1999, president Bill Clinton imposed a trade embargo on Afghanistan. It was not until January 2000 that Bayat and his partners were able to find their way around the sanctions.

According to Davis the project then suffered another crippling 20-month delay after the CIA had become aware of the project and decided they, not the FBI, should be in charge, triggering a turf-war.

"Instead of getting the Afghan phone network built and starting to eavesdrop on Taliban leaders and al-Qaeda leaders, officials from the FBI and CIA spent more than a year and a half fighting over who should be in charge," Davis said.

"When it was decided that the FBI should hand control of the project to the CIA, the CIA’s near east division and counter-terrorism centre then proceeded to bicker among themselves over which of the subsets of the CIA should run the operation."

Eventually, Davis said, the bickering came to an end and the project got underway.

"Within days, and with MI6’s blessing, Bayat’s British advisers, Bentham and Cecil, met CIA officials and technical experts at the Sheraton hotel. New Jersey.

"There they discussed future plans, Afghan satellite capacity and the possibility of more American funding. The project seemed to be back on track, but it was too little, too late.

"The Sheraton meeting, held in a room overlooking the World Trade Centre, took place on 8 September 2001. Three days later, while Bentham and Cecil were travelling by taxi from Heathrow to Matrix Chambers to get advice on the legality of their operation from Ken Macdonald QC, they heard on the radio the terrible news of the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Centre."

But Davis said the story didn't end there.

He said that following September 11 Bayat refused to give his two British partners all of the money they believed they were owed for the work that had been done and the case went to court.

"The US intelligence agencies feared the consequences if the truth about their in-fighting emerged and they were determined to stop that truth from emerging," Davis said.

"In November 2003, a year after litigation began, the American judge suddenly sealed the case, shutting it down without warning, citing the state secrets privilege. All records of the case were expunged, and vanished from the court’s public database."

Davis said that the two Britons then took their case to a London court. However, he said, "so long is the reach of the American state secrets privilege that Bentham and Cecil were banned from discussing in the English High Court key facts and details of the American litigation".

"Through heavy-handed use of the state secrets privilege, US agencies can dictate what British judges in British courts are entitled to know and how much British citizens in British courts are entitled to say," he said.

Davis, who quit his post in David Cameron's front bench team in order to fight a campaign against the introduction of ID cards, told MPs that the case of Bayat, Bentham and Cecil highlighted the need to protect the "proper operation of the justice system" in the UK.

Foreign Office minister Jeremy Browne said the government was "extremely mindful" of the need to protect essential liberties.

"The government are committed to safeguarding national security. Drawing on our society’s fundamental values, we are also pledged to protect the liberties and way of life of our citizens. Those aims—protecting our national security and liberty and way of life of our citizens—need not be in conflict," he said.