Trump Has A Healthcare Plan? Like His Gun Safety Plan?

Kevin Drum and I were being treated at City of Hope for similar cancers at the same time. I'm confident that he-- unlike many members of Congress-- understands healthcare policy and the importance of Medicare for All. About a week ago, Mother Jones ran an essay by Kevin, Trump Health Care Strategy: Pretend to Have a Plan. Referencing a report from the Washington Post, he wrote that "Apparently Donald Trump plans to take his usual sober and considered approach to health care policy during campaign season:

White House advisers, scrambling to create a health-care agenda for President Trump to promote on the campaign trail, are meeting at least daily with the aim of rolling out a measure every two to three weeks until the 2020 election.

...Some, however, are doubtful a flurry of executive orders and new regulations would have an immediate effect on consumers’ pocketbooks. What is clear is that the approach, which includes White House support for a bipartisan Senate bill to cap Medicare drug price increases to the rate of inflation, is putting congressional Republicans in a tough spot: Embrace Trump’s agenda and abandon conservative precepts about interference in the marketplace, or buck the president on one of his top priorities.

...One lobbyist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, described being stunned at a recent White House meeting when Domestic Policy Council Director Joe Grogan said the administration would not let Democrats run to the president’s left on lowering the prices of prescription medicines. In another tense meeting, top pharmaceutical executives were told bluntly “it wasn’t in the industry’s best interests” to block the bipartisan Senate bill backed by Trump. If it failed, they were told, they’d see “the president of the United States negotiating with Nancy Pelosi [on allowing the government to negotiate drug prices in Medicare],” said a person familiar with the meeting.

Uh huh. That’s a tough one. Should Republicans blithely abandon their principles and do what Trump wants or-- or what?

Of course, this isn’t a matter of sitting back and letting Trump attack brown or black or yellow people. This is a matter of by god interference with corporate interests, which really does put Republicans in a tough spot. They’re perfectly happy to let Trump tear into America’s oldest racial wounds, but reducing the profits of pharmaceutical companies by a few points? That’s a genuine chin scratcher. What’s a Republican to do?

Yesterday, Wall Street Journal reporters Stephanie Armour and Andrew Restuccia wrote that the White House will roll something out as a healthcare plan next month. Remember when Trump promised to create a healthcare utopia? A plan with heart? "i'm going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of-- much better than they're taken care of now." Don't remember? Watch:



Trump has done nothing... other than try to abolish Obamacare and cut Medicare and Medicaid. Now he wants a cohesive stacks of lies he can use on the campaign trail to contrast to Medicare-For-All. "Elements of the plan," wrote Armour and Restuccia, "could include providing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, the people said, and spurring the sale of insurance across state lines. Other provisions being discussed include giving states more flexibility, expanding health savings accounts, linking price transparency to quality metrics, and more insurance options for consumers, they said. The plan would include a number of new elements that haven't yet been released, one person familiar with the work said. White House officials stressed that the plans haven't been completed, and some close to the president have privately expressed skepticism. One former White House official raised the possibility that the plan may not materialize this fall if Mr. Trump second-guesses the effort. The administration is also still weighing how specific the plan should be, the people familiar with the plan said, and the ideas have yet to get Mr. Trump’s sign off."

Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser to the president who is involved in the discussions, met recently with House Republicans to brief them on the progress of the administration’s efforts, two people present said. She stressed that the administration’s plan would protect pre-existing conditions and she reviewed possible legal outcomes in the lawsuit to strike down the ACA. She is planning to brief Senate Republicans after they return from their August recess.

The push to put out a plan, which has already involved months of behind-the-scenes work, underscores growing concern on Mr. Trump’s team that the president could be vulnerable on health care. A recent Fox News poll of registered voters found Democrats had a 14-point advantage over Republicans on which party would do a better job handling the issue.

The administration is backing a lawsuit from GOP-led states to strike down the ACA, a stance that leaves Mr. Trump open to attacks from Democratic presidential candidates who say he is a threat to coverage.

“We are the Democrats. We are not about trying to take away health care from anyone,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in the second Democratic debate in Detroit this week. “That’s what the Republicans are trying to do.”

The case may not be fully resolved until next year, placing health care at the center of the 2020 presidential campaign. An estimated 20 million people have gained coverage because of the ACA, and more than 100 million people with existing medical conditions could see their coverage lost or become more expensive if the law is struck down.

The White House has already released initiatives or been working on regulations that would accomplish some of the goals that could be in the president’s plan. But his fall proposal, if released, could go further-- for example, calling for state or state and federal high-risk pools, which aim to provide coverage to people who can’t get insurance because of expensive pre-existing health conditions, according to one person familiar with the planning.

“They definitely want to show they’re protecting pre-existing conditions,” said one GOP Hill staffer familiar with the discussions.

Parts of the plan would probably require congressional action, which is unlikely because the House and Senate remain divided.

The plan could call for grants to states to establish high-risk pools or programs that pay a portion of high-cost claims to buffer insurers and help drive down premiums. High-risk pools were used by more than 30 states and covered more than 200,000 people before the ACA, but some people had trouble getting coverage as states capped enrollment amid funding pressures.

The return of high-risk pools has been a longtime Republican goal; House Republicans pushed for the creation of a $15 billion federal high-risk pool in their proposals to replace the ACA. Critics say they cost too much money and have a long history of problems.

Mr. Trump may also lay out new strategies to jump start the sale of insurance across state lines, an idea he included in his 2016 campaign platform. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service in March sought public input on how to eliminate barriers to such sales, which are already permitted, but have had few takers. Mr. Trump has also said he wants to let people on Medicare contribute to health savings accounts.

The proposal could also call for more action to link price information in health care to quality. Actions to provide more alternative forms of insurance that don’t comply with ACA regulations and consumer protections are also being discussed, one person familiar with the planning said.

The tentative release of a more complete plan in September is part of a broader strategy ahead of the 2020 election. The White House is planning to ramp up Mr. Trump’s speeches and actions on health care this fall because polls show it is a top issue for voters. The administration has already unveiled new efforts on a range of health-related issues, from improving kidney health to making it easier to import prescription drugs from other countries.

But skepticism abounds because Mr. Trump has repeatedly promised a health plan without delivering one. During the GOP push to repeal the ACA in 2017, he said he was close to finishing a plan that aimed to provide “insurance for everybody.”

Fault lines have emerged within the White House over how to accomplish aspects of the plan and how specific to be largely because of concerns it could open Mr. Trump up to attacks from Democratic presidential candidates, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

Yet allies of Mr. Trump believe it would give a boost to the president even though Congress is unlikely to take action on any of the ideas that require legislation.

At the White House, regular meetings on broad health-care strategy are being led by Domestic Policy Council Director Joe Grogan, with participation from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services head Seema Verma, Health and Human Services Department officials, and senior aides from the National Economic Council, Council of Economic Advisers and other White House offices, according to people involved in the talks.

Progressives expand healthcare; conservatives constrict it and block it. That's how it's always been and how it still is. If healthcare is important to you, never vote for a Republican and never vote for a Blue Dog or a New Dem. They're the enemy. If you click on the thermometer on the right, you'll find a list of progressive Democrats running for House seats, all of whom are campaigning on Medicare-For-All.

Marqus Cole is the strongest progressive running for the open congressional seat in the suburbs north of Georgia (GA-07) and one of the issues he's campaigning on is Medicare-for-All. This morning he told me that this week "here in Georgia we found out the 'Emperor had no clothes' the whole time when Governor Kemp's 'plan' to not cover all Georgians got shot down by the Trump Administration. Don't believe me? The major paper in town, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, had this to say about Georgia healthcare: 'Kemp’s plan for Georgia is still unknown at this point... [27%] of Georgians ages 19 to 34 are uninsured, one of the worst rates in the nation.' Much like the current administration, here in Georgia the plan for Georgia is still unknown while people go without access to basic affordable healthcare. Enough is enough. I'm heading to DC to fight for my neighbors here in Georgia and all around the country. We. Need. Healthcare. For. Everyone! Republicans like Rob Woodall, and those in his party trying to replace him, are on record for wanting to go back to the crazy world of pre-existing conditions, young adults without health care, and birth control that doesn't come standard. With a Democratic Congress and President we will make our first task ensuring Healthcare-for-all."

Shear across the country, in Oregon, Mark Gamba is thinking much the same way. "Here we are, the richest nation on the planet and we spend more per-capita than any other country in the world on healthcare, and yet out of the 11 top industrialized nations we rank number 11 in health outcomes. Not because our doctors, nurses and hospitals aren't outstanding-- they are-- it's just that millions of Americans can't access that outstanding health care, either because they can't afford health insurance or their deductibles are so high they can't access the care without going bankrupt. Republicans and corporate Democrats say it's 'too hard' or 'too expensive' to provide Universal Healthcare to all Americans and I say: That's B.S.! You are telling me that America isn't smart enough to accomplish what every other civilized nation on earth has managed to pull off? I wholeheartedly disagree. I know we can do it, and I know we can do it better than anyone else has done it because we ARE Americans. We just have to decide that it's more important to provide quality healthcare to all of our people for less money than it is for insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to reap massive profits by denying us care and addicting us to opioids."

  

The Poor People Who Voted For Trump And For Republicans May Soon Learn What That Means To Their Families

Going into 2017, the Christian Science Monitor reminded its readers that boosting low wages has become less controversial as conservatives looked elsewhere to inflict their deadly ideology on working families. 19 states are about to see a rise in the minimum wage, causing the pay of more than 4 million workers go upon one fell swoop. Conservatives still make the same discredited, utrterly false argument about the minimum wage they’ve been making since the Black Plague decimated the English working class in 1348, prompting King Edward III to set a maximum wage, making it illegal to pay laborers too much. Real minimum wage proposals gained steam in the early 1800s and the first minimum wage laws were passed in 1894 (New Zealand), 1896 (Australia) and 1909 (England). The first national minimum wage law came to the U.S. in 1938, accompanied by predictions of the end of the world by conservative politicians and the businessmen who finance their shameful careers. They were wrong, of course, but that hasn’t discouraged conservatives to roll out the same arguments and baseless scare tactics every time there was an attempt to increase the minimum wage.

Debates surrounding the pros and cons of minimum wage raises have reverberated through society in “Fight for $15” protests and state capitals around the nation. While those on the left have said wage hikes will pull some of the nation’s most vulnerable low-income workers out of poverty, conservatives have argued that increased costs for businesses will hamper the economy and have harmful fallout for the very workers they purpport to help.

But in 2017, several reliably red states will join liberal havens like Massachusetts and California in increasing wages for their workers after voters approved ballot initiatives. In others, indexing will provide the increases.

Altogether some 4.4 million workers are expected to see their hourly wages go up.

In places like Arizona, where voters chose to send President-elect Donald Trump to the Oval Office, they also voted for wage increases, crossing over partisan lines to take on an issue from a more traditionally liberal perspective.

…In cities around the country that set the trend of increasing wages, fears of price shock or businesses losses have proved largely unfounded, with localities seeing little impact on their economies. Still, more conservative state governments, like that in Arizona, are pushing back, with state’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry filing a lawsuit to challenge the increase, which is slated to raise the minimum wage from $8.05 to $10. On Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to temporarily block the measure.

Low-wage workers largely have activists to thank for the change, but note there’s still a long way to go. As states and cities move to raise their wages, the contrast between places still abiding by the federal minimum of $7.25 last raised in 2009 becomes more pronounced.

Seattle recently raised the minimum wage-- conservatives were ready to perform the last rights. Instead, standards of living have risen and unemployment rates-- rather than the sky-- have fallen. Take look:

A few days ago, Kali Holloway, demonstrated one of the places conservatives are seeking to harm the working class instead— the food stamps program. Fox News, the far right’s fake news source, is, as usual, the mouthpiece for plutocracy, greed and hatred. “Pathologizing poverty,” she wrote, “has been a long-term, ongoing—and sadly, highly successful—project of the right in this country.” She cites Wisconsin Koch puppet Scott Walker and his recent appeal to Trump to allow his beaten-down state to drug-test food-stamp recipients, as well as another Wisconsinite, Paul Ryan, and his plans to make it harder, nationally, to qualify for aid. As has always been the case with conservatives, “the goal is to punish and stigmatize the poor while eliminating programs that help lift them out of poverty.”

As the el Presidente-elect Señor Trumpanzee made clear in another one of his idiotic tweets yesterday, Fox is the Republican Party’s vision of state TV, something Holloway remarked on as well, reminding her readers it “essentially functions as the media arm of the Republican Party, and on Wednesday it did its part to undermine a program that helps 44 million poor Americans. To that transparent end, an episode of Fox & Friends featured a segment titled, “Food Stamp Fraud at All-Time High: Is It Time to End the Program?” The piece goes on to claim that USDA figures reveal “$70 million of taxpayer money was wasted in 2016 due to food stamp fraud.” Kevin Drum’s response: Fox News Screws Up It’s Latest Lie. Fox’s point was basically a question “Food Stamp Fraud at All-Time High: Is It Time to End the Program?”

Now, the obvious response to this is twofold. First, they're just lying, aren't they? And second, this is like a headline that says, "Traffic Deaths at All-Time High: Should We Ban Cars?"

But at this point the story takes a strange turn. First, I have no idea where Fox's $70 million figure comes from—and I looked pretty hard for it. The Fox graphic attributes it to "2016 USDA," but as near as I can tell the USDA has no numbers for SNAP fraud more recent than 2011.

But that's not all: $70 million is a startlingly low figure. In the most recent fiscal year, SNAP cost $71 billion, which means that fraud accounted for a minuscule 0.098 percent of the program budget. Even if this is an all-time high, the Fox high command can't believe this is anything but a spectacular bureaucratic success.

And it would be, if it were true. But it's not. If you look at inaccurate SNAP payments to states, the error rate since 2005 has decreased from 6 percent of the budget to less than 4 percent. However, this isn't fraud anyway: It's just an error rate, and most of the errors are eventually corrected. SNAP "trafficking"—exchanging SNAP benefits for cash—is fraud, but it's been declining steadily too, from 3.8 percent in 1993 to 1.3 percent in 2011 (the most recent year for which we have records):

So in any normal sense, the Fox story was a lie. SNAP fraud isn't at an all-time high. It's been declining for years. But here's the thing: The fraud rate in 2011 may have been low, but this was in the aftermath of the Great Recession, when total SNAP payments were very high. So although the percentage is low, the dollar value of fraud clocked in at $988 million. Fox could have used this far higher number, which is, in fact, an all-time high. It's only an all-time high because SNAP was helping far more people, but still. In the Fox newsroom, that would hardly matter.

Bottom line: Yes, Fox is lying in any ordinary sense of the word. But they're also vastly understating the amount of SNAP fraud. Even when they're trying to deceive their audience, it turns out, they're also incompetent.

And this is where Paul Ryan comes in. He and the Republicans, as PBS reported recently, have a plan and they are busy laying the groundwork for a fresh effort to “overhaul” the food stamp program during Trump’s presidency, with new work and stricter eligibility requirements for millions of people.

Right-wing freak Mike Conaway (R-TX) is the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and he’s leading Ryan’s jihad against food stamps, although he noted that the GOP doesn’t want to eliminate the program (which would not be in the interests of the agricultural conglomerates that fund Conway’s shady career). Conaway has taken $2,167,352 in legalistic bribes from AgriBusiness. Democrats don’t even run against him in his central Texas district that includes Midland, Odessa and San Angelo. This cycle his only opponent was a Libertarian. Conaway was reelected with 89.5% of the vote. You think that might influence his priorities? Here’s the list of the 10 most corrupt members of the Agriculture Committee with the amounts of legalistic bribery they have taken in the 2016 cycle.

• Mike Conaway (R-TX) $701,773
• Jeff Denham (R-CA) $539,848
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) $484,950
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- $467,524
• David Rouzer (R-NC)- $417,831
• Rodney Davis (R-IL) $381,754
• Dan Newhouse- (R-WA) $346,442
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $276,475
• Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)- $256,089
• Rick Crawford (R-AR)- $255,300

Ryan would love to abolish the program entirely, but understands that isn’t going to happen in the real world, at least not in one fell swoop.

Food stamp policy is included in a wide-ranging farm bill every five years; the next one is due in 2018. It also could be part of a larger effort headed by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) to tackle a welfare or entitlement overhaul, if that should happen in the next Congress.

Still, food stamp changes always have been a hard sell in Congress.

Democrats almost unilaterally oppose any changes. Some Republicans from poorer districts are also wary. The 1996 welfare law added some new work requirements, but Congress declined to convert federal food stamp dollars into block grants for the states, a move that would cut spending for the program.

In 2013, House Republican leaders tried to cut the program by 5 percent annually by passing broad work requirements as part of the last farm bill. The House bill also included drug testing for recipients.

The then-Democratic Senate balked, though, and the final bill included a much smaller cut and no allowances for drug testing. Conaway said he’s open to any of those policies, but suggested that block granting the program — a past priority for Ryan — or drug testing recipients are not his priorities.

“We don’t want to be helping folks on drugs, but then again, folks on drugs have children,” Conaway said.

One thing can be sure, though— for as long as the Republicans control the House: more pain and suffering is headed towards the poor. In the end, isn’t that the heart, the soul and the essence of modern conservatism?

Hillary, Ed Snowden And The Millennial Vote

Yesterday, Hillary had an OpEd in Policy.Mic, Here's What Millennials Have Taught Me. Her point is that she's been listening to millennials and that she finds then "the most open, diverse and entrepreneurial generation in our country's history." Millennials were the mainstay of the Bernie Sanders movement as-- without the "help" of crooked like Wasserman Schultz, Harry Reid and corrupt party machines from one end of the country to the other, would have won the nomination for him. But now she needs their votes against the Trumpist boogeyman.

She notes that millennials have led "the way to a brighter future for all of us. You've fought for some of the most important accomplishments in our nation's history, like the Affordable Care Act and marriage equality. You've come together to challenge our country to protect human rights and strengthen families by fixing a broken immigration system, reforming our criminal justice system and ending the era of mass incarceration. And you've demanded that people of color be able to live their lives without fear of being killed at a routine traffic stop." And she talks about her own time in college, skipping over the fact that she was on the wrong side of history, an outspoken conservative, president of Wellesley's Young Republicans. Is she still missing the boat?

ObamaCare? Millennials want single payer, not a dysfunctional baby step in that direction, with built in profits for hated pharmaceutical monoplies. And, yes, millennials helped drag her away from her own instinctual, less than stellar record on marriage equality and, apparently, get her to shift her position on a conservative approach to criminal justice. Her attack on Trump is gratuitous and neither here nor there. Millennials are repulsed by him. But what is she offering to draw them in, to make it worth the bother of voting? Is it just a lesser-of-two-evils thing? Is that going to be enough? Maybe. She goes on to list some of her plans.

First, everyone who wants to go to college should be able to without drowning in debt. That's why I worked with Sen. Bernie Sanders to design a plan that will let everyone attend college debt-free. If you already have loans, we'll let you refinance them, defer them to start a business or forgive them if you spend 10 years in public service. You can even see how much you and your family could save under our plan by looking at the "college calculator" on our website. And we'll make sure a four-year degree isn't the only path to a good-paying job by supporting apprenticeships and other high-quality training programs.

Second, everyone should be able to get a job that pays the bills and can support a family. And not only that, you should be able to do work you love and find meaningful. So we'll create more good-paying jobs, raise the minimum wage and guarantee equal pay. This will help a lot of Americans, especially young people struggling to find footing in a difficult economy.

Third, no new parent should have to face the impossible choice between caring for a child or family member and losing a paycheck or even a job. It's outrageous that in 2016, the United States is the only developed country in the world without paid family leave of any kind. So we'll make high-quality child care and preschool available to every family in every community.  I've spent my career fighting to make a difference for children and families, and I can't wait to do even more as president.

Of course, to do any of these things, we can't have secret unaccountable money poisoning our politics. So I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Citizens United and even propose a constitutional amendment to do the same. And by doing that, we'll make sure that no special interests can get in the way of protecting and expanding civil rights, LGBT rights and all human rights.

Many of you have shared with me that it feels like you're out there on your own-- like no one has your back. It shouldn't be that way. If I'm fortunate enough to be elected, you will always have a champion in the White House. But I can't do it on my own. I need you to work with me, keep fighting for what you believe, hold me accountable. I can't promise we'll win every fight on our first try. But I can promise you this: I'll never stop fighting for you.

So let's stand together to show the world what our country, and your generation, really stands for. Let's overwhelm division and intolerance with compassion, understanding and unity. Let's make clear that Love Trumps Hate-- not just this November, but always.

Yeah, nice... and Kevin Drum made an even better case for her at Mother Jones Monday morning. He insists there's a top notch postive case to be made for Hillary, over and above how horrible Trump is. He starts with a caveat that she, like all other politicians, is far from perfect. "If you think she's too instinctively hawkish-- as I do-- that might be reason enough for a liberal to vote for someone else. On some issues-- supporting the Iraq War, supporting TPP, voting for the PATRIOT Act, etc.-- she's taken positions that might be flat deal killers. On other issues, you might think she's not strong enough, or that it took her too long to get to the right place. Finally, on a personal level, she's often over-secretive, overly lawyerly, and sometimes skates a little close to some ethical lines. She distrusts the press and withholds information too often. And she is, plainly, an establishment politician, with all the flaws that implies." He then lists 84 points that ought to make progressives (and most millennials are that) consider voting for her. Read it for yourself (here) but, minus the Trumpist threat-- and with all due respects to Kevin-- I'm not convinced. Blue America is now raising money for her campaign and I'm urging my friends and readers in swing states to vote for her.

Below is far from a scientific poll, but I asked twitter users who they would rather see as a U.S. senator, Ed Snowden or Patrick Murphy. Murphy is an unaccomplished Florida backbencher in Congress currently playing a bit role in the rise of Marco Rubio. Saudi Arabia's member of the House Intelligence Committee-- an actual traitor, not a whistleblower-- Murphy signed a letter urging President Obama to deny Snowden a pardon. These were the results:

What would get me enthusiastic about Hillary as something more than a way of stopping Trump? In the Oliver Stone film, Snowden, Hillary and Trump are represented, not by actors, but with archival footage. Predictably, Trump calls for Snowden's execution. Hillary isn't quite as bad but her attitude on Snowden is as bad today as her attitude about same sex marriage was not all that many years ago. She should reexamine that attitude. That may say a lot more to millennials, who overwhelmingly see him as a whistleblower and not as a the traitor the decrepit House Intelligence Committee is trying to paint him as.

This is very tough for any politician. I asked every member of Congress I know and every congressional candidate I know for a statement on Snowden. Other than from a handful of courageous Berniecrats, the silence was deafening. The kind of leadership it would take to stand up-- like Bernie has-- and make a case for Snowden would be monumental... and would say something undenialbly powerful to millennials about Hillary. Monday morning the editors of The Guardian called attention to the unbearable hypocrisy of the editors of the Washington Post on the matter. The Post, they wrote "stunned many people in the United States, including a large section of the country’s journalistic community, by coming out against a pardon for whistleblower Edward Snowden. Despite the newspaper having been responsible for publishing leaks by the former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, its latest editorial urges President Barack Obama not to pardon him... Two other newspapers that published Snowden’s revelations-- the Guardian and the New York Times-- have run opinion pieces calling on the US administration to allow him to return to the US without facing any charges."



One of the Berniecrats who did get back to me on this was Kerith StranoTaylor, a congressional candidate running in PA-05, a very conservative district in north-central Pennsylvania. Imagine if Hillary issued a statement like this:

Ed Snowden is the collateral damage of a misguided effort to privatize our national security.  First, in an effort to "shrink government' thousands of private contractors were entrusted with unfettered access to the most secret details of our national security. Our government was spying on its own citizens. He pulled back the curtain. Snowden should be pardoned. He revealed to America that the erosion done to our civil liberties under the Patriot Act was too great. Without his actions, would the Patriot Act have ever been curtailed? Prosecuting Snowden at this point is as egregious as the threatened 16-year sentence for Deric Lostutter, the hacker that exposed the 2012 high school football players' rape case in Stuebenville, Ohio. Three boys who witnessed the rape (and did nothing to stop it) were granted immunity from prosecution, but the man who notified the world of the rape, is facing 16 years in prison. This is not the way the world was supposed to work. I do not condone vigilantism. We are a country of laws. However, our Justice system allows for leniency when warranted, and this is a case where a pardon is more than appropriate.

Wendy Reed is the progressive Democrat taking on Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy in the Bakersfield area. Her instincts are just right even if she hasn't immersed herself in this case. "I am happy to stand with whistleblowers and patriots who do for American democracy what journalists used to do" she told us a few moments ago. "With what little I know about the Snowden situation, I do support clemency."

Ray Metcalfe is the most recently endorsed Blue America candidate. He's running for the Alaska Senate seat currently occupied by Lisa Murkowski and he has very strong feelings about the Ed Snowden controversy. "Personally I consider Edward Snowden to be a hero," he told us yesterday, "and, according to polling information published in the Christian Science Monitor, 60 percent of Americans age 18 to 29, agree. I believe the law should protect, not prosecute, those who expose criminal activity in our government; unfortunately it does not. Prosecuting someone thought to be a hero by so many would be extremely divisive among Americans. Oliver North got off on technicalities after lying to Congress about the Reagan Administration's cocaine smuggling to fund the Contra rebels, and years later, six of his coconspirators were pardoned. Now President Obama wants to prosecute Snowden for telling the truth. What's wrong with this picture? The practice of classifying information is thought to be done to keep information from the enemy. Unfortunately it has all too often become a tool for keeping Americans from knowing what their government is doing. If elected, I will advocate for whistle blower protections and restrictions for what purposes information can and cannot be classified."

Another was San Antonio's Tom Wakely, a candidate in TX-21. An army veteran, his thoughts on Snowden explains why he has so much enthusiasm for his campaign in Austin and San Antonio. "Tones of politicians and journalists," he wrote, "like to wax poetic on their personal interpretations or strict adherence to our Constitution. However, in the wake of what Edward Snowden revealed to the world, we aren't having a proper discussion about the 4th Amendment. Warrantless data espionage should be a huge issue not just for politicians and journalists, but for every person on the planet. All too often you hear the argument from the public that they likely have nothing to hide, and subsequently don't care. Would that argument apply to physical frisks whenever authorities felt like it? Would the same argument apply to authorities keeping a physical eye on you at all times? I'm willing to bet for most folks that they'd feel extremely uncomfortable. Now the Washington Post is calling for their own source to not be pardoned. What a dangerous precedent this sets. 'Thanks for the scoop on unconstitutional searches, good luck in jail.' Is this really what journalists want? I can't imagine all the reporters of the Washington Post agreeing with this sentiment. There are a lot of questions regarding Snowden's decisions in the aftermath of these leaks, but I'd be willing to bet he'd cooperate and be able to answer all of them if our government granted him the ability to return home. I liken Snowden to Daniel Ellsberg, who changed my views on the Vietnam War and allowed me to become part of the Veterans for Peace movement. Our government is supposed to be for the people. Edward Snowden proved that in the online realm, the government is skeptical of the people. Snowden acted for the people. We should bring him home with a pardon."

If you're already a DWT reader, you already know Tom Wakely and Wendy Reed. Ray Metcalfe is a former Alaska state legislator renowned for anti-corruption crusades in his state and Kerith is a biker and an attorney and you can help them all win their races by contributing at the Blue America thermometer below:

UPDATE: Grayson

Grayson was overseas when the Intelligence Committee sent their letter to Obama urging him to not pardon Ed Snowden. When he got back, he told me that "President Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive 19 for the specific (and much needed) purpose of protecting whistleblowers in the so-called 'intelligence community.' To say that anyone could be prosecuted for such whistleblowing-- in a secret trial, no less-- makes a mockery of that directive. Why even pretend that we protect whistleblowers, when in fact the military-intelligence complex gnaws at their bones mercilessly?"

Mainstream Conservative Richard Hanna (R-NY) Spills The Beans On GOP Benghazi Hypocrisy

When New York lost two House seats after the 2010 census, the 24th CD morphed into a slightly redder 22nd CD that includes not just Utica and Rome, but also Binghamton way down south, which used to be part of Maurice Hinchey's very blue district. In 2010 Republican multimillionaire Richard Hanna ran-- for a second time-- against cowardly freshman Blue Dog Richard Arcuri, who lost much of the district's progressive base by voting against the Affordable Care Act and obsessively carrying water for Wall Street. Hanna, a mainstream Republican and Lebanese-American, ran to Arcuri's left on several issues (Hanna was anti-TARP, pro-LGBT, pro-Choice) and exploited Arcuri's ugly Islamophobia. He beat Arcuri in 8 of the district's 11 counties (including populous Oneida, Herkimer and Broome counties), winning 53-47% in a district that saw 49-49% ties for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Last year Hanna beat Democrat Dan Lamb 61-39%.

Wednesday night the above sound clip from an interview Hanna has just done with WIBX radio host Bill Keeler began circulating. Eventually it will wind up as evidence in Alan Grayson's ethics complaint against Trey Gowdy and Kevin McCarthy for their roles in using taxpayer dollars to conduct a partisan witch hunt. The entire interview with Hanna is worth listening to since he;'s one of the only even remotely rational Republicans left in Congress. But the evidentiary part is towards the end of the recording (around 9:40):

Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth. This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people, an individual, Hillary Clinton... This has been the longest investigation-- longer than Watergate... you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.

He then went on to predict he and other mainstream Republicans would work with the Democrats to prevent GOP extremists from shutting down the government, which he called "an unmitigated crime against this country." This all infuriated Wisconsin neo-fascist Ron Johnson, a senator about to lose his seat to Russ Feingold, who immediately attacked Hanna on CNN and called his statement on the Benghazi Committee, "is opinion; I don't share that opinion. Johnson, a vicious Ayn Rand devotee, is obsessed with Hillary Clinton's e-mails and vows to keep the controversy going no matter what happens in Trey Gowdy's compromised faux-investigation.

Clinton is due to testify before this partisan witch hunt in less than a week. It's outrageous that the committee hasn't disbanded by now and apologized to the American people for wasting at least $4 million in taxpayer money. As Steve Benen, put it at the MaddowBlog, "The Benghazi Committee isn’t investigating a scandal. The Benghazi Committee is the scandal... Given the circumstances, it’s not unreasonable to think there should be an independent investigation into the Republican’s Benghazi Committee itself in order to uncover why it was formed, why its redundant work was deemed necessary, how it spent millions of taxpayer dollars, why the probe has been dragged out for so long, and whether the panel violated ethics laws by using official resources for partisan political purposes. Clinton’s testimony will no doubt receive a bright spotlight next week, but testimony from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and other GOP leaders would probably shed more light on the ongoing controversy."

Or, in the immortal words of Kevin Drum, "Republicans have screwed the pooch on Benghazi. The press can only play along with their faux investigation as long as they maintain plausible deniability about its partisan goals. But now we have (a) Kevin McCarthy spilling the beans, (b) news reports that John Boehner wanted to use the committee to attack Hillary, (c) Richard Hanna agreeing that it was mostly a partisan witch hunt, and (d) no less than the New York Times reporting that the committee has all but given up on Benghazi in favor of holding hearings on Hillary's email server. We knew all along there was a man behind the curtain, but now he's actually been exposed. It's getting harder and harder to play along with the charade."

This 62 seconds earned Bernie Sanders almost $3 million in small contributions immediately after the debate. (It infuriated Donald Trump though, who is now busy attacking Bernie.) Americans are getting sick and tired of this GOP hyper-partisanship and irresponsible use of public funds.