The UpTake >> *Top Stories

The UpTake Ruins Al Franken's Vacation

Movie: http://UpTake-Editorial.groups.theuptake.org/rss/videogalleryView/id/2192/
Description:

Senator-Elect Al Franken thanks The UpTake for its coverage of the recount and election trial. Franken talks about how his campaign staff insisted that he take a vacation the first week of the trial and how he spent his vacation watching The UpTake.

Franken talks about health care, the late Senator Paul Wellstone and the logistics for his swearing in next week. Franken has two words of advice for any DFL candidate who may possibly end up running against Norm Coleman for Governor: "call me."

Related Coverage:

Minnesota Independent story about this interview

Clean Energy Results

Movie: http://UpTake-Editorial.groups.theuptake.org/rss/videogalleryView/id/2191/
Description:

President Obama meets with a group of innovative energy leaders to discuss job creation and long-term plans for strengthening the industry which will play a key role in America’s economic future. CEOs from both small and large energy companies share their own ideas about how to increase productivity through innovation and technology.

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. I just held a meeting with the CEOs of some of the most innovative energy companies in America to talk about growth and progress of a sector that represents a big piece of America's economic future. As our economy adapts to the challenges of a new century, new ways of producing and saving and distributing energy offer a unique opportunity to create millions of jobs for the American people.

And obviously, this is a timely discussion, on a day of sobering news. The job figures released this morning show that we lost 467,000 jobs last month. And while the average loss of about 400,000 jobs per month this quarter is less devastating than the 700,000 per month that we lost in the previous quarter, and while there are continuing signs that the recession is slowing, obviously this is little comfort to all those Americans who've lost their jobs.

We've taken some extraordinary measures to blunt the hard edges of the worst recession of our lifetime, and to offer assistance to those who've borne the brunt of this economic storm. But as I've said from the moment that I walked into the door of this White House, it took years for us to get into this mess, and it will take us more than a few months to turn it around.

That's why the discussion that we had today is so important. It's men and women like these who will help lead us out of this recession and into a better future. My job -- and our job as a government -- is to do whatever we can to unleash the great, generative powers of the American economy by encouraging their efforts.

And I'm absolutely confident that we can, at this period of difficulty, prove once again what this nation can achieve when challenged. And I'm confident that we're not only going to recover from this recession in the short term, but we're going to prosper in the long term. To do that, we have to act now to build a new foundation for lasting growth. And energy is one of the pillars of this new foundation, essential both to our recovery and our long-term prosperity.

I'm pleased to say that we've achieved more in the past few months to create a new clean energy economy than we had achieved in many decades before. The recovery plan will double our country's supply of renewable energy, and is already creating new clean energy jobs. Thanks to a remarkable partnership between automakers, autoworkers, environmental advocates, and states, we also set in motion a new national policy to increase gas mileage and decrease carbon pollution for all new cars and trucks sold in this country, which is going to save us 1.8 billion barrels of oil.

And last Friday, the House of Representatives passed an extraordinary piece of legislation that would make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America. It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will prevent the worst consequences of climate change. And above all, it holds the promise of millions of new jobs -- jobs, by the way, that can't be outsourced.

The CEOs standing behind me know a lot about these kinds of companies. These are folks whose companies are helping to lead the transformation towards a clean energy future. Even as we face tough economic times, even as we continue to lose jobs, the CEOs here told me that they're looking to hire new people, in some cases to double or even triple in size over the next few years. They are making money and they are helping their customers save money on the energy front.

So these companies are vivid examples of the kind of future we can create, but it's now up to the Senate to continue the work that was begun in the House to forge this more prosperous future. We're going to need to set aside the posturing and the politics -- and when we put aside the old ideological debates, then our choice is clear. It's a choice between slow decline and renewed prosperity. It's a choice between the past and the future.

The American people I believe want us to make the right choice, and I'm confident that the Senate will. For at every juncture in our history, we've chosen to seize big opportunities -- rather than fear big challenges. We've chosen to take responsibility. We've chosen to honor the sacrifices of those who came before us -- and fulfill our obligations to generations to come. That's what we're going to do this time, as well.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Q Mr. President, do you have a message for the small businesses on health and economy?

THE PRESIDENT: The message for small businesses is many of these businesses started as small businesses and they're now getting to be big businesses because of the extraordinary opportunities that are out there.

Another message is that they should probably contact some of these CEOs because it turns out they can save small businesses and large businesses alike up to 20 or 30 percent on their energy usage.

And when you hear the innovation that's taking place -- everything from LED lighting that can save a huge amount on energy costs to new concrete materials that last longer and are waterproofed from the inside out, and that can mean that bridges and roads and buildings can last 20 or 30 years longer than using conventional concrete; when you look at what's being done with solar energy right now in places like Houston and Florida; and the fact that many of these companies are exporting their goods and their services, but unfortunately, their biggest markets right now are Europe and Japan because we haven't done enough to emphasize clean energy in our own country -- that gets you excited about the future.

And one of the things that I've consistently talked about since I took office, and on a day where we see that our economy is still having a tough time getting moving, is we're going to have to shoot for the future and not look backwards.

So much of the debate around health care, so much of the debate around energy, has been based on this idea that somehow if we stand still and we don't do anything that we're going to be better off. And that's just not how this world works. It's certainly not how the modern economy works. We know we're going to have to change how we use energy.

We know we're going to have to change how we operate our health care systems. We know that we're going to have to change how we train our young people to compete in this new global economy. And so to make the argument that somehow we should just lock in on the status quo or perpetuate the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place, and that that somehow is going to solve our problems, just doesn't make any sense.

And what these folks are all about is the future, and that's what America has always been about. We are not folks who are scared of the future or look backwards. We always meet the challenges by moving forward. And that's what I think is going to happen this time, as well.

Thanks, guys.

Q Mr. President, when are you going to get solar panels and a wind turbine at the White House, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I was just talking to Secretary Chu about how he is going to consult with these outstanding folks to figure out how we can improve energy efficiency here.

Q When will that happen, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: I just told you -- we're moving. Come on, guys. (Laughter.) I don't have a date certain.

Tom Rukavina, Running for Governor?

Movie: http://UpTake-Editorial.groups.theuptake.org/rss/videogalleryView/id/2190/
Description:

By Grace Kelly

While Tom Rukavina has not formerly declared, Tom spoke in the time sent aside for candidates for governor at a Minnesota DFL central committee meeting. Tom Rukavina is a DFL Representative to the Minnesota State House from Virginia. This a country of wide open spaces with many bars, a drinking culture. So it will probably not surprise you to find out that Tom Rukavina was driving erratically and was therefore cited for a fourth-degree DUI in 2004. Tom Rukavina totally cooperated with the Sheriff. In the next election, Tom Rukavina won by a higher percentage than before. Minnesota Brown described Tom this way:

State Rep. Tom Rukavina is one of the great characters of the Iron Range. I mean great in that he personifies our unusual culture rather well and that his heart is usually in the right place, too. (Minnesota Brown)

Tom Rukavina can champion surprising populist causes. Tom championed into law the requirement that alcohol be available to all legal-age buyers at the new TCF Bank Stadium at the University of Minnesota or that no alcohol at all be available. Previously, the U of M’s plan was just to offer alcohol in the premium seats.

“There was an overwhelming feeling in the Legislature that what the Board of Regents did was elitist,” Rukavina said. “If you can afford to sit in the premium seats, you can drink chardonnay, and if you sit in the cheap seats, you get water or pop … We didn’t think that was right.” (Uwire)

Tom Rukavina has Ventura like appeal that captures many media stories.

Obama Answers Questions On Health Care

Movie: http://UpTake-Editorial.groups.theuptake.org/rss/videogalleryView/id/2189/
Description:

Northern Virginia Community College
Annandale, Virginia

TRANSCRIPT
THE PRESIDENT: Good to see you guys. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you, Northern Virginia. Thank you very much. What a wonderful welcome. And I'm so grateful to all of you for taking the time to be here.

A couple of quick acknowledgments. First of all, I want to thank President Templin and Chancellor DuBois for their wonderful hospitality. We are grateful to both of them.

We've got some extraordinary elected officials -- a few that I want to mention. First of all, you've got one of the finest governors in the country, who also is doing a great job as DNC chair. Please give Tim Kaine a big round of applause. (Applause.) Part of the reason Tim is such a good governor is because he took notes while being lieutenant governor to the former governor and now senator for the state of Virginia, an outstanding public servant, Mark Warner. (Applause.) And three outstanding members of Congress: Bobby Scott, Jim Moran, and Gerry Connolly -- thank you so much, guys, for the great job you do every day. (Applause.)

So I know there's all kinds of stuff Valerie was explaining. Don't worry, she's in charge, so she'll organize us. I just want to give a few remarks at the outset, and then we'll save most of the time for questions.

First of all, it's wonderful to be here in Annandale, and I'm looking forward to answering questions about what is obviously one of the most important issues facing American families, American businesses, and the American government. But before I begin, I just want to say a few words about where we are as a nation and where we need to go.

We're living through extraordinary times -- I don't need to tell you. This generation of Americans -- our generation -- has been called to confront challenges of a magnitude that we have not seen in decades, perhaps unlike anything we've seen in recent history -- challenges that few generations of Americans are asked to face. In addition to the immediate threats that we face -- we've got two wars going on and a very deep recession -- our economy has also been weakened by problems that have plagued us for decades: the crushing cost of health care, the state of our schools, our continuing dependence on foreign oil.

Now, I know there are some who say we can't tackle all of these problems; it's too much; Congress can't handle it; the President is juggling too many things; my administration is taking on too much too soon; we're moving too fast.

What I say is that America has waited long enough for action on these issues. It's not too soon to fix our schools when we know that if our children are not prepared they are not going to compete in the 21st century. It's not too soon to wean ourselves off of dirty sources of energy so that we can grab hold of a clean energy future. We've been talking about clean energy since Richard Nixon. And it's time for us to act. And I congratulate, by the way, the House of Representatives for beginning action this past week on a historic clean energy bill.

It's also not too soon to reform our health care system, which we've been talking about since Teddy Roosevelt was President.

We are at a defining moment for this nation. If we act now, then we can rebuild our economy in a way that makes it strong, competitive, sustainable and prosperous once more. We can lead this century the same way that we led the last century. But if we don't act, if we let this moment pass, we could see this economy just sputter along for decades -- a slow, steady decline in which the chances for our children and our grandchildren are fewer than the opportunities that were given to us. And that's contrary to the history of America. One of our core ideas has always been that we leave the next generation better off than us. And that's why we have to act right now.

I know that people say the costs of fixing our problems are great -- and in some cases, they are. The costs of inaction, of not doing anything, are even greater. They're unacceptable. And that's why this town hall and this debate that we're having around health care is so important.

     Let me just give a few statistics. Many of you already know these. In the last nine years, premiums have risen three times faster than wages for the average family. I don't need to tell you this because you've seen it in your own lives. Even if you've got health insurance -- and 46 million people don't -- if you've got health insurance, you have seen your costs double. They've gone up three times faster than wages. If we do nothing, then those costs are just going to keep on going higher and higher.

     In recent years, over one-third of small businesses have reduced benefits and many have dropped coverage altogether since the early '90s -- not because small business owners don't want to provide benefits to their workers, but they just simply can't afford it; they don't have the money. If we don't act, that means that more people are going to lose coverage and more people are going to lose their jobs because those businesses are not going to be competitive.

     Unless we act, within a decade, one out of every $5 we earn will be spent on health care. And for those who rightly worry about deficits, the amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends today on everything else combined -- everything else combined.

     The Congressional Budget Office just did a study that showed that when you look at the rising costs of entitlement, 90 percent of it is Medicare and Medicaid -- it's not Social Security -- 90 percent of it comes from the federal share of health care costs. So if we want to control our deficits, the only way for us to do it is to control health care costs.

Now, those are all abstractions, those are numbers. But many of you know that this translates into pain and heartache in a very personal way for families all across America. I know because during the two years that I campaigned for President every town hall meeting I had, people would raise horrible stories about their experiences in the medical system. And now that I'm President, I'm hearing those same stories. I get 10 letters a day -- out of the 40,000 or so that the White House receives, my staff selects 10 for me to read every single day. And at least half of them relate to a story about somebody who has been denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, or somebody who finds out that what they thought was going to be a $500 bill ends up being a $25,000 bill.

I was at a town hall meeting in Green Bay, Wisconsin, met a young woman, 36 years old, has breast cancer that's metastasized. She's got two small children. Her and her husband are both employed, both have health insurance, and yet she still has $50,000 worth of debt. And all she's thinking about right now is, instead of thinking about how to get well, she's thinking, if I don't survive this, my main legacy to my children may be another $50,000 worth of debt.

Everybody here knows stories like that. Some of you have experienced them personally. So this is a problem that we can't wait to fix. It's not something that we're going to keep on putting off indefinitely. This is about who we are as a country. And that's why we are going to pass health care reform -- not 10 years from now, not five years from now; we are going to pass it this year. (Applause.) That is my commitment. We're going to get it done. (Applause.)

Now, we've already started to see some progress in Washington. Those who said we couldn't do it, they're already being surprised, because as a consequence of us pushing, suddenly the drug companies and the insurance companies and the hospitals, all of them are starting to realize this train is leaving the station, we better get on board.

So just a few weeks ago, the pharmaceutical industry agreed to $80 billion in spending reductions that we can use to close the so-called "doughnut hole." Some of you know what the "doughnut hole" is, right, where senior citizens who are on the prescription drug plan under Medicaid, they get their drugs reimbursed up to a certain point, and then suddenly there's a gap until it reaches thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs.

And so we've struck a deal with the drug companies; they're willing to cut those costs for seniors in half. Already we're seeing that when we put pressure to reform the system, then these industries are going to have to respond. Last month, doctors and hospitals, labor and business, insurers and drug companies all came together and agreed to decrease the annual rate of health care growth by 1.5 percent -- that would translate into $2 trillion or more of savings over the next decade. And that would mean lower costs for everybody, for ordinary families.

     In the past two weeks, the committee in the Senate, led by Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd, have made tremendous progress on a plan to hold down costs, improve patient care, and ensure that you won't lose your coverage even if you lose your job, or if you change your job, or you've got a preexisting medical condition.

     But now we need to finish the job. There's no doubt that we have to preserve what's best in the health care system, and that means allowing Americans who like their doctor and their health care plan to keep their plan. And that's going to be a priority for us. (Applause.) But we also have to fix what's broken about the system, and that means permanently bringing down costs and giving more choice for everyone.

     And to do this, we've got to do a couple of things. We have to build on the investments that we've made in electronic medical records. We already made those investments in the Recovery Act -- because when everything is digitalized, all your records -- your privacy is protected, but all your records on a digital form -- that reduces medical errors. It means that nurses don't have to read the scrawl of doctors when they are trying to figure out what treatments to apply. That saves lives; that saves money; and it will still ensure privacy.

     We need to invest in prevention and wellness that help Americans live longer, healthier lives. We know this saves money. If we can help somebody control obesity, they are less likely to get diabetes. And if they are less likely to get diabetes that means that we are going to be saving a whole lot of money in hospital costs.

     The biggest thing we can do to hold down costs is to change the incentives of the health care system that automatically equates expensive care with good care. Now, this is an important concept, so I want everybody to really focus on this. We are -- we've been under the illusion that the more health care we get, the healthier we become. And it turns out that every study shows that the question is, are you getting the right care, are you getting the best care, the high-quality care, rather than are you having a whole bunch of tests ordered that are unnecessary, getting a bunch of treatments that are unnecessary, staying in hospitals longer than may be necessary -- all of which drives up your costs, but doesn't make you better.

     We have to ask ourselves why there are places like Geisinger Health Care Systems in rural Pennsylvania, or Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, that offer high-quality health care at costs that are well below average, in some cases 30 percent lower than in other communities. If they can do it, there's no reason why all of America shouldn't do that. We've got to identify the best practices across the country; we've got to learn from those successes, and then we've got to replicate those successes elsewhere.

And we should change the warped incentives that reward doctors and hospitals based on how many tests or procedures they prescribe, even if those tests and procedures aren't shown to actually make people better, or if they result in medical mistakes. Doctors across this country did not get into the profession just to be bean-counters or paper-pushers, but more and more time that doctors should be spending with patients are spent on administration and worrying how do they deal with how they're reimbursed. We've got to create a simplified, more effective system where they are reimbursed for quality care, as opposed to having to distort their practices in ways that don't actually make their patients better.

It's also time to provide Americans who can't afford health insurance with more affordable options. I believe this is a moral imperative and it is an economic imperative. (Applause.) It's a moral imperative because in a country as wealthy as ours, if people are working and holding up their responsibilities, they shouldn't be bankrupted just because they get sick. On the other hand, it's an economic imperative because every single one of us who do have health insurance, our families, on average, are paying an extra $1,000 in premiums for uncompensated care.

Hospitals and doctors are adding those costs to your premiums -- insurance companies are adding those costs to your premiums, even if you don't know it. And if we can get a system in which people are getting regular checkups, mammograms, all the things that we know prevent disease from occurring over the long term, or at least allow us to catch those diseases early, that's going to allow us to drive down costs for everybody.

So what we have been working on is the creation of something called the Health Insurance Exchange. And this is going to be a marketplace which would allow you to one-stop-shop for health care plans and compare benefits and prices in simple, easy-to- understand language, and then choose the best plan for you. None of these plans would be able to deny coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition. All of them would include an affordable, basic benefit package. If you couldn't afford these plans, then we could provide you a little bit of help so that you can afford these plans.

I also strongly believe that one of the options in the exchange should be a public option, in order for us to create some competition for the private insurers to keep them honest. If they are in fact giving good service and providing high-quality coverage, then that's where people will want to go. But there should be a benchmark there of a public plan, non-for-profit plan, that keeps administrative costs low and is focused on providing good service. And that way you can make the decision which deal is going to be better for you and your family.

Now, I know one of the biggest questions on everybody's mind is how do we pay for all this, how do we finance reform? And I have made a commitment, because our deficit is a genuine problem, that whatever we do we have to pay for it. This can't add to our deficits. It's got to be deficit-neutral over the next 10 years.

Here's the good news: About two-thirds of the costs of the reforms that we are proposing will come from reallocating money that is already being spent in the health care system but isn’t being spent wisely. So it doesn’t involve more spending; it just involves smarter spending. A lot of the money that's being spent in the health care system right now adds nothing to the quality of patient care.

And I'll just give you one example. We spend right now about -- over the next 10 years, we will spend $177 billion -- $177 billion over the next decade -- in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies under something called Medicaid Advantage -- Medicare Advantage. Now, this does not make seniors healthier. People who are signed up for this private insurance subsidized program don't get any better care than those who aren’t. The subsidies don't go to the patients; they go to the insurance companies. Now, think if we took that $177 billion and helped families so that they could have insurance, and that we could have preventive care.

So about two-thirds of the cost of the reform we're proposing is just reallocating money that's already in the system you, the taxpayers, are already paying for.

Now, one-third of it we're going to have to pay for by increased revenues. And what I've proposed is, is that if we capped the itemized deductions that very wealthy people do -- the top 2 percent use on their income tax -- so that they're getting the same tax breaks as everybody else, as opposed to getting higher tax breaks because they've got a bigger house, then we can pay for the rest of reform.

We've already identified $950 billion over 10 years -- a little less than $100 billion a year -- in order to pay for reform; two-thirds of it reallocating money, one-third of it with increased revenues. That's a sensible investment for us to make in solving an intractable problem that has been dragging down family finances, businesses, and the federal government for far too long.

Now, keep in mind, by the way, what we've identified as paying for the system, that doesn’t even include the savings that we're going to get from prevention, or the savings that we're going to get from health IT -- because in using congressional jargon, which I'm never supposed to do because nobody understands it -- it's not scorable. And what that means is, is that the Congressional Budget Office can't identify exactly how much you would save -- even though everybody believes that it will end up saving a lot of money, we can't put a hard number on it.

So we will get additional savings that will drive down costs. In the meantime, the costs of reform will be paid for with hard dollars that we've identified.

So here's the bottom line. Now we're going to -- I'm almost done here, but this is a big, complicated topic, so I hope you forgive me. We're starting to make progress on Capitol Hill. We're identifying ways not only to reform the system, to make it smarter and more efficient, more user-friendly, better for American families, but also ways to pay for it in a way that doesn’t bloat our deficit.

But the hardest part is yet to come -- because everybody here knows that the easiest thing to do when you're looking at big policy questions like health care is just to be saying it can't be done. And the naysayers are already starting to line up and finding every excuse and scare tactic in the book for why reform is not going to happen. This is going on as we speak. And what I say to these critics is, well, what's your alternative? Is your alternative just to stand pat and keep on watching more and more families lose their health care, more and more families with higher out-of-pocket costs for less insurance; businesses who are not able to compete internationally; a Medicare and a Medicaid system that is run amok? Is that your alternative?

What do you say to all those families who can't pay their medical bills? What do we tell those businesses that are having to choose between closing their doors or eliminating benefits for their workers? What do you say to every taxpayer whose dollars are propping up a system that doesn’t work and that's driving us into debt?

This isn't just about those Americans without health care. It's about every American -- because if we do not act to bring down costs, everybody's health care will be in jeopardy. If you lose your job, or if you've got a preexisting condition, you don't know that your family is going to be secure. All of us are in this together.

So when it comes to energy, when it comes to improving our schools, and when it comes to health care, I don't accept the status quo. And you shouldn’t either. And I don't think that the American people want to just stand pat. They know that change isn’t easy. They know there are going to be setbacks and false starts. But they also know this -- that we're in one of those rare moments where everybody is ready to move into the future. We just can't be scared. We've got to stop clinging to a broken system that doesn’t work, and we've got to have the courage to reach out for a future that's going to be better for our children and our grandchildren.

I believe we can accomplish it this year. But in order to make it happen, I'm going to need ordinary Americans to stand up and say, "Now is the time." You are what are going to drive this process forward -- because if Congress thinks that the American people don't want to see change, frankly, the lobbyists and the special interests will end up winning the day. But when the American people decide that something needs to happen, nothing can stop us.

So I hope you'll join me. Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.)

Thank you. Now, all right. Now, if I'm not mistaken, the way this is going to work -- Valerie, you are going to be in charge of directing -- you're traffic cop.

MS. JARRETT: I'm going to be in charge. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

So in my opening remarks, Mr. President, I mentioned that when you released your YouTube video over the weekend, we received literally hundreds of video questions from all across the country. Your staff looked through all those questions and have selected a cross-section that represents a broad cross-section of the kinds of questions that came up.

I want to emphasize that the President has not seen the questions ahead of time. (Laughter.) Absolutely not.

And so we're going to begin with a video question, Mr. President, if you look at the screen.

THE PRESIDENT: All right.

     VIDEO Q   Hi, my name is Steve White. I'm in Spring Valley, New York. And my question for the President is: Why are we considering a health care plan which maintains the private insurance companies with their high overhead costs, instead of a single-payer plan, which would eliminate the high overhead costs, saving the American taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars, while covering everyone in our country? Thank you.

     THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Well, it's a terrific question. I'm not sure if everybody could hear it, but the gist of the question is, why have we not been looking at a single-payer plan as the way to go?

     As many of you know, in many countries, most industrialized advanced countries, they have some version of what's called a single-payer plan. And what that means is essentially that the government is the insurer. The government may not necessarily hire the doctors or the hospitals -- a lot of those may still be privately operated -- but the government is the insurer for everybody. And Medicare is actually a single-payer plan that we have in place, but we only have it in place for our older Americans.

     Now, in a lot of those countries, a single-payer plan works pretty well and you eliminate, as Scott, I think it was, said, you eliminate private insurers, you don't have the administrative costs and the bureaucracy and so forth.

     Here's the problem, is that the way our health care system evolved in the United States, it evolved based on employers providing health insurance to their employees through private insurers. And so that's still the way that the vast majority of you get your insurance. And for us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive. And my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free market system.

     I think that we can regulate the insurance companies effectively; make sure that they're not playing games with people because of preexisting conditions; that they're not charging wildly different rates to people based on where they live or what their age is; that they're not dropping people for coverage unnecessarily; that we have a public option that's available to provide competition and choice to the American people, and to keep the insurers honest; and that we can provide a system in which we are, over the long term, driving down administrative costs, and making sure that people are getting the best possible care at a lower price.

     But I recognize that there are lot of people who are passionate -- they look at France or some of these other systems and they say, well, why can't we just do that? Well, the answer is, is that this is one-sixth of our economy, and we're not suddenly just going to completely upend the system. We want to build on what works about the system and fix what's broken about the system. And that's what I think Congress is committed to doing, and I'm committed to working with them to make it happen. Okay?

     MS. JARRETT: Now, how about a question from the audience.

     THE PRESIDENT: All right.

     MS. JARRETT: Please, show of hands.

     THE PRESIDENT: What I always do here is I go girl, boy, girl, boy, so that I don't get into trouble here. (Laughter.)   All right, this young lady right here -- since somebody was pointing at you, so I figured -- do we have a microphone for folks in the audience, so that everybody can hear the question? Okay. I think there's somebody coming from this direction. You can just hand her the mic.

     Q    Good afternoon, Mr. President. I'll try not to cry. I'm trying to figure out what I can do currently. My situation is I had renal cell carcinoma in '98 that was radiated, because my dad was dying of colon cancer at the time, and I was his health care server on his living will, so I could not be tied up having my kidney removed. So they did radiation procedures to kill the tumor then. And I had insurance and everything was taken out.

     But basically because of the damage that the radiation did in things, I'm no longer able to work and I have no health insurance. Now I have a new tumor. I have no way to pay for it. Doctors will not see you without paying $100 or $150 to come into their office. I can get checked into a hospital -- under their program, they will run tests and release me, but that costs a lot of money.

     So currently I basically -- Social Security will not give me disability because renal failure is no longer a qualifying factor under Social Security currently. I cannot get Medicaid from the state of Virginia because you have to be considered disabled through Social Security to qualify for Medicaid in the state of Virginia because I have no dependent children at home -- it's just me. I get food stamps, but that's it. And I'm just trying to figure out how I'm going to make it in nine years until I'm qualified to get my regular Social Security -- now that I have a new tumor and I have nowhere to turn.

     THE PRESIDENT: Well, here, come on over here. First of all, we're going to find out what -- we'll get your information and we'll see what we can do to help you. I don't want you to feel all -- like you're alone. (Applause.)

     You know, without knowing all the details I'm not going to give you an answer right now about exactly how we can help. We're going to find out what we can do within existing law. But -- what was your name again?

     Q    My name is Debbie.

     THE PRESIDENT: Debbie. Debbie is a perfect example of somebody who we should, in a country this wealthy, be able to provide coverage for her health care problems. And what we don't want is a situation where Debbie gets worse and worse because she's not getting treatment, and then ends up having to go to the emergency room. As I said before, all of you will pay for it anyway; it's just you'll pay for it in terms of a hidden subsidy. And she's not getting the best care, and we're actually paying more than we would have if Debbie right now was getting treated on a regular basis by a physician who knew her history.

     So, Debbie, you are Exhibit A. And we appreciate you sharing your story. We are going to try to find ways to help you immediately. But the long-term problem here is going to be how do we create a system in which Debbie is getting the preventive care that she needs and is able to get regular checkups, is able to get treatment in a way that is much more cost-efficient than the one that we've got right now. And I'm going to make a commitment that we're going to get that done this year.

     All right? (Applause.)

     Q    Sir, July 24th through the 26th, there's a thing in Wise County, Virginia, called RAM Ear and Medical, and that is -- Rural Area Medical is where anybody who needs medical treatment can get free treatment for those three days -- the 24th, 25th, and 26th --

     THE PRESIDENT: The 24th, 25th, and 26th --

     Q    -- of July.

     THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will help advertise that --

     Q    If you would like to showcase why there's a need. I think they treated -- Governor Warner and Kaine can say how long -- but I think it's 7,000 people get treatment there every day of those days that it's free.

     THE PRESIDENT: Which is a wonderful program. But I think, as Senator Warner and Governor Kaine would agree, we can't have a system that's reliant on three days of free care and 362 days in which people don't have health care. That doesn't make any sense.

Debbie, thank you for sharing your story. We appreciate you. Thank you. (Applause.)

     All right.
MS. JARRETT: Thank you, Debbie.

So many of the questions that are put to on the videos, Mr. President, are also very personal. So now we're going to take another from a video.

     (Video is shown.) SMALL CHILD: My mommy and daddy have small businesses and we need health care.

     MOTHER: I actually have to work for a company so that we can get coverage because my older daughter is an automatic decline and we're just too small of a business to be able to absorb the cost. How can health care reform help us?

     THE PRESIDENT: As somebody with two daughters, I'm a sucker for anybody who uses their daughter in their video. (Laughter.) So my staff probably knew that. They figured, well, he's going to be a soft touch after that one.

Small business owners are those who are being, in some cases, hardest hit by the rising cost of health care. And in some cases, they just can't afford to provide health insurance to their employees, and that's frustrating, but they're operating on too small a margin, or they don't have enough employees so they've got no leverage to negotiate with the insurance companies. And so the offers that insurance companies give them for the cost of coverage per person end up being way higher than they would be for big companies that have more consumer power.

In some cases, though, it's gotten so bad that small businesses, they can't even afford to provide health insurance for themselves, small business owners. And a lot of small businesses, a huge percentage of small businesses are sole proprietorships. Maybe it's a family business -- they've got one or two people working for them. And so they're like consultants out there or self-employed individuals -- they just can't get a good deal.

This is an example of where this health care exchange could be so helpful, because by creating a health care exchange, part of what we want to do is to allow small businesses, as well as people who are self-employed, individuals whose companies don't provide coverage, to come to this exchange, take a look at a menu of plans that are available, join one of these plans -- you may qualify for a subsidy from the federal government -- and you then become part of a big pool that gives you some leverage over the drug companies and the insurance companies to drive down costs.

And that's part of the way that health care reform can provide direct savings to American families right now, by giving them more leverage.

Look, I am very pleased that the drug companies decided to cough up $80 billion to help close this "doughnut hole." I have to be honest with you, though: Were it not for the prospect of serious health care reform, I don't think they would have given up that money. That's just my guess. (Applause.) And so these same principles apply when it comes to setting up this health care exchange. If we do it effectively, then not only will families be able to make some very clear choices, and small business owners make some clear choices, about here's the best plan available for us that fits our particular needs, but they're also going to be part of a broader group that can apply some leverage in the system.

And that's essentially what federal health care employees do. Mark Warner has a plan that all members of Congress and federal employees have, and it's not Cadillac care, but it's good, solid, decent care with a range of options. Part of the reason that it is a good program is because there's so many federal employees. Well, we should provide that same kind of leverage for the small business owner who right now is too small on their own to be able to get the best possible deal on the insurance market, and that's what we want to provide in this health care reform package. All right? Good.

MS. JARRETT: All right, I think we're ready to go back to the audience.

THE PRESIDENT: All right, it's a guy's turn now, all right, so, ladies, keep your hands down. (Laughter.) All right, this young man right here.

Q    Thank you. I've been hearing a lot --

THE PRESIDENT: What's your name?

Q    Jason Rosenbaum.

THE PRESIDENT: Hey, Jason. What do you do, Jason?

Q    I work for a group called Health Care for America NOW. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I think he knows something about health care. This is like --

Q    I've been -- obviously I read the news a lot, and I've been hearing a lot about the price tag of health reform and how people are very concerned that it's going to cost a trillion dollars, and we're trying to keep it under a certain number. I'm most concerned about making it affordable, folks like me, the American people. So what do you -- and like you said, you're committed to making this deficit-neutral. So I hope you could talk a little bit about affordability and what your plans are for that.

THE PRESIDENT: Good. Well, look, the first thing that I think is very important for people to do is to understand the costs of doing nothing, because sometimes opponents of health care reform pretend as if we've got this great thing going here and the Obama administration wants to completely upend it just because I don't have enough to do. (Laughter.) And I keep on trying to explain to people, look, I've got a war in Afghanistan; we haven't gotten the troops out of Iraq yet; I've got North Korea and Iran; and H1N1 flu. So if the health care system was really working well, I would be happy to leave it alone.

     So understand where we're at. If we don't do anything, the costs are going to keep on rising. I mean, some employers see their costs going up 8, 9, 10 percent a year. As I said, families have seen their health care costs double over the last nine years. So you just project out nine years from now -- your wages or incomes aren't going up that fast, which means that a bigger, bigger bite is being taken out of your paycheck, even if you've got health insurance. More and more employers are saying in this very competitive atmosphere, we can't afford to do more.

     So what's happened if you've got health insurance? Your employer has basically done what? They've increased deductibles; they've increased premiums. Your out-of-pocket costs have gone up by about 62 percent, and they're just going to keep on rising. And the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, because they track all these other costs, they're going to keep on skyrocketing. So our deficit will be completely out of control.

     Don't let people fool you with this notion that somehow the reason for our deficit has to do with, for example, the Recovery Act. The Recovery Act was designed to make sure that local school districts didn't lay off teachers and firefighters and police officers -- and it's done its job, and it's building the kind of infrastructure that we need to be competitive in the future. But it is a tiny fraction of our long-term deficit projections. Almost all of the long-term deficit projections come from increases in Medicare and Medicaid.

     So the reason I say all this is because the costs are going to be there if we don't do anything. The deficit will grow if we don't do anything. Our debt will grow if we don't do anything. What I'm trying to do is figure out how do we bend the curve of costs so that we're getting more and more efficient care, higher-quality care, at less cost per person? How do we eliminate the $1,000 per family that's coming out of your pocket in subsidized care, uncompensated care at hospitals that's going on right now?

     And if we can do that, then, A, we can cover more people with the savings; and, B, we have more leverage over the insurance companies and the drug companies so that they give a better deal. That's what we're trying to do.

     Now, I do think that we can't add to the deficit; we should find ways to honestly pay for whatever reforms we're proposing. And I already gave you an indication of how we would do it. About two-thirds of it would come from reallocating money that's currently in the system -- taxpayers, you're already paying for it, so this isn't new money coming out of your pocket; this is money that's right now being spent by the federal government but not spent wisely in a way that makes you healthier. That's two-thirds of it.

     One-third of it, because we've got to make some initial investments up front and a lot of the savings -- remember what I told you -- aren't scorable, we're going to have to raise some additional revenue to make sure that people are adequately covered and we're providing some help to families who may have health insurance but are really starting to struggle right now.

     And I think the best way for us to pay for it is, as I said, capping the itemized deductions that people making over $250,000 a year, people like myself -- used to be Valerie was making that, but now she's working for the federal government so -- (laughter) -- she wouldn't be affected by this -- capping those itemized deductions. Then we can raise enough money to pay for a good, high-quality health care reform proposal that will provide health care security for everybody.

     And as I said before, many of you may be satisfied with your health care now. What you've got to do is project, if current trends continue, are you still going to be happy with your health care five years from now? Will you have health care five years from now?

     A lot of people here, if you change jobs right now but you've got a preexisting condition -- and just about anything these days can be called a preexisting condition -- you may have trouble signing up for health care the next time around -- just because you changed a job, set aside the situation where you lose a job.

     One of the things that we did in the Recovery Act was to help people with COBRA. Everybody knows what COBRA is? That's the program that allows you to get health insurance -- to continue your health insurance even when you lose your job. The problem is premiums are so high that most people, when you lose your job, you can't afford it. The last thing you can do is afford suddenly a $1,000 or $1,500 in premiums. So what we did was we subsidized people being able to keep their health insurance longer, cutting those COBRA costs.

I think that was a pretty smart thing to do. That was the right thing to do. But we can't just do that indefinitely. We can't do patchwork, piecemeal fixes through a Recovery Act. What we need is a permanent solution that ensures that when you lose your job or change jobs, you can still have health care; if you're self-employed, you've still got health care.

     Every nation on Earth that is as wealthy as ours is able to do that. And they don't do it perfectly -- that's why I say we've got to find a uniquely American solution -- but don't tell me that we can't get this done. And for those who say, well, you know what, this is something that is very complicated so we shouldn't rush into it -- that's what happens in Congress all the time. They have hearings, they write white papers, and then suddenly the lobbyists and the special interests start going at it, and the next thing you know, another 10 years has gone by and we still haven't done anything.

That's not what's going to happen this time. I am going to keep on pressing until we get it done this year. All right. (Applause.)

     MS. JARRETT: All right, Mr. President. So Macon just slipped me a note, and he said, right now on Facebook and on Twitter, a lot of people are talking about the proposal to tax health care benefits. For example, Rob on Twitter said, "Does it really make sense, Mr. President, to tax me on my health care coverage?"

     THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's -- let me describe for you how this argument has evolved and where I've stood on it in the past and what's being debated in Congress.

     Part of the reason that employers provide health care to most American is because they get a big tax exclusion. They don't pay taxes on -- and you don't pay taxes on the health care benefits that you receive. So it's a huge subsidy that's provided through the tax code for employers to provide you coverage.

     Now, up until, let's say, a generation ago, this worked reasonably well. It's starting to break down because even with the tax exclusion, the cost for employers, just out of pocket, paying the insurers, is getting more and more expensive.

     Some people have said that what we should do is just eliminate this tax exclusion so that the federal government isn't indirectly subsidizing employers providing care, and that we could take that money and then just give everybody a tax break individually and then they could go out and shop for their own health care. This was essentially John McCain's proposal during the campaign. I mean, I want to be fair to it. The idea was, you eliminate the exclusion; the billions of dollars that come back into the Treasury are then given out to each person in the form of a $5,000 or a $7,000 tax credit, and then you go out and you buy your own insurance.

And the thinking is that if you do it that way, then each of you are going to be more discriminating consumers, and you are going to go out and get the best possible deal, and you won't be overusing the health care system. You won't be going to the doctor unnecessarily or taking drugs that you don't really need. And you will be the -- you will essentially engage in self-rationing. That's really the concept behind this idea.

Now, in fairness, the other notion is, is that if you don't have your health care tied to employers, then you're not going to be as worried about losing your health insurance if you change your job because the money follows you as opposed to being with the employer. So that's the concept.

Now, I opposed this during the campaign, and I opposed it for a couple of reasons: Number one, if you completely eliminated the exclusion, there is no doubt that what would happen is, is that a lot of employers would stop providing health care. And so a lot of people who currently get health care through their employers wouldn't be able to get it.

The second thing -- remember what I told you earlier about how if you are on your own shopping for health care you've got no leverage with the insurance company. Well, the problem is, is that if suddenly now you get a tax credit for $5,000 or $7,000, you try to go buy some health insurance for your family, and it costs $14,000, you're a lot worse off than you would have been. You're out of luck. And you've got no leverage; they've got no incentive to give you a lower price because you're on your own.

The other problem is that when you're not part of a pool, the insurance companies have every incentive to make sure that if you are older or you are sicker, that they do not cover you. They want to cover the young, healthy folks like Mark Warner. (Laughter.) That's who they want. But if you're older or sicker, you are more likely to be excluded from coverage, or they really jack up the rates. When you're part of a pool, then the insurers say, well, I guess we'll take the older, sicker folks because we're also getting the younger, healthier folks at the same time.

So, for all those reasons, I opposed the proposal that was put forward, because essentially it would be, for the first time, taxing the health care benefits that are provided by employers.

Now, nobody at this point is -- or not many folks are talking about taxing benefits or completely eliminating the exclusion. What they are calling for now in Congress is to cap the exclusion so that people who have very high-priced health care, at a certain point they can only get a deduction up to a certain point, right? So let's say that the average health care cost for families -- a good health care plan costs $13,000. What they would say is the employer and the employee get an exclusion up to $13,000, but if you get some Cadillac plan that costs $17,000, then what we're going to do is you're going to have to pay taxes on that last $4,000. And the idea that is being debated in Congress right now is, is that a good way to ensure that people don't have these big Cadillac plans but instead have more sensible plans?

     Now, I don't think -- and by the way, that also raises some money. So this has been offered as an alternative way to pay for that extra one-third of health care that we're not able to pay for through simply reallocating money.

     I think the better way to do it remains the proposal I have to cap itemized deductions. I think that is a way that we can ensure that people who currently have health care aren't suddenly seeing the costs go up to pay for other people's costs going down, but instead everybody's costs can go down effectively.

     But this is something that's going to be debated in the House and the Senate. Mark Warner is going to have to weigh in on it. We're all going to have to weigh in on it. My bottom line, though, is that if you've got health insurance right now, you shouldn't suddenly see your costs go up as part of health care reform.

Okay? Good.

     MS. JARRETT: All right, Mr. President, I think we're teed up for another video question.

     THE PRESIDENT: All right.

     VIDEO Q   Mr. President, as a physician, I know the cost of defensive medicine drives medical costs upward. Now, at your health care forum you said that you wanted to find out what works. In my home state of Texas, we know what works, and our Medical Justice Act has done just that.

     Now, unfortunately, you recently told the AMA you were opposed to capping non-economic damages, even though a state like mine has proven that it does work. Now, will you reaffirm your commitment to find out what works and then ask Congress for its implementation?

     THE PRESIDENT: Okay. I want to make sure everybody understands the question here. A lot of doctors have argued -- and in some cases they're justified -- that their costs for medical malpractice insurance, the threat of a lawsuit if something goes wrong with a patient, even if it's not their fault, is so high that not only is it increasing their out-of-pocket cost, but they're also engaging in what's called defensive medicine; that they've got to order five tests when one is enough just to make sure that they're covered so that if something goes wrong that's not their fault later, they can say, look, I did everything possible -- even if a lot of that isn't required.

     And so the argument is if you can cap the pain and suffering or the liability that is awarded as a consequence of you being hurt in the hospital or by a doctor, that that would drive down everybody's costs.

Now, what I've said is that I don't like the idea of an artificial cap on somebody if the doctor or the hospital really was negligent. And in some cases, I've got to tell you, they are. I mean, there are cases where folks leave a sponge in your gut and sew you back up, and after a while you're feeling worse than when you went in. And in some cases, obviously that can cause very severe damage, and I want to make sure that people's pain, suffering, out-of-pocket expenses, that those are covered.
So I don't like the idea of just an artificial cap. I do want to work with doctors to find ways that we can reduce their liabilities where they haven't done anything wrong, where they've performed effectively. I want to see, are there ways that we can reduce the constant threat of lawsuits that doctors and hospitals experience, because I do think that that causes defensive medicine. And so I've committed to working with the AMA to see ways that we can reduce some of these litigation costs and malpractice rates.

One point that I've got to dispute, though, with the gentleman who asked me the question -- he says he's from Texas, and that we've got caps in Texas, and so we've seen what works. Well, the fact is, is that there was just recently an article about a town called McAllen, Texas, where they have the highest health care costs in the country. It's down by the border. And even though they have caps there, in McAllen, Texas, they spend about three times as much per person as -- or not -- they spend about 30 percent more per person than they do in El Paso, Texas, which also is operating under caps. So what that tells me is the problem of rising costs doesn't simply have to do with whether or not liability is capped. What it really has to do with is the incentives that are operating in various communities.

There are some places, like the Mayo Clinic, many of you have heard of, provides outstanding care, some of the best in the world. People fly in from everywhere to go to Mayo Clinic to get treated. Turns out Mayo provides care much more cheaply than a lot of other health systems, even though it's better care. And part of the reason is they do some things that are commonsensical, but unfortunately we don't do in the health care system.

For example, instead of you going to one -- your primary care physician, who has you do a bunch of tests, then refers you to a specialist who has you do a bunch of tests, then maybe you go to a third specialist, another bunch of tests; go to the hospital, they retest you. What they do is, at Mayo Clinic, when you meet with the -- your primary physician, he calls in all the specialists all at the same time, and as a team they evaluate you, do all the tests right there, so you're not duplicating a whole bunch of stuff. And that coordinated care drives down costs tremendously.

     That's the kind of common-sense approach that we're going to have to take. And one of the things that we're going to need to do in the health reform that we're proposing is to incentivize those kinds of smart practices coordinating care, as opposed to what we do right now, which is we just pay you -- the more services you provide, the more we pay you, which gives doctors and hospitals a pretty strong incentive to test you five times instead of one time. I'm not saying they do it consciously, but right now we're preventing them from coordinating in a smart fashion because of the ways that we reimburse. That has to be part of the reform that we initiate.

     All right.

     MS. JARRETT: All right, Mr. President, I'm getting the high sign, so how about one more question from our wonderful audience?

     THE PRESIDENT: One more question from the audience. Let's see. It's a girl's turn, isn't it? I think so. This young lady right here.

     Q    Hi, Mr. President. I'm a member of SEIU and I'm down here in Fairfax County working on Change That Works. What can I do, as a member of the union, to help you with your reform bill?

     THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate the question. The most important thing I think the American people can do right now is to just be informed. Tell your friends, tell your neighbors to get informed about what's happening in the health care system right now. It's very complicated and I don't expect everybody to be an expert, but I want everybody to be well enough informed that the scare tactics of those who would oppose reform don't work.

     So when you hear somebody say this is -- "Obama is proposing a government takeover of health care" -- that's an old argument that's been used for years. I just want to be clear. If you've got a health care plan that you get through your employer or some other private plan, I want you to keep it. I actually think reforming the system is the most likely way for you to keep the health care that you've got. I don't want to take it over. I think it's great that you can keep the care that you've got.

     All I've said is I want to make sure that those things that taxpayers are paying for, that we're getting our money's worth. I don't want to provide $177 billion in subsidies to insurance companies. I don't want to reimburse for five tests when the evidence shows that you just getting one test is going to be better for you because that means that the taxpayers are saving money and I can use that to lower your costs, or to help somebody who doesn't have health care at all.

I do think we should have a public plan to compete with the private plans.   But these private insurance companies, they're always telling me what a great deal that they give to the American consumer; if it's such a great deal, why are they worried about competing against the public plan, especially when they say government can't do anything? (Applause.)

So they'll tell you that we're trying to take over health care. I don't want to take over health care.

They'll tell you that we're going to try to ration the system. We don't want to get between you and your doctor. What we do believe is that if there's good evidence out there that shows that the best way to treat your illness is to give you the blue pill, and instead right now you're getting prescribed the red pill that costs twice as much, I think that you and your doctor, having that information, are probably going to decide to go with the cheaper pill that does just as good of a job, and that will save you money. That's not rationing. That's being sensible.

So whenever you start hearing these arguments about socialized medicine, government takeover, rationing, Canada-style health care, what I need you to do -- and I need everybody here to do and everybody who's watching to do -- is to actually pay attention to the argument, and don't let people scare you out of reforming a system that we know is not working.

America -- one of the great things about this country is we've got a system that's sometimes kind of hard to change. Congress gets kind of bogged down, and part of that is because of the way the Constitution is designed -- it's served us well because it keeps us very stable. We don't have coups and all kinds of governments collapsing all the time. But the disadvantage sometimes is, is that it's hard for us to make big, bold steps. But the great thing about the system is that, every once in a while, when we finally hit a point where things just aren't working at all, we are able to generate the political will to finally get things done.

That's how we got Social Security. After the Great Depression, nobody had any pensions or protection, and people started realizing, we can't have a country where suddenly older Americans are just on the streets, after working hard all their lives. And finally we got Social Security. And then people said, well, we can't have older Americans who don't have any health care, and we got Medicare. At every juncture, when we finally need to make a change, we make a change. This is one of those times.

So don't be scared about the future. Let's embrace the future. Let's go after the future. If we do, then I'm confident that we can create a health care system that gives you choice, allows you to keep your doctor, drives down costs, makes sure that every American doesn't have to worry if they lose or change their jobs. That's our aim. That's our goal. We're going to make it happen this year.

Thank you, everybody. I appreciate you. Thank you. (Applause.)

The UpTake Bids Farewell to Coleman v. Franken via GRITtv

Movie: http://UpTake-Editorial.groups.theuptake.org/rss/videogalleryView/id/2188/
Description:

From our good friends at GRITtv with Laura Flanders comes this interview with UpTake Executive Director Jason Barnett. GRITtv's description is below:

The Al Franken-Norm Coleman Senate race is finally over. After eight months of ballot counting, charges, and counter charges Minnesota's Supreme Court ruled 5-0 declaring Franken the winner. And Coleman conceded evidently deciding not to appeal to the nation's highest court. Through it all no one has followed the story more closely than The UpTake, a patchwork of community groups and organizations committed to making citizen journalism work. We speak to Executive Director Jason Barnett about the Franken decision, how the race was covered, and what The Uptake will be focusing on now that it's over.

This interview was part of GRITtv's July 1st, 2009 show which also included coverage on immigration reform. Watch the entire episode here! If you are interested in watching GRITtv, click here for information on broadcasts in your area.

Reclaiming "Paul's Seat" For All Of Minnesota

Movie: http://UpTake-Editorial.groups.theuptake.org/rss/videogalleryView/id/2187/
Description:

By Noah Kunin, Senior Political Correspondent 7/1/09

On the steps of the Minnesota State Capitol, Senator-Elect Al Franken thanked his staff and all Minnesotans for the 8-month wait for a second Senator. Senator-Elect Franken also pledged to infuse Minnesota values into the upcoming policy debates on everything from climate change to health care reform.

Senator-Elect Franken will be sworn in by the US Senate early next week.

Milestone In Ending Iraq War

Movie: http://UpTake-Editorial.groups.theuptake.org/rss/videogalleryView/id/2185/
Description:

President Obama announced that on Tuesday (June 30, 2009) US Troops turned over all of Iraq's towns and cities to the Iraqi government and security forces.

TRANSCRIPT:

I want to say a few words about an important milestone that we've reached in Iraq. Today, American troops have transferred control of all Iraqi cities and towns to Iraq's government and security forces. (Applause.) This transition was agreed to last year as part of our Status of Forces Agreement with the sovereign Iraqi government. It's a part of our strategy to responsibly end the war by removing all American combat brigades from Iraq by next September, and all of our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

So the Iraqi people are rightly treating this day as a cause for celebration. This is an important step forward, as a sovereign and united Iraq continues to take control of its own destiny. And with this progress comes responsibility. Iraq's future is in the hands of its own people. And Iraq's leaders must now make some hard choices necessary to resolve key political questions, to advance opportunity, and to provide security for their towns and their cities. In this effort, America will be a strong partner to the Iraqi people on behalf of their security and prosperity.

Make no mistake: There will be difficult days ahead. We know that the violence in Iraq will continue -- we see that already in the senseless bombing in Kirkuk earlier today. And there are those who will test Iraq's security forces, and the resolve of the Iraqi people, through more sectarian bombings and the murder of innocent civilians. But I'm confident that those forces will fail. The future belongs to those who build, not those who destroy. And today's transition is further proof that those who have tried to pull Iraq into the abyss of disunion and civil war are on the wrong side of history.

Finally, the very fact that Iraqis are celebrating this day is a testament to the courage, the capability, and commitment of every single American who has served in Iraq. (Applause.) That's worth applause. Through tour after tour of duty, our troops have overcome every obstacle to extend this precious opportunity to the Iraqi people. These women and men are not always in the headlines, but they're in our hearts and prayers, and we will forever honor their selfless service and sacrifice, as well as the service and sacrifice of their families. There is more work to be done, but we've made important progress in supporting a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq. And everyone who has served there, both in uniform as well as our civilians, deserves our thanks.

Legislature Plots To Unallot Gov's Unallotment Powers

Movie: http://UpTake-Editorial.groups.theuptake.org/rss/videogalleryView/id/2184/
Description:

Governor Tim Pawlenty has taken his power to cut budgets "too far" according to Minnesota Speaker of The House Margaret Anderson Kelliher. She made it very clear the legislature will react next session and trim those powers, bringing the 1930s era unallotment law more into line with what other states do.

The Speaker argued with Governor Pawlenty's Finance Commissioner Tom Hansen about who had done what to get Minnesota in such a budget mess. Anderson Kelliher accused Hansen of "trying to rewrite history for everyone in the room" by claiming the legislature had not passed a balanced budget. Hansen also called the way the budget was passed "untransparent".

That statement seems to contradict Governor Pawlenty's own rational for not having any public hearings about his budget cuts, otherwise known as unallotments. The Governor has said public hearings were not needed because the legislature had held many hours of hearings on the budget and all the facts were known.

Trade, Drugs, Murders All Topics For US-Columbia Talks

Movie: http://UpTake-Editorial.groups.theuptake.org/rss/videogalleryView/id/2183/
Description:

President Obama and President Álvaro Uribe Vélez of Colombia talk to the press after meeting in the Oval Office.

Transcript:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I am very pleased to have President Uribe here today with his delegation from Colombia. The relationship between the United States and Colombia has been extremely strong. We've had great cooperation on a whole range of issues, and President Uribe's administration I think has, under very difficult circumstances, performed admirably on a whole range of fronts -- on security, on reducing the influence of the drug cartels, in improving the economic situation for his people, and stabilizing the country. He has performed with diligence and courage. And so we are grateful for his friendship and I'm glad that he was able to come and visit us here today.

In our discussions, we talked about a range of issues. We discussed, most prominently, the interests of both countries in moving forward on a free trade agreement. This is something that has been discussed for quite some time. I have instructed Ambassador Kirk, our United States Trade Representative, to begin working closely with President Uribe's team on how we can proceed on a free trade agreement. There are obvious difficulties involved in the process and there remains work to do, but I'm confident that ultimately we can strike a deal that is good for the people of Colombia and good for the people of the United States.

I commended President Uribe on the progress that has been made in human rights in Colombia and dealing with the killings of labor leaders there, and obviously we've seen a downward trajectory in the deaths of labor unions and we've seen improvements when it comes to prosecution of those who are carrying out these blatant human rights offenses. President Uribe acknowledges that there remains more work to be done, and we look forward to cooperating with him to continue to improve both the rights of organized labor in Colombia and to protect both labor and civil rights leaders there.

Along those same lines, we obviously think that the steps that have already been made on issues like extrajudicial killings and illegal surveillance, that it is important that Colombia pursue a path of rule of law and transparency, and I know that that is something that President Uribe is committed to doing.

We spoke about the regional challenges. The drug trafficking that has been such a cancer in the life of Colombia affects the region as a whole. When I last met with President Calderón of Mexico, he indicated the extraordinary challenges that that country is facing. Mexico and Colombia are not alone in this. Throughout the region in Central and South America, we are seeing this problem. It's important that the United States steps up and cooperates effectively in battling the adverse effects of drug trafficking.

And that includes, by the way, the United States reducing demand for drugs. We have responsibilities. We have responsibilities to reduce the trafficking of guns into the south that help strengthen these cartels and the flows of money and money laundering that at times involves not just the south -- Southern Hemisphere but also the Northern Hemisphere. And so looking for additional ways that we can cooperate on those issues is very important.

Finally, we spoke about the fact that our relationship is much broader than simply our common enemy in the drug traffickers. We want a proactive, positive agenda for human development throughout the region and inside Colombia. And so exploring ways that we can advance clean energy cooperation, how we can advance efforts to improve child nutrition, reduce infant mortality, expand health care to ordinary people -- that is part of what I think President Uribe's comprehensive vision is: that you don't just use military tools to defeat the enemies of progress, but you use a comprehensive approach that includes improvements in rule of law and improvements in people's day-to-day well-being and their opportunities for economic advancement as very powerful weapons to restore order and to ensure that people feel confident in the future.

And so we want to be a partner with Colombia on these issues. I'm grateful, again, for President Uribe's friendship, and I'm confident that we are going to be working diligently in the future to advance the interests of both countries. So, thank you very much.

PRESIDENT URIBE: Thank you.

Q President Obama, can we take a picture with you?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Hold on one second. You know, I just realized there may be Spanish press here and that was a long statement, but if you don't mind I'm going to go ahead and have that translated just so your people can get it. I'm sorry, I should have slowed down; I forgot.

Q President Obama, did you talk something about reelection?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Hold on one second.

(Spanish translation.)

PRESIDENT URIBE: President Obama, I want to express our gratitude again to you, to your Cabinet, and to the United States. Colombia in this alliance with the United States has received a great help for us to confront the challenges our people have suffered for long, long time.

I have said to President Obama that Colombia, since the middle of the '40s, in the last century, has not lived one single day in complete peace. The help of your government is very important for the hope of the new generations of Colombians. Thank you, President Obama.

We have had opportunity to speak about many problems, as President Obama has said. I said to President Obama, I made to him some comments about confidence in Colombia; about security, the advances, the problems we still face; about investment, its relationship with the free trade agreement as a signal to give confidence in Colombia; and about social cohesion, the advances in education, in micro-lending, in health -- the problems we still face, problems in poverty, in income distribution.

And in the case of human rights, Colombia is rule of law in the utmost expression of public opinion participation. We -- I am the first with a duty to support of our armed forces, but for that reason of their honor, every soldier, every policeman in Colombia understands that we need credibility for this policing of democratic security, and credibility depends on effectiveness and on transparency. And transparency is a question of human rights.

Therefore, we are open, we are very receptive, to receive any advice, any suggestion on how we are going to fulfill our goal of ceasing civil violations of human rights in Colombia.

About surveillance, I have said to President Obama that during our administration we have restructured 427 state agencies and we are in the process to restructure the state agency for surveillance. We hope to issues these decrees in the coming three weeks, and we hope that we can solve the endemic problems of these institutions, of this institution for good.

I have said to President Obama about the importance of the help of the United States for us and the region as a whole to advance social cohesion; help directly from the United States or through the multilateral banks. For instance, in education and in child nutrition, we have advanced a lot, but we lack infrastructure; coverage has surpassed infrastructure. In child nutrition, we have advanced a lot, but we lack coverage in education for those under six, not to mention other of our problems. But we have a recognition to advance in security, human rights, state restructure, to advance in economics, to advance in social cohesion, and for all these things it is very important to have the permanent support of President Obama, of the government of the United States, of the Congress of the United States.

My gratitude again, President Obama. And we are waiting for you in Colombia.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you.

Q President Obama, did you talk about the reelection?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Hold on, hold on. We're going to do -- we only have time for two questions. I'm going to call on a U.S. reporter, and then President Uribe, you can make a decision on which one of the Colombian reporters you want to call on.

So, Doug Palmer of Reuters.

Q Right here. Thank you very much. You talked about the FTA, and you also talked about some of the obstacles to getting the FTA through Congress. I wonder, do you have a sense of how close Colombia is to where it needs to be in order for you to send the agreement to Congress? Is that something that can be accomplished this year?

And then I also wondered if you would comment on the coup in Honduras and what additional steps the U.S. might be considering there.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me first of all speak about the coup in Honduras, because this was a topic of conversation between myself and President Uribe.

All of us have great concerns about what's taken place there. President Zelaya was democratically elected. He had not yet completed his term. We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the President of Honduras, the democratically elected President there. In that we have joined all the countries in the region, including Colombia and the Organization of American States.

I think it's -- it would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections. The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Central America and Latin America. We don't want to go back to a dark past. The United States has not always stood as it should with some of these fledgling democracies, but over the last several years, I think both Republicans and Democrats in the United States have recognized that we always want to stand with democracy, even if the results don't always mean that the leaders of those countries are favorable towards the United States. And that is a tradition that we want to continue.

So we are very clear about the fact that President Zelaya is the democratically elected President, and we will work with the regional organizations like OAS and with other international institutions to see if we can resolve this in a peaceful way.

With respect to the free trade agreement, obviously a lot of work has already been done on the free trade agreement, and we are hopeful that we can -- we can move forward to completion. I don't have a strict timetable, because I'm going to have to consult with Congress obviously on this issue. We've got a lot on our plates, if you haven't noticed. And I think that the burden is not simply on Colombia; I think Colombia has done a lot of excellent work. It is a matter of getting both countries to a place where their legislatures feel confident that it will be ultimately to the economic benefit of these countries.

I have noted a special concern that is bipartisan and shared both by this administration and Congress, that the human rights issues in Colombia get resolved. President Uribe has assured me that he is interested in resolving those issues. And, as I said, great progress has been made. I trust that we can make more progress. And I think that will help shape the overall environment in which this issue is being debated in Congress.

Okay? You want to call on --

PRESIDENT URIBE: Entonces, Natalia Orozco.

Q President Obama, President Chavez, it's not a secret, wanted to be reelected; President Zelada [sic] wanted to be reelected; and President Uribe hasn't decided yet. Are you worried about what relation of those leader, and can have effects in the Western Hemisphere? Do you have a message for them?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it's very important that, in all these countries, it's not for the United States to make these decisions. It's for the people of these countries to make these decisions. And one of the clear policies that we want to put forward is that we stand on the side of democracy, sovereignty, and self-determination.

We know that our experience in the United States is that two terms works for us and that after eight years, usually the American people want a change. I related to President Uribe the fact that our most revered President, or at least one of our two most revered Presidents, George Washington, part of what made him so great was not just being a founder of our country, but also the fact that at a time when he could have stayed President for life, he made a decision that after service, he was able to step aside and return to civilian life. And that set a precedent then for the future.

But as I said, each country, I think, has to make these decisions on their own, and I think what's ultimately most important is that the people feel a sense of legitimacy and ownership, and that this is not something imposed on them from the top, that it's not -- does not involve manipulations of the electorate or rigging of the electoral process or repression of opposition voices, but that whatever is determined is done in an open, transparent way so that people feel confident that whoever is in power represents their voices and their interests.

PRESIDENT URIBE: Let me make some comments about this question. I brought to the table some topics that I call topics of internal debate in Colombia at this moment. And one of the topics I brought to talk about it with President Obama is this topic. And I want to summarize.

I said to President Obama, first, I am concerned, because I am a member of one generation of the four or five generations that have not lived one single day in peace in Colombia or prosperity. Therefore, I consider that Colombia needs to extend in that time security, democratic values, investment in social responsibility and social cohesion -- with adjustments.

I don't believe in stagnation, and I don't believe in gross changes. I believe in one goal, in one mission, with dynamism, with daily adjustments. And I have said in the second point of this comment that I consider that this is happening, it is necessary to extend these policies. It is not convenient to perpetuate the precedent.

And I have said to President Obama what I want to say to you. Colombia is a country of solid democratic institutions. When we speak about institutions, we cannot speak in abstract about institutions. We have to speak about institutions in concrete terms. We have 1,102 mayors directly elected by the people; 32 governors. The regions in Colombia invest 51 percent of the public expenses. My government has built governments with all the regional governors and mayors regardless their political regions, and they have many, many political regions.

The justice, administration is independent in Colombia. Colombia has solid free press. Colombia has bodies, independent bodies, for control. Colombia is a country with very solid institutions.

I beg you, journalists, to separate the convenience or inconvenience of perpetuating the precedent with the qualification of our institutions. Anyway, our democratic institutions are totally solid.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Right, and the other thing I should say is that if I were to serve two terms, I'm fairly confident that I would not have the 70 percent approval rating that President Uribe has. (Laughter.)

All right, thank you very much, everybody.

"It Is Time To Bring This State Together"

Movie: http://UpTake-Editorial.groups.theuptake.org/rss/videogalleryView/id/2182/
Description:

By Noah Kunin, Senior Political Correspondent 6/30/09

In a midday ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Former Senator Norm Coleman's appeal to overturn the decision by the three judge Election Contest trial court that Al Franken won the the 2008 Senate Election in Minnesota.

Coleman, in a humble concession speech, (which The UpTake was not allowed to record) said the process has gone far enough. This video is Senator-Elect Al Franken's response, from his home in Minneapolis, MN.

While Senator-Elect Franken will be the 60th Democrat in the US Senate, he says it's more important that he will be the "2nd Senator from Minnesota". He is expected to be sworn in next week.

Related Coverage:

MN Supreme Court Ruling