"On The Hill" - 5 new articles
Capitol Idea: The President Can Make 'Democracy Stronger' at Ft. BraggBy Scott Nance
In a highly publicized appearance in China earlier this week, President Obama lectures the Chinese against political censorship. He goes so far as to invite criticism of him personally, saying such debate makes "our democracy stronger." But by the end of the week back home, the Army bans media coverage of once — and perhaps future — Obama rival Sarah Palin because the service fears political statements against the president among troops who may come out to see the Republican former Alaska governor. Anyone across the political spectrum easily sees here a disturbing double standard emerging. Obama was right in China in arguing for openness and non-censorship in the town hall meeting he held in Shanghai when he said: "But the truth is that because in the United States information is free, and I have a lot of critics in the United States who can say all kinds of things about me, I actually think that that makes our democracy stronger and it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don't want to hear. It forces me to examine what I'm doing on a day-to-day basis to see, am I really doing the very best that I could be doing for the people of the United States." Unfortunately someone at Fort Bragg didn't get that particular memo when they decided to ban reporters from covering Palin's book tour stop there — an event that otherwise is completely on-the-record and open to the public. The 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, Palin is on the road to promote her new book, Going Rogue. And she may well wind up facing off against Obama as the GOP's presidential nominee in 2012. Outrage over the Army's media ban has nothing to do with what you think of Palin as a person or politician. One can disagree entirely and intensely with the full range of Palin's policies and politics and still find the Army's decision wrong and indefensible. What makes matters worse is that Army's reported basis for its decision is specifically based on nothing more than shielding Obama from potential embarrassment. The Associated Press and the The Fayetteville Observer are right to protest the decision. As it stands, Obama shouldn't be held directly responsible for the Army's media ban at Fort Bragg. Indications are that he did not directly influence or countenance the decision. It obviously comes from those much further down the chain of command. Obama may not have initiated the decision, but it would be wrong for him to benefit from it. As the Commander in Chief, Obama can reverse the media ban and allow reporters and cameras to Fort Bragg to cover whatever happens when Palin arrives to sell her books — even if the troops embrace Palin and criticize Obama. Doing so will eliminate any air of hypocrisy on his stated position against censorship — and nothing would put a stronger exclamation point on his message to the Chinese a world away. The publisher of On The Hill and its sister sites, Life, The Universe ... and Politics Live, Scott Nance has covered government and Washington for more than a decade. Capitol Idea is his regular column from Washington. Watch more breaking news now on our video feed: Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.  Progressives Cheer Senate Health Bill As Right Attacks Bill On Abortion GroundsProgressives and ardent supporters of a healthcare public option are cheering the Senate version of health reform legislation to emerge Thursday. Social conservatives, meanwhile, are attacking the bill for lack of an anti-abortion amendment that had been included in the House version.
“The legislation deserves much praise," says Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), perhaps the most outspoken advocate in the Senate for inclusion of a public option. "The bill will drive down costs and improve the quality of health care, stop health insurance companies from denying care to people who need it, protect coverage for children in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), safeguard Medicare for seniors with the Independent Medicare Advisory Board, offer a public health insurance option to drive down costs and keep health insurance companies honest and accountable. “Health care reform took a huge step forward this week," Rockefeller adds. "In the days ahead, it will take the courage and commitment of my colleagues to get this promising legislation across the finish line. In the end, I am confident that Congress will stand up for the American people and fix our broken health care system once and for all." Meanwhile, Rockefeller and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) are both touting a specific new regulation on private insurers that Reid included in the Senate package. The bill contains provisions that require insurance companies to spend a set portion of their insurance premium dollars on actual health care services, as opposed to marketing campaigns, CEO salaries, and administrative costs, according to a statement released by Franken's office. This portion of the insurance dollar, known in the industry as “medical loss ratio,” has been set at 80 cents for group insurance plans and 75 cents for individual plans, the statement says. “It is time for health insurance companies to spend the money they collect from consumers on actual medical care, not executive salaries and fancy office buildings,” says Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care. “This is a common-sense solution in a strong bill, and it says that we are serious about keeping health insurance companies honest and protecting consumers first.” “Minnesota families need to know that when they send their health insurance premium dollars to their insurance companies, that money is being spent on making and keeping them healthy – not on bloated profits, bonuses, or advertising,” says Franken. “This was a common-sense solution I was proud to fight for and I’m thrilled to see it included in our Senate bill. It’s going to go a long way toward improving care and holding insurance companies accountable.” Meanwhile, prominent social conservatives are assailing Reid and the Senate bill because it does not include language similar to an amendment included in the legislation approved by the House limiting coverage of abortion. "The Reid bill authorizes the Secretary of HHS to fund abortion in the public option, now called the 'community health insurance option,'" says Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council. "The bill provides tax credits for private plans that cover abortion-on-demand, mandates plans across the country to cover abortion-on-demand and strips important conscience protections for providers who refuse to perform elective abortion. "The Stupak-Pitts amendment adopted with 240 votes in the House would prevent federal funding for abortion or subsidies for plans that cover abortion," Perkins says, referring to the abortion restrictions named for its key authors, Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.). "It also makes clear that individuals or groups are not prevented from providing coverage that includes abortion as long as federal funds are not used. "Clearly the straightforward language of the Stupak-Pitts amendment is not what Senator Reid and his pro-abortion colleagues want. Rather they want government funding of abortion-on-demand," Perkins says. Although Reid did not include the Stupak-Pitts legislative language, Reid has amassed a record as being against abortion. Watch more breaking news now on our video feed: Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.  When News Falls in the Forestby Stephen Engelberg, ProPublica
This line, in a page-one story in one of America’s leading newspapers, provoked hardly a ripple. There were no impassioned speeches on the floor of Congress. All was quiet in the blogosphere. When Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that Mohammed and four others would be tried in New York federal court, the journalistic and political worlds exploded. Republicans and some Democrats condemned the idea as misguided, naïve and downright dangerous. Families of the 9/11 victims were outraged. The question of why and when a particular development ignites broader passions is one of journalism’s enduring mysteries. Reporters and editors are notoriously poor at forecasting when a story will erupt. We’re steeped in our material and can lose the sense of how our work might be perceived by the wider public. Presentation makes a difference. Our mention of a possible Mohammed trial came in the middle of a story that focused on the legal challenges posed by Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo Bay. If it had been the opening paragraph or headline, it might have attracted more attention. Our story was also sourced to unnamed officials; last week’s official decision was unveiled at a well-attended press conference. Timing also matters. Holder revealed his decision just a few weeks after the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Then there are the details. Holder’s announcement included a poignant fact that deepened the story’s emotional punch: The trial will take place at a courthouse just a few blocks from Ground Zero. Here at ProPublica, we spend a fair amount of time thinking about how stories will be received. Our goal is to do journalism that spurs change and halts abuses of power. As we choose what to investigate, we try to pick topics on which we can have the greatest impact. Sometimes, we guess right. Our reporting on the lax regulation of nurses in California prompted sweeping changes within days. Our writing on Guantanamo prisoners has been consistently ahead of the pack, defining key issues. And our ongoing work on natural gas drilling has slowly but surely changed the national debate on a subject that just 18 months ago was understood by only a few scientists and industry insiders. But we have also been too early – or too late – and watched seemingly compelling stories get lost in the clamor of viral videos, cheating starlets, mendacious beauty queens. Investigative reporters are the wildcat oil prospectors of journalism. We sink a lot of wells, and it’s sometimes a surprise when we hit a gusher. This uncertainty is an essential aspect of investigative reporting. And it’s why cash-strapped news organizations are backing away from it. No one can say how a story will end. And no one can really predict what it will accomplish. It makes the field alluring and sometimes maddening. Write to Stephen Engelberg at stephen.engelberg@propublica.org ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. Watch more breaking news now on our video feed: Bookmark http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/ and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.  Bill Aimed At Curbing Rising Childhood HungerSen. Sherrod Brown is citing a recent government report which found a dramatic spike in the number of Americans, including children, going hungry as a reason to approve his Hunger Free Schools Act.
 Senate Defeats Attempt To Block Closing GitmoSome 57 senators voted to defeat a Republican proposal that would have prohibited the use of funds to construct or modify prison facilities to hold individuals currently being detained at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
 More Recent Articles |
