The excuse given by the Legislature’s record-keeping officers were for “security” reasons even though the trips were already taken.

The Associated Press, which has been on a crusade lately with a multi-pronged Freedom Of Information campaign, said the California elected officers ran up a $2 million travel tab in the last two years and one-half years which is peanuts compared to the $20 billion budget deficit they face this July.

The North County Times, based in Escondido, ran the entire story Friday.

The report said $1.5 million was for travel from members home districts to the state capital in Sacramento, $400,000 for other in-state travel and $55,000 for out of state travel.

The news agency said the Legislature would not provide original documentation of lawmakers’ air travel, meaning there is no way to independently determine where they flew or for what purpose. According to the report:

“Providing past schedules for air travel related to legislative business that occurs even just once a year can reveal a pattern regarding future events that would continue to pose a potential threat to the security of each Assembly Member,” Jon Waldie, chief executive of the Assembly Rules Committee, wrote in response to a letter seeking the information.
His counterpart, Senate Secretary Gregory Schmidt, provided a letter that contained nearly identical wording.
The California Legislature is not subject to the same public records law as most other state agencies. The California Legislative Open Records Act provides the Legislature with broad discretion about the types of information about its own activities it can keep from the public.

“Why would it be a security problem for travel that’s already completed? That doesn’t make any sense to me at all,” said Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles and a former general counsel for the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the state’s watchdog agency. “We’re talking about taxpayers’ money. It seems to me we should know more rather than less.”

State Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, defended keeping specific travel information out of the public realm. “I think the concern is legitimate. People don’t want to establish patterns,” she said. “Having your lives be as public as ours are is awkward enough.”

The California Highway Patrol, which is responsible for the security of state lawmakers, said legislators receive threats but would not say how frequently.

—————————

EPILOGUE

In some respects, this is making a mountain out of a molehill. On the other hand, simply complying with the complete information after the fact eliminates the conspiracy theorists who believe all politicians are crooks. Who knows? Perhaps AP was looking for dirt as was learned in South Carolina in which Gov. Mark Sanford was caught abusing the airfare rules. If Sen. Ducheny thinks public life is “awkward enough,” then don’t seek public office. Meanwhile, with an assassin lurking behind every corner and a conspiracy junkie ready to spring, little wonder the quality of our politicians are far from the best and the brightest.

“If you don’t want federal funding for abortion… and you want to have a health care bill,” she said. “This is it.”

She said members may be talking about various things and dismissively mentioned Stupak’s name, adding, “But right now we are just getting votes to pass a bill.”

“This bill is about health care and not about abortion,” Pelosi said. “There will be no further changes in the bill.”

Here is the American Heritage Medical Dictionary’s (2007) definition of “health care”:

The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions.

Check it out, everyone: Abortion IS health care.

I’ll defer the prestidigitation of the politics to MSNBC.com First Read whose contributors know a helluva lot more than me.

Likewise, I’ll delegate the major cost features also for explanation to First Read.

And, finally, I will refer you to this provocative question and answer session for further details between a family and the Los Angeles Times editorial board.

Now, my take which can best be described as ambivalent.

This is lousy legislation. But it is a start. I must be wearing the same shoes as Dennis Kucinich whose basic complaint for voting no on the first House health reform bill was that it didn’t go far enough. He turned after some hardball arm-twisting by President Obama. I turned after considering the alternatives of doing nothing.

It is having a baby only to discover it needs some surgical repairs. That and some tweaking as the years go by could transform it into a productive human being. Whether that means a robust public option or single-payer system as in Medicare for all, I don’t know.

I don’t believe for a New York second what the Congressional Budget Office calculates as a billion dollar savings in the first decade and a trillion or so by the end of the second decade. As for most economic projections, I won’t believe it until I see it.

I don’t subscribe to the concept of opening up 32 million new customers for private carriers to insure without more assurances they won’t continue increasing premiums, copays and axing benefits. The new commission under Health and Human Services controlling rate increases is toothless and a joke.

The way the new law would be structured allows those mandated to buy insurance or employers offering it makes me inclined to believe the penalties would be cheaper to go without. If those agnostics of the system is larger than expected, the fines and penalties won’t come close to covering the anticipated costs of those being subsidized to enroll in the programs.

Another worry I have is whether the economics of the newly structured system will force more doctors, both primary and specialists, and pharmacies to bail out of the Medicare and MediCaid programs. We have seen that happen in Washington state where Walgreens has pulled the plug on those on MediCaid.

The pharmacy I use in Southern California is a mom and pop operation. The wife told me the state’s MediCal system pays only pennies on the dollar and is as much as six moths to a year late even making those reimbursements. She said the business, which serves primarily seniors and the poor on MediCare and MediCal patients, is teetering on bankruptcy.

The question continually arises that the United States is the world’s only industrialized nation that does not have universal health care. The closest comparison of what Congress is now addressing is South Korea which enacted a system predominately serviced by private carriers in the late 1980s. As stated in the Times Q&A, by 2000 “the 139 regional insurers were combined into a single national one, with the government regulating the rates it paid to providers.”

For a year now as the debate in Congress and the media raged passionately, the only solid argument I have heard against the health reform package is that it is too expensive and too large of an undertaking to overhaul because of unemployment and the financial climate. Yes, the legislation includes some responsible amendments offered by the Republicans in both houses of Congress. To say it is not a bipartisan bill even if no Republicans vote for it is a flat out lie.

Little wonder the public is only on board by at best a 48% margin in most polls, depending on how the question is framed. Forgive them for they are bombarded with mixed messages especially if they receive the brunt of their learning exercises from either Fox or MSNBC and TV ad wars.

The taking “personal responsibility” doctrine is a legitimate argument we hear from conservatives. It’s easy to say when you are a Congressman earning $170,000 a year, excluding perks. It does not address the element of fate for the millions who are losing their homes because of unexpected medical bills the insurance carriers say exceed their costs of coverage.

It is those people who as Obama is wont to say play by the rules and still crushed by the fickle fate dilemma.

I, for one, speak as a survivor who enlisted the social netting help of the landmark Oregon Health Plan, Medicare and MediCal. Without it, I would have been one of those 43,000 people who die annually for lack of health insurance coverage in one form or another.

Without it you could have read my obituary 15 years ago. As Mark Twain said, news of my death was premature.

That is why I support the legislation now before Congress. It’s sausage now but could transform itself into my favorite food — rib eye steak — which I no longer eat for good, common sense health reasons.

According to Fox:

Congressman Bart Stupak, D-Mich, responded sharply to White House officials touting a letter representing 59,000 nuns that was sent to lawmakers urging them to pass the health care bill.

The conservative Democrat dismissed the action by the White House saying, “When I’m drafting right to life language, I don’t call up the nuns.” He says he instead confers with other groups including “leading bishops, Focus on the Family, and The National Right to Life Committee.”

And who would expect him to consult the nuns?

They’re only women, after all.  And we know the men run the institutional Catholic church.  If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be an international pedophilia scandal.
[...]
Consult the nuns? People who, despite their vows of chastity, also menstruate, and work directly with–indeed touch every day–the people who are most in need?

But hang on now — Bart Stupak is not through telling us how he feels. He wants us to know that trying to write women’s health care out of a health care reform bill has been “a living hell” for him:

The telephone lines in his Washington and district offices have been “jammed” and he’s gotten more than 1,500 faxes and countless e-mails — most of which he says don’t come from his constituents.
[...]
The fight has taken a toll on his wife, who has disconnected the phone in their home to avoid harassment.

“All the phones are unplugged at our house — tired of the obscene calls and threats. She won’t watch TV,” Stupak said during an hourlong interview with The Hill in his Rayburn office. “People saying they’re going to spit on you and all this. That’s just not fun.”

Cue up the world’s smallest violin:

Poor baby Bart Stupak is whining and crying to The Hill about how tough it’s all been on him. I wonder if he has any clue how tough it is for women to be forced to bear children against their will? Or do you suppose he has any idea how tough it is for the 30 million people who are [uninsured]?
[...]
But none of that really matters because it’s all about Bart[.]

The question people generally ask about the final health-care reform vote is, “Won’t it be politically difficult for many House Democrats to vote yes?” But with the release of the CBO report (pdf), I’d flip that question a bit: Won’t it be substantively difficult for many House Democrats to vote no?

If you’re a liberal House Democrat, here’s what you’d be voting against: Legislation that covers 32 million people. A world in which 95 percent of all non-elderly, legal residents have health-care coverage. An end to insurers rescinding coverage for the sick, or discriminating based on preexisting conditions, or spending 30 cents of each premium dollar on things that aren’t medical care. Exchanges where insurers who want to jack up premiums will have to publicly explain their reason, where regulators will be able to toss them out based on bad behavior, and where consumers will be able to publicly rate them. Hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to help lower-income Americans afford health-care insurance. The final closure of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit’s “doughnut hole.”

And to those whose response to the CBO’s finding that the bill will reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the 10 years after that is to question the accuracy of the CBO’s work, Ezra has this to say:

This was a hard bill to write. Pairing the largest coverage increase since the Great Society with the most aggressive cost-control effort isn’t easy. And since the cost controls are complicated, while the coverage increase is straightforward, many people don’t believe that the Democrats have done it. But to a degree unmatched in recent legislative history, they have.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit didn’t try to offset its costs. It just increased the deficit. And Medicare and Medicaid were passed in the days before the Congressional Budget Office even existed. For health-care reform, Democrats have gotten the toughest scorekeeper in Washington to bless their effort, and though many don’t think that’s good enough, it’s a lot more than anyone else has ever done.

Banks were pressured by bank regulators to loan, loan, loan despite the credit worthiness of the borrower. After the 2008 market collapse, these same regulators employed by three governmental agencies, told banks no, no, no to even low-risk borrowers.

Today a spotlight is shed on these regulators employed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Not only were they derelict in their duties leading up to the crises, the government rewarded them with $19 million in rewards and bonuses for “superior work.”

The business networks are abuzz with the analysis revealed by an investigative report by the Associated Press. For the purposes of this column, I will link to the Canadian Television network in which reporter Matt Apuzzo writes:

The payments … are the latest evidence of the government’s false sense of security during the go-go days of the financial boom. Just as bank executives got bonuses despite taking on dangerous amounts of risk, regulators got taxpayer-funded bonuses despite missing or ignoring signs that the system was on the verge of a meltdown.

The bonuses were part of a little-known incentive rewards program and ranged from a few hundred dollars to as high as 25% of a regulators’ salary. About $8.4 million were rewards for financial examiners and the remainder dispersed to analysts, auditors, economists and criminal investigators.

The Treasury Inspector General’s scathing report after the meltdown used terms scolding the regulators as

* “Did not react in a timely and forceful manner to certain repeated indications of problems”
* “Did not issue a formal enforcement action in a timely manner and was not aggressive enough in the supervision”
* “In retrospect, a stronger supervisory response at earlier examinations may have been prudent”
* “Examiners did not identify or sufficiently address the core weaknesses that ultimately caused the thrift to fail until it was too late… “They believed their supervision was adequate. We disagree.”

Regulators complain the criticism is based on hindsight and unfair to suggest the bonuses were improper.

“These (rewards) are meant to motivate employees, have them work hard,” thrift office spokesman William Ruberry said. “The economy has taken a downturn in recent years. I’m not sure that negates the hard work or good ideas of our employees.”

And, where have we heard this before?

“In making compensation decisions, the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) is mindful of the need to recruit and retain the very best people, and our merit system is aimed at accomplishing that,”said spokesman Kevin Mukri.

From this:

“Bonuses (for financial employees) were determined based upon the performance and the retention of the people,” said John Thain, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch, the troubled brokerage firm that paid out $3.6-billion in bonuses just before selling itself to Bank of America. “And there is nothing that happened in the world or the economy that would make you say that those were not the right thing to do for the retention and the reward of the people who were performing.”

The news agency reporting the AP findings:

One person in the OCC’s financial examining division got a $41,000 recruitment bonus on top of a $179,000 salary in 2005. In 2006, the last boom year for banks buying risky mortgages, the FDIC gave out more than 2,000 bonuses to financial examiners. In 2008, the year the market collapsed, OTS gave 96 financial examiners bonuses of up to $3,000 for exceptional work.

Concludes the Canadian reporter Apuzzo:

To be sure, Washington policy makers eased regulations and encouraged banks to write risky loans. Families bought homes they couldn’t afford. Brokers found them mortgages. Bankers quickly snatched them up, never asking whether they could be repaid. And rating agencies certified it all as safe. But regulators were part of the problem, and the bonuses were a symptom, said Ellen Seidman, a research fellow at the New America Foundation think tank and the former head of OTS from 1997 to 2001.
“Is it probably the case that the standards for evaluating how well people in the regulatory system were doing were not as high as they should have been? Probably,” Seidman said.
But the bigger question, she said, is why government regulators thought they were doing so well: “Why did the system fool itself?”

————-

EPILOGUE

It gives me little solace that the sweeping new financial regulations pending in Congress will do any good in terms of protecting the consumer and investor. In no other sector of the economy can so few inflict so much damage on so many.

According to Politico:

The bill would cost $940 billion, and reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. The deficit numbers Democrats have been most worried about, and will be key to convincing moderates to coming on board with the bill.

More details here

UPDATE:

According to The New Republic, In “Dems Get the CBO Score they Want”:

Democrats in the administration and Congress have agreed on a set of amendments to the Senate health care bill. And, according to House leadership, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is certifying that the amendments will reduce the deficit. That should fulfill the parliamentary requirements of the reconciliation process, satisfy the demands of many nervous Democrats, and clear the way for the House to vote on health care reform.

Overall, according to leadership aides, the underlying Senate health care bill plus the amendments will reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years and $1.2 trillion in the second ten years. Democrats are calling it the “biggest deficit reduction measure in 25 years”–that is, since the 1993 Clinton budget.

This news should ease the anxiety of reform critics, both in Congress and beyond, who worry that health care reform will bankrupt the government or the country. CBO projections are not an exact science, but they’re as reliable as anything we have. If anything, their projections err on the side of excessive caution.

UPDATE II:

A copy of the preliminary CBO budget report is now available here.

UPDATE III

This just in by Ezra Klein:

The question people generally ask about the final health-care reform vote is, “Won’t it be politically difficult for many House Democrats to vote yes?” But with the release of the CBO report (pdf), I’d flip that question a bit: Won’t it be substantively difficult for many House Democrats to vote no?

::

::

People pay a lot of attention to the difficult politics of health-care reform, but at the end of the day, the task of writing the policy will be seen as the harder, and more consequential, element of this effort. But it worked. Democrats got the score they needed, and now they can go to their liberals and say that this is closer to universality than we’ve ever been, and they can go to their conservatives and say this does more for deficit reduction than has ever been done, and both things will be true.

If this bill does pass on Sunday, that, and not deals or polls or rides on Air Force One, will be why

To read everything in between, click here.

Salon’s Joe Conason does the laugh test on Republican outrage over the possibility that Democrats will use the self-executing rule to pass health care reform, and scores it: They do not pass.

As probably everyone knows by now, Rep. Dennis Kucinich has dropped his opposition (at least for voting purposes) to the health care reform bill.

Several conservative House Democrats who had been No votes on health care reform because of the abortion issue have decided to support the bill after taking a closer look at what Rep. Bart Stupak has claimed is permissive language about federal funding of abortions. Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota is one of these. He told Politico today, “”I wanted to see the language, understand it better, have conversations with Sen. Nelson. On balance, it does what we need to do.” Another is Dale Kildee, from Michigan. Kildee’s explanation for changing his position was particularly strong — and I think worth including here, in full:

For those who know me, I have always respected and cherished the sanctity of human life. I spent 6 years studying to be a priest and was willing to devote my life to God. I came to Congress two years after the Hyde Amendment became law and I have spent the last 34 years casting votes to protect the lives of the unborn. I have stood up to many in my party to defend the right to life and have made no apologies for doing so. I now find myself disagreeing with some of the people and groups I have spent a lifetime working with. I have listened carefully to both sides, sought counsel from my priest, advice from family, friends and constituents and I have read the Senate abortion language more than a dozen times.

I am convinced that the Senate language maintains the Hyde Amendment, which states that no federal money can be used for abortion. The Senate bill includes a “conscience clause” and allows states to ban plans that include abortion. I also disagree with the argument that the Senate bill would lead to abortions being performed at community health centers. Under existing law (42 C.F.R. § 50.301), community health centers are prohibited from performing abortions.

We must not lose sight of what is at stake here — the lives of 31 million American children, adults, and seniors — who don’t have health insurance. There is nothing more pro-life than protecting the lives of 31 million Americans. Voting for this bill in no way diminishes my pro-life voting record or undermines my beliefs. I am a staunch pro-life member of Congress — both for the born and the unborn.”

The Catholic Hospital Association has also, today, publicly endorsed the Senate bill. Marcy Kaptur, an anti-abortion Democrat from Ohio who continues to oppose the bill because she thinks the anti-abortion language in the bill isn’t strong enough, disparaged the CHA’s motivation for saying the bill should be supported:

“I think the hospitals have a different perspective because they’re running large institutions,” Kaptur said. “They have a lot of issues at stake. They have to balance their budgets and so forth. I think that the Bishops are probably in a different position. I don’t think that they’re really managerially responsible for these institutions.”

The implication appears to be that CHA’s business interests helped determine their position on the abortion language. …

And 59,000 nuns who represent 60 separate Catholic orders made news today by breaking with the Catholic bishops, who oppose health care reform on the grounds that the legislation’s specific ban on the use of federal funds to pay for abortions isn’t sufficient — and who, indeed, have gone so far as to meet with Bart Stupak to craft the anti-abortion language in the legislation to their personal satisfaction.

The nuns who lead 60 different Catholic orders wrote on behalf of their 59,000 members to congressional representatives, saying “despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortion.” They call the bill “the real pro-life stance” because it helps pregnant women access the health care they need. (For more on this argument, see T. R. Reid’s compelling piece, which argues that women who have access to high-quality health care for themselves and their children are less inclined to seek abortions.)

Finally, Ezra Klein flags a post by Greg Sargent about polling numbers put together by the Democratic leaders that indicate Medicare was a heavy lift when it was passed, as well. This is an argument that has been made many times, but hard numbers were lacking.

Democratic House members have pledged to not submit earmarks for for-profit projects. Republicans have one-upped that by pledging a ban on all earmarks for a year.

Earmarks are the fast track for a Congressman to return favors to his district under the euphemism of returning back home tax dollars paid to the feds. It avoids the scrutiny, cumbersome and painful process of priorities required for federal spending through the House Appropriations Committee.

Except for the abuses we all remember John McCain citing during his 2008 presidential run, I must confess I’m rather ambivalent on the subject. It strikes at the heart of representative (lower case) republicanism that works well in our government. It’s an uneven playing field, however, because some congressmen are more aggressive playing the game than others.

It just so happens one of the leading Republicans considering earmarks a dirty word and emblematic of a broken system is Darrell Issa, my congressmen in the 49th Congressional with home offices in Vista, Calif.

In 2006, Issa was one of the first House member to publicly post all his earmarks on his Web site. In 2008, he said he would restrict his earmark requests to only public projects. This week as a ranking minority leader of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he joined nine other Republican leaders in the never-again pledge, or until the next session, or until Congress controls spending, or all of the above.

I am here to report that my rep in Congress is a man of his word. No earmarks for 2010. I then decided to look at his earmark requests for 2009

Tee hee. Tee hee. He submitted 21 projects for $213,767,000.

The 49th covers all of northern San Diego County and parts of southern Riverside County. It is a classic gerrymandered district guaranteeing a Republican victory unless he pulls off something dumb as did Rep. Duke Cunningham several years ago in the 50th and as a result is still serving time in the pokey.

I reviewed all 21 earmark projects Issa submitted for 2009 and found two that made me feel queasy. Since Issa is a straight-shooter I can’t for the life of me understand why his requests were not funneled through the regular channels. His office did not return my calls asking whether all the projects were approved so I am only assuming they were since he posted them. Another caveat: Some of these listed items are continuing projects requiring annual appropriations.

* $110.3 million for a new federal courthouse in downtown San Diego.
* $6M for an integrated communications system for 15 fire districts.
* $3.5M for upgrading the communications system of all county law enforcement agencies.
* $500K for a gang suppression unit for the city of Oceanside.
* $250K to equip a new emergency operations center in Lake Elsinore.
* $13M for a 100-year flood control channel for the cities of Murietta and Temecula.
* $7.2M for the first phase of the San Luis Rey Valley flood control channel.
* $2M for potable water and desalter for a water district in the city of Perris.
* $2M for a water reclamation project for Rancho California, a seniors community.
* $1M to complete final design of a water system for Camp Pendleton Marine Base.
* $355K to supplement an open space, land-use study in Riverside County.
* $45M reforestation of areas prone to wildfires.
* $1.6M to prepare exiting military doctors and nurses for the private sector.
* $1M to build a new community health center in Vista.
* $1M to build and replace a health clinic in Oceanside.
* $8M to improve a bottleneck between the I-15 and I-215 freeways.
* $5M widen a section of State 76 in Oceanside.
* $3.1M for a transit center serving new private development in Oceanside.
* $2M to widen a street in Vista.
* $1M to study expanding a small airstrip in Temecula.
* $500K to renovate and expand the Fallbrook Boys and Girls Club.

It is only the last two items that might be considered shaky, especially from a congressman who prides himself on pinching pennies.

I find it hypercritical earmarks for health clinics were included in his 2009 requests yet he plans to vote against the health reform package which includes money for identical projects.

————————————–

EPILOGUE

I applaud Mr. Issa for his transparency and only wish all Congressmen and Senators do the same. In his case, earmarks lose the sting and bad rap they probably don’t deserve. Of course, it also begs the question why he continued requesting earmarks as recently as four years ago when he was publicly speaking against them as part of our broken government. The remaining thorn in my side remains the most fundamental dilemma facing federal appropriations. That is, why should a taxpayer in the 1st Congressional District of New York pay part of a $1 million tab to study the merits of an airstrip in Temecula, Cailf.?

I was reminded today is St. Patrick’s Day when I clicked for a search. Google sprang up green. In grade school, I quickly learned not to wear green on March 17 because it was my only come-on for the girls to pinch me.

I remember watching the news video of the Irish turning some river in Detroit green on this day. Heck, I thought that river was always green from pollution, etc. The best thing about the Irish is that they know how to throw a wake. And, those who know me, understand it is the only exception I make for attending a funeral, parents and brothers not withstanding.

The Italians have their Columbus Day. As a kid growing up in a predominately Mexican village of San Juan Capistrano, there were no Italians. My only frame of reference, again, was the RKO news shorts at the movies. I had the impression all the Italians were New York City street cops marching in a parade.

But these are the only two ethnic groups gaining some sort of national recognition.

A tad older, I loved the Mexican celebrations of Cinco de Mayo and Septembre Quince. Though a national holiday in Mexico, in the states it’s usually the best party of the year and make a Texas barbecue seem stingy.

I suppose the blacks have their day celebrating Martin Luther King’s birthday. The occasion is so new I’m uncertain a tradition has been established exactly how to whoop it up.

Most of these special days are noting religious or national celebrations. The calendar is pocked with Yom Kipper, Hanukkah and Passover for the Jews and Easter and Christmas for us gentiles but nothing for the other religious melting pots.

I think Native Americans should have a special day that hits us squarely between the eyeballs as St. Patrick’s Day. Certainly nothing demeaning as a tribal war dance. More like a celebration from out of the pages of “Dances With Wolves.”

My favorite is Thanksgiving for it allows us to express our love and gratitude to our family and country.

If in whatever tricky procedure the House passes health reform legislation, the White House immediately must marshal its special interest supporters on a massive ad campaign to educate the public.

It must explain what provisions of the landmark legislation goes into effect immediately and what features will not kick in for three to four years.

I have followed the legislation more closely than the average Joe but still would flunk the class quiz on what does and doesn’t take effect. You can imagine the dismay and irritation of the public when these facts settle in.

There’s good reason for the time schedule implementation dates but the White House and supporters of the measure almost never tell you that. This problem will manifest itself immediately with most people, I would guess, would ask “why the big rush and urgency” when measures that would help them won’t for a period of time they can no longer afford.

Despite all the railing and whining we hear and read on the Internet, the American people tend to fall in love with their entitlement programs and Congress wouldn’t dare eliminate them or face expulsion from office.

Health reform is a slightly different beast. Unless the public understands and accepts its phase-in quirks as early as this November’s midterm elections, all hell will break loose and play into opponents’ campaign propaganda.

This is one of the rare occasions where I congratulate conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh for pounding away and pointing out the reform package has these delayed triggers.

PROP 14