4 Ways New England Democrats Can Lead the Country

"D.C. power shift another blow to influence of New England, " reads today's headline in the Boston Globe. "Region's Democrats will be marginalized in GOP-run Congress."

It doesn't have to be that way. Here's how New England Democrats can make a huge difference over the next two years.

One: join the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Every single one of you. Michael Capuano, Katherine Clark, Joe Kennedy, Jim McGovern, and Bernie Sanders are already members. The rest of you New England Democrats should follow their lead.

Two: set your own agenda. Draft bills, create a budget, and use your mailing lists, email, speaking engagements and media appearances to tell the American public what you would do instead.

Three: talk about big ideas. For God's sake, this is New England, home of the educated and opinionated! Put that visionary thinking to good use. Let people know what America should look like. They already like your policies: they just don't know what you stand for. Make it clear.

And finally, on regional issues, make alliances.  Get together with Minnesota and Alaska to protect heating assistance. Get together with West Coast fisheries to protect East Coast fisheries too. Practice politics--which is a lot more than the art of getting re-elected.

Sulk for two years and the Republicans will win Congress again. Do these four things and you can not only win back Congress in 2016: you can make that victory matter.

Stigma against Abortion: What's to Oppose in the New Health Care Bill. part IV

Abortion is a legal right. What's more, it gives women the opportunity to refuse to give their bodies to pregnancies they don't want, or spend years raising children they may not have the money or the will to raise. No man has to make that choice: the least we can do is support women in the choices they make. Yet the new mandatory health insurance bill passed by Democrats in Congress and signed into law by President Obama paints a scarlet letter on women who choose abortion.

Sharon Lerner wrote in The Nation:

When the debate moved to the Senate... another Democrat, Ben Nelson, led the charge to restrict abortion coverage, proposing an amendment requiring any woman who wants insurance to cover the procedure to write a separate check for that premium. The Nelson Amendment also requires health plans to keep funds for abortion separate.

Apparently, there is no problem with funding agencies that bomb civilians and torture prisoners, but health plans that pay for women to exercise their legal rights are so shameful the government of the people, by the people, and for the people cannot be seen to support them. This is a tremendous step backward for women's rights and health, as well as for equality in America.

What's to Like about the New Health Insurance Bill

How should we regard the new health insurance bill that President Obama just signed into law? On Monday, I gave an overview. For the next few days, let's go into the details.

Compared with the system we have now, there's plenty to like about the new plan. Based on a summary in the Boston Globe, here are some of the good points:

More money for states to pay for poor people's health insurance. "Massachusetts would receive a $2 billion boost in Medicaid assistance over 10 years to help pay for insurance coverage for low-income residents." Medicaid plans let poor people get decent health care they couldn't afford otherwise.

More money to help moderate-income people pay for their own health insurance. "Tax credits are provided to help pay for insurance, and that aid is available for people with incomes up to four times the federal poverty level, which is $88,2oo for a family of four and $43,32o for an individual."

Fewer denials of coverage. "The measure would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of a preexisting condition," within six months for children and by 2014 for adults. It also lets young adults stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26 (meaning fewer will go without health insurance), and it makes sure Medicare pays for elders' prescription drugs (eliminating the "doughnut hole" in which, if you paid more than $2,700 a year for prescriptions, you were on your own until your expenses mounted to $6,200). People with pre-existing health problems, young people, and seniors make up a large part of the population! They will all be better off because of these provisions.

Coverage for legal immigrants. Currently, the federal government provides no help at all to legal immigrants seeking health insurance. In 2014, under the new bill, the feds would send money to state governments like Massachusetts which choose to subsidize health insurance for low- and moderate- income legal immigrants the same way as they subsidize low- and moderate-income American citizens.

If your question is, "Will anybody be better off under the new bill than they were before?", then the answer is, "Yes, lots of people will." And I agree with columnist Scot Lehigh that Obama and the Democrats need to go on tour to promote it. They should use every mass marketing and social networking trick in the book to spread the word and build support for the bill.

That doesn't mean I think it's a good bill. Why? Come back tomorrow to find out.

What About the Poor?

So now we know that former Presidential candidate John Edwards had an affair with a consultant to his campaign. Some people are shaking their heads and asking, "How could he do it?" Others are looking sympathetically at Elizabeth Edwards and asking, "How must she be feeling now?"

To me, those are both the wrong questions. The question in this election year is, "What about the poor?"

The only reason that John Edwards matters is because he put the issue of poverty squarely on the table. Both Obama and Clinton said nice things about that when Edwards left the race. Neither has said very much about poverty since.

According to Boston Globe columnist Derrick Jackson:

Reports say the Edwards family will not be at the convention. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats now handle the morals issue in Denver, let alone the notion as to whether the poor will have any voice at all.

Don't let that notion alone! Edwards made it clear during his campaign that how we end poverty in this country is THE moral issue of our time. Many religious leaders, progressive and conservative, have said the same. We should not get distracted by the personal troubles of the Edwards family when there is a paramount public issue at stake.