Obama and McCain - Dance Off!

Fred on Election Day

Barack Obama - Qualified to Be President?

One serious topic of debate regarding the 2008 Presidential Election pertains to Barack Obama's qualifications for the office, what many consider to be the most important job in the land.

Without question, his resume is impressive. His academic achievements are noteworthy, as is his work as a civil rights attorney. Moreover, his public speaking skills are without parallel. His gentle good humor and self-effacing attitude are equally attractive.

But is he qualified?

The difficult question must be addressed: Is Barack Obama's popularity due to his ethnicity more than to his accomplishments? Would a white senator with the same resume be considered his or her party's nominee?

As much as we may hate to say it, it seems improbable. Barack Obama has yet to complete a single full term as a US Senator. He has no legislative accomplishments of which to speak, and he has yet to offer any specific details on how he plans to fund his grandiose plans. He has no military experience, nor any deep familiarity with the military machinery of this country.

To be sure, were Obama to be elected, his presidency would be a great step forward in this country, haunted as we are the specter of our racist past.

However, is it worth to gain this milestone at the expense of electing a man wholly unqualified for the office?

Merely paying lip service to such intangible ideals such as "change" and "diversity" will not make our country safer nor our economy stronger.

Unfortunately, it appears that Barack Obama simply does not have the appropriate qualifications to be president.

R.S. Cochran is a college English professor, a lifelong Democrat, and founder of Name3Things.com. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=R.S._Cochran

Who-What Are Obama Supporters?

It is not Obama and his gang of thug Socialists who confuse me. I clearly recognize the principles of socialism and Communism in all of Obama's "silk purse" speeches. It isn't hard acknowledging right from wrong. In my last essay "Is any thing in America Sacred to Obama?" which lists many of Obama's criminal friends, actions, and intentions which reveal a ruthless and desperate character. There is nothing I wrote in that piece that isn't already known to all of the Democrats currently in office and the general public. There is nothing I wrote in that article that hasn't already been written in long, scary detail by better writers than I. All of the information that keeps coming forward about Obama is disgusting, shameful, and proof he is unworthy to be a dog catcher let alone president. It is obvious no patriotic American will vote for Obama. He should be in jail.

What confuses me is how many people choose to support this silver plated turd in spite of the facts that has been exposed about Obama. Why? Do they think every person who states a negative of unpopular fact about Obama is a liar like the Obama camp wants them to believe? Don't they realize they are coconspirators in their own tyranny? Don't they care about the criminal, unethical, and mean spirited track record he has? Is it okay for Obama to do anything he wants as long as he is black? The argument Democrats will use that McCain has done bad things doesn't hold water. True McCain has made mistakes. But one this for certain is McCain never betrayed his country and committed treason. He also never tampered with voter registration, nor ever was a Muslim.

This makes me wonder how much value society has for integrity, decency, and honesty. Have people placed a higher value on race than good character? I have always believed in the ultimate goodness of the common man. For the first time in my life, I am beginning to wonder if there are that many people in America who have traded goodness for evil. I am having trouble listening to Obama supporters on msn parroting Obama stump mantras. They are touting Communist principles and may or may not realize it. They are neither stupid nor bad.(At least I don't want to think they are) What's going on? I tried to break it down in groups and this is what has come forward to me.

Obama supporters fall into the following types:

1. The majority are hard working moral Americans whose only desire is a better America for them selves, their families and all. They simply misunderstand BO's message. There is nothing in their mind that could lead them to recognize Obama's messages are Communistic. If they did understand Obama's message, they would not vote for Obama. There's hope for this group because I believe they want a person of good character in office. They may change their minds and vote for McCain when more factual information about Obama comes forward.

2. There are black Americans who are decent good people who so dearly desire to see a black man as president for the first time in history, they only see Obama as good. They don't understand Obama's Communistic friends, background, messages, and intentions. They also don't understand Obama will be of no benefit to them what so ever. Their loyalty is so strong, that even when confronted with facts about Obama's crimes, they refuse to believe them. If these good people did understand, they would not only refuse to vote for Obama, they would throw him out of the circle. There are great black men and women who would make a wonderful commander and chief. It is only a matter of time American will enjoy a great black president. Obama is not the one. I believe some of these dear people may also change their mind.

3. There are decent people who are loyal to party regardless who leads, they do not challenge. They simply vote their party. Even these, may change their vote. They simply live an unexamined life.

4. Democratic politicians who lust to have a Democratic President at any price. They are clearly aware of Obama's past crimes, his slimy friends and his Communistic/socialist principles. However they under estimate Obama and imagine they will be able to control him when he gets in office because they think they can advance their own careers riding his shirt tails. These people are coconspirators in their own tyranny. They would vote for Obama no matter what he does. They have a vested interest. God forbid, if Obama is elected, they will deserve what they get. Sadly. The people who didn't vote for BO will also be hurt.

5. The very rich powerful invisible world players who have sinister purposes to make Obama President. They will be the power behind the throne. They will enforce Obama's power with key players in key positions who do whatever they are told. Later, they may simply dispose of Obama, since he will no longer be needed by them. They will continue to live luxurious life styles.

6. There are openly admitted Communists, Socialists, and Muslims who will vote Obama. They will never change their minds. Eventually, like the UK, America will be adopting the laws of Sharia. Women will be required to cover their faces and wear Berkas.

7. There are the first time and young voters, who have simply not looked beyond Obama gold plated package of Communist feces. They are too busy growing up to take the time to look. They just want to do what they think is "cool". By the time the realize what happened it will be too late.

8. Finally, there are those who are thoroughly aware of all of Obama's crimes, misdeeds, and intimidating methods and approve. They have even participated with Obama in these crimes. To them, the end justifies the means. The way America was will be a fairy tale.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/menifeevalleyradio http://www.museumofinnocence.blogspot.com Therese Daniels Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Therese_Daniels

Who is Barack Obama?

Although Sarah Palin has only been on the national scene for about six weeks and she's only given two real interviews (one with Charles Gibson & one with Katie Couric) and has held absolutely no press conferences she's taken to asking the question "Who is Barack Obama?" at her campaign events (which lately appear to be barely controlled extremist hate mobs.)

Barack Obama is a 47 year old man of mixed racial background (African father, white mother from Kansas) who was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961. Obama graduated from Columbia in 1983. Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago until entering Harvard Law School in 1988.

He was a distinguished student at Harvard Law School as he was elected president of the Law Review. He graduated from Harvard Law School with honors (magna cum laude) in 1991.

Obama began to teach constitutional law in the University of Chicago Law School in 1992. He did that for 12 years until 2004 when he was elected to the US Senate.

He was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. In 2002 he delivered a speech at a Chicago anti-war rally in which he showed extremely sound foreign policy judgment by opposing the Iraq War from the start at a time when few politicians dared to challenge the direction of the Bush/Cheney administration.

Obama became nationally known at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He wrote and delivered the extremely well received keynote address. Many Democrats instantly felt that Barack Obama would one day run for President. His performance electrified the party.

Obama defeated Alan Keyes in the 2004 Illinois senate election 70% to 27%. This landslide is the largest in Illinois statewide election history.

Among Obama's accomplishments as Senator are the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act. This established the USAspending.gov web search engine for federal spending. It's also known as "Google for Government." Strangely enough Sarah Palin actually brought up this idea of "Google for Government" at one of her rallies as if it was were a new idea of hers.

Another Obama accomplishment is the Lugar-Obama initiative which is meant to energize the US program against unsecured conventional weapons such as anti-aricraft missiles.

Tellingly both Tom Coburn & Dick Lugar are Republicans. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama can "reach across the aisle" and work with Republicans (despite what McCain/Palin says.)

Barack Obama announced his candidacy for President on February 10, 2007. Since then he has been in the national public eye to a great degree. He has participated in over 20 nationally televised debates. He has been interviewed countless times. He has taken questions from the press. He has been vetted and vetted again. Every single smear tactic imaginable has been brought up and thrown at him by his opponents.

The idea that someone as unknown as Sarah Palin (who has ties to an Anti-American political party called the Alaskan Independence Party) would ask "Who is Barack Obama?" is infuriating. The real question is "Who is Sarah Palin?"

CLICK HERE: Election News. Sarah Palin + Alaskan Independence Party. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Johnny_Moon

Barack Obama Loses in Brazilian Elections!

It's official, Barack Obama has failed in his bid to win the election!

But wait, before you decide to leave the country and escape another four years of Republican rule, please allow me to elaborate, Barack Obama has failed to win in the Brazilian local elections!

In total, six candidates adopted Senator Obama's name, hoping to distinguish themselves from other candidates.

Claudio Henrique dos Anjos is one of those 'Obama' candidates. He registered himself as Claudio Henrique-Barack Obama after people started comparing him with the real Senator Obama.

"I am black and I wore a suit on television and people started to tell me I was just like that Barack Obama guy in the United States" he said.

Mr. dos Anjos, was running for mayor of the city of Belford Roxo, on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro.

It is quite common for Brazilian politicians to adopt unusual names during elections. Candidates are allowed to either register in their own name or a chosen one. Many use nicknames whilst others adopt famous names to grab attention.

Over 200 candidates named themselves after the country's current president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who remains extremely popular with an 80% approval rating.

One candidate in particular changed his name to President Lula, whilst others added Lula to their names hoping the president's success would rub off. Ambulance Lula, Radio Lula, Singer Lula, Hairdresser Lula and Here Comes Lula to name but a few!

Other famous named candidates included Jorge Bushi and Bill Clinton!

Adam H. Bolton is an International News Researcher based in the UK. His research often uncovers weird, strange, bizarre & funny news stories from around the world. These truly amazing real-life stories are regularly published on the popular news site FunnyNewsStories.org. Please visit http://FunnyNewsStories.org for the latest weird & funny news stories! Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Adam_H._Bolton

Vote United!

Vote United!

Voting in the Square Mile Sport Awards 2008 has started in an attempt to honour this year's top sporting heroes and moments.

The Reds are involved in three of the six categories. After being snubbed in the Ballon d'Or nominations, Rio Ferdinand has been nominated as Sports Leader of the Year. Although he's not United's regular captain, he did lead the Reds out in Moscow last May.

United are up for the Sports Team of the Year accolade in competition with, among others, Team GB's Beijing Olympians.

The Reds are also involved in Sporting Moment of the Year category. Naturally it's from the Champions League final, and the moment is (don't smirk) John Terry's penalty miss in Moscow.

The winners will be unveiled at a star-studded dinner on 27 November in London.

To register your vote, visit www.squaremilesport.com.

FAIRCLOUGH ON KUYT, MADRID AND CHELSEA

It's been our best ever start to a Premier League season and we've achieved it in the most dramatic fashion.

But while we've all enjoyed seeing the Reds make some startling comebacks in recent weeks, Dirk Kuyt in particular might have enjoyed it a little more than most.   The tireless Dutchman has suddenly refound his passion for scoring goals and is now earning rave reviews not just for his workrate but more for his four goals in the last three games.   There is no doubt the Reds have been making life hard for themselves in gifting opponents the lead, but we can't go on giving teams a head start and expect to keep hitting back. It might be exciting to watch but wouldn't it be better to make things easier for ourselves?   It's not just Rafa who might be needing to consult his doctor the way we are going on, certainly fewer have been heading for the exits early in recent weeks.   The significant feature in all the comebacks so far has been the natural change in attitude, attacking spirit is obviously the way forward. Some of Rafa's substitutions this season have been really adventurous and at one stage on Saturday we had six forwards out there. I can't remember seeing so many forwards strung across Anfield as we attacked the Kop, our goal difference mightn't be that great but points on the board are more important.   The loss of Fernando Torres due to the international break was potentially a nightmare scenario - other than losing Stevie, Rafa could hardly have had worse news. But, asked to fill in for El Nino, Kuyt had perhaps his most effective game for the Reds. With Liverpool now generally looking a more balanced unit with the addition of Albert Riera on the left and Jeramine Pennant playing his part on Saturday, if we can get bodies into the opposition box we will score goals and that was certainly the secret of the recent comebacks over Man City and Wigan.   Dirk looked more at home working through the middle and though he hasn't got the pace to run away from defenders, his natural instinct to score is there and he looked like he loved it on Saturday.   I've sensed a reluctance from him to admit he misses scoring goals on a regular basis but anyone who scored as many times as he did for Feyenoord must surely want to receive similar acclaim from an adoring Kop. With his recent scoring exploits he has shown his real potential and effectively raised the bar of expectancy, for me he looks a completely different player getting on the end of things.   If Dirk could transmit his European goal scoring form into the league on a regular basis he would prove priceless, ten goals in his last 17 Euro games proves he's a man with the knack but has seemed at times happy to understate some of that killer instinct.   I know he's happy to fulfil any role Rafa asks of him but he could be more effective if he shows a greater desire to get into the danger zone a bit more. He's shown he can finish sp let's see it much more. If Liverpool are to mount a real challenge this year the goals will need to come from a greater nucleus of players and Kuyt - if he continues the way he's going - could be a vital weapon in our aims.   In recent years I think we can point to our inability to score goals from enough players which has seen us fall short of Man Utd and Chelsea. With Kuyt in this form - and if we can get one or two more scoring along with Torres and Gerrard on a regular basis - we can maintain our challenge on the heels of the leaders.   Rafa was obviously frustrated at losing Nando and could hardly hide his disappointment. If we are to be real contenders then we can't be without him for too long, one or two games can be okay though the next two matches could hardly be tougher.   I know we did manage without him against Man Utd but to have him absent for too long would be too much of a strain.   There'll be disappointment on both sides tonight when Atletico's favourite son misses out on the dream return to the Vicente Calderon Stadium. It was probably the one game El Nino was really looking forward to this season, only to be robbed of the opportunity with the unfortunate hamstring injury picked up last week.   The Reds will have to be at their best if we are to be the first English side to beat Atletico in their backyard, a side we are meeting for the first time. Though we have an exceptional record of playing in Spain, Atletico are currently one of the more eye-catching sides in the Champions League despite having lost their last three Spanish league games.   For Rafa it's a return to his home town while on the pitch despite no Torres it could still be a case of old friends reunited. In Atletico's star-studded line up we should see Anfield European hero Luis Garcia and Sinama Pongolle, who never really fulfilled his true potential with the Reds but who has been impressive since leaving for Spain.   While the Champions League takes up our attentions tonight, once the final whistle blows in Madrid attention will swiftly turn to the massive game at Stamford Bridge on Sunday. I must admit I've been impressed with the start Chelsea have had under Luis Felipe Scolari and for me they are the team we will have to be ahead of if we have title hopes.   Hopefully the fact Nando has been left back at Melwood to have treatment will increase his chances of playing at the Bridge, the Londoners have more than their fair share of injury problems but the strength of their squad masks any weakness.   Chelsea's home record is remarkable and it's never been the easiest place for us to visit, though we have shown the ability to stifle them under Rafa, but we are still frustrated by the fact we can't claim the win. Sunday would be perfect timing to break Rafa's duck with spirit in the camp on a real high.

 

David Fairclough 22 October 2008

RIERA: TEAM UNITY THE KEY TONIGHT

Albert Riera believes Liverpool's team unity can negate the influence of Atletico Madrid's potential match winners in the Vicente Calderon this evening.

Riera admits the La Liga side can boast exceptional talents in the shape of Aguero, Simao, Forlan and Maniche - not to mention ex-Red Luis Garcia - but he is confident the strength of character shown by Liverpool during their unbeaten start to the season can help take them a step nearer qualification from Group D tonight.   "Atletico have come into their own and established themselves as one of the biggest clubs in Spain," said Riera.   "They are much more competitive, and when you feel you can compete against even the best teams, it works wonders for your confidence.   "Where they differ from us is that they rely more on individuals than the overall team pattern. They are beginning to shape into an effective unit, but it is individual brilliance that has contributed most to their success.   "While they rely on individuals to a great extent, we are a real unit. We have outstanding individuals as well, but, first and foremost, we are a team. You can't underestimate the importance of that, and it has stood us in good stead.   "Atletico are a real threat going forward and have probably the two best strikers in La Liga in Sergio Aguero and Diego Forlan.   "They are much stronger at the back now, but I still feel our team spirit can come through and help us beat them."   No English side has ever won at the Vicente Calderon and Riera admits the Reds will need to be on top of their game to alter that statistic.   "The atmosphere will be exceptional, and it is going to be a really special occasion for the Spanish players in our squad," he added. "All of us are really looking forward to it, and we don't intend coming away with anything less than three points.   "You've got to give Atletico credit for emerging as a force in their own right after spending so long in Real's shadow. It is not easy when you are in a big city and your club plays second fiddle to your near rivals.   "I know what it is like after playing for Espanyol in a city that was really all about Barcelona. People don't take much notice of you, but they are paying attention to Atletico now."

Paul Eaton 22 October 2008

CARRAGHER TAKING NOTHING FOR GRANTED

CARRAGHER TAKING NOTHING FOR GRANTED
Paul Eaton 22 October 2008

Jamie Carragher insists Liverpool's one hundred per cent record in the Champions League to date could count for nothing if they don't perform against Atletico Madrid - starting tonight in the Spanish capital.

 

The Reds are tied with Atletico at the top of Group D after both sides won their opening two matches - and this evening's clash in the Vicente Calderon is the first of a double header of games which could result in one of the two teams booking their place in the knock-out phase of the competition.
 
"It's important that we get a good result against Atletico because we've made a good start to the group stages and now we have to build on that," said Carragher.
 
"People are saying that we are both favourites to go through but if these two games go wrong for one of us and you lose both of them then it would bring the other teams in the group back into it.
 
"The other factor is that you want to top the group as well because that can make a little bit of difference in terms of who you play in the next round.
 
"It's never guaranteed that you'll meet a so-called weaker side if you come top, of course, but it's always nice to win the group and that's why we want to take at least four points from these two games against Atletico."
 
While admitting the possibility of securing qualification with games to spare would be the ideal scenario for the Reds, Carragher insists the priority is ensuring Liverpool are still playing Champions League football next year.
 
"I think the manager's already mentioned getting through early and ideally that's always what you would want to do," he added.
 
"But the important thing is not to look too far ahead and just to make sure we do go through.
 
"If we do go through early then that'd be great and I'm sure the manager would then be able to switch things around and concentrate on the league.
 
"That's not just ourselves though, I'm sure Arsenal, Man United and Chelsea are all thinking the same as well.
 
"But the most important thing is just to make sure we go through to the next round, that always has to be the target."

Legends Profile : Andy Cole

Success isn't always instant – and any Reds wishing Alex Ferguson had plumped for Nottingham Forest's Stan Collymore when he went shopping for a new striker in the January 1995 sales – were forced to eat their hats over Andy Cole.

An inauspicious start to his Old Trafford career was followed by the most purple of purple patches, in which the Nottingham-born striker banged in a goal every couple of games, a ratio not seen in M16 since the golden age of Denis Law. It was only a matter of time, of course. Form is temporary, class is permanent.

Cole had blazed a trail at St James' Park, scoring an astonishing 68 goals in just 74 matches, including 41 in the 1993/94 league season. Once he was off and running, benefiting from the prompting of Cantona, Giggs and Sharpe, he played like a dream, justifying every penny of his then-record £6.25 million transfer.

That first season saw Cole score an astonishing five times in the 9-0 rout of Ipswich Town at Old Trafford – a scoreline that remains an individual and team best in Premiership history.

Cole netted 11 league goals on the way to the 1995/96 title, snatched so memorably from the grasp of his old team-mates at Newcastle.

Further title success followed in 1996/97, a season disrupted by pneumonia and two broken legs. Though his days appeared numbered with the arrival of Dwight Yorke from Aston Villa for the 1998/99, the truth couldn't have been more different.

Cole and Yorke were dynamite together, scoring 35 goals in the league between them as United stormed unstoppably to the Treble. Yorke's craft and strength, Cole's pace and predatory instincts unforgettably combining at Nottingham Forest in February 1999 in an 8-1 win, memorable also for a four-goal substitute cameo from Ole Gunnar Solskjaer.

Though Cole found his United form hard to replicate in an England shirt, there is little doubt he is one of the club's – and the modern game's – great strikers. He was still scoring top-flight goals for Manchester City in 2005/06 after spells with Blackburn and Fulham

BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S PLAN TO COMBAT GLOBAL HIV/AIDS

BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN'S PLAN TO COMBAT GLOBAL HIV/AIDS

There are an estimated 33 million people across the planet living with HIV/AIDS, including more than 1 million

people in the U.S. Nearly 6,000 people die every day of AIDS. Despite advances in knowledge about HIV and

effective treatment options, the rate of HIV infections has not fallen, and, in fact, is rising dramatically in

certain racial and ethnic groups. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that we must do more to fight the global

HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as malaria and tuberculosis. In 2006, Barack Obama traveled to Kenya and,

along with his wife Michelle, took an HIV/AIDS test to encourage African men and women to be tested for the

disease. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe in working across party lines to combat this epidemic. Barack

Obama has worked in both the Illinois and U.S. Senate to increase awareness and to promote greater investment

for HIV/AIDS in America and abroad. As president, he will continue to be a global leader in the fight against

AIDS.

HIV/AIDS IN AMERICA

Implement a National HIV/AIDS Strategy: Barack Obama has pledged that, in the first year of his

presidency, he will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes

all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce

HIV-related health disparities. His strategy will include measurable goals, timelines and accountability

mechanisms. Obama passed legislation in Illinois to require public service announcements promoting

HIV/AIDS screening. As president, Obama will continue to increase awareness of the disease.

Fix the Nation's Health Care System: Nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured in this country. Barack

Obama is committed to signing universal health care legislation by the end of his first term in office that ensures

all Americans have high-quality, affordable health care coverage. The Obama-Biden health plan will save a

typical American family up to $2,500 every year on medical expenditures by providing affordable,

comprehensive and portable health coverage for every American; modernizing the U.S. health care system to

contain spiraling health care costs and improve the quality of patient care; and promoting prevention and

strengthening public health to prevent disease and protect against natural and man-made disasters. The Obama-

Biden plan will ensure that people living with HIV have access to lifesaving treatment and care.

Bring Medicaid Coverage to Low-Income, HIV-Positive Americans: Obama is a cosponsor of the Early

Treatment for HIV Act, which would help provide Medicaid coverage to more low-income, HIV-positive

Americans. The bill would also increase the number of people who receive the medications necessary to treat

HIV infections.

Fight Disparities in Minority Communities: HIV/AIDS has hit some communities harder than others. For

example, while African Americans make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, they make up 49 percent of new

HIV/AIDS cases. AIDS is the leading cause of death of African American women aged 25-34, and the third

leading cause of death of African American men in the same age group. In 2005, 64 percent of women living

with HIV/AIDS were black. In our nation's capital alone, African Americans account for 81 percent of new

reports of HIV cases and about 86 percent of people with AIDS. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are committed

to targeting resources to promote innovative HIV/AIDS testing initiatives in minority communities and

partnering with a wide-range of community leaders from churches to community organizations. But we must

also tackle the scourge of poverty where HIV and AIDS proliferate. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will

continue to fight poverty and homelessness, key drivers of this epidemic. We need to better target care for

people in communities of color, where the disease is moving most quickly. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will

tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health insurance coverage and

promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities. They will

also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and

reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs and diversification of

the health workforce.

Improve Quality of Life for Those Living with HIV/AIDS: Barack Obama is a strong supporter of the Ryan

White Care Act (RWCA), which provides critical access to life-saving treatment and care for over half a million

low-income Americans with HIV/AIDS. The RWCA is one of the largest sources of federal funds for primary

health care and support services for patients with HIV/AIDS. The bill was named after Ryan White, an Indiana

teenager whose courageous struggle with HIV/AIDS helped educate the nation. Throughout the recent

reauthorization of the RWCA, Obama worked closely with RWCA service providers, the Chicago Department

of Public Health, and the Illinois Department of Public Health to analyze and find ways to improve the program

for Illinois and for the nation. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will continue to protect the multifaceted care upon

which RWCA beneficiaries depend.

Promote AIDS Prevention: In addition to assuring access to treatment, Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe

we need to increase the focus on preventing new infections. We cannot keep pace with treatment needs if we

don't also focus on prevention. This means pursuing a strategy that relies on sound science and builds on what

works. Barack Obama and Joe Biden support comprehensive sex education that is age-appropriate. They

support increasing federal appropriations for science-based HIV prevention programs. They support the

JUSTICE Act, which would prevent transmission of HIV within the incarcerated population. They also support

legislation that would lift the ban on federal funding for needle exchange as a strategy to reduce HIV

transmission among injection drug users and their partners and children.

Assure Adequate and Safe Housing for Those Living With HIV: Barack Obama and Joe Biden support

increased funding for Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) and other pertinent housing

programs. These programs aim to assure that adequate and safe housing is available for all disabled and lowincome

people with HIV/AIDS in the U.S.

Expand Funding for Research: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand funding for research, especially for

prevention options including a vaccine and microbicides. Microbicides are a class of products currently under

development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections. Barack Obama

led an effort with Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and others to introduce the Microbicide Development Act,

which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. In the

United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today,

women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses.

Expand Access to HIV/AIDS Testing for Pregnant Women: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

recommend that voluntary HIV screening be included in the routine panel of prenatal screening tests for all

pregnant women. In the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama sponsored the successful Prenatal HIV Prevention

Act, which ensures that every health care professional who provides health care services to a pregnant woman

will provide HIV counseling and offer HIV testing. He also passed legislation in Illinois requiring that

insurance coverage under the Illinois Insurance Code, Health Maintenance Organization Act and the Voluntary

Health Services Plans Act include coverage of prenatal HIV testing.

GLOBAL HIV/AIDS

Provide Universal Access for the Global Fight Against HIV/AIDS: Barack Obama and Joe Biden know that

in the 21st century, progress must not just mean political freedom – it must mean freedom from fear and

freedom from want. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that a comprehensive, long-term approach to

combating HIV/AIDS is an important investment in our common security and humanity. They have pledged to

provide at least $50 billion by 2013 for the global fight against HIV/AIDS, including our fair share of the

Global Fund, in order to at least double the number of HIV-positive people on treatment and continue to

provide treatments to one-third of all those who desperately need them. This funding will allow the U.S. to

meet its commitments that have been flat-funded by the Bush Administration, which includes expanding

existing programs to help the millions of children orphaned and made vulnerable by AIDS, increasing the

number of health care workers by at least one million, preventing violence against women and girls, and

improving health care systems so that U.S. assistance can be fully and effectively utilized.

Reauthorize and Revise PEPFAR: The U.S. has dramatically increased funding for global HIV and AIDS

programs through the President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), but the program has faced

controversy. Barack Obama believes that our first priority should be to implement the recently signed

President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), legislation Barack Obama long-supported, to ensure

that best practices – not ideology – to drive funding for HIV/AIDS programs.

Strengthen Health Care Infrastructure: Barack Obama and Joe Biden are committed to increasing U.S.

investments in the capacity building needed to ensure that poor countries are able to develop the health care

infrastructure necessary to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, promote basic health care, reduce the spread of malaria

and TB, and prevent and, if necessary, contain the spread of avian flu and other pandemics.

Increase Contribution to the Global Fund: Barack Obama and Joe Biden support increasing U.S.

contributions to the Global Fund for AIDS, malaria, and TB so that our assistance is coordinated with aid

provided by other governments and private donors and so that the burden on poor countries is reduced.

Increase Access to Affordable Drugs: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that people in developing

countries living with HIV/AIDS should have access to safe, affordable generic drugs to treat HIV/AIDS. They

will break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on these life-saving drugs. They

support the rights of sovereign nations to access quality-assured, low-cost generic medication to meet their

pressing public health needs under the WTO's Declaration on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property

Rights (TRIPS). Barack Obama and Joe Biden also support the adoption of humanitarian licensing policies that

ensure medications developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars are available off-patent in developing countries.

Invest in Clean Water: As more people have access to affordable drugs, the developed world must also invest

in the clean water necessary to ensure that life saving drugs can be taken. More than 1 billion people lack

access to clean water, and that number will increase with the impact of climate change. Through increasing

funding by up to $1.3 billion annually and innovative programs like "play pumps," Barack Obama and Joe

Biden will expand access to clean water and sanitation.

Close the Education Deficit: Worldwide, an estimated 100 million children – including nearly 60 million girls

– are not attending school. By 2010, getting these children into school could cost $10 billion annually. To meet

our share of that sum, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will invest at least $2 billion in a Global Education Fund.

Achieve the Millennium Development Goals: As president, Barack Obama will double U.S. foreign

assistance from $25 billion per year to $50 billion per year to ensure the U.S. does its share to meet the

Millennium Development Goals, including halving the number of people who die of tuberculosis and/or are

affected by malaria. In 2005, Obama cosponsored the International Cooperation to Meet the Millennium

Development Goals Act. Barack Obama will target this new spending toward strategic goals, including helping

the world's weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and

generate wealth. He will also help weak states to fight terrorism, halt the spread of deadly weapons, and build

the health care infrastructure needed to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS as well as detect and contain outbreaks of

avian influenza.

Invest in Comprehensive Poverty Reduction to Help Fight All Deadly Disease: In addition to the havoc

wreaked by HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria continue to kill millions and undercut economic productivity in the

developing world. Investments in fighting HIV/AIDS cannot come at the expense of investments in other key

development challenges like preventing disease and improving child health and survival. Barack Obama and

Joe Biden will ensure the United States is committed to a comprehensive anti-poverty program.

Reduce Debt of Developing Nations: Developing nations are amassing tremendous amounts of foreign debt

that limit their economic development and make investments in public health, education, and infrastructure

extremely difficult. Debt in Sub-Saharan Africa stands at $235 billion, 44 percent of the region's gross

domestic product and an increase of 33 percent since 1990. Barack Obama and Joe Biden would work with

other developed nations and multilateral institutions to cancel remaining onerous debt while pushing reforms to

keep developing nations from slipping into fiscal ruin. Barack Obama and Joe Biden also would better

coordinate trade and development policies to use the full range of America's economic power to help

developing nations reap the benefits of the global trading system. Obama cosponsored the Multilateral Debt

Relief Act of 2005 to provide multilateral debt relief to Heavily Indebted Poor Countries.

Cutting Costs and Covering America: A 21st Century Health Care System

Cutting Costs and Covering America: A 21st Century Health Care System

University of Iowa | May 29, 2007

I want to thank the University of Iowa for having us here, and I want to give a special thanks to Amy and Lane for joining me today to tell their story.

A few hours north of here, Amy and Lane run a small business that offers internet service to their community. They were the very first company to provide broadband access in their remote corner of northeastern Iowa, and every day, hundreds of people count on the services they provide to do their jobs and live their lives.

But today they are on the brink of bankruptcy - a bankruptcy that has nothing to do with any poor business decision they made or slump in the economy they weren't prepared for.

Lane was diagnosed with cancer when he was twenty-one years old. He lost a lung, a leg bone and part of a hip. Seventeen years later, he is cancer-free, but the cost of health insurance for him, his wife and his three kids is now over $1,000 per month. Their family's premiums keep rising hundreds of dollars every year, and as hard as they look, they simply cannot find another provider that will insure them.

Amy and Lane are now paying forty percent of their annual income in health care premiums. They have no retirement plan and nothing saved. They can no longer afford to buy new clothes or fill up their cars with gas, they have racked up more credit card debt then they know what to do with, and Amy wrote to us and said that the day she heard the loan officer say the word "bankruptcy" was one of the worst in her life.

"My heart was in pain," she said. "This is not who we are. We have done everything right. We have done everything we were supposed to do. This is not who we are."

Amy is right. This is not who we are. We are not a country that rewards hard work and perseverance with bankruptcies and foreclosures. We are not a country that allows major challenges to go unsolved and unaddressed while our people suffer needlessly. In the richest nation on Earth, it is simply not right that the skyrocketing profits of the drug and insurance industries are paid for by the skyrocketing premiums that come from the pockets of the American people.

This is not who we are. And this is not who we have to be.

In the past few months, I've heard stories like Amy's at town halls we've held in New Hampshire, and here in Iowa, and all across the country. Stories from people who are hanging on by a thread because of the stack of medical bills they can't pay. People who don't know where else to turn for help, but who do know that when it comes to health care, we have talked, tinkered, and let this crisis fester for decades. People who watch as every year, candidates offer up detailed health care plans with great fanfare and promise, only to see them crushed under the weight of Washington politics and drug and insurance industry lobbying once the campaign is over.

Well this cannot be one of those years. We have reached a point in this country where the rising cost of health care has put too many families and businesses on a collision course with financial ruin and left too many without coverage at all; a course that Democrats and Republicans, small business owners and CEOs have all come to agree is not sustainable or acceptable any longer.

We often hear the statistic that there are 45 million uninsured Americans. But the biggest reason why they don't have insurance is the same reason why those who do have it are struggling to pay their medical bills - it's just too expensive.

Health care premiums have risen nearly 90% in the past six years. That's four times faster than wages have gone up. Like Ami and Lane's family, nearly half of all Iowans have said that they've had to cut back on food and heating expenses because of high health care costs. 11 million insured Americans spent more than a quarter of their salary on health care last year. And over half of all personal bankruptcies are now caused by medical bills.

Businesses aren't faring much better. Over half of all small businesses can no longer afford to insure their workers, and so many others have responded to rising costs by laying off workers or shutting their doors for good. Some of the biggest corporations in America, giants of industry like GM and Ford, are watching foreign competitors based in countries with universal health care run circles around them, with a GM car containing seven times as much health care cost as a Japanese car.

This cost crisis is trapping us in a vicious cycle. As premiums rise, more employers drop coverage, and more Americans become uninsured. Every time those uninsured walk into an emergency room and receive care that's more expensive because they have nowhere else to turn, there is a hidden tax for the rest of us as premiums go up by an extra $922 per family. And as premiums keep rising, more families and businesses drop their coverage and become uninsured.

It would be one thing if all this money we spend on premiums and co-payments and deductibles went directly towards making us healthier and improving the quality of our care.

But it doesn't. One out of every four dollars we spend on health care is swallowed up by administrative costs - on needless paperwork and antiquated record-keeping that belongs in the last century. This failure to update the way our doctors and hospitals store and share information also leads to costly errors. Each year, 100,000 Americans die due to medical errors and we lose $100 billion because of prescription drug errors alone.

We also spend far more on treating illnesses and conditions that could've been prevented or managed for far less. Our health care system is turning into a disease care system, where too many plans and providers don't offer or encourage check-ups and tests and screenings that could save thousands of lives and billions of dollars down the road.

Of course, the biggest obstacle in the way of reforming this skewed system of needless waste and spiraling costs are those who profit most from the status quo - the drug and insurance companies who pocket a growing chunk of the medical bills that people like Amy and Lane are going bankrupt trying to pay.

Since President Bush took office, the single fastest growing component of health care spending has been administrative costs and profits for insurance companies. Coming in a close second is the amount we spend on prescription drugs. In 2006, five of the biggest drug and insurance companies were among the fifty most profitable businesses in the nation. One insurance company CEO received a $125 million salary that same year, and has been given stock options worth over $1 billion. As an added perk, he and his wife get free private health care for as long as they live.

Now, making this kind of money costs money, which is why the drug and insurance industries have also spent more than $1 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions over the last ten years to block the kind of reform we need. They've been pretty good at it too, preventing the sale of cheaper prescription drugs and defeating attempts to make it harder for insurance companies to deny coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition.

Look, it's perfectly understandable for a business to try and make a profit, and every American has the right to make their case to the people who represent us in Washington.

But I also believe that every American has the right to affordable health care. I believe that the millions of Americans who can't take their children to a doctor when they get sick have that right. I believe that people like Amy and Lane who are on the brink of losing everything they own have that right. And I believe that no amount of industry profiteering and lobbying should stand in the way of that right any longer.

That's not who we are.

We now face an opportunity - and an obligation - to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates. It's time to bring together businesses, the medical community, and members of both parties around a comprehensive solution to this crisis, and it's time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair.

We can do this. The climate is far different than it was the last time we tried this in the early nineties. Since then, rising costs have caused many more businesses to back reform, and in states from Massachusetts to California, Democratic and Republican governors and legislatures have been way ahead of Washington in passing increasingly bolder initiatives to cover the uninsured and cut costs.

We've had some success in Illinois as well. As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children and 65,000 more parents. I authored and passed a bill cracking down on hospital price gouging of uninsured patients, and helped expand coverage for routine mammograms for women on Medicaid. We created hospital report cards, so that every consumer could see things like the ratio of nurses to patients, the number of annual medical errors, and the quality of care they could expect at each hospital. And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage.

It's a goal I believe we can achieve on a national level with the health care plan I'm outlining today. The very first promise I made on this campaign was that as president, I will sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of my first term in office. Today I want to lay out the details of that plan - a plan that not only guarantees coverage for every American, but also brings down the cost of health care and reduces every family's premiums by as much as $2500. This second part is important because, in the end, coverage without cost containment will only shift our burdens, not relieve them. So we will take steps to remove the waste and inefficiency from the system so we can bring down costs and improve the quality of our care while we're at it.

My plan begins by covering every American.

If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less.

If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness. Everyone will be able buy into a new health insurance plan that's similar to the one that every federal employee - from a postal worker in Iowa to a Congressman in Washington - currently has for themselves. It will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity, disease management, and mental health care. And it will also include high standards for quality and efficiency.

If you cannot afford this insurance, you will receive a subsidy to pay for it. If you have children, they will be covered. If you change jobs, your insurance will go with you. If you need to see a doctor, you will not have to wait in long lines for one. If you want more choices, you will also have the option of purchasing a number of affordable private plans that have similar benefits and standards for quality and efficiency.

To help pay for this, we will ask all but the smallest businesses who don't make a meaningful contribution today to the health coverage of their employees to do so by supporting this new plan. And we will allow the temporary Bush tax cut for the wealthiest Americans to expire.

But we also have to demand greater efficiencies from our health care system. Today, we pay almost twice as much for health care per person than other industrialized nations, and too much of it has nothing to do with patient care.

That's why the second part of my health care plan includes five, long-overdue steps we will take to bring down costs and bring our health care system into the 21st century - steps that will save each American family up to $2500 on their premiums.

First, we will reduce costs for business and their workers by picking up the tab for some of the most expensive illnesses and conditions.

Right now, two out of every ten patients account for more than eighty percent of all health care costs. These are patients with serious illnesses like cancer or heart disease who require the most expensive surgeries and treatments. Insurance companies end up spending a lion's share of their expenses on these patients, and not surprisingly, they pass those expenses on to the rest of us in the form of higher premiums. Under my proposal, the federal government will pay for part of these catastrophic cases, which means that your premiums will go down.

Second, we will finally begin focusing our health care system on preventing costly, debilitating conditions in the first place.

We all know the saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But today we're nowhere close to that ounce. We spend less than four cents of every health care dollar on prevention and public health even though eighty percent of the risk factors involved in the leading causes of death are behavior-related and thus preventable.

The problem is, there's currently no financial incentive for health care providers to offer services that will encourage patients to eat right or exercise or go for annual check-ups and screenings that can help detect diseases early. The real profit today is made in treating diseases, not preventing them. That's wrong, which is why in our new national health care plan and other participating plans, we will require coverage of evidence-based, preventive care services, and make sure they are paid for.

But in the end, prevention only works if we take responsibility for our own health and make the right decisions in our own lives - if we eat the right foods, and stay active, and listen to our wives when they tell us to stop smoking.

Third, we will reduce the cost of our health care by improving the quality of our health care.

It's estimated that poor quality care currently costs us up to $100 billion a year. One study found that in Pennsylvania, Medicare spent $1 billion a year just on treating infections that patients contracted while at the hospital - infections that could have easily been prevented by hospitals. This study led hospitals across the state to take action, and today some have completely eliminated infections that used to take hundreds of lives and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.

Much like the hospital report cards we passed in Illinois, my health care proposal will ask hospitals and providers to collect, track, and publicly report measures of health care quality. We'll provide the public with information about preventable medical errors, nurse-to-patient ratios, and hospital-acquired infections. We'll also start measuring what's effective and what's not when it comes to different drugs and procedures, so that patients can finally start making informed choices about the care that's best for them. And instead of rewarding providers and physicians only by the sheer quantity of services and procedures they prescribe, we'll start rewarding them for the quality of the outcomes for their patients.

Fourth, we will reduce waste and inefficiency by moving from a 20th century health care industry based on pen and paper to a 21st century industry based on the latest information technology.

Almost every other industry in the world has saved billions on administrative costs by computerizing all of their records and information. Every transaction you make at a bank now costs less than a dollar. Even at the Veterans Administration, where it used to cost nine dollars to pull up your medical record, new technology means you can call up the same record on the internet for next to nothing.

But because we haven't updated technology in the rest of the health care industry, a single transaction still costs up to twenty-five dollars.

This reform is long overdue. By moving to electronic medical records, we can give doctors and nurses easy access to all the necessary information about their patients, so if they type-in a certain prescription, a patient's allergies will pop right up on the screen. This will reduce deadly medical errors, and it will also shorten the length of hospital stays, ensure that nurses can spend less time on paperwork and more time with patients, and save billions and billions of dollars in the process.

Finally, we will break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on the health care market.

We all value the medical cures and innovations that the pharmaceutical industry has developed over the years, but it's become clear that some of these companies are dramatically overcharging Americans for what they offer. They'll sell the same exact drugs here in America for double the price of what they charge in Europe and Canada. They'll push expensive products on doctors by showering them with gifts, spend more to market and advertise their drugs than to research and develop them, and when a generic drug maker comes along and wants to sell the same product for cheaper, the brand-name manufacturers will actually payoff the generic ones so they can preserve their monopolies and keep charging the rest of us high prices.

We don't have to stand for that anymore. Under my plan, we will make generic drugs more available to consumers and we will tell the drug companies that their days of forcing affordable prescription drugs out of the market are over.

And it's not just the drug industry that's manipulating the market. In the last ten years, there have been over four hundred health insurance mergers. Right here in Iowa, just three companies control more than three-quarters of the health insurance market. These changes were supposed to increase efficiency in the industry. But what's really increased is the amount of money we're paying them.

This is wrong, and when I'm President, we're going to make drug and insurance companies compete for their customers just like every other business in America. We'll investigate and prosecute the monopolization of the insurance industry. And where we do find places where insurance companies aren't competitive, we will make them pay a reasonable share of their profits on the patients they should be caring for in the first place. Because that's what's right.

We are a country that looks at the thousands of stories just like Amy and Lane's - stories we have heard and told for decades - and realizes that our American story calls on us to write them a hopeful, happier ending. After all, that's what we've done before.

Half a century ago, America found itself in the midst of another health care crisis. For millions of elderly Americans, the single greatest cause of poverty and hardship was the crippling cost of their health care. A third of all elderly Americans lived in poverty, and nearly half had no health insurance.

As health care and hospital costs continued to rise, more and more private insurers simply refused to insure our elderly, believing they were too great of a risk to care for.

The resistance to action was fierce. Proponents of health care reform were opposed by well-financed, well-connected interest groups who spared no expense in telling the American people that these efforts were "dangerous" and "un-American," "revolutionary" and even "deadly."

And yet the reformers marched on. They testified before Congress and they took their case to the country and they introduced dozens of different proposals but always, always they stood firm on their goal to provide affordable health care for every American senior. And finally, after years of advocacy and negotiation and plenty of setbacks, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law on July 30th of 1965.

The signing ceremony was held in Missouri, in a town called Independence, with the man who issued the call for universal health care during his own presidency - Harry Truman.

And as he stood with Truman by his side and signed what would become one of the most successful government programs in history - a program that had seemed impossible for so long - President Johnson looked out at the crowd and said, "History shapes men, but it is a necessary faith of leadership that men can help shape history."

Never forget that we have it within our power to shape history in this country. It is not in our character to sit idly by as victims of fate or circumstance, for we are a people of action and innovation, forever pushing the boundaries of what's possible.

Now is the time to push those boundaries once more. We have come so far in the debate on health care in this country, but now we must finally answer the call issued by Truman, advanced by Johnson, and pushed along by the simple power of stories like the one told by Amy and Lane. The time has come for affordable, universal health care in America. And I look forward to working with all of you to meet this challenge in the weeks and months to come. Thank you.

BACKGROUND QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q. I like my current insurance coverage. Will I have to change plans?

A. No, you will not have to change plans. For those who have insurance now, nothing

will change under the Obama plan – except that you will pay less. Obama's plan will

save a typical family up to $2,500 on premiums by bringing the health care system into

the 21st century: cutting waste, improving technology, expanding coverage to all

Americans, and paying for some high-cost cases.

Q. How will I be able to sign up?

A. Signing up for the plan will be easy. You will be able do it on your tax return, on the

Internet, on forms you can get from your employer, in churches, libraries, motor vehicle

bureaus and all sorts of places.

Q. How will the mandate that children be covered affect me?

A. When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for

affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance

plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.

We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification

when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama's plan will help parents make

sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it.

Q. I am on Medicaid / my family is on S-CHIP. Will I be able to stay on these

programs?

A. Yes. The Medicaid and SCHIP programs are examples of successful state-federal

partnerships, covering millions of low-income children, adults, disabled individuals and

seniors, including many seniors in nursing homes. As we work to expand health

coverage to every American, it makes sense to build upon these successful partnerships,

and equally important, to increase the funding to keep them sustainable, instead of

dismantling them. The Obama plan would actually expand Medicaid and S-CHIP to

cover more families and working people.

Q. Won't my employer drop coverage?

A. No. Employers who do not offer meaningful coverage to their employees will have to

contribute a percentage of their payroll to help offset the cost of providing coverage to all

Americans. In most cases, this will eliminate an employer's incentive to drop coverage.

Some small employers will be exempt from this requirement.

Q. Obama says his plan will save $2,500 annually for my family. How?

A. Through a combination of developing efficiencies in the system, expanding

coverage to all Americans, and picking up the cost of some high-cost cases.

Specifically:

􀀁 Health IT investment, which will reduce unnecessary and wasteful

spending in the health care system. Examples include extra hospital stays

because of preventable medical errors and duplicative diagnostic tests;

􀀁 Improving prevention and management of chronic conditions;

􀀁 Increasing insurance industry competition and reining in the abusive

practices of monopoly insurance and drug companies;

􀀁 Providing reinsurance for catastrophic cases, which will reduce insurance

premiums; and

􀀁 Ensuring every American has health coverage, which will reduce spending

on the "uncompensated" care of uninsured people who end up in

emergency rooms and whose care is picked up by institutions and then

passed through higher charges to insured individuals.

Q. I have insurance, but I spend so much money on deductibles, premiums and copays

that I can't afford anything else. Will Obama's plan help me?

A. Yes. The Obama plan is designed to help people exactly like you. His plan will help

the millions of families who currently have health insurance from their employer, but

nonetheless are feeling squeezed by fast-rising premiums, co-pays, and deductibles.

Nearly 11 million insured Americans spent more than a quarter of their salary on health

care last year. Obama's plan will reduce a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 by

reducing costs, improving technology, and reigning in the power of insurance companies.

Q. I don't want the government telling me which doctors to see or what treatments

to get. Will the Obama plan force these kinds of decisions on me?

A. Senator Obama agrees with you. His plan will not tell you which doctors to see or

what treatments to get. Under the Obama health care plan, you will be able to keep your

doctor and your health insurance if you want. No government bureaucrat will secondguess

decisions about your care.

Q. Will I still have choice in health plans?

A. Yes. Obama's plan actually will increase the choices available to you. If you like the

insurance you have now, nothing will change under the Obama plan, except that you will

pay less. If you do not have insurance you can choose to enroll in the new public plan,

which will offer benefits similar to what every federal employee and member of

Congress gets. Or you can choose private plan options through the national health

exchange. But none of the plans will be allowed to drop you just because you get sick.

Q. I am a business owner, how does the Obama plan affect my company and the

economy in general?

A. By reducing health care costs, the Obama plan will save employers $140 billion

per year.

First, Obama's plan includes a reinsurance pool for employers. If employer health care

costs exceed a certain amount, the federal government will pick up the tab, as long as the

employer agrees to pass the savings onto their employees. That helps businesses who

have that one sick employee to be able to continue offering health insurance to their

employees and keep their doors open.

Second, Obama's plan goes beyond short-term fixes to address the main cost drivers in

health care, which will help to stabilize the rising costs of health care, which are simply

unsustainable over the long term. The Obama plan makes a real investment in health IT

and other health system changes, which will dramatically improve quality and efficiency

of the health care system, bringing it into the 21st century. The Obama plan will also

aggressively hold the insurance and pharmaceutical industries accountable for unfair and

abusive practices that are raising prices for families and employers. Finally, Obama will

invest in prevention and public health systems, which will help Americans stay healthy

and lower costs from having to treat preventable diseases.

Third, for employers that already offer coverage to their employees, Obama's plan will

make it less costly for them to continue to do so, because every American will be

covered. The health care costs of the uninsured will no longer be passed along to those

who do have health insurance, which will drive down health insurance premiums.

The Obama plan will also help employers that are unable to offer health coverage to their

employees right now. The main reason employers do not offer health coverage to their

employees is because it is simply too expensive. Obama's plan directly addresses the

cost issue by allowing small employers to purchase a new public plan with subsidies for

those who need it. For those who want private insurance, the Obama plan creates a

National Health Insurance Exchange, which will act as a watchdog group and help reform

the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance

plans to ensure fairness and to make coverage more affordable and accessible.

Q. I own a small business but don't offer insurance. How much will I have to

pay for each employee? And how does the Obama plan help my small business?

A. Obama's plan will help small employers that are unable to offer health coverage to

their employees right now. The main reason small employers do not offer health coverage

to their employees is because it is simply too expensive. The Obama plan allows small

employers to enter the National Health Insurance Exchange to purchase either a new

public plan or a private plan for their employees, who will be eligible for subsidies if they

need them. Very small businesses and start-ups will be exempted from the obligation to

pay into the system or provide meaningful coverage for their employees.

The reinsurance proposal will also reduce the volatility of premiums for small businesses.

For small businesses, having a single employee with catastrophic expenditures can make

insurance unaffordable for all of the workers in the firm. The Obama plan would

reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a

threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers'

premiums. Offsetting some of the catastrophic costs will make health care more

affordable for employers, workers, and their families.

Q. What if I am self-employed?

A. Then you know how hard it is for self-employed people to buy affordable health

insurance today. Obama's plan will ensure that small businesses and those who are selfemployed

have affordable health care. Obama's new health plan will give individuals the

choice of buying affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to federal

employees and members of Congress or a private health insurance plan through an

insurance market place known as the Health Insurance Exchange. The insurance will be

affordable for all Americans and the insurance companies will not be allowed to deny

you coverage or drop you because you get sick, the way they do now.

Q. What if I have a pre-existing condition?

This guaranteed eligibility will apply to all private and public insurance plans, whether

they are offered in the National Health Insurance Exchange or outside of it. No insurance

companies will be allowed to discriminate because of a previous bout with cancer or

some other pre-existing illness.

Q. Does the Obama plan support mental health parity?

A. Yes. Under the Obama plan, private insurance offered by employers and both the

private and public insurance plans will include coverage of all essential medical services,

including mental health care. Obama is a strong supporter of mental health parity and he

believes that serious mental illnesses must be covered on the same terms and conditions

as are applicable to physical illnesses and diseases. He does not think health insurance

companies should be allowed to discriminate against the mentally ill.

Q. How much will it cost us taxpayers?

A.

The Obama plan will cost between $50-65 billion a year when fully phased in.

Q. How will we pay for the Obama plan?

A. The Obama plan will realize tremendous savings within the health care system to help

finance the plan. The additional revenue needed to fund the up-front investments in

technology and to help people who cannot afford health insurance is more than covered

by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year,

as they are scheduled to do.

PROMOTING PREVENTION & STRENGTHENING

Covering the uninsured and modernizing America's health care system are urgent priorities, but they are not

enough. This nation is facing a true epidemic of chronic disease. An increasing number of Americans are

suffering and dying needlessly from diseases such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, asthma and HIV/AIDS, all

of which can be delayed in onset if not prevented entirely. One in 3 Americans—133 million—have a chronic

condition, and children are increasingly being affected.38 Five chronic diseases—heart disease, cancer, stroke,

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes—cause over two-thirds of all deaths each year.39

In addition to the tremendous human cost, chronic diseases exact a tremendous financial toll on our health care

resources. Care for patients with diabetes costs $130 billion each year alone, and this amount is growing.40

Tackling chronic diseases is also straining our public health departments and finances, which are already

stretched too thin carrying out traditional public health functions, which include ensuring our water is safe to

drink, the air is safe to breathe, and our food is safe to eat.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that protecting and promoting health and wellness in this nation is a

shared responsibility among individuals and families, school systems, employers, the medical and public health

workforce, and federal and state and local governments. All parties must do their part, as well as collaborate

with one another, to create the conditions and opportunities that will allow and encourage Americans to adopt

healthy lifestyles.

(1) EMPLOYERS. Reduced workforce productivity from illness and disability represents an additional drain on

business. To address employee health, an increasing number of employers are offering worksite health

promotion programs, onsite clinical preventive services such as flu vaccinations, nutritious foods in cafeterias

and vending machines, and exercise facilities. Equally important, many employers choose insurance plans that

cover preventive services for their employees. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that worksite interventions

hold tremendous potential to influence health and they will expand and reward these efforts.

(2) SCHOOL SYSTEMS. Childhood obesity is nearly epidemic,41 particularly among minority populations,42 and

school systems can play an important role in tackling this issue. For example, only about a quarter of schools

adhere to nutritional standards for fat content in school lunches.43 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work with

schools to create more healthful environments for children, including assistance with contract policy

development for local vendors, grant support for school-based health screening programs and clinical services,

increased financial support for physical education, and educational programs for students.

(3) WORKFORCE. Primary care providers and public health practitioners have and will continue to lead efforts

to protect and promote the nation's health. Yet, the numbers of both are dwindling,44 and the existing

workforce is further challenged by inadequate training for new health threats such as bioterrorism and avian flu,

antiquated funding and reimbursement mechanisms, and limited access to real-time information and technical

support. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand funding—including loan repayment, adequate

reimbursement, grants for training curricula, and infrastructure support to improve working conditions— to

ensure a strong workforce that will champion prevention and public health activities.

PROMOTING PREVENTION & STRENGTHENING

PUBLIC HEALTH

(4) INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES. Preventive care only works if Americans take personal responsibility for their

health and make the right decisions in their own lives – if they eat the right foods, stay active, and stop smoking.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will ensure that all Americans are empowered to monitor their health by ensuring

coverage of essential clinical services in all federally supported health plans, including Medicare, Medicaid,

SCHIP and the new public plan. Americans also benefit from healthy environments that allow them to pursue

healthy choices and behaviors that can help ward off chronic and preventable diseases. Healthy environments

include sidewalks, biking paths and walking trails; local grocery stores with fruits and vegetables; restricted

advertising for tobacco and alcohol to children; and wellness and educational campaigns. In addition, Barack

Obama and Joe Biden will increase funding to expand community based preventive interventions to help

Americans make better choices to improve their health.

(5) FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. The federal government and state and local governments

play critical roles across the full range of disease prevention and health promotion activities. First, working

together, governments at all levels should lead the effort to develop a national and regional strategy for public

health and align funding mechanisms to support its implementation. Second, the field of public health would

benefit from greater research to optimize organization of the 3,000 health departments in this nation,45

collaborative arrangements between levels of government and its private partners, performance and

accountability indicators, integrated and interoperable communication networks, and disaster preparedness and

response. Third, the government must invest in workforce recruitment as well as modernizing our physical

structures, particularly our public health laboratories. And finally, the government must examine its own

policies, including agricultural, educational, environmental and health policies, to assess and improve their

effect on public health in this nation. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will prioritize all of these activities, to

ensure a 21st century public health system and healthy America.

AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE COVERAGE OPTIONS FOR ALL

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will guarantee affordable, accessible health care coverage for all Americans.

Currently, there are over 45 million Americans lacking health insurance, and millions more are at risk of losing

their coverage due to rising costs.36 Rising costs are also a burden on employers, particularly small businesses,

which are increasingly unable to provide health insurance coverage for their employees and remain competitive.

Nearly two million fewer Americans receive health insurance coverage through their employers now compared

to eight years ago,37 and this trend shows no sign of slowing down. It is simply too expensive for individuals

and families to buy insurance directly on the open market and impossible for many with pre-existing conditions.

The Obama-Biden plan both builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans

continue to rely upon, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. Under the Obama-Biden

plan, Americans will be able to maintain their current coverage, have access to new affordable options, and see

the quality of their health care improve and their costs go down. The Obama-Biden plan provides new

affordable health insurance options by: (1) guaranteeing eligibility for all health insurance plans; (2) creating a

National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses purchase private health insurance; (3)

providing new tax credits to families who can't afford health insurance and to small businesses with a new

Small Business Health Tax Credit; (4) requiring all large employers to contribute towards health coverage for

their employees or towards the cost of the public plan; (5) requiring all children have health care coverage; (5)

expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and (6) allowing flexibility for state health reform

plans.

(1) GUARANTEED ELIGIBILITY. Obama and Biden will require insurance companies to cover pre-existing

conditions so all Americans, regardless of their health status or history, can get comprehensive benefits at fair

and stable premiums.

(2) NEW AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS. The Obama-Biden plan will create a

National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals purchase new affordable health care options if they are

uninsured or want new health insurance. Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to

enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be

AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE COVERAGE OPTIONS FOR ALL

provided for people and families who need it. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy and charge

fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans

offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency.

Insurers would be required to justify an above-average premium increase to the Exchange. The Exchange

would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, transparent.

The Exchange will have the following features:

􀂾 Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through the Federal

Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the program through which Members of Congress get

their own health care. Plans will include coverage of all essential medical services, including preventive,

maternity and mental health care.

􀂾 Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Participants will be charged fair premiums and

minimal co-pays for deductibles for preventive services.

􀂾 Simplified paperwork. The plan will simplify paperwork for providers and will increase savings to the

system overall.

􀂾 Easy enrollment. All Exchange health insurance plans will be simple to enroll in and provide ready

access to coverage.

􀂾 Portability and choice. Participants will be able to move from job to job without changing or

jeopardizing their health care coverage.

􀂾 Quality and efficiency. Participating hospitals and providers that participate in the new public plan will

be required to collect and report data to ensure that standards for health care quality, health information

technology and administration are being met.

(3) TAX CREDITS FOR FAMILIES AND SMALL BUSINESSES. Barack Obama and Joe Biden understand that too

many families that do not qualify for public health programs like Medicaid and SCHIP have trouble finding

affordable health insurance. They know from talking to small business owners across the nation that the

skyrocketing cost of healthcare poses a serious competitive threat to America's small businesses. The Obama-

Biden health care plan will provide tax credits to all individuals who need it for their premiums. They will also

create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to

50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees. To be eligible for the credit,

small businesses will have to offer a quality health plan to all of their employees and cover a meaningful share

of the cost of employee health premiums.

(4) EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION. Large employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful

contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a

percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this

requirement.

(5) REQUIRE COVERAGE OF CHILDREN. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require that all children have health

care coverage. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand the number of options for young adults to get

coverage by allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.

(6) EXPANSION OF MEDICAID AND SCHIP. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand eligibility for the

Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net

function.

(7) FLEXIBILITY FOR STATE PLANS. Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care

reform. Under the Obama-Biden plan, states can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum

standards of the national plan.

LOWER COSTS TO MAKE OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

LOWER COSTS TO MAKE OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

WORK FOR PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES – NOT JUST

INSURANCE COMPANIES

Inefficient and poor quality care costs the nation at least $50 to $100 billion every year.9 Billions more are

wasted on administration and overhead because of inefficiencies in the health care system.10 And given current

trends, this problem will only get worse as health care spending is expected to double within the next decade.11

A growing body of research points to substantial opportunities to improve quality while reducing the costs of

care. Health care systems in many parts of the country deliver high quality care to the populations they serve at

half the cost of other equally renowned academic medical centers in other parts of the country.12 The key is to

provide information, incentives and support to help physicians and others work together to improve quality of

care while reducing costs.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must redesign our health system to reduce inefficiency and waste and

improve health care quality, which will drive down costs for families and individuals. The Obama-Biden plan

will improve efficiency and lower costs in the health care system by: (1) adopting state-of-the-art health

information technology systems; (2) ensuring that patients receive and providers deliver the best possible care,

including prevention and chronic disease management services; (3) reforming our market structure to increase

competition; and offering federal reinsurance to employers to help ensure that unexpected or catastrophic

illnesses do not make health insurance unaffordable or out of reach for businesses and their employees.

(1) INVEST IN ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS. Most medical records are still

stored on paper, which makes them difficult to use to coordinate care, measure quality, or reduce medical errors.

Processing paper claims also costs twice as much as processing electronic claims.13 Barack Obama and Joe

Biden will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad

adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records. They

will also phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT and commit the necessary federal resources

to make it happen. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will ensure that these systems are developed in coordination

with providers and frontline workers, including those in rural and underserved areas. Barack Obama and Joe

Biden will ensure that patients' privacy is protected. A study by the Rand Corporation found that if most

hospitals and doctors offices adopted electronic health records, up to $77 billion of savings would be realized

each year through improvements such as reduced hospital stays, avoidance of duplicative and unnecessary

testing, more appropriate drug utilization, and other efficiencies.14

(2) IMPROVE ACCESS TO PREVENTION AND PROVEN DISEASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. Experts agree that

several steps should be taken immediately to help patients get the care they need and to help providers improve

medical practice. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand and support these and other efforts to lower costs

and improve health outcomes.

HELP PATIENTS

􀂾 Support disease management programs. Over seventy-five percent of total health care dollars are

spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, and high blood

pressure.15 Many patients with chronic diseases benefit greatly from disease management programs,

which help patients manage their condition and get the care they need.16 Barack Obama and Joe Biden

will require that plans that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health

Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of

care and lower costs, as well.

LOWER COSTS TO MAKE OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

WORK FOR PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES – NOT JUST

INSURANCE COMPANIES

􀂾 Coordinate and integrate care. Rates of chronic diseases have skyrocketed in the last 2 decades.17

Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease.18 With proper care, the onset and

progression of these diseases can be contained for many years. In addition to the needless suffering and

early death they cause, these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly.19 Barack Obama

and Joe Biden will support providers to put in place care management programs and encourage team

care through implementation of medical home type models that will improve coordination and

integration of care of those with chronic conditions.

􀂾 Require full transparency regarding quality and costs. Health care quality and costs can vary

tremendously among hospitals and providers; however, patients have limited access to this

information.20 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly

report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse

staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care and costs. Health plans will be

required to disclose the percentage of premiums that actually goes to paying for patient care as opposed

to administrative costs.

ENSURE PROVIDERS DELIVER QUALITY CARE

􀂾 Promote patient safety. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require providers to report preventable

medical errors, and support hospital and physician practice improvement to prevent future errors.

􀂾 Align incentives for excellence. Both public and private insurers tend to pay providers based on the

volume of services provided, rather than the quality or effectiveness of care.21 Barack Obama and Joe

Biden will accelerate efforts to develop and disseminate best practices, and align reimbursement with

provision of high quality health care. Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the

National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHB will be rewarded for achieving performance

thresholds on physician-validated outcome measures.

􀂾 Comparative effectiveness reviews and research. One of the keys to eliminating waste and missed

opportunities is to increase our investment in comparative effectiveness reviews and research. This

information is developed by reviewing existing literature, analyzing electronic health care data, and

conducting simple, real world studies of new technologies. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will establish

an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness, so that Americans

and their doctors will have accurate and objective information to make the best decisions for their health

and well-being.

􀂾 Tackle disparities in health care. Although all Americans are affected by problems with our health

care delivery system, an overwhelming body of evidence demonstrates that certain populations are

significantly more likely to receive lower quality health care than others. Barack Obama and Joe Biden

will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage

and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities.

They will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care by requiring hospitals

and health plans to collect, analyze and report health care quality for disparity populations and holding

them accountable for any differences found; diversifying the workforce to ensure culturally effective

care; implementing and funding evidence-based interventions, such as patient navigator programs; and

supporting and expanding the capacity of safety-net institutions, which provide a disproportionate

amount of care for underserved populations with inadequate funding and technical resources.

􀂾 Reform medical malpractice while preserving patient rights. Increasing medical malpractice

insurance rates are making it harder for doctors to practice medicine22 and raising the costs of health

care for everyone.23 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers

from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will also

promote new models for addressing physician errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctorpatient

relationship, and reduce the need for malpractice suits.

(3) LOWER COSTS BY TAKING ON ANTICOMPETITIVE ACTIONS IN THE DRUG AND INSURANCE COMPANIES. It

is not right that Americans families are paying skyrocketing premiums while drug and insurance industries are

enjoying record profits. These companies benefit most from the status quo and in many cases are the greatest

obstacles to reform. The Obama-Biden plan will tackle needless waste and spiraling costs by increasing

competition in the insurance and drug markets.

􀂾 Increasing competition in the insurance industry. The insurance business today is dominated by a

small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. In recent years, for-profit

companies have bought up not-for-profit insurers around the country. There have been over 400 health

care mergers in the last 10 years and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market.24

These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have

skyrocketed, increasing over 87 percent over the past six years.25 Over the same time period, insurance

administrative overhead has been the fastest-growing component of health spending. The 2007

Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System reported that between 2000

and 2005, administrative overhead – including both administrative expenses and insurance industry

profits – increased 12.0 percent per year, 3.4 percentage points faster than the average health

expenditure growth of 8.6 percent.26

And while health care costs continue to rise for families, CEOs of these insurance companies have

received multi-million dollar bonuses.27 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will prevent companies from

abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. In markets where the insurance

business is not competitive, their plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums

for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. Barack Obama and

Joe Biden's new National Health Insurance Exchange will also help increase competition by insurers.

􀂾 Prevent private insurance waste and abuse in Medicare. Medicare's private plan alternative, called

Medicare Advantage, was established to increase competition and reduce costs. But independent reports

show that on average the government pays 12 percent more than it costs to treat comparable

beneficiaries through traditional Medicare.28 These excessive subsidies cost the government billions of

dollars every year and create an incentive structure that has led to fraudulent abuses of seniors. Barack

Obama and Joe Biden believe we need to eliminate the excessive subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans

and pay them the same amount it would cost to treat the same patients under regular Medicare.

􀂾 Allow consumers to import safe drugs from other countries. The second-fastest growing type of

health expenses is prescription drugs.29 Pharmaceutical companies should profit when their research and

development results in a groundbreaking new drug. But some companies are exploiting Americans by

dramatically overcharging U.S. consumers. These companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe

and Canada but charging Americans a 67 percent premium.30 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will allow

Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are

lower outside the U.S.

􀂾 Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs from consumers. Some drug manufacturers

are explicitly paying generic drug makers not to enter the market so they can preserve their monopolies

and keep charging Americans exorbitant prices for brand name products.31 The Obama-Biden plan will

work to ensure that market power does not lead to higher prices for consumers. Their plan will work to

increase use of generic drugs in the new public plan, Medicare, Medicaid, FEHBP and prohibit large

drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.

􀂾 Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices. The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug

Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of

prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs' negotiation of prescription drug

prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers.32 Barack Obama and Joe

Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which

could be as high as $30 billion,33 to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality.

(4) REDUCE COSTS OF CATASTROPHIC ILLNESSES FOR EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES. Catastrophic

health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers.34 In fact, the most

recent data available reveals that the top five percent of people with the greatest health care expenses in the U.S.

account for 49 percent of the overall health care dollar.35 For small businesses, having a single employee with

catastrophic expenditures can make insurance unaffordable to all of the workers in the firm. The Obama-Biden

plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold

if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums. Offsetting some of the

catastrophic costs would make health care more affordable for employers, workers and their families.

LOWER COSTS TO MAKE OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

LOWER COSTS TO MAKE OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

WORK FOR PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES – NOT JUST

INSURANCE COMPANIES

Inefficient and poor quality care costs the nation at least $50 to $100 billion every year.9 Billions more are

wasted on administration and overhead because of inefficiencies in the health care system.10 And given current

trends, this problem will only get worse as health care spending is expected to double within the next decade.11

A growing body of research points to substantial opportunities to improve quality while reducing the costs of

care. Health care systems in many parts of the country deliver high quality care to the populations they serve at

half the cost of other equally renowned academic medical centers in other parts of the country.12 The key is to

provide information, incentives and support to help physicians and others work together to improve quality of

care while reducing costs.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must redesign our health system to reduce inefficiency and waste and

improve health care quality, which will drive down costs for families and individuals. The Obama-Biden plan

will improve efficiency and lower costs in the health care system by: (1) adopting state-of-the-art health

information technology systems; (2) ensuring that patients receive and providers deliver the best possible care,

including prevention and chronic disease management services; (3) reforming our market structure to increase

competition; and offering federal reinsurance to employers to help ensure that unexpected or catastrophic

illnesses do not make health insurance unaffordable or out of reach for businesses and their employees.

(1) INVEST IN ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS. Most medical records are still

stored on paper, which makes them difficult to use to coordinate care, measure quality, or reduce medical errors.

Processing paper claims also costs twice as much as processing electronic claims.13 Barack Obama and Joe

Biden will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad

adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records. They

will also phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT and commit the necessary federal resources

to make it happen. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will ensure that these systems are developed in coordination

with providers and frontline workers, including those in rural and underserved areas. Barack Obama and Joe

Biden will ensure that patients' privacy is protected. A study by the Rand Corporation found that if most

hospitals and doctors offices adopted electronic health records, up to $77 billion of savings would be realized

each year through improvements such as reduced hospital stays, avoidance of duplicative and unnecessary

testing, more appropriate drug utilization, and other efficiencies.14

(2) IMPROVE ACCESS TO PREVENTION AND PROVEN DISEASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. Experts agree that

several steps should be taken immediately to help patients get the care they need and to help providers improve

medical practice. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand and support these and other efforts to lower costs

and improve health outcomes.

HELP PATIENTS

􀂾 Support disease management programs. Over seventy-five percent of total health care dollars are

spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, and high blood

pressure.15 Many patients with chronic diseases benefit greatly from disease management programs,

which help patients manage their condition and get the care they need.16 Barack Obama and Joe Biden

will require that plans that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health

Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of

care and lower costs, as well.

LOWER COSTS TO MAKE OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

WORK FOR PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES – NOT JUST

INSURANCE COMPANIES

􀂾 Coordinate and integrate care. Rates of chronic diseases have skyrocketed in the last 2 decades.17

Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease.18 With proper care, the onset and

progression of these diseases can be contained for many years. In addition to the needless suffering and

early death they cause, these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly.19 Barack Obama

and Joe Biden will support providers to put in place care management programs and encourage team

care through implementation of medical home type models that will improve coordination and

integration of care of those with chronic conditions.

􀂾 Require full transparency regarding quality and costs. Health care quality and costs can vary

tremendously among hospitals and providers; however, patients have limited access to this

information.20 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly

report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse

staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care and costs. Health plans will be

required to disclose the percentage of premiums that actually goes to paying for patient care as opposed

to administrative costs.

ENSURE PROVIDERS DELIVER QUALITY CARE

􀂾 Promote patient safety. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require providers to report preventable

medical errors, and support hospital and physician practice improvement to prevent future errors.

􀂾 Align incentives for excellence. Both public and private insurers tend to pay providers based on the

volume of services provided, rather than the quality or effectiveness of care.21 Barack Obama and Joe

Biden will accelerate efforts to develop and disseminate best practices, and align reimbursement with

provision of high quality health care. Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the

National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHB will be rewarded for achieving performance

thresholds on physician-validated outcome measures.

􀂾 Comparative effectiveness reviews and research. One of the keys to eliminating waste and missed

opportunities is to increase our investment in comparative effectiveness reviews and research. This

information is developed by reviewing existing literature, analyzing electronic health care data, and

conducting simple, real world studies of new technologies. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will establish

an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness, so that Americans

and their doctors will have accurate and objective information to make the best decisions for their health

and well-being.

􀂾 Tackle disparities in health care. Although all Americans are affected by problems with our health

care delivery system, an overwhelming body of evidence demonstrates that certain populations are

significantly more likely to receive lower quality health care than others. Barack Obama and Joe Biden

will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage

and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities.

They will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care by requiring hospitals

and health plans to collect, analyze and report health care quality for disparity populations and holding

them accountable for any differences found; diversifying the workforce to ensure culturally effective

care; implementing and funding evidence-based interventions, such as patient navigator programs; and

supporting and expanding the capacity of safety-net institutions, which provide a disproportionate

amount of care for underserved populations with inadequate funding and technical resources.

􀂾 Reform medical malpractice while preserving patient rights. Increasing medical malpractice

insurance rates are making it harder for doctors to practice medicine22 and raising the costs of health

care for everyone.23 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers

from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will also

promote new models for addressing physician errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctorpatient

relationship, and reduce the need for malpractice suits.

(3) LOWER COSTS BY TAKING ON ANTICOMPETITIVE ACTIONS IN THE DRUG AND INSURANCE COMPANIES. It

is not right that Americans families are paying skyrocketing premiums while drug and insurance industries are

enjoying record profits. These companies benefit most from the status quo and in many cases are the greatest

obstacles to reform. The Obama-Biden plan will tackle needless waste and spiraling costs by increasing

competition in the insurance and drug markets.

􀂾 Increasing competition in the insurance industry. The insurance business today is dominated by a

small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. In recent years, for-profit

companies have bought up not-for-profit insurers around the country. There have been over 400 health

care mergers in the last 10 years and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market.24

These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have

skyrocketed, increasing over 87 percent over the past six years.25 Over the same time period, insurance

administrative overhead has been the fastest-growing component of health spending. The 2007

Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System reported that between 2000

and 2005, administrative overhead – including both administrative expenses and insurance industry

profits – increased 12.0 percent per year, 3.4 percentage points faster than the average health

expenditure growth of 8.6 percent.26

And while health care costs continue to rise for families, CEOs of these insurance companies have

received multi-million dollar bonuses.27 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will prevent companies from

abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. In markets where the insurance

business is not competitive, their plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums

for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. Barack Obama and

Joe Biden's new National Health Insurance Exchange will also help increase competition by insurers.

􀂾 Prevent private insurance waste and abuse in Medicare. Medicare's private plan alternative, called

Medicare Advantage, was established to increase competition and reduce costs. But independent reports

show that on average the government pays 12 percent more than it costs to treat comparable

beneficiaries through traditional Medicare.28 These excessive subsidies cost the government billions of

dollars every year and create an incentive structure that has led to fraudulent abuses of seniors. Barack

Obama and Joe Biden believe we need to eliminate the excessive subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans

and pay them the same amount it would cost to treat the same patients under regular Medicare.

􀂾 Allow consumers to import safe drugs from other countries. The second-fastest growing type of

health expenses is prescription drugs.29 Pharmaceutical companies should profit when their research and

development results in a groundbreaking new drug. But some companies are exploiting Americans by

dramatically overcharging U.S. consumers. These companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe

and Canada but charging Americans a 67 percent premium.30 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will allow

Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are

lower outside the U.S.

􀂾 Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs from consumers. Some drug manufacturers

are explicitly paying generic drug makers not to enter the market so they can preserve their monopolies

and keep charging Americans exorbitant prices for brand name products.31 The Obama-Biden plan will

work to ensure that market power does not lead to higher prices for consumers. Their plan will work to

increase use of generic drugs in the new public plan, Medicare, Medicaid, FEHBP and prohibit large

drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.

􀂾 Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices. The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug

Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of

prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs' negotiation of prescription drug

prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers.32 Barack Obama and Joe

Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which

could be as high as $30 billion,33 to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality.

(4) REDUCE COSTS OF CATASTROPHIC ILLNESSES FOR EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES. Catastrophic

health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers.34 In fact, the most

recent data available reveals that the top five percent of people with the greatest health care expenses in the U.S.

account for 49 percent of the overall health care dollar.35 For small businesses, having a single employee with

catastrophic expenditures can make insurance unaffordable to all of the workers in the firm. The Obama-Biden

plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold

if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums. Offsetting some of the

catastrophic costs would make health care more affordable for employers, workers and their families.

BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S PLAN

BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN'S PLAN TO LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS

AND ENSURE AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL

Health care costs are skyrocketing. Health insurance premiums have doubled in the last 8 years, rising 3.7

times faster than wages in the past 8 years, and increasing co-pays and deductibles threaten access to care.1

Many insurance plans cover only a limited number of doctors' visits or hospital days, exposing families to

unlimited financial liability. Over half of all personal bankruptcies today are caused by medical bills.2 Lack of

affordable health care is compounded by serious flaws in our health care delivery system. About 100,000

Americans die from medical errors in hospitals every year.3 One-quarter of all medical spending goes to

administrative and overhead costs, and reliance on antiquated paper-based record and information systems

needlessly increases these costs.4

Tens of millions of Americans are uninsured because of rising costs. Over 45 million Americans5—

including over 8 million children6—lack health insurance. Eighty percent of the uninsured are in working

families.7 Even those with health coverage are struggling to cope with soaring medical costs. Skyrocketing

health care costs are making it increasingly difficult for employers, particularly small businesses, to provide

health insurance to their employees.

Underinvestment in prevention and public health. Too many Americans go without high-value preventive

services, such as cancer screening and immunizations to protect against flu or pneumonia. The nation faces

epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases as well as new threats of pandemic flu and bioterrorism. Yet despite

all of this less than 4 cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.8 Our health care

system has become a disease care system, and the time for change is well overdue.

OBAMA-BIDEN PLAN TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH CARE TO ALL

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's plan strengthens employer–based coverage, makes insurance companies

accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference. Under the plan, if

you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500

per year. If you don't have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance

options.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan

On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes - government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that's why they've proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.

The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year.

If you don't have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.

Make Health Insurance Work for People and Businesses - Not Just Insurance and Drug Companies.

• Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.
• Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.
• Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.
• Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.
• Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care.
• Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.
• Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.

Reduce Costs and Save a Typical American Family up to $2,500 as reforms phase in:

• Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market
• Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data
• Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees.
• Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.

The Obama-Biden plan will promote public health. It will require coverage of preventive services, including cancer screenings, and increase state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility: Barack Obama will pay for his $50 - $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level.

Joe the Plumber

The hottest name from tonight's Presidential Debate was "Joe the Plumber," named over a dozen times by McCain, and several times by Obama.

So who is Joe the Plumber, besides becoming a likely candidate for Halloween Costume, at least according to some on FriendFeed.

Joe the Plumber is Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Toledo, Ohio who asked Barack Obama a question on the campaign trail Sunday.

We try not to take sides on politics on this site, so we'll make no political comment other than to show the video of the worlds most famous plumber, at least for the next couple of days, meeting Presidential candidate Barack Obama. We would add though: it's amazing how quickly people like Joe the Plumber can become famous.

JOE THE PLUMBER

From NBC's Mark Murray
McCain makes the first aggressive move of the evening, bringing up a conversation Obama had with an Ohio plumber. McCain and the right have seized onto this part of the conversation: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

But here's the entire context of the exchange, per NBC/NJ's Athena Jones:

From two days ago, Obama canvassing in Holland, Ohio:
Then a big, bald man with a goatee asks if he believes in the American dream. He tells Obama he's getting ready to buy a company that makes more than $250,000 a year. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"

Obama tells him he'd get a 50% tax credit – a cut in taxes for health care. "if your revenue is above 250 – then from 250 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that from 250 up – from 250 – 300 or so, so for that additional amount, you'd go fro 36 to 39%, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason why we're doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250. So what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut. And so what we're doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250 that that marginal amount above 250 – they're gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36% rate."

The man says he's a hard working plumber for 15 years – why should he be taxed more?

Obama says, "over the last 15 years, when you weren't making 250, you would have been given a tax cut from me, so you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code. So there are two ways of looking at it – I mean one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful through hard work – you don't want to be taxed as much."

The man says, "Exactly."

Obama contined, "But another way of looking at it is, 95% of folks who are making less than 250, they may be working hard too, but they're being taxed at a higher rate than they would be under mine. So what I'm doing is, put yourself back 10 years ago when you were only making whatever. 60 or 70. Under my tax plan you would be keeping more of your paycheck, you'd be paying lower taxes, which means you would have saved down to the point where you (inaudible). Now look, nobody likes high taxes. Of course not. But what's happened is is that we end up – we've cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than 250. We haven't given a break to folks who make less, and as a consequence, the average wage and income for ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last 8 years. So all I want to do is – I've got a tax cut. The only thing that changes is I'm gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well  - even though they've been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect the disagreement. I just want you to be clear – it's not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they've got a chance at success too."

The man says it seems like Obama would be for a flat tax.

Obama says, "you know, I would be open to it except here's the problem with a flat tax is that if you actually put a flat tax together, in order for it to work and replace all the rvenue that we've got, you'd probably end up having to make it like about a 40% sales tax. I mean that's the value added, making it up. Now some people say 23 or 25, but in truth when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on. And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who's things are slow and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody **** and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. **** But listen, I respect what you do and I respect your question, and even if I don't get your vote, I'm still gonna be working hard on your behalf because small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it."

The crowd cheered and Obama added, "for small business people, I'm gonna eliminate the capital gains tax, so what it means is if your business succeeds and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains that you get – we're not gonna tax you on it because I want you to grow (inaudible). So you're actually gonna get some, you may end up – I'd have to look your particular business, but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under JSM's (inaud). I couldn't guarantee that, 'cause I'd have to take a look at ---

The man says, "Oh yeah, I understand that."

As Obama walks away he says, "I gotta get out of here. I've gotta go prepare for this debate, but that was pretty good practice right there!"

Joe the plumber is real hero of the debate (continue)

"And what I want to do is to make sure that the plumber, the nurse, the firefighter, the teacher, the young entrepreneur who doesn't yet have money, I want to give them a tax break now."

During the encounter in Ohio, Mr Wurzelbacher had asked the Democrat:"Your new tax plan is going tax me more, isn't it?"

The Illinois senator answered: "It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Two days later, invited on to Fox News to discuss the conversation, the plumber said:"His answer actually scared me even more.

"Robin Hood stole from greedy rich people and redistributed it to the peasants, so to speak, so if he's calling us peasants, I kind of resent that," he said.

"He said he wants to distribute wealth. And I mean, I'm not trying to make statements here, but, I mean, that's kind of a socialist viewpoint. You know, I work for that. You know, it's my discretion who I want to give my money to, it's not the government decide that I make a little too much and so I need to share it with other people. I just -- that's not the American Dream.

He added that the American Dream for him was "you work hard. You're going to get what you want eventually."

After the debate, Mr Wurzelbacher told familysecuritymatters.com that he hadn't been too impressed with either candidate. He repeated his complaints against Senator Obama, saying: "So he does want to punish me, he does want to punish me for working harder to - you know, my big thing is the American Dream," he said.

But he also refused to endorse Mr McCain: "There's a lot of things I wish McCain would say," he said. "As far as this, yes, I would like him to speak. Not so much about small businesses, but just people in general that make this money," he said.

"I guess I would like him to speak about that and a bunch of other things."

Asked which candidate would get his vote on November 4, he refused to say.

"That's for me and a button to know," he said.

Joe the plumber is real hero of the debate

(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Joe Wurzelbacher, who tackled Barack Obama on the campaign trail has become an unlikely media star

They clashed on the economy and scored points off each other on negative campaigning.

But in the end, the real star of the third and final presidential debate was neither John McCain nor Barack Obama but a small town plumber called Joe.

Joe Wurzelbacher from Toledo, Ohio, has become an unlikely media star after finding himself the focus of the debate between the two White House rivals.

He is a tradesman who has worked 12-hour shifts for years and now plans to buy his own small plumbing business. The trouble for Joe the plumber is that this would take his earnings to more than $250,000 - making him a target of Obama's plan to tax the wealthy.

Joe pointed this out to Senator Obama as the Democratic candidate campaigned in Toledo last weekend.

At the time he had no idea that the brief conversation between plumber and Presidential candidate would go around the world, after it became the centre piece of John McCain's attacks on his rival's economic policies.

First Mr McCain reminded Barack Obama that Joe the plumber did not want to vote for him because his taxes would rise under the Democrat. Then both candidates repeatedly spoke directly to Mr Wurzelbacher, turning him into a real life version of "Joe Six Pack," the ordinary guy chasing the American dream, as they faced off in their third and final debate.

"Joe wants to buy the business that he's been in for all these years," Mr McCain said, using Mr Obama's encounter with the plumber to attack his rival over a tax plan he maintains would shackle small businesses.

"Joe wants to buy the business that he's been in for all these years.

"Worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business, but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes."

Mr Obama responded with his own version of his chat with Joe.

"What I essentially said to him was, five years ago, when you were in the position to buy your business, you needed a tax cut then.

 

 

Joe the Plumber

"Recently Joe Lara completed two separate repairs to my home
in the historical area of Oxnard.  Joe not only completed the jobs
quickly and cleanly, but was able to preserve the original tiling  
surrounding the areas.  In addition, the repair to the outside stucco
was done to a perfect blend of the old & new, he is an Artist.  I
would highly recommend him to anyone, whether in a new home
or old!"
       --L. Notestine


"I wanted to write and thank you for sending Joe Lara to do our       
  plumbing work.  He came the same day we called, and finished
the work for the shower in a very professional manner. Not only
was Joe very competent, but he was also attentive to detail,
congenial, and pleasant to work with!"
        --D. Norris

I became a Professional Plumber in January of 1990 and I offer Complete Plumbing Repairs and Installations.  While most plumbers charge a "flat rate" for services and will NOT quote you on the phone, I try to work with my customers to keep their costs down by being flexible and offering "flat Rates" as well as an "hourly" rate or even a combination of both.  Most importantly, I will give you a basic rate over the phone to save us both time.   I also offer Handyman Services.  I do "Honey Do" lists when your honey doesn't have the time.    I service Oxnard, Ventura & Camarillo and  I guarantee all my work!

Joe the Plumber

RAFA BACKS KEANE TO FILL VOID

RAFA BACKS KEANE TO FILL VOID Jimmy Rice 17 October 2008
	Rafa Benitez today backed Robbie Keane to fill the goalscoring boots of Fernando Torres during the coming weeks.
Click here to enjoy our exclusive chat with Rafa>> With El Nino out for between 10 and 15 days due to a hamstring tear, Keane is set to become the focal point of Liverpool's attack.   The Irishman opened his Reds account during his last club start against PSV - and followed this up with a goal versus Cyprus on Wednesday.   Benitez told Liverpoolfc.tv: "When we signed Robbie we were looking for a striker with experience in the Premier League, someone with quality who could score goals.   "That is why we signed him, so hopefully now with him being on fire with the national team this will be an opportunity for him.   "It's important for the players when they go away to play well, and when they score goals it's great for their confidence. It's very good."   Meanwhile, Benitez reacted positively to UEFA's decision to allow next week's game against Atletico to be played in Madrid.   "It was sensible. It was too late to change the stadium," said the boss. "We have a lot of fans going to the game, so it'd be a massive problem for us and our supporters.   "It would also have been a problem for Atletico and for their fans getting to the game."   One man who won't feature in the Vicente Calderon is the injured Torres.   The striker has nevertheless been invited by his former club as a VIP guest and, recovery permitting, Benitez will not stand in the way of an emotional return.   "It depends on the physios and the doctors, but I don't have any problem with him going because it will be a fantastic opportunity for him to say hello to the Atletico fans," said the gaffer.   "He is really disappointed that he won't be playing. He was desperate to play in Madrid in the Champions League, so it's a pity."   The prognosis of 10 to 15 days means Torres could miss four matches - Wigan (h), Atletico (a), Chelsea (a) and Portsmouth (h).   But Benitez added: "The Portsmouth game could be a realistic target but it always depends on the player with injuries. It's now a question of time."   The international break also brought an injury to Ryan Babel, who sprained his left ankle with Holland and will miss this weekend's clash with Wigan.   "I think he will be out this weekend, but hopefully he'll be training with the team next week," said Benitez.

Barack Obama on Voting Record

Strengthen the Americans with Disabilities Act

Obama is committed to strengthening and better enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Obama believes we must restore the original legislative intent of the ADA in the wake of court decisions that have restricted the interpretation of this landmark legislation.

One of the most devastating aspects of Hurricane Katrina is that most of the stranded victims were society's most vulnerable members, including Americans with disabilities. Too many states and cities do not have adequate plans in place to care for special-needs populations. Obama passed legislation to require states to properly plan the evacuation of special-needs individuals.

Obama understands that children with special needs require meaningful resources to succeed both inside and outside the classroom. Obama is a strong supporter of increased funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007

Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration.

The Senate voted on a resolution which would recommend a Constitutional Amendment banning flag desecration (not a vote on the Amendment itself). The resolution states:

1. the flag of the US is a unique symbol of national unity...
2. the Bill of Rights should not be amended in a manner that could be interpreted to restrict freedom...
3. abuse of the flag causes more than pain and distress... and may amount to fighting words...
4. destruction of the flag of the US can be intended to incite a violent response rather than make a political statement and such conduct is outside the protections afforded by the first amendment to the Constitution.

Proponents of the Resolution say:
• Fifty State legislatures have called on us to pass this amendment. This amendment simply says that "Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
• In other words, in passing this amendment, we would give to Congress the power that the Supreme Court took away in 1989.
• 48 States had anti-desecration measures on the books before 1989. It was then that five unelected judges told those 48 sovereign entities that they were wrong.

Opponents of the Resolution say:
• I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse this precious national symbol.
• I also believe that the values and beliefs that the American flag represents are more important than the cloth from which this symbol was created.
• Prominent among these beliefs are the right to voice views that are unpopular, and the right to protest.
• I oppose this amendment not because I condone desecration of our flag, but because I celebrate the values our flag represents. Flag burning is despicable. However, the issue is whether we should amend our great charter document, the Constitution, to proscribe it.
• Is this a problem needing such strong medicine? Are we facing an epidemic of flag burnings?

Reference: Flag Desecration Amendment; Bill S.J.Res.12 ; vote number 2006-189 on Jun 27, 2006

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

Voting YES implies support for amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This cloture motion to end debate requires a 3/5th majority. A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3rd majority. The proposed amendment is:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Proponents of the motion say:
• If Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of a constitutional amendment.
• Marriage is a foundational institution. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended by defining it as the union of a man and a woman as 45 of our 50 States have done.

  The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation. It is not an issue that the courts should resolve. Those of us who support this amendment are doing so in an effort to let the people decide.

Opponents of the motion say:
• This proposal pits Americans against one another. It appeals to people's worst instincts and prejudices.

  Supporters rail against activist judges. But if this vaguely worded amendment ever passes, it will result in substantial litigation. What are the legal incidents of marriage? Is a civil union a marriage?

• Married heterosexual couples are wondering, how, exactly, the prospect of gay marriages threatens the health of their marriages.
• This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second-class citizens of this country. It would prevent States, many of which are grappling with the definition of marriage, from deciding that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. And it would write discrimination into a document that has served as a historic guarantee of individual freedom.

Reference: Marriage Protection Amendment; Bill S. J. Res. 1 ; vote number 2006-163 on Jun 7, 2006

Ending racial profiling is part of fight for justice.

Obama adopted the CBC principles:

At the core of the Congressional Black Caucus priorities is its historical fight for civil rights and justice. Among other values, the CBC stresses federal emphasis on the following areas:
• Equal Justice. The CBC is committed to stopping racial discrimination in all aspects of our lives. We will continue efforts to end immediately the unjust practice of racial profiling, and the racial disparities in sentencing for both drug offenses and death penalty cases.
• Juvenile Justice. We must work with our children before they come in contact with our criminal justice system. The CBC supports conflict resolution and open communication initiatives that serve as preventive measures to violence. It is also the goal of this Caucus to properly address mandatory sentencing guidelines and racial sentencing disparities.

Source: Congressional Black Caucus press release 01-CBC8 on Jan 6, 2001

Sponsored bill for special-needs evacuation plans.

Obama sponsored including special-needs people in emergency evacuation plans

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to ensure the evacuation of individuals with special needs in times of emergency.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: One of the most striking things about the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina is that the majority of stranded victims were our society's most vulnerable members--low-income families, the elderly, the homeless, the disabled. Many did not own cars. Many believed themselves unable to flee the city, unable to forego the income from missed work, unable to incur the expenses of travel, food and lodging. Some may have misunderstood the severity of the warnings, if they heard the warnings at all. Some may have needed help that was unavailable. Whatever the reason, they were not evacuated and we have seen the horrific results.

This failure to evacuate so many of the most desperate citizens of the Gulf Coast leads me to introduce today a bill to require states and the nation to consider the needs of our neediest citizens in times of emergency. It appears that certain assumptions were made in planning and preparing for the worst case scenario in the Gulf Coast. After all, most of those who could afford to evacuate managed to do so. They drove out of town and checked into hotels or stayed with friends and family. But what about the thousands of people left behind because they had special needs?

Communities with special needs may be more challenging to accommodate, but they are every bit as important to protect and serve in the event of an emergency. What we saw in the Gulf Coast cannot be repeated. We may not be able to control the wrath of Mother Nature, but we can control how we prepare for natural disasters.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; never came to a vote.

Source: Emergency planning bill (S.1685) 05-S1685 on Sep 12, 2005

Sponsored bill for a Rosa Parks commemorative postage stamp.

Obama sponsored issuing a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks

EXCERPTS OF RESOLUTION:

• Whereas in 1955, Rosa Parks's quiet, courageous act changed the United States and its view of African Americans, and redirected the course of history;
• Whereas at that time, in Montgomery, Alabama, as in other cities in the Deep South, the treatment of African Americans on public buses had long been a source of resentment within the African American community;
• Whereas White busdrivers, who were invested with police powers, frequently harassed African Americans;
• Whereas on December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks took her seat in the front of the 'Colored' section of a Montgomery bus, but was asked, along with 3 other African Americans, to relinquish her seat to a White passenger;
• Whereas although the 3 other African American passengers relinquished their seats, Rosa Parks refused to do so, and was arrested for that refusal;
• Whereas because Rosa Parks's act of disobedience launched the Montgomery bus boycott, which lasted for 381 days and propelled the civil rights movement into the national consciousness, she is widely known as the mother of the civil rights movement; and
• Now, therefore, be it Resolved that it is the sense of Congress that the United States Postal Service should issue a commemorative postage stamp honoring the late Rosa Parks.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; never came to a vote. Source: Rosa Parks Stamp (S.2154/H.R.4343) 05-S2154 on Dec 20, 2005

Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.

Obama scores 89% by the HRC on gay rights

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:

• 0% - 20%: opposes gay rights (approx. 207 members)
• 20% - 70%: mixed record on gay rights (approx. 84 members)
• 70%-100%: supports gay rights (approx. 177 members)

About the HRC (from their website, www.hrc.org):

The Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of more than 700,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.

Ever since its founding in 1980, HRC has led the way in promoting fairness for GLBT Americans. HRC is a bipartisan organization that works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.

Source: HRC website 06n-HRC on Dec 31, 2006

Rated 100% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.

Obama scores 100% by the NAACP on affirmative action

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 NAACP scores as follows:

• 0% - 33%: anti-affirmative-action stance (approx. 177 members)
• 34% - 84%: mixed record on affirmative-action (approx. 96 members)
• 85%-100%: pro-affirmative-action stance (approx. 190 members)

About the NAACP (from their website, www.naacp.org):

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has worked over the years to support and promote our country's civil rights agenda. Since its founding in 1909, the NAACP has worked tirelessly to end racial discrimination while also ensuring the political, social, and economic equality of all people. The Association will continue this mission through its policy initiatives and advocacy programs at the local, state, and national levels. From the ballot box to the classroom, the dedicated workers, organizers, and leaders who forged this great organization and maintain its status as a champion of social justice, fought long and hard to ensure that the voices of African Americans would be heard. For nearly one hundred years, it has been the talent and tenacity of NAACP members that has saved lives and changed many negative aspects of American society.

Source: NAACP website 06n-NAACP on Dec 31, 2006

Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery.

Obama co-sponsored recognizing Juneteenth as historical end of slavery

A resolution recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future.

Recognizes the historical significance to the nation, and supports the continued celebration, of Juneteenth Independence Day (June 19, 1865, the day Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, with news that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved African Americans were free). Declares the sense of Congress that:

1. history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future; and
2. the celebration of the end of slavery is an important and enriching part of the history and heritage of the United States.

Legislative Outcome: House versions are H.CON.RES.155 and H.RES.1237; related Senate resolution S.RES.584 counts for sponsorship. Resolution agreed to in Senate, by Unanimous Consent. Source: S.RES.584 08-SR584 on Jun 4, 2008

Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.

Obama co-sponsored providing benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees

Sen. LIEBERMAN: This legislation would require the Government to extend employee benefit programs to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. It is sound public policy and it makes excellent business sense.

Under our bill, Federal employee and the employee's domestic partner would be eligible to participate in benefits to the same extent that married employees and their spouses participate. Employees and their partners would also assume the same obligations that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.

The Federal Government is our Nation's largest employer and should lead other employers, rather than lagging behind, in the quest to provide equal and fair compensation and benefits to all employees. That thousands of Federal workers who have dedicated their careers to public service and who live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners receive fewer protections for their families than those married employees is patently unfair and, frankly, makes no economic sense.

I call upon my colleagues to express their support for this important legislation. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up to the private sector, not just to set an example but so that it can compete for the most qualified employees and ensure that all of our public servants receive fair and equitable treatment. It makes good economic and policy senses. It is the right thing to do.

SUMMARY: Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007

Employees and their domestic partners will have the same benefits as married employees and their spouses under--
• Employee health benefits
• Retirement and disability plans
• Family, medical, and emergency leave
• Group life insurance
• Long-term care insurance
• Compensation for work injuries
• Death, disability, and similar benefits
• Relocation, travel, and related expenses.

Source: Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S.2521/H.R.4838) 2007-S2521 on Dec 19, 2007

Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment.

Obama co-sponsored re-introducing the Equal Rights Amendment

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women, which shall be part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the States:
• Section 1.Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
• Section 2.The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
• Section 3.This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.

Sen. KENNEDY. "It's a privilege to join my colleagues in reintroducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. The ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the beginning of our history as a Nation, women have had to wage a constant, long and difficult battle to win the same basic rights granted to men. That battle goes on today, since discrimination still continues in many ways.

"Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act & the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce and many areas of the economy. Today, women earn about 77 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. More than 60% of working women are still clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations, and female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

"A stronger effort is clearly needed to finally live up to our commitment of full equality. The ERA alone cannot remedy all discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing efforts of women across the country to obtain equal treatment.

"We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that amending the Constitution to include the ERA will not be easy to achieve. But the women of America deserve no less."

Source: Equal Rights Amendment (S.J.RES.10/H.J.RES.40) 2007-SJR10 on Mar 29, 2007

Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements.

Obama co-sponsored reinforcing anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements

A bill to restore, reaffirm, and reconcile legal rights and remedies under civil rights statutes. Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for:

1. establishing discrimination based on disparate impact; and
2. rights of action and recovery for unlawful discrimination.

• Authorizes civil actions in federal court for discrimination based on disability.
• Repeals provisions limiting the amount of compensatory and punitive damages that may be awarded in cases of intentional discrimination in employment.
• Revises provisions governing discrimination in the payment of wages, including equal pay requirements.

Source: Civil Rights Act of 2008 (S.2554&H.R.5129) 2008-S2554 on Jan 24, 2008

Barack Obama on Gay Rights

Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage

Presidential candidates can command instant national attention when they want it. But John McCain and Barack Obama each took a hushed approach to letting the world know where they stand on the California ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage.

The muted announcements--McCain supports the proposed ban, Obama opposes it--will have little if any bearing on the presidential contest in California, but the ramifications are serious elsewhere.

Obama first announced his opposition to the measure only in response to media inquiries. He said the nation should recognize lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans "with full equality under the law."

Obama called the ballot measure "divisive and discriminatory" and concluded by congratulating "all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks." Left unstated was that Obama has declined to endorse gay marriage, saying that civil unions would suffice to protect partners' rights.

Source: By Michael Finnegan and Cathleen Decker, Los Angeles Times Jul 2, 2008

Being gay or lesbian is not a choice

Q: You had one supporter on a Bible tour in South Carolina who said that homosexuality was a curse and that he had been cured by prayer. Do you believe homosexuality's a curse?

A: No.

Q: Do you believe that it is something that you are born gay or that you can change your behavior?

A: I do not believe being gay or lesbian is a choice. And so I disagree with [that supporter]. But part of what I hope to offer as president is the ability to reach to people that I don't agree with, and the evangelical community is one where the Democratic Party, I think, we have generally seen as hostile. We haven't been reaching out to them, and I think that if we're going to makes significant progress on critical issues that we face, we've got to be able to get beyond our comfort zones and just talk to people we don't like. I've tried to do is to reach out to the evangelical community and tell them very clearly where I disagree.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 11, 2007

Decisions about marriage should be left to the states

One of Obama's pragmatic stands troubling to progressives is on gay marriage. In the Senate debate, Obama opposed the right-wing Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage nationally and said: "I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states." However, Obama also declared, "Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." At the same time, Obama has strongly supported civil unions, arguing that it is a way to protect equal rights without taking the politically risky approach of gay marriage. Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.114-115 Oct 30, 2007

Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality

A reporter asked Obama, "What do you think about General Pace's comments that homosexuality is immoral?" Obama said, "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's a good tradition to follow. I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to? If they are doing all the things that are needed to be done."

Obama later said, "I don't think homosexuals are immoral any more than I think heterosexuals are immoral." Obama has taken a forthright stand calling for the end of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He said, "It is time to review the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy and do what is in the best interests of our national security. At time when the services are having a tough time recruiting and training troops, it seems foolish to kick out good soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who want to serve."

Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.115 Oct 30, 2007

Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already

Q: Last year some parents of second graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?

A: My 9-year-old and my 6-year-old are already aware that there are same-sex couples. And my wife and I have talked about it. And one of the things I want to communicate to my children is not to be afraid of people who are different, and because there have been times in our history where I was considered different. And one of the things I think the next president has to do is to stop fanning people's fears.

Q: Have you sat down with your daughters to talk about same-sex marriage?

A: My wife has.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 6, 2007

Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands?

The notion of gay marriage has been used to divide people in black churches. I pointed out that if there's any pastor here who can point out a marriage that has been broken up as a consequence of seeing two men or two women holding hands, then you should tell me, because I haven't seen any evidence of it. And if you think that issue is more important to the black family than the fact that black men don't have any jobs and are struggling in the inner cities, then I profoundly disagree with you. Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions

It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I come from that in part out of personal experience. When you're a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it's like to be on the outside. And so my concern is continually to make sure that the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for all people.

That's why I opposed DOMA in 2006 when I ran for the Senate. That's why I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same sex union are compatible.

When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same sex couples, I think that's unacceptable, and as president of the United States, I am going to fight hard to make sure that those rights are available.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church

Q: You have said in previous debates that it is up to individual religious denominations to decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage. What place does the church have in government-sanctioned civil marriages?

A: It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally. I don't think that the church should be making these determinations when it comes to legal rights conferred by the state. I do think that individual denominations have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same sex couples. My denomination, United Church of Christ, does. Other denominations may make a decision, and obviously, part of keeping a separation of churches and state is also to make sure that churches have the right to exercise their freedom of religion.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage"

Q: If you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before you, how would you have voted on that?

A: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word "marriage," which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights

Q: On the grounds of civil marriage, can you see to our community where [your stance of separating gay rights from the word "marriage"] comes across as sounding like "separate but equal"?

A: Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it's something that I care about. But if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it's less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state. Now, it's not for me to suggest that you shouldn't be troubled by these issues. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day to day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement

Q: Would you put the fight among gays and lesbians for civil rights on a par with the civil rights movement for African-Americans?

A: My attitude is if people are being treated unfairly and unequally, then it needs to be fixed. So I'm always very cautious about getting into comparisons of victimology. You know, the issues that gays and lesbians face today are different from the issues that were faced by African-Americans under Jim Crow. That doesn't mean, though, that there aren't parallels in the sense that legal status is not equal. And that has to be fixed. I'm going to be more sympathetic not because I'm black. I'm going to be more sympathetic because this has been the cause of my life and will continue to be the cause of my life, making sure that everybody's treated fairly and that we've got an expansive view of America, where everybody's invited in and we are all working together to create the kind of America that we want for the next generation.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage

Q: The laws banning interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?

A: We've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples. Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.

Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

Pass ENDA and expand hate crime legislation

We must be careful to keep our eyes on the prize--equal rights for every American. We must continue to fight for the Employment Non Discrimination Act. We must expand hate crime legislation and be vigilant about how these laws are enforced--.continue to expand adoption rights to make them consistent --and we must repeal the "Don't ask, don't tell' military policy. Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p. 44 Mar 27, 2007

Opposed 1996 Illinois DOMA bill

I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will appeal any proposal to amend the U.S. constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. I know how important the issue of equal rights is to the LGBT community. I share your sense of urgency. Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p. 52 Mar 27, 2007

Supports health benefits for gay civil partners

On the Federal Marriage Amendment, Obama staked out his position on marriage rights for gays:

I realize that for some Americans, this is an important issue. I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man & a woman. But let's be honest. That is not what this debate is about. Not at this time. This debate is an attempt to break a consensus that is quietly being forged.

It is a consensus between a majority of Americans who say, "Maybe some of us are comfortable with gay marriage right now and some of us are not. But most of us do believe that gay couples should be able to visit each other in the hospital & share health care benefits; and should be treated with dignity and have their privacy respected."

Obama's position is sensitive to the rights of gay people. Health care benefits for partners is a huge issue. Keeping the federal government and the Constitution out of the marriage debate is a huge win for supporters of gay and lesbian rights. Source: Should Barack Obama be President, by F. Zimmerman, p. 39-40 Oct 17, 2006

Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality

For many practicing Christians, the inability to compromise may apply to gay marriage. I find such a position troublesome, particularly in a society in which Christian men and women have been known to engage in adultery or other violations of their faith without civil penalty. I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simlpy because the people they love are of the same sex--nor am I willing to accept a readingof the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.

The heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination and gays and lesbians.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.222-3 Oct 1, 2006

Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is

Q: Do you think marriage is a human right?

A: I don't think marriage is a civil right, but I think that not being discriminated against is a civil right. I think making sure that we don't engage in the sort of gay-bashing that, I think, has unfortunately dominated this campaign-not just here in Illinois, but across the country-is unfortunate, and that kind of mean-spirited attacks on homosexuals is something that the people of Illinois generally have rejected.

Source: IL Senate Debate Oct 26, 2004

Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws

Q: Do you believe that the Illinois government should include sexual orientation in Illinois' anti-discrimination laws?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you believe that the Illinois government should recognize same-sex marriages?

A: Undecided

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Barack Obama on Affirmative Action

Keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work

Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons. Source: Speech at 2008 Democratic National Convention Aug 27, 2008

Apply affirmative action to poor white college applicants

Q: You said about affirmative action that affluent African Americans like your daughters should probably be treated as advantaged when they apply to college, and that poor white children should get special consideration.

A: The basic principle that should guide discussions not just on affirmative action but how we are admitting young people to college generally is, how do we make sure that we're providing ladders of opportunity for people? Race is still a factor in our society. And I think that for universities to say, "we're going to take into account the hardships that somebody has experienced because they're black or Latino or women..."

Q: Even if they're wealthy?

A: I think that's something that they can take into account, but it can only be in the context of looking at the whole situation of the young person. So I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can't be a quota system.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

Legalized discrimination meant blacks could not amass wealth

So many of the disparities that exist between the African American community and the larger American community today can be traced directly to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow

Segregated schools were and are inferior schools. We still haven't fixed them, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination-- where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions--meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth & income gap between blacks and whites, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities

Source: Speech on Race, in Change We Can Believe In, p.222-3 Mar 18, 2008

Fight job discrimination to give women equal footing at jobs

AT A GLANCE

• Pay Equity: Obama will better enforce the Equal Pay Act, fight job discrimination, and improve child care options and family medical leave to give women equal footing in the workplace.

THE PROBLEM

• Discrimination on the Job: For every $1.00 earned by a man, the average woman receives only 77 cents. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men.

OBAMA'S PLAN

• Fight for Pay Equity: Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act, fight job discrimination, and improve child care options and family medical leave to give women equal footing in the workplace.
• Expand Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit: Obama will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50% credit for their child care expenses.

Source: Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 35-36 Feb 2, 2008

Remove discriminatory barriers to the right to vote

AT A GLANCE

• Protect the Right to Vote: Obama will remove discriminatory barriers to the right to vote.

THE PROBLEM

• Efforts Continue to Suppress the Vote: A recent study discovered numerous organized efforts t intimidate, mislead and suppress minority voters.

OBAMA'S PLAN

• End Deceptive Voting Practices: Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voter who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.

OBAMA RECORD

• As a community organizer, Obama helped 150,000 African Americans register to vote.
• As a civil rights lawyer, Obama litigated voting rights cases.
• In the Senate, Obama has been a leading advocate for protecting the right to vote, helping to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and leading the opposition against discriminatory barriers to voting.

Source: Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 48-49 Feb 2, 2008

Benefited from affirmative action but overcame via merit

As a black, Obama must display enough natural talent to be immune to the stigma of affirmative action--the perception that he is a mediocrity lifted up by lowered standards.

Still, he has clearly benefited from affirmative action. American universities impose this policy on black students with such totalitarian resolve that even blacks who don't need the lowered standards come away stigmatized by them.

What began to separate Obama from this stigma was his editorship of the Harvard Law Review. Here was something that required genuine merit. Here was a position he had to gain through competition rather than through the suspension of competition. Obama's fame began precisely with this achievement because it distinguished him from the general run of black students who carried the stigma of having been pulled forward by lowered standards. He was special because he was clearly more than an "affirmative action baby," someone who could succeed without the ministrations of white guilt.

Source: A Bound Man, by Shelby Steele, p. 13-14 Dec 4, 2007

Include class-based affirmative action with race-based

Obama declared his daughters "should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged. I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed."

But Obama is not race blind, and neither is his ideal of affirmative action, which would combine both race-based and class-based preferences. He said, "I don't think those concepts are mutually exclusive. I think what one can say is that in our society race and class still intersect, and there are a lot of African American kids who are struggling, that even those who are in the middle class may be first generation as opposed to fifth or sixth generation college attendees, and that we all have an interest in bringing as many people together to help build this country."

Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p. 65-66 Oct 30, 2007

Better enforce women's pay equity via Equal Pay Act

Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar men make. Obama believes the government needs to better enforce the Equal Pay Act, fight job discrimination, and improve child care options and family medical leave to give women equal footing in the workplace.

Women are majority owners of more than 28% of US businesses, but head less than 4% of venture-capital-backed firms. Obama encourages investing in women-owned businesses, and reducing discrimination in lending.

Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007

Blacks should infiltrate mainstream to affect change

[In his State Senate race], one of Obama's central themes was the powerful potential of multiculturalism in American society. Rather than continually castigating whites for an oppressive history of mistreating blacks, Obama suggested, blacks would do better if they infiltrated the mainstream power structure and worked from there to effect social change.

"Any solution to our unemployment catastrophe must arise from us working creatively within a multicultural, interdependent economy," Obama said. "Any African Americans who are only talking about racism as a barrier to our success are seriously misled if they don't also come to grips with the larger economic forces that are creating economic insecurity for all workers."

His steadfast beliefs made him less than a unifying force in Chicago's black community. The idea of building bridges to people of all races was anathema to many old-school black leaders who still sounded a voice in Chicago's African American community.

Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.113 Aug 14, 2007

Commitment to diversity by CEOs is advisable

I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non discrimination laws. But I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation's CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers. Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p. 34 Mar 27, 2007

African-Americans vote Democratic because of issue stances

I don't think the Democratic Party takes the African-American voters for granted. I'm happy that the president spoke at the Urban League. He should have spoke at the NAACP. I want Republicans to compete for the African-American vote. They're not getting the African-American vote not because African-Americans aren't open-minded, but because Democrats have consistently championed those issues-civil rights, voting rights, concern for working families-that are of greatest concern to African-American voters. Source: Meet The Press, NBC News Jul 25, 2004

Supports affirmative action in colleges and government

Indicate the principles you support concerning affirmative action. Should state government agencies take race and sex into account in the following sectors?
• Q: College and university admissions? A: Yes
• Q: Public employment A: Yes
• Q: State contracting? A: Yes.

Barack Obama on Civil Rights

Has stood together with Latino leaders for last 20 years

I've been working with Latino leaders ever since I entered public service more than 20 years ago. We stood together when I was an organizer, lifting up neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plants closed. We stood together when I was a civil rights attorney, working to ensure that Latinos were being well represented. And we marched together to fix our broken immigration system. That's why you can trust me when I say that I'll be your partner in the White House. Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008

Hate crimes related to the immigration issue is unacceptable

Because immigration reform was used as a political football instead of a way of solving a problem, nothing happened. It is absolutely critical that we tone down the rhetoric when it comes to immigration, because there has been an undertone that has been ugly. Oftentimes, it has been directed at the Hispanic community. We have seen hate crimes skyrocket in the wake of the immigration debate, & that is unacceptable. We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and we can reconcile those two things. Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008

People want to move beyond our divisions

I am absolutely convinced that white, black, Latino, Asian, people want to move beyond our divisions, and they want to join together in order to create a movement for change in this country. I'm not entirely faulting the media because, look, race is a factor in our society. There's no doubt that in a race where you've got an African-American, and a woman, and there's no doubt that that has piqued interest. They are desperate to move beyond the same, old arguments that we've been having and start actually getting something done in this country. The Republicans may have a different attitude, because they haven't been appearing before forums that are diverse. The policies that they have promoted have not been good at providing ladders for upward mobility and opportunity for all people. That is a fight that all of us will fight. But I don't want us to get drawn into this notion that somehow this is going to be a race that splits along racial lines. Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

2004 DNC speech merged "heritage" with "diversity"

The story of his interracial background is usually the first thing one hears about Obama. But it is also very often the first story he tells about himself.

At the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston, Obama made the famous speech that launched him as a new star in national politics. By the third sentence of that speech we had heard about his Kenyan father and grandfather, and by the eighth sentence we had met his white mother from Kansas. By the third paragraph we had the white grandparents as well as a reference to his parents' "improbable love."

And then came a deft recasting of his pedigree that would have scandalized most Americans only a generation ago. "I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage." And "in no other country on earth is my story even possible." Here, he both compliments his nation and gilds his heritage with today's golden word, "diversity."

Source: A Bound Man, by Shelby Steele, p.101-102 Dec 4, 2007

The politics of fear undermines basic civil liberties

What we cannot continue to do is operate as if we are the weakest nation in the world instead of the strongest one, because that's not who we are and that's not what the US has been about, historically. It is starting to warp our domestic policies, as well. We haven't even talked about civil liberties and the impact of that politics of fear--what that has done to us, in terms of undermining basic civil liberties in this country, what it has done in terms of our reputation around the world. Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007

1980s boss predicted Obama would be heir to MLK's voice

After seeing how Obama's poitical career unfolded, Jerry Kellman, [Obama's boss for his 1980's Chicago communnity organizing job] made a bold prclaimation: Despite chatter in some quarters of the black community that Obama hadn't lived the typical African-American experience, Kellman predicted that he would be the most likely heir to Martin Luther King's legacy as both the chief advocate and the moral voice of black Americans. He said Obama saw this role for himself years ago, even if he is reluctant to admit it publicly today for fear of sounding immodest and perhaps distancing himself from his non-black constituents.

Kellman also predicted that Obama would assume this mantle with thoughtfulness and a full understanding of its gravity. "If you look at the King analogy," Kellman said, "Barack has become the expectation of his people, similar to King. Barack will take on that burden of being that person who changes the situation for African Americans."

Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p. 74 Aug 14, 2007

Racial equality good for America as a whole

Q: Is race still the most intractable issue in America?

A: [Those who worked on civil rights in the past realized that] to achieve racial equality was not simply good for African-Americans, but it was good for America as a whole; that we could not be what we might be as a nation unless we healed the brutal wounds of slavery and Jim Crow. Now, we have made enormous progress, but the progress we have made is not good enough. As many have already mentioned, we live in a society that remains separated in terms of life opportunities for African-Americans, for Latinos, and the rest of the nation. And it is absolutely critical for us to recognize that there are going to be responsibilities on the part of African-Americans and other groups to take personal responsibility to rise up out of the problems that we face. But there has also got to be a social responsibility, there has to be a sense of mutual responsibility, and there's got to be political will in the White House to make that happen.

Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University Jun 28, 2007

Put the Confederate flag in a museum, not the state house

Q: The NAACP has asked tourists, groups and sporting events not to come to South Carolina until the confederate flag has been removed from the statehouse grounds. Do you agree with that? Why are you, the candidates, in South Carolina if they support the NAACP?

A: I think that the Confederate flag should be put in a museum. That's where it belongs. But we've got an enormous debate that's taking place in this country right now. And we've got to engage the people of South Carolina in that debate.

Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Muslim heritage gives Obama unique influence in Muslim world

Pro's and Con's: Muslim heritage gives Obama unique influence in Muslim world

Pro: We need to be more popular in the Muslim world. US policies are highly unpopular in the Muslim world and are blamed for most of the region's ill. We need to be more popular with them.

Con: The Muslim world needs to be more popular with us. Who cares? They need to be more like us.

Pro: Obama will be uniquely positioned to deal with the foreign policy challenge of the century, the Muslim world. "I will go to Pakistan," Obama might pledge. The dramatic gesture might tilt the balance in a close race. The newly inaugurated President Obama's visit to Pakistan, where he scattered ashes from the World Trade Center at the footsteps of a mosque, is widely credited with the change in Pakistani sentiment that led to Bin Ladin's capture in 2009.

Con: The principal foreign policy challenge of the early 21st century is China, and Obama brings nothing to the table there.

Source: Should Barack Obama be President, by F. Zimmerman, p. 70-71 Oct 17, 2006

No black or white America--just United States of America

A line in my speech at the 04 Democratic National Convention struck a chord. "There is not a black American and white American and Latino America and Asian American--there is the United States of America." For them, it seems to capture a vision of America finally freed from the past of Jim Crow and slavery, Japanese internment camps and Mexican braceros, workplace tensions and cultural conflict--an America that fulfills Dr. King's promise that we be judged not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character.

I have no choice but to believe this vision. As the child of a black man and white woman, born in the melting pot of Hawaii, with a sister who is half-Indonesian, but who is usually mistaken for Mexican, and a brother-in-law and niece of Chinese descent, with some relatives who resemble Margaret Thatcher and others who could pass for Bernie Mac, I never had the option of restricting my loyalties on the basis of race or measuring my worth on the basis of tribe.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.231 Oct 1, 2006

Gays should not face discrimination but should not marry

Q: [to Keyes]: You've criticized homosexuality throughout your career. What would you say to your child if he or she were a homosexual?

KEYES: Marriage is based upon heterosexual relations because they are connected to procreation. Where procreation is impossible, marriage is irrelevant. And that is the civic explanation against homosexual marriage. It is irrelevant. And the idea that one should have legislation that is regulating private friendships for no reason is a degrading of those friendships.

OBAMA: Well, to answer the original question, I would love that child and seek to support them. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman but I detest the bashing and vilifying of gays and lesbians. Most gays and lesbians are seeking basic recognition of their rights so they're not discriminated against in employment or renting a house, so they can see their partner in a hospital. These are rights for everybody, not just some people.

Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004

Forthright on racial issues and on his civil rights history

Obama has very strong support in the African American community, which was really long in coming. A lot of people had doubts about him. They thought he would downplay racial issues and civil rights. But he doesn't do that. He speaks forthrightly about racial issues and has a great deal of history and experience in a civil rights-oriented struggles. So, in many ways, he breaks that mold of the black politician who really softens his message to the point of homogeneity to appeal to a wide range. Source: Salim Muwakkil and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now Jul 15, 2004

Defend freedom and equality under law

As a civil rights attorney and professor of constitutional law, Obama has a keen understanding and deep appreciation of our nation's core values and guiding principles. Obama will be a fierce defender of the fundamental American values of freedom and equality under law. Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com, ?On The Issues? May 2, 2004

Politicians: don't use religion to insulate from criticism

I am a great admirer of our founding charter and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root in this country. I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate. I don't think it's healthy for public figures to wear religion on their sleeve as a means to insulate themselves from criticism, or dialogue with people who disagree with them. Source: Chicago Sun-Times, "I have a deep faith" Apr 5, 2004

Miscegenation a felony in 1960 when Obamas practiced it

Miscegenation. The word is humpbacked, ugly, portending a monstrous outcome: like antebellum or octoroon, it evokes images of another era, a distant world of horsewhips and flames, dead magnolias and crumbling porticos. And yet it wasn't until 1967 - three years after Dr. King received the Nobel Peace Prize, a time when America had already begun to weary of black demands for equality, the problem of discrimination presumably solved - that the Supreme Court of the US would get around to telling the state of Virginia that its ban on interracial marriages violated the Constitution. Source: Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p. 11 Aug 1, 1996

The civil rights movement was a success

As segregated as Chicago was, as strained as race relations were, the success of the civil rights movement had at least created some overlap between communities, more room to maneuver for people like me. I could work in the black community as an organizer or a lawyer and still live in a high rise downtown. Or the other way around: I could work in a blue-chip law firm but live in the South Side and buy a big house, drive a nice car, make my donations to the NAACP, speak at local high schools. Source: Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.254 Aug 1, 1996

Barack Obama on Abortion

1990: Wrote law article that that fetus cannot sue mother

As president of the Harvard Law Review and a law professor in Chicago, Barack Obama refined his legal thinking, but left a scant paper trail. His name doesn't appear on any legal scholarship. But an unsigned--and previously unattributed-- 1990 article unearthed by Politico offers a glimpse at Obama's views on abortion policy and the law during his student days, and provides a rare addition to his body of work.

The six-page summary considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama's answer, like most courts': No. He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother's rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy.

Obama's article, which begins on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review, is available in libr

Source: Politico.com, "Obama's lost law review article" Aug 22, 2008

FactCheck: Abortions HAVE gone down under Pres. Bush

Obama, who favors a legal right to abortion, noted that he was trying to "reduce the number of abortions." But he went too far when he falsely accused President Bush of failing to meet that same goal, saying incorrectly that "over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down."

This is an erroneous claim that we first tracked down and debunked more than three years ago when it was being repeated by Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton, among others.

The Guttmacher Institute, whose figures are cited regularly by both sides in the abortion debate, say on their Web site, "In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million abortions in 2000."

There's little to show the decline has come about because of anything President Bush did or didn't do. In fact, the number of abortions in the U.S. has been falling steadily since the 1980s regardless of whether the person in the White House favored a legal right to abortion or opposed it.

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Saddleback joint appearance Aug 16, 2008

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Source: 2008 Fox News interview: presidential series Apr 27, 2008

We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life

Q: The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?

A: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

1. There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.
2. People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion. Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

Undecided on whether life begins at conception

Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?

A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.

Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception

We've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.

But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.

And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.

We're not going to completely resolve it. At some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.

Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy

"In the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted 'present" instead of "no' on five horrendous anti-choice bills."
--E-mail from NOW attacking Sen. Obama's record on abortion issues.

The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. A chain e-mail denounced Obama's record on abortion, citing his "present" votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.

The Facts: Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation [and asked Obama to vote 'present' as a strategy]. NOW never endorsed the Planne Parenthood strategy of voting 'present,' saying "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes." Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood had different voting strategies on the abortion issue. It was impossible for Obama to satisfy both groups at once.

Source: GovWatch on 2008 NOW pro-Clinton campaign literature Feb 6, 2008

Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy

AT A GLANCE

• Reproductive Choice: Obama has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving a women's right to choose under Roe v. Wade a priority as president. Obama also supports expanded access to contraception, health information and preventive services to reduce unintended pregnancies.

OBAMA'S PLAN

• Protecting a Women's Right to Choose: Obama will make safeguarding women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn that decision.
• Reducing Unintended Pregnancy: Obama will work to reduce unintended pregnancy by guaranteeing equity in contraceptive coverage, providing sex education, and offering rape victims accurate information about emergency contraception.

OBAMA RECORD

• Throughout his career, in both the Illinois Senate & the US Senate, Obama has stood up for a women's right to choose, consistently earning 100% ratings from pro-choice groups.

Source: Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 35-36 Feb 2, 2008

Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007

Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice.

• 2007: 100 percent
• 2006: 100 percent
• 2005: 100 percent

Source: NARAL voting record, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org Jan 1, 2008

Voted against banning partial birth abortion

Obama's record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting "present" is the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the "present" vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no." During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama's "present" vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, "He ducked!".

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007

Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases

Barack Obama believes we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life threatening diseases. Stem cells hold the promise of treatments and cures for more than 70 major diseases and conditions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. As many as 100 million Americans may benefit from embryonic stem cell research. As president, Obama would:

• Promote Embryonic Stem Cell Research
• Support Medical Advancement and Innovation
• Expand the Number of Stem Cell Lines Available for Research
• Ensure Ethical Standards

Obama introduced legislation in the Illinois Senate to ensure that only those embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used and that donors would have to provide written consent for the use of the embryos. Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007

Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion

Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?

A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.

Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters

[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. "Mr. Obama, I know you're a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?"

I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.

"I will pray for you," the protester said. "I pray that you have a change of heart." Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own-that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.197-8 Oct 1, 2006

Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism

When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.

Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far--that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.

I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.

I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison's design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 89-92 Oct 1, 2006

Moral accusations from pro-lifers are counterproductive

Q: [to Keyes]: Doesn't your pro-life stance conflict with your support of the death penaty?

KEYES: It doesn't conflict at all. Abortion and capital punishment are at different level of moral concern. Abortion is intrinsically, objectively wrong and sinful whereas capital punishment is a matter of judgment, which is not in and of itself a violation of moral right. The question of whether or not you should apply capital punishment depends on circumstances and it's an area where Catholics have a right to debate and disagree.

OBAMA: Now I agree with Mr. Keyes that the death penalty and abortion are separate cases. It's unfortunate that with the death penalty Mr. Keyes respects that people may have a different point of view but with the issue of abortion he has labeled people everything as terrorists to slaveholders to being consistent with Nazism for holding an opposing point of view. That kind of rhetoric is not helpful in resolving a deeply emotional subject.

Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004

Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill

State Senator Barack Obama today called for passage of the Ronald Reagan Biomedical Research Act (HB 3589), which will permit embryonic stem cell research in Illinois. The bill, formerly known as the Stem Cell Research Act, was recently renamed to honor the memory of former President Ronald Reagan.

The Ronald Reagan Biomedical Research Act specifically permits embryonic stem cell research in Illinois. Today, more than 100 million Americans are afflicted by medical problems [which could be affected by this research]. Obama says, "This bill affects diseases that attack Americans - regardless of their gender, age, economic status, ethnicity, race or political affiliation. This is about a commitment to medical research, under strict federal guidelines. I call on leaders in Illinois and President Bush in Washington to stop playing politics on this critical issue and expand the current policy on embryonic stem cell research so that we can begin finding the cures of tomorrow today."

Source: Press Release, "Stem Cell Research Bill" Jun 16, 2004

Protect a woman's right to choose

For almost a decade, Obama has been a leader in the Illinois legislature in the battle to protect a woman's right to choose and promote equal economic rights and opportunities. Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com May 2, 2004

---

Barack Obama on Voting Record

Supports Roe v. Wade

Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade. Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require that legislation to reauthorize SCHIP include provisions codifying the unborn child regulation. Amends the definition of the term "targeted low-income child" to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term "child" includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 46-52

Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4233 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S081 on Mar 14, 2008

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions consistent with the Child Custody Protection Act.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment enables enforcing the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. Too many times we enact laws, and we do not fund them. This is going to set up funding so the law that says we are going to protect young children from being taken across State lines to have a surgical abortion--we are going to make sure those people are protected. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BOXER: We already voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws. If Sen. Ensign's bill becomes law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 49-49 (1/2 required, or 50 votes; Sen. Byrd & Sen. McCain absent)

Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4335 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S071 on Mar 13, 2008

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:

1. have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
2. were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
3. were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
4. were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.

Opponents support voting NO because:

A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.

The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Status: Vetoed by Pres. Bush Bill passed, 63-34

Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill S.5 & H.R.3 ; vote number 2007-127 on Apr 11, 2007

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules. It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, "Do they want their kids to come to their parents?", absolutely. But if you ask them, "Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?", they say no.

This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.

Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill S.403 ; vote number 2006-216 on Jul 25, 2006

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care. A YES vote would:

• Increase funding and access to family planning services
• Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
• Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives

Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services; Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-75 on Mar 17, 2005

Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women.

Obama introduced expanding contraceptive services for low-income women

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends Medicaid to:

1. prohibit a state from providing for medical coverage unless it includes certain family planning services and supplies; and
2. include women who are not pregnant but who meet income eligibility standards in a mandatory "categorically needy" group for family planning services purposes.

EXCERPTS OF BILL:

Congress makes the following findings:
1. Rates of unintended pregnancy increased by nearly 30% among low-income women between 1994 and 2002, and a low-income woman today is 4 times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as her higher income counterpart.
2. Abortion rates decreased among higher income women but increased among low income women in that period, and a low income woman is more than 4 times as likely to have an abortion as her higher income counterpart.
3. Contraceptive use reduces a woman's probability of having an abortion by 85%.
4. Levels of contraceptive use among low-income women at risk of unintended pregnancy declined significantly, from 92% to 86%.
5. Publicly funded contraceptive services have been shown to prevent 1,300,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and in the absence of these services the abortion rate would likely be 40% higher than it is.
6. By helping couples avoid unintended pregnancy, Medicaid-funded contraceptive services are highly cost-effective, and every public dollar spent on family planning saves $3 in the cost of pregnancy-related care alone.
   The Social Security Act is amended by adding [to the Medicaid section] the following: COVERAGE OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND SUPPLIES -- a State may not provide for medical coverage unless that coverage includes family planning services and supplies.

   LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Finance; never came to a vote.

   Source: Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (S.2916/H.R.5795) 06-S2916 on May 19, 2006

   Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.

   Obama scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues

   OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:

   • 0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
   • 16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
   • 85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
   About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):

   The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.

   The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.

   In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.

   Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006

   Ensure access to and funding for contraception.

   Obama co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraception

   A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women's health care. The Congress finds as follows:

   1. Healthy People 2010 sets forth a reduction of unintended pregnancies as an important health objective to achieve over the first decade of the new century.
   2. Although the CDC included family planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, the US still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations.
   3. Each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, nearly half of all pregnancies, in the US are unintended, and nearly half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
   4. In 2004, 34,400,000 women, half of all women of reproductive age, were in need of contraceptive services, and nearly half of those were in need of public support for such care.
   5. The US has the highest rate of infection with sexually transmitted diseases of any industrialized country. 19 million cases impose a tremendous economic burden, as high as $14 billion per year.
   6. Increasing access to family planning services will improve women's health and reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive use saves public health dollars. For every dollar spent to increase funding for family planning programs, $3.80 is saved.
   7. Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
   8. Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
   9. A child born from an unintended pregnancy is at greater risk of low birth weight, dying in the first year of life, being abused, and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development.
   Source: Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819) 2007-HR819 on Feb 5, 2007

Barack Obama on Financial Bailout

Not enough to help those at the top: it doesn't trickle down

Q: What's the fastest solution to bail people out of economic ruin?

OBAMA: It's not enough just to help those at the top. Prosperity is not just going to trickle down. We've got to help the middle class. Part of the problem is that for many of you, wages and incomes have flat-lined. For many of you, it is getting harder and harder to save, harder and harder to retire. Sen. McCain is right that we've got to stabilize housing prices. But underlying that is loss of jobs and loss of income. That's something that the next treasury secretary is going to have to work on.

McCAIN: We obviously have to stop this spending spree that's going on in Washington. Do you know that we've laid a $10 trillion debt on young Americans, $500 billion of it we owe to China? We've got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform prosperity and peace in the world. And I think that this problem has become so severe, that we're going to have to do something about home values.

Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008

Barack Obama on Budget & Economy

When Bush came in, we had a surplus; now we have a deficit

Q: How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got us into this global economic crisis?

OBAMA: I understand your frustration and your cynicism. Most of the people here, you've got a family budget. If less money is coming in, you end up making cuts. Maybe you don't go out to dinner as much. Maybe you put off buying a new car. That's not what happens in Washington. And you're right. There is a lot of blame to go around.

But I think it's important just to remember a little bit of history. When George Bush came into office, we had surpluses. And now we have half-a-trillion-dollar deficit annually. When George Bush came into office, our national debt was around $5 trillion. It's now over $10 trillion. We've almost doubled it.

And so while it's true that nobody's completely innocent here, we have had over the last 8 years the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history. And Sen. McCain voted for 4 out of 5 of those George Bush budgets.

Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008

Middle class needs a rescue package with tax cuts

Q: What's your plan to save people from financial ruin?

OBAMA: This is a verdict on the failed policies of the last eight years that said that we should strip away consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down. Step one was a rescue package that means making sure taxpayers get their money back. The middle-class need a rescue package. That means tax cuts for the middle-class. It means help for homeowners. It means we are helping state governments set up projects that keep people in their jobs. We've got to fix our health care system, we've got to fix our energy system. You've got to have somebody in Washington who is thinking about the middle class and not just those who can afford to hire lobbyists.

McCAIN: I have a plan to fix this problem and it has to do with energy independence. We've got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us. We have to keep Americans' taxes low. All Americans' taxes low.

Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008

Bailout will unfreeze credit & allow businesses to function

Q: Which parts of the $700B bailout will help people?

OBAMA: Let me tell you what's in the rescue package for you. Right now, the credit markets are frozen up and what that means is that small businesses can't get loans. If they can't get a loan, that means that they can't make payroll. If they can't make payroll, then they may end up having to shut their doors and lay people off. And if you imagine just one company trying to deal with that, now imagine a million companies all across the country. So it could end up having an adverse effect on everybody, and that's why we had to take action. But we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

McCAIN: This rescue package means we will stabilize markets, we will shore up these institutions. But it's not enough. That's why we're going to have to go out into the housing market and buy up these bad loans and we're going to have to stabilize home values, and that way, Americans can realize the American dream and stay in their home.

Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008

Every citizen should save energy & resources

Q: What economic sacrifices will Americans have to make?

OBAMA: Each and every one of us can start thinking about how can we save energy. And one of the things I want to do is make sure we're providing incentives so that you can buy a fuel efficient car that's made right here in the U.S., not in Japan or South Korea, making sure that you are able to weatherize your home or make your business more fuel efficient.

McCAIN: Some of those programs may not grow as much as we would like for them to, but we can establish priorities with full consultation, not done behind closed doors & shoving earmarks in the middle of the night that we don't even know about until months later.

Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008

Clinton left behind a surplus; Bush squandered it

We could have done something to end our addiction to oil, but instead we continued down a path that that funds both sides of the war on terror, endangers our planet, and has left Americans struggling with $4 a gallon gasoline. We could have invested in innovation and rebuilt our crumbling roads and bridges, but instead we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a war in Iraq that should've never been authorized and never been waged.

Worse yet, the price-tag for these failures is being passe to our children. The Clinton Administration left behind a surplus, but this Administration squandered it. We face budget deficits in the hundreds of billions and our nearly ten trillion dollars in debt. We've borrowed billions from countries like China to finance needless tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and an unnecessary war, and yet Sen. McCain is explicitly running to continue and expand these policies, without a realistic plan to pay for it. I want to take us in a new and better direction.

Source: Speech in Flint, MI, in Change We Can Believe In, p.247-8 Jun 15, 2008

A different economic approach vs. McCain's 4 more years

Q: The GOP is arguing already that you want to increase capital gains taxes on investments and stocks: A lot of middle-class people have those kinds of accounts.

A: If they have a 401(k), then they are going to see those taxes deferred, and they're going to pay ordinary income when they finally cash out. So, that's a phony argument. You know, as I travel around the country, what I'm absolutely convinced of is that people recognize that if only 1% of the population is doing well, when we've got wage and incomes for the average worker actually going down during a period of economic expansion, much less economic recession, that something's being mismanaged. And they want a different approach. And that's what we're going to be offering them. John McCain is essentially offering four more years of the same policies that got us into this rut that we're in now.

Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer May 11, 2008

Can't do anything at home with $12 billion a month on Iraq

The fact that we're spending $12 billion every month in Iraq means that we can't engage in the kind of infrastructure improvements that are going to make us more competitive, we can't deliver on the kinds of health care reforms that Clinton and I are looking for. McCain is willing to have these troops over there for 100 years. The notion that we would sustain that kind of effort and neglect not only making us more secure here at home, more competitive here at home, allow our economy to sink. Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008

Protect consumers with Credit Card Bill of Rights

• Create a Credit Card Rating System to Improve Disclosure:Provide consumers an easily identifiable 1-star to 5-star ranking of credit cards, based on the card's features. Credit card companies will be required to display the rating on all application and contract materials.
• Establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to Protect Consumers:Obama will create a Credit Card Bill of Rights to protect consumers. The Obama plan will:
  • Ban Unilateral Changes
  • Apply Interest Rate Increases Only to Future Debt
  • Prohibit Interest on Fees
  • Prohibit "Universal Defaults"
  • Require Prompt and Fair Crediting of Cardholder Payments
• Cap Outlandish Interest Rates on Payday Loans and Improve Disclosure:Obama supports extending a 36% interest cap to all Americans. Obama will require lenders to provide clear and simplified information about loan fees, payments and penalties, and he'll require them to provide this information during the application process.

Source: Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 10-15 Feb 2, 2008

Bush stimulus plan leaves out seniors & unemployed

We heard the President say he has a stimulus plan to boost our economy, but we know his plan leaves out seniors and fails to expand unemployment insurance, and we know it was George Bush's Washington that let the banks and financial institutions run amok, and take our economy down this dangerous road. What we need to do now is put more money in the pockets of workers and seniors, and expand unemployment insurance for more people and more time. And I have a plan that to do just that. Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008

Account for every single dollar for new proposed programs

Q: You have some $50 billion worth of new programs that you cannot account for.

A: We account for every single dollar that we propose. This is one of the things that's happened during the course of this campaign, that there's a set of assertions made b Clinton and her husband, that are not factually accurate. Part of what the people are looking for right now is somebody who's going to solve problems and not resort to the same typical politics that we've seen in Washington. That is something that I hear all across the country. So when Clinton says I wasn't opposed to the war from the start or says it's a fairytale that I opposed the war, that is simply not true. Clinton asserts that I said that the Republicans had better economic policies since 1980. That is not the case. The viewers are concerned about is who's actually going to help the get health care, how are they going to get their kids going to college, and that's the kind of campaign I've tried to run.

Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

Bankruptcy bill pushed by banks & financial institutions

OBAMA: When we talked a while back, we talked about the bankruptcy bill, which had been pushed by the banks and the financial institutions, that said, basically, it will be harder for folks who have been lured into these teaser rates and then see their credit cards go up to 30%, that they would have a tougher time getting out of bankruptcy. In the last debate, Clinton said she voted for it but hoped that it wouldn't pass. Now, I don't understand that approach to legislation.

CLINTON: I regretted voting for the bankruptcy bill and I was happy that it didn't get into law. By 2005, there was another run at a bankruptcy reform, motivated by the credit card companies and the other big lenders. I opposed that bill. There was a particular amendment that is very telling. It was an amendment to prohibit credit card companies from charging more than 30% interest. It was one of the biggest lobbyist victories on that very bad bill that the bankruptcy bill represented.

Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

Lack of an energy policy is a financial burden

Part of the reason that Kuwait and others are able to come in and purchase, or at least bail out, some of our financial institutions is because we don't have an energy policy. We are sending close to a billion dollars a day. A realistic plan is going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and to invest in solar & wind & biodiesel. That would make a substantial difference in our balance of payments, and that would make a substantial difference in terms of their capacity to purchase our assets. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

Release people in bankruptcy due to health care problems

We have to release people who are in bankruptcy as a consequence of health care. We've got to give them a break. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need years to dig out

Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?

A: Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they're seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues.

Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?

A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves out of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.

Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007

Save $150 billion in tax cuts for people who don't need them

Every proposal I've put forward during this campaign we have paid for, and we have specified where that money is going to come from. Let's just look at our tax code because it's a great example of how we could provide relief to ordinary citizens who are struggling to get by. Right now we've got a whole host of corporate loopholes and tax havens. There's a building in the Cayman Islands that houses supposedly 12,000 US-based corporations. That's either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world, and we know which one it is. If we close some of those loopholes, we've put forward tax relief plans, that will not only restore fairness to our tax code, but it also puts money into the pockets of hard-working Americans who need it right now, who will spend it, and will actually improve our economic growth over time, particularly at a time when we're seeing a credit crunch. But it requires leadership from the white house that restores that sense that we're all in this together. Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic Debate Dec 13, 2007

Take China "to the mat" about currency manipulation

Q: You had said that if China is actually manipulating their currency, the US needs to "take them to the mat." What exactly did you mean by that?

A: We have legislation that says that if, in fact, they are manipulating their currency--and I think there's no dispute that they are--that we need to take strong action. It's in the Banking Committee. I will say that it's actually a blunt tool. I'd prefer not doing this legislatively. The problem is we've had a president that has shown no leadership on it. So when I am in the White House, I will meet directly with the Chinese leadership and indicate we have to restore balance. And, by the way, we have to mobilize our allies, such as the European Union, to have that conversation with us. This is an imbalance that is not good for any economy over time. It's not sustainable, the trade imbalances that we have.

Source: 2007 Democratic radio debate on NPR Dec 4, 2007

Rejects free market vision of government

In a 2005 commencement address, Obama described the conservative philosophy of government as "to give everyone one big refund on their government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity." Obama has rejected this free market vision of government, preferring to see the power of the state as something that can serve the public interest. According to Obama, "We're going to put more money into education than we have. WE have to invest in human capital." Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.155 Oct 30, 2007

Return to PayGo: compensate for all new spending

We were told by our President that we could fight two wars, increase our military budget by 74%, spend more on education, initiate a prescription drug plan, have tax cuts, all at the same time. We were told by Congress that they could make up for lost revenue by cutting government waste.

The result is the most precarious budget situation we have seen in years. We now have an annual budget deficit of almost $300 billion, not counting more than $180 billion we borrow every year from the Social Security Trust Fund.

It is not the debt that is most troubling. The bulk of the debt is a direct result of the President's tax cuts, 47.4% of which went to the top 5% income bracket.

We can eliminate tax credits that have outlived their usefulness & close loopholes that let corporations get away without paying taxes. We can restore a law that was in place during the Clinton presidency--called Paygo--that prohibits money from leaving the treasury without some way of compensating for the lost revenue.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.187-189 Oct 1, 2006

Bush's economic policies are not working

Obama believes that there is no such thing as a "jobless recovery." When millions of Americans aren't working, neither are the Bush Administration's economic policies. As US Senator, Obama will champion policies that get our economy moving and people working instead of short-sighted tax-cuts for the rich that have failed to spark a recovery. Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com May 2, 2004

Supports federal programs to protect rural economy

Our rural communities are the backbone of Illinois. Yet, factories have closed, jobs have disappeared, and homes and farms have been foreclosed upon. Effective federal programs are necessary to protect the rural economy. Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com, ?On The Issues? May 2, 2004

---

Barack Obama on Financial Bailout

Not enough to help those at the top: it doesn't trickle down

Q: What's the fastest solution to bail people out of economic ruin?

OBAMA: It's not enough just to help those at the top. Prosperity is not just going to trickle down. We've got to help the middle class. Part of the problem is that for many of you, wages and incomes have flat-lined. For many of you, it is getting harder and harder to save, harder and harder to retire. Sen. McCain is right that we've got to stabilize housing prices. But underlying that is loss of jobs and loss of income. That's something that the next treasury secretary is going to have to work on.

McCAIN: We obviously have to stop this spending spree that's going on in Washington. Do you know that we've laid a $10 trillion debt on young Americans, $500 billion of it we owe to China? We've got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform prosperity and peace in the world. And I think that this problem has become so severe, that we're going to have to do something about home values.

Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008

I sought re-regulation; McCain boasts he's a deregulator

McCAIN: Some of us stood up two years ago and said we've got to enact legislation to fix this. We've got to stop this greed and excess. Meanwhile, the Democrats in Congress defended what Fannie and Freddie were doing. They resisted any change.

OBAMA: I've got to correct a little bit of Sen. McCain's history. Let's, first of all, understand that the biggest problem in this whole process was the deregulation of the financial system. Sen. McCain, as recently as March, bragged about the fact that he is a deregulator. On the other hand, two years ago, I said that we've got a sub-prime lending crisis that has to be dealt with. I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it. A year ago, I went to Wall Street and said we've got to reregulate, and nothing happened. And Sen. McCain during that period said that we should keep on deregulating because that's how the free enterprise system works.

Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008

We're in the worst financial crisis since Great Depression

Q: Where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?

A: We are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. As we engage in this important rescue effort, we've got to make sure that we've got oversight over this whole process. $700 billion, potentially, is a lot of money. We've got to make sure that taxpayers have the possibility of getting that money back--and gains--if & when the market returns. We've got to make sure none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or t promote golden parachutes. We've got to make sure we're helping homeowners, because the root problem has to do with the foreclosures taking place all across the country. This is a final verdict on 8 years of failed economic policies--a theory that says w can shred regulations & consumer protections and give more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down. It hasn't worked. The fundamentals of the economy have to be measured by whether or not the middle class is getting a fair shake.

Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain Sep 26, 2008

The lax regulation that Bush favored got us in this disaster

Q: Do you favor this bailout plan?

A: We haven't seen the language yet, & there's constructive work being done. I am optimistic about the capacity of us to come together with a plan. But how did we get into this situation in the first place? Two years ago, I warned that because of the subprime lending mess, because of lax regulation, that we were potentially going to have a problem & tried to stop some of the abuses in mortgages that were taking place at the time. Last year, I wrote to the secretary of the Treasury to make sure that he understood the magnitude of this problem and to call on him to bring all the stakeholders together to try to deal with it. We've have to intervene to solve this problem short-term. But we're also going to have to look at how is it that we've shredded some many regulations, we did not set up a 21st century regulatory framework to deal with these problems. And that, in part, has to do with an economic philosophy that says regulation is always bad.

Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain Sep 26, 2008

Pay attention to Main Street, not just Wall Street

OBAMA: Ten days ago McCain said the fundamentals of the economy are sound. Unless we are holding ourselves accountable day-in, day-out, not just when there's a crisis for folks who have power and influence and can hire lobbyists but for the nurse, the teacher, the police officer who frankly at the end of each month, they've got a little financial crisis going on. They're having to take out extra debt just to make their mortgage payments. We haven't been paying attention to them.

McCAIN: We've got fundamental problems in the system. And Main Street is paying a penalty for the excesses and greed in Washington, DC, and in the Wall Street. There's no doubt that we have a long way to go, and obviously stricter interpretation and consolidation of the various regulatory agencies that weren't doing their job that has brought on this crisis. But I have a fundamental belief in the goodness and strength of the American worker. And the American worker is the most productive, the most innovative.

Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain Sep 26, 2008

Decide financial rescue plan on future slower tax revenues

Q: What are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?

A: There are a range of things that are probably going to have to be delayed. We don't yet know what our tax revenues are going to be. The economy is slowing down. So it's hard to anticipate right now what the budget's going to look like next year. But there's no doubt that we're not going to be able to do everything that needs to be done.

Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain Sep 26, 2008

Spending freeze is like a hatchet where you need a scalpel

Q: In the middle of a huge financial crisis that is yet to be resolved, how this is going to affect you not in small ways, but in major ways, and the approach you would take to the presidency.

McCAIN: How about a spending freeze on everything but Defense, Veterans Affairs and entitlement programs? We ought to seriously consider, with the exceptions of caring for our veterans, national defense and several other vital issues.

OBAMA: The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are currently underfunded. I want to increase early childhood education. We're currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad, that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close.

Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain Sep 26, 2008

Latinos & blacks are hardest hit by housing & gas crises

For eight long years, Washington hasn't been working for ordinary Americans. And few have been hit harder than Latinos and African Americans. You know what I'm talking about. Like a couple I met in Las Vegas who were tricked into buying a home they couldn't afford. You know about the families all across this country who are out of work, or uninsured, or struggling to pay rising costs for everything from a tank of gas to a bag of groceries. And that's why you know that we need change in this country Source: Obama & McCain back-to-back speeches at NALEO Jun 28, 2008

More accountability in subprime mortgages

• Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry:Obama introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for law enforcement, and creates new criminal penalties for mortgage fraud.
• Create a Universal Mortgage Credit:Obama will create a 10% universal mortgage credit to provide tax relief to homeowners who do not itemize. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.
• Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.

Source: Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 10-15 Feb 2, 2008

Help the homeowners actually living in their homes

It is important to make sure that we're not helping out the speculators, but instead are helping out the homeowners who are actually living in their homes, who have the capacity to make the payments if they're not seeing a huge increase in their mortgage payments. But understand this, this is not new. We have a history in this country of preying on low-income peoples because they don't have access to banks. The Community Reinvestment Act is oftentimes not enforced as it should be. We've got to open up bank branches. We've got to give people access to financing so that they're not going to a payday loan operation. I two years ago introduced a provision that would eliminate predatory lending, something that I had already helped to get passed at the state level. We've got to give ordinary working people access to financing. Part of the reason that they are borrowing on their homes, they're borrowing on credit cards, is that the banks and financial institutions have dominated policy in Washington. Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

Capping credit card interest rates at 30% is not enough

I thought 30 percent potentially was too high of a ceiling. So we had had no hearings on that bill. It had not gone through the Banking Committee. I don't know about a lot of folks, if they've got a credit card, are paying 29 percent. So under this provision, that would've been fine. There had been no discussion about how we were going to structure this and this was something that had not gone through the committee and we hadn't talked about. It didn't make sense for us to cap interest rates. Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

Accountability and oversight over the financial markets

The sub-prime lending mess, part of the reason it happened was because we had an administration that does not believe in any kind of oversight. You've got to disclose if you've got a teaser rate and suddenly their mortgage payments are going to jack up & they can't pay for them. I intend to restore a sense of accountability and regulatory oversight over the financial markets. We have the best financial markets in the world, but only if they are transparent and accountable and people trust them. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

Modify some of the fraudulent & predatory lending practices

We've got to modify some fraudulent & predatory lending practices. I put in a bill to make that happen because it does affect communities. Unless we are able to rid the influence of special interest lobbies, we're going to continue to see bad legislation like that. I've put forward a $10 billion housing fund that can help bridge people who have been responsible in making their payments. We've got to make sure they can get the kinds of help they need to stay in their homes & make the payments. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

Regulate financial instruments to protect home mortgages

Q: [to Dodd]: The Fed lowered the discount rate for banks to address the mortgage crisis. Should they lower rates for everyone else?

DODD: Yes, but we also need more liquidity in the market. It has seized up. You can't get a mortgage in America today.

OBAMA: We do need more liquidity, but we're going to have to not only help home owners who are going to be losing their homes as a consequence of this; we're going to have to make sure that we've got the kinds of tough regulation when it comes to financial instruments to make sure that people who have saved and are trying to get their own home for the first time are not hoodwinked out of it. And, unfortunately, the reason that we haven't had tougher regulation in part goes back to the issue of lobbying. This is where special interests have been driving the agenda. We have not had the kinds of consumer protections that are in place. That's why, when we have this debate about lobbying, we have to remind ourselves it has very real consequences.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on "This Week" Aug 19, 2007

Government regulation needed for when markets fail

In the era of George Bush's running up huge federal deficits, Obama advocated fiscal restraints, calling for pay-as-you-go government. He waxed on about the power of the free market to create wealth and change lives. But he also had an afterthought on a market-based economy straight from liberal economist Paul Krugman: "Sometimes markets fail, and that's when labor laws and government regulation are necessary correctives." In other words, he was saying that capitalism is magnificent, but it does have its drawbacks. It would be hard for anyone to argue with such a balanced statement. "Obama figures out ways to present himself like a conservative to conservatives." Said [one advisor]. "He has the whole venture capital industry here in Chicago, nothing but Republicans, thinking he is their champion. He has supported entrepreneurship. It is a pro-growth message." Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.248-249 Aug 14, 2007

---

Barack Obama on Voting Record

Voted against limiting credit to 30%, because 30% too high

Clinton and Obama battled over their votes on bankruptcy bills and an amendment to cap interest charged on credit, at 30%. Obama claimed, "I thought 30% potentially was too high of a ceiling."

Obama did vote against--and Clinton voted for--an amendment that would have placed a 30% cap on the interest rate that could be charged on any extension of credit. The amendment failed by a vote of 74 to 24 in 2005. When the amendment came up for a vote, Obama was standing next to Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-MD, the senior Democrat on the banking committee and the leader of those opposing the landmark bill, which would make it harder for Americans to get rid of debt.

As for whether the 30% cap was too high, that's certainly a matter of opinion. Sen. Mark Dayton of Minnesota, sponsor of the amendment, said on the Senate floor that such a cap "is still consumer abuse" but is much better than rates of more than 300%, which he said were being charged by some loan operations in the country.

Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. Debate Jan 21, 2008

I opposed both the 2001 and 2005 bankruptcy bills

I opposed both the 2001 and 2005 bankruptcy bills. They were bad ideas, because they were pushed by the credit card companies, they were pushed by the mortgage companies, and they put the interests of those banks and financial institutions ahead of the interests of the American people. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness.

Amendment intends to pay down the Federal debt and eliminate government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ineffective by the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

My amendment says we are going to take about $18 billion as a strong signal from the Congress that we want to support effective programs and we want the taxpayer dollars spent in a responsible way. My amendment doesn't take all of the $88 billion for the programs found by PART, realizing there may be points in time when another program is not meeting its goals and needs more money. So that flexibility is allowed in this particular amendment. It doesn't target any specific program. Almost worse than being rated ineffective, we have programs out there that have made absolutely no effort at all to measure their results. I believe these are the worst offenders. In the following years, I hope Congress will look at those programs to create accountability.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

The effect of this amendment will simply be to cut domestic discretionary spending $18 billion. Understand the programs that have been identified in the PART program are results not proven. Here are programs affected: Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, child abuse prevention, and treatment. If there is a problem in those programs, they ought to be fixed. We ought not to be cutting Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, and the rest. I urge a "no" vote.

Reference: Allard Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.491 on S.Con.Res.21 ; vote number 2007-090 on Mar 22, 2007

Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending.

Vote to pass a bill that reduces federal spending by $40 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, and student loans. The bill also provides a down-payment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs. Reference: Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act; Bill S. 1932 ; vote number 2005-363 on Dec 21, 2005

Get minorities into home ownership & global marketplace.

Obama adopted the CBC principles:

The CBC is focused on economic empowerment issues including:
• New Markets and Small and Minority Business Development. The CBC will seek to increase opportunities for minority and small and disadvantaged businesses by expanding contracting opportunities in the public and private sectors, increasing access to capital, creating tax incentives for capital improvements, removing outdated and restrictive regulatory barriers, and streamlining and enhancing procurement tools to encourage minority and small business utilization.
• Trade and Global Economic Empowerment. The CBC will work to ensure that the benefits of the dynamic global marketplace extend to minority businesses, and Africa and developing countries. To this end, the CBC will propose and support trade and investment initiatives designed to bridge the global digital divide, create jobs, improve infrastructure, promote sustainable development, and raise living and work standards for people of color around the globe. Moreover, the CBC will work to ensure that America's international trade agenda and priorities also meet these goals.
• Increasing Affordable Housing Opportunities. The CBC's goal is to increase the nation's homeownership rates. Home ownership is one of the best wealth creation vehicles for minority families. We will work with lending institutions and community organizations to ensure that minorities are afforded every opportunity to realize the dream of owning a home.

Source: Congressional Black Caucus press release 01-CBC10 on Jan 6, 2001

Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages.

Obama co-sponsored requiring full disclosure about subprime mortgages

Sen. DODD: Today we are facing a crisis in the mortgage markets on a scale that has not been seen since the Great Depression: over 2 million homeowners face foreclosure at a loss of over $160 billion in hard-earned home equity; over one out of every 5 subprime loans is currently delinquent. These high default rates have frozen the subprime and jumbo mortgage markets and infected the capital markets to the point where central banks around the world have had to inject liquidity into the system to avoid the crisis from spreading to other segments of the market.

One of the fundamental causes of this serious crisis is abusive and predatory subprime mortgage lending. The Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act of 2007 is designed to protect American homeowners from these practices, and prevent this disaster from happening again. The legislation will:

• realign the interests of the mortgage industry with borrowers to insure the availability of mortgage capital on fair terms both for the creation and sustainability of homeownership;
• establish new lending standards to ensure that loans are affordable and fair, and
• provide for adequate remedies to make sure the standards are met; and create a transparent set of rules for the mortgage industry so that capital can safely return to the market without bad lending practices driving out the good.

It is important to keep in mind that only about 10% of subprime mortgages have been made to first time home buyers. This market has not been primarily about creating a new set of homeowners; a majority of subprime loans have been refinances. While maintaining access to subprime credit on fair terms is important, too much of the subprime market has actually put the homes and home equity of American families at risk.

In the coming months, the housing crisis is going to get worse. We will need to continue to press lenders and servicers to provide real relief for homeowners threatened with foreclosure.

Source: Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act (S.2452 ) 2007-S2452 on Dec 12, 2007

Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy.

Obama co-sponsored reforming mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy

• Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 - refinance mortgages originally financed through a qualified subprime loan.
• Makes FY2008 appropriations for emergency needs of states and local governments to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes; and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation for foreclosure mitigation activities.
• Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2008 - Authorizes a bankruptcy plan for individuals with regular income to provide for payment of such claim for a period of up to 30 years. Creates a principal residence homestead exemption for debtors over 55 years of age.
• Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2008 - Amends the Truth in Lending Act to set forth additional disclosure requirements governing any extensions of credit (not only mortgages) secured by the dwelling of a consumer.

Source: Foreclosure Prevention Act (S.2636) 2008-S2636 on Feb 13, 2008