Increasing Foreclosures Swallow Modest Gains in Mortgage Repairs; Congress Urged To Act

As the Treasury Department urges mortgage servicing companies to step up their efforts to stop foreclosures, the latest available figures show that the number of households at risk of foreclosure is seven times the number of loan modifications, and the gap has increased steadily for the past year, according to a nonprofit research and policy organization dedicated to protecting homeownership and family wealth by working to eliminate abusive financial practices.

An official with the group testified on Capitol Hill this week, offering a series of remedies for lawmakers to address.

Although loan modifications are up from very low levels last year, the rapid growth of serious delinquencies and new foreclosure starts is swallowing modest gains in efforts by loan companies to fix the massive number of loans headed for foreclosure. During the first quarter of this year, nearly 500,000 loan modifications were completed, but foreclosure starts and serious delinquencies during that period edged up to nearly 3.5 million, CRL reports. (See data and video here.)

Without significant intervention, foreclosures are on track to mount to 13 million during the next five years. In 2009 alone, 69 million homeowners who happen to live near foreclosures will see their wealth shrink as property values decline by $502 billion, the organization says.

"Continuing this same course would be disastrous," says Mike Calhoun, president of CRL. "The challenge of closing the gap between the foreclosure epidemic and foreclosure prevention represents a major public policy issue that will affect all Americans."

During the past two years, lenders have strongly resisted key policy proposals to stop the foreclosure epidemic, such as allowing home loans to be modified in bankruptcy court. Loan servicing companies asked for the opportunity to address the problem through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) launched in March. The New York Times has reported that about 130,000 loans have been modified under HAMP, but this number is dwarfed by the 3.5 million foreclosures that are expected to be initiated this year.

In testimony presented before the House and Senate Joint Economic Committee, Keith Ernst, CRL director of research, emphasized that risky loans, not risky borrowers, led to today's mortgage troubles. Ernst cites research from the University of North Carolina and CRL which shows that people who received subprime loans were three times more likely to face foreclosure than those who received lower-cost, primarily fixed-rate mortgages -- even when the two borrowers had comparable risk profiles. When multiple risks were layered into the same loan, the risk of default was four to five times higher on subprime mortgages, Ernst says.

To help people facing foreclosure, CRL urges Congress to do the following:

Ensure that the Administration's current efforts to prevent foreclosures -- the Home Affordable Program and the Hope for Homeowners Program -- work as effectively as possible, and that homeowners who avoid foreclosure don't get set back again by the tax consequences of loan modification and reduced loan balances.

Lift the ban that now prevents homeowners from seeking loan modifications on their primary residence, as they can on investment properties and other types of loans.

And to keep the current disaster from happening again:

Pass legislation requiring lenders to determine a consumer's ability to repay the mortgage, and encourage the Federal Reserve Board to finalize its proposed rules banning yield spread premiums (kickbacks that encourage mortgage brokers to overcharge on home loans).

Create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency as outlined in H.R. 3126, the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2009, that prioritizes consumer protection and focuses on preventing abusive financial practices before they harm families and the economy.

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.

In Ad, Sen. Ben Nelson Hammered Anew On Public Option Stance

Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson is taking new fire over his opposition to inclusion of a public insurance option in healthcare reform legislation.

Democracy for America teamed with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee to create the ad, which features Mike Snider, who DFA says, owns a restaurant in Nelson's home state of Nebraska.

"Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska is trying to kill the public option. He's using the insurance industry's latest tactic: Stop reform by stalling it. Kill momentum at all costs," DFA Political Director Charles Chamberlain says in an email announcing the ad.

Snider's healthcare premiums went up by 42 percent just this year, leading him to have to cancel his insurance, Chamberlain says, also quoting Snider as saying, "I'm just going to pray my kids don't get sick."

Chamberlain's email doesn't specify where the spot will air, or if it will be available only on the Web. DFA earlier created a similar ad targeting Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) for her opposition to a public option.

DFA was founded out of Howard Dean's campaign operation for his failed 2004 bid for president. Dean is a medical doctor and DFA has made healthcare reform a signature issue.

Considered one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, Nelson publicly rejected the notion of a public insurance option in a speech in May. In his speech, Nelson said, “Some have called for establishing a public plan, but I think it would undermine health care services for millions of Americans and squander this unique opportunity for substantial reform."

President Obama has called for such a public option to compete with private insurers as part of what he wants to see in healthcare reform.

This latest ad is not the first time Nelson has found himself under attack for his stance.

The Public Campaign Action Fund called Nelson out for the $1.2 million in campaign funds Nelson has raised from insurance interests, said to be highest among senators save those who have run for president.

Lawmakers are wrapping up what work they can on healthcare reform before leaving Washington for theeir annual August recess. Expect ads like the DFA's spot to fill airwaves during the congressional break, as interests will use the lull to spend millions of dollars to advertise for and against health reform, reportedly in some 50 to 60 districts considered swing votes to try to gain some momentum going into final votes on reform expected after Labor Day.

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.

Food Safety Watchdog Pew Gives House Bill Approval A Thumbs Up

An influential Washington food safety watchdog group is praising legislation approved by the House yesterday.

Lawmakers passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act, which is designed to give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) new enforcement tools and funding to better ensure food safety and prevent food contamination. The House passed the bill by a vote of 283 to 142.

"We applaud the House of Representatives' bipartisan vote today to modernize and strengthen the nation's food safety system. This historic action takes a major step toward ensuring Americans can have increased confidence in the safety of their food," says Erik Olson, director of food and consumer product safety, The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Others praised the House bill, as well, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying, "This bipartisan, landmark bill will fundamentally change the way we protect public health against such outbreaks and update our federal food safety laws to keep pace with the changes in our food production and processing methods. It provides the FDA better access to the records of food producers and manufacturers, without having to wait for an outbreak of food-borne illness. And it strengthens penalties imposed on food facilities that fail to comply with safety requirements."

Pew, which seeks to reduce health threats from food-borne pathogens by strengthening federal government authority and enforcement of food safety laws, notes one the nation’s largest food contamination outbreaks erupted with the discovery of salmonella poisoning in peanut products causing nearly 700 people to fall ill in 45 states and at least nine people to die. That outbreak, Pew adds, only follows other widespread instances of tainted food.

Some experts estimate that food poisoning causes 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths annually, and may contribute to chronic long-term disease in more than 1 million Americans, Pew notes on its website.

"Foodborne disease kills one American every two hours, every day of the year, and the vast majority of these deaths are preventable," Olson adds. "The Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for the safety of over 80 percent of the foods we eat, has been hamstrung in its effort to better ensure the safety of the food supply by an outdated law and inadequate resources."

Among the provisions of the Food Safety Enhancement Act, it would require far more frequent inspections than the current practice of inspecting food plants every 10 years, on average, Olson says.

"It will help guarantee stronger rules regarding the safety of imported foods and will also ensure that companies and the FDA can trace the source of food contamination and recall tainted food, so health authorities can quickly and efficiently respond to outbreaks," he says, adding that he urges the Senate to approve a food safety bill of its own "that is at least as strong as the House bill."

Improved food safety has been a signature issue for Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the second-highest ranking member of the Senate. President Obama released a statement in support of the House bill, saying it meets the "goals of the Food Safety Working Group I convened in March," and says he is eager to sign a bill.

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.

Expert: Small Businesses To Be 'The Most Helped' By Healthcare Reform Plan

Congressional Democrats and other supporters of comprehensive healthcare reform are following President Obama's lead in focusing on how reform will assist American small businesses.

In the battle to approve health reform in Congress, the White House Council of Economic Advisers last week released a report on the impact of health reform on the nation's small businesses.

"The part of the economy that is going to be the most helped by health reform is small business," says Peter Harbage, a fellow at the Center for American Progress, a well-known progressive think tank in Washington. "Today we have a system where small business owners are not only supposed to know their trade but they are supposed to understand the complexities of the health insurance market. Health reform can help ease that burden by simplifying the rules and making the rules more fair for small business."

Senate Democrats picked up on the White House report by holding their own press event several days later. The senators cited the report, which says small businesses pay up to 18 percent more than they should to provide health insurance for their employees because of the flaws in the current health insurance system. Democrats, the senators say, want to reform health insurance to give small businesses tax credits so they can give their employees comprehensive and affordable health care.

Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Senate Small Business Committee Chair Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) were joined by Terry Gardiner of the Small Business Majority and Mark Derbyshire, a Maryland small business owner at their press conference.

“More than half of all Americans without health insurance are small business owners, employees and their dependents,” Durbin says. “The Democratic reform bill will give small businesses across the country health care plans with stable and affordable costs; secure coverage that can’t be taken away; and more choices of quality health care plans.”

Merkley, a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee that already approved a version of health reform, says the current healthcare system "is a nightmare for small businesses.”

“Rising premiums make it difficult to provide coverage for their employees, but they don’t want to leave their valued employees without insurance," he says. "Giving small businesses the option to join health insurance exchanges will protect small businesses from the runaway health premiums that cost jobs, stifle innovation, and put a brake on our economy.”

Derbyshire, the Maryland small business owner, cast the problem of one of attracting the best talent so as to stay competitive.

My employees are very important, and I invest a lot in them because I want to attract people who will stay for the long haul,” he says. “But with costs rising like they are, I don't know if I can continue offering the same level of coverage. Without it, I would not be able to attract and keep the same caliber of employee. I feel a moral obligation to provide health insurance, but the current employer-based system is not sustainable for small businesses.”

Speaking in a new web video on the subject, Harbage of the Center for American Progress, says that there are a "couple of critical things that health reform should do that people are already talking about to help small business."

Harbage has more than a decade of experience working to improve health policy at the federal, state, and local levels. He teaches on the American healthcare system at the University of Southern California.

"One is to create an insurance exchange where small business can have a choice of both a public plan option and private plans that are laid out on an equal playing field," he says. "Health reform also needs to make sure that subsidies are available to help small business afford the high cost of health insurance so that they can actually purchase it for their employees. With those two steps, we can create a system that will work far better than the one way have today for business."

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.

Despite Promises, Some Rape Victims Stuck Paying Exam Bills

By Emily Witt, ProPublica, and Ben Protess, Huffington Post Investigative Fund

When a woman is raped, police turn to scientific evidence — semen, blood and tissue samples — to identify her attacker. The evidence is collected through a medical exam of the victim, who is not supposed to pay for this crime-solving process.

But 15 years after Congress passed a law to ensure that rape victims would never see a bill, loopholes and bureaucratic tangles still leave some victims paying for hospital expenses and exams, which can cost up to $1,200.

Congress requires state or local authorities to cover these costs, but the state legislatures that regulate the process offer piecemeal guarantees of Congress' mandate, ProPublica and the Huffington Post Investigative Fund found. Some states allow hospitals to bill the victim's insurer.

Confusion in California and other states may cause police to occasionally ignore Congress' rules and require victims to cooperate with an investigation before exam costs are covered. Lax enforcement of the law, victims' advocates say, also means some hospitals in Illinois bill victims directly.

Congress created the Violence Against Women Act to protect victims and encourage them to report rapes. The law, known as VAWA, has forced many states to crack down on billing problems.

But ambiguities in the law still allow a remarkable disparity in the legal system: Some rape victims, unlike victims of other crimes, have to pay for basic evidence collection.

"We never ask a robbery victim to pay for the cost of fingerprints," said Sarah Tofte, a researcher with Human Rights Watch, which has been tracking how states comply with VAWA.

As a victim recovers from her assault, the last thing she needs is a bill for her exam, said Katherine Hull, a spokeswoman for the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.

After all, she said, "rape is not something you can budget for."

Despite billing concerns, Hull and other advocates encourage victims to get a forensic exam. Many emergency rooms have specially trained nurses who swab, scan and photograph victims' bodies, hunting for evidence.

Yet states vary in how proficiently they process the evidence and medical bills that follow. As we previously reported, even if the state pays for an exam, there is no guarantee the evidence will be tested. There are more than 350,000 untested DNA samples backlogged in police departments and crime labs nationwide, according to federal statistics.

Kellie Greene, a rape victim who battled collection agencies in the 1990s because she refused to pay for her exam, is disappointed that victims still find themselves saddled with hospital bills and testing delays. "It's a frightening thought," said Greene, who runs the advocacy group Speaking Out About Rape.

An opportunity to strengthen VAWA will come soon because Congress must reauthorize the law before it expires in 2011. In a statement to us, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee's chairman, said Congress "will need to carefully consider what can be done to improve and strengthen the Act."

Revisions to VAWA, Leahy's statement said, "should include providing every possible assistance to victims, regardless of where they live."

It's unclear whether Republicans on the Judiciary Committee would support VAWA reform. We called and e-mailed a spokesman for Sen. Jeff Sessions, the committee's ranking Republican, and never heard back.

Enforcing the Law

Some states and police departments have a history of skirting their responsibility to pay for forensic exams, we found in an analysis of state statutes and from interviews with policymakers and victims' advocates.

Last year's presidential race exposed the shortcomings. During the campaign, it came to light that until 2000, police in some Alaska towns charged rape victims or their insurance companies up to $1,200 for forensic exams — including the town of Wasilla where vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002.

Justice Department officials also have found that, until recently, some states refused to pay for a rape victim's exam unless she agreed to file a police report, which some victims are reluctant to do immediately after the attack.

In 2005, Congress revised VAWA (PDF) to hold states more accountable. This time, Congress required state or local officials to pay for forensic exams even if a victim declined to cooperate with police. States that didn't comply would lose federal crime-fighting grants.

The new rule went into effect this January with some marked successes.

By June, only five states were still billing victims who didn't file police reports, according to the Justice Department. By early July, that number had dropped to one. Now department officials say every state is complying.

But the department still hasn't verified that all of the nation's 15,000-plus law enforcement agencies are following Congress' mandate. After hearing about complaints from victims, the department contracted an outside advocacy group to more closely track these agencies, a Justice Department official said.

One problem the agencies are facing, interviews with police officials and advocates revealed, is lingering confusion about the new VAWA changes. When we first contacted the Nebraska State Patrol, a spokeswoman said it bills rape victims or their insurance companies if victims decline to cooperate with an investigation. When we reported this to the Justice Department, it notified the Patrol and determined that the spokeswoman had been given out-of-date information and that Nebraska is following the mandate.

While California is considered in compliance with VAWA's new mandate, the state requires law enforcement agencies to authorize and pay for exams. Even a victim who doesn't want to press charges must report the assault to get her exam covered. If she doesn't call the police, or if the police don't authorize her exam because they aren't investigating her case, hospitals will charge the victim, several advocates and a forensic exam nurse told us.

A spokeswoman for the California Emergency Management Agency, which is responsible for implementing VAWA requirements, said her agency has not received any specific complaints about hospitals billing victims.

Loopholes Remain

Even states that abide by VAWA can take advantage of its loopholes, leaving victims without the full protections that lawmakers intended.

Texas authorities pay for an exam only if the victim reports her attack within four days — a time limit that could exclude some victims and viable evidence, experts say. VAWA doesn't address how long victims have to get their exam, so technically Texas is complying with the law.
Illinois requires hospitals to bill forensic exams to a victim's insurance company, although the state covers exams for the poor and uninsured, as well as co-pays and deductibles for everyone else.

Maryland law leaves the billing issue open to interpretation, because it doesn't explicitly prevent hospitals from billing insurance companies. Although VAWA clearly intended that states or local authorities pay for exams, both Illinois' and Maryland's policies comply with the law.

Kellie Greene, whose forensic exam was eventually paid for by Florida's victim compensation fund, said insurance loopholes could discourage victims from getting exams. A young rape victim might not want her parents, who hold the insurance policy, to know she was attacked, Greene said. Cases are further complicated if a family member is named as the attacker.

Greene also noted that insurance companies could deny a victim coverage for future ailments seen as "preexisting conditions" resulting from her rape, including sexually transmitted infections.

VAWA also does not require states to cover non-forensic medical expenses, including ambulance rides, emergency room stays or treatment for injuries sustained during the assault.

At least one state, West Virginia, won't cover emergency birth control or emergency medication to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

Jeffrey Kessler, chairman of West Virginia's Senate Judiciary Committee, said he doesn't recall any efforts to change this law and suspects the provision was included for budgetary reasons.

"It would seem to me to be archaic and something we would take a look at," he said, adding that a victim willing to press charges could apply for assistance from the state victims' compensation fund.

While these states are technically compliant with VAWA, they are dodging the spirit of the law, said Jennifer Pollitt-Hill, former executive director of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, which helped implement the new VAWA requirements.

"States are settling for the letter of the law rather than doing what's best for victims," Pollitt-Hill said.

In Illinois, a Bureaucratic Tangle

Much of the confusion over who pays for what stems from overlapping layers of bureaucracy, Pollitt-Hill said. Hospitals must navigate federal, state and local rules, causing "confusion within states about how it's done," she said.

In Illinois, victims' advocates complain that some hospital billing departments occasionally send exam bills directly to victims — a problem VAWA was supposed to prevent. At least three Chicago hospitals send repeated bills to victims who don't pay and turn over some to collection agencies, said Kris Krafka, a legal advocate at Life Span, a Chicago-based nonprofit that helps domestic violence and rape victims.

Part of the problem, Krafka said, is that billing departments often don't know which patients are rape victims because hospital paperwork might not include that information.

The billing problems don't appear to be malicious, Krafka said, but the process hurts victims nonetheless. "It's going to keep happening unless there's repercussions for hospitals when they do the wrong thing," she said.

The problem has been known for years, according to Rape Victim Advocates, a nonprofit that is contracted by 12 Chicago-area hospitals to provide crisis support for rape victims.

We asked the group to review its files from this year to determine how often it gets reports of hospital billing problems. Between January and June, it received about 20 complaints from victims who were billed for hospital services, which typically include an exam, lab tests and treatment for injuries, said the group's executive director, Sharmili Majmudar.

Once the group notifies a hospital of a billing problem, the hospital usually stops pursuing the victim, Majmudar said.

"We make every effort to ensure all [our] patients are treated in accordance with the law," said a spokeswoman for Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, one of the city's largest private hospitals. "If a rape victim has inadvertently been billed for a forensic exam or rape kit, we ask that they contact the hospital's billing department to have the charge removed and any payment refunded."

Annie Thompson, a spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, which reimburses hospitals that bill the state for forensic exams, said the department has received only a "handful" of complaints about hospitals mistreating rape victims in the last 10 years, though she acknowledged that the department doesn't keep a record of all the complaints it receives.

"In the rare occasion when an eligible survivor is billed for sexual assault-related services, [the department] works to quickly resolve these errors," Thompson said.

Next Step

Victims' advocates contend Congress needs to bolster VAWA to rid it of loopholes that make for unfair billing.

Policy experts also have suggested that lawmakers craft incentives for states to comply with VAWA rather than threatening financial cuts to law enforcement grants if they don't.
Meanwhile, advocates and law enforcement officials agree that rape victims must not be deterred from getting an exam no matter the cost.

"An exam gives a victim more breathing space and options," said Pollitt-Hill, the former Maryland advocate. "You might decide a week later that you don't want to have it tested, but at least you have the choice."

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.

Obama Hedges on Mandatory Community Services

By Jennifer LaFleur, ProPublica

President Obama signed a measure last week recognizing the rights of people with disabilities around the world. The United Nations Convention Proclamation on the Rights of People with Disabilities calls for equality in access to public services, medical care and other services.

It also called for the right for people to choose where they live: "To recognize the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others."

Yet in the United States, many people with disabilities do not have that choice.

We reported in June that thousands of people nationwide want to live on their own, but instead remain in nursing homes, rehabilitation centers or state hospitals, often at a higher cost to taxpayers because of a historic bias toward institutional care. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that funding services for Medicaid recipients who live in institutions — and not those who live in the community — violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"Signing a U.N. Convention proclamation doesn’t give anybody freedom," said Bruce Darling, a disability activist with ADAPT from Rochester. "We are still forcing people to live in nursing homes."

Disability groups have pushed for legislation, such as the proposed Community Choice Act, which would allow people with disabilities to stay at home. Medicaid guarantees service in a nursing home for those who need that level of care, but similar services in the community are optional.

Measures have been introduced in Congress for several years that would allow people to choose where they want services. When President Obama was in the Senate, he co-sponsored such legislation. But since he has been in the White House, Obama has not said he will support moves to make community services mandatory.

In June, Obama called for increased spending on independent living services and directed HUD to provide vouchers to individuals trying to move out of institutions.

A White House spokesman told ProPublica "the President believes that investing in health and long-term services for people with disabilities is an important national priority," but would not say whether the President will support legislation to make community services mandatory.

"Ultimately this becomes a bureaucratic conversation about spending health care dollars," activist Darling said. "And we completely lose the concept that this is a civil rights issue for Americans. No other group gets locked up like this. No one would stand for it."

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.

Some Banks in Govt’s ‘Healthy Bank’ Bailout Are Struggling

By Paul Kiel, ProPublica

A growing number of small and midsize banks that received federal bailout money have stopped paying quarterly dividends to the government in order to conserve capital.

The banks, reeling from bad loans, have sometimes been ordered by regulators to stop the payments as part of a rescue plan.

At least 18 banks that received bailout funds are not paying dividends. They range in size from San Francisco-based UCBH Holdings, which received $299 million in taxpayer money and recently announced suspension of the government dividends as part of an “action plan” to strengthen the bank, to tiny community banks. Some have chosen to suspend dividends, while others have been prohibited from paying them by regulators. (See the full list below.)

The banks aren’t paying dividends only months after being blessed by regulators and the Treasury Department as “healthy.” The money was distributed through the government’s primary bailout program. As then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson explained last October, the program was aimed at boosting the overall economy by investing in banks that “will deploy, not hoard, their capital.”

The Treasury has kept secret its criteria for accepting banks, saying only that those approved should prove themselves viable without the government investment. Banks in the program are selected for their ability to keep lending levels up, Treasury officials have said, and keep taxpayer risk at a minimum.

Yet shortly after receiving funds, two of the biggest recipients, Bank of America and Citigroup, which both received $25 billion through the program, were bailed out with even more taxpayer money. More recently, CIT Group, which received $2.3 billion late last year, has flirted with bankruptcy.

The suspension of TARP dividends shows that some smaller banks in the program are struggling, too. It also calls into question whether all of the banks in the program really could have survived without the government investment. In the government’s haste to boost the banking sector, “there may have been decisions, where had there been more time and analysis, may have been made differently,” said Karen Dorway, president of BauerFinancial, a research firm that studies the financial health of banks. The Treasury Department declined to comment on the dividend suspensions.

Regulators have intervened with a number of the troubled banks.

California-based Pacific Capital Bancorp, which received $180.6 million, reached an agreement with its primary regulator in April to hatch a new plan to deal with its problem loans and boost its capital levels. The bank, which announced its intention earlier this year to lay off nearly a quarter of its employees, missed a dividend payment to the Treasury soon thereafter.

In Wisconsin, Anchor Bancorp received $110 million from the Treasury in January. In June, regulators issued a cease-and-desist order requiring the bank to raise its capital levels and putting it under strict supervision. The bank has yet to make a dividend payment to the Treasury.

The problems extend to small community banks such as Pacific Coast National Bancorp of San Clemente, Calif. The bank received $4.1 million in January, but regulators later clamped down, forbidding it to increase its loans above the amount on the bank’s balance sheet and ordering it to raise capital. The bank was in dire straits when it received the bailout funds in January, “significantly undercapitalized” under regulatory guidelines. But as a result of the aid, it ascended to merely “undercapitalized,” according to its annual report. It is prohibited by state regulations from paying dividends.

Blue Valley Ban Corp of Kansas ($21.8 million) suspended dividend payments in May at the request of its regulator, said the bank’s CEO, Bob Regnier. But he said the move was only cautionary as the bank deals with losses from construction loans and doesn’t mean the bank is pulling back on lending. “We’re still out there making every good loan that we can find, but it’s a more difficult economic environment.”

One bank is seeking even more TARP funds. Midwest Banc Holdings ($84.8 million) suspended dividends in May to retain cash and announced this week that, as part of a plan to reduce costs and raise capital, it was seeking up to $53 million more from the Treasury.
The Treasury has invested more than $200 billion in 653 companies through the program, and since the overwhelming majority of banks have paid dividends, the Treasury had collected $6.7 billion as of June, according to a Treasury report (PDF). The banks pay 5 percent annual interest on the investment.

There is a consequence for banks missing too many dividend payments. After six quarterly non-payments, the Treasury gains the right to appoint two members to the bank’s board of directors, a fate some banks could face next year.

At least eight California banks have missed dividend payments because of state laws prohibiting payment of dividends unless certain earnings benchmarks are met. The rules are designed to ensure that banks pay dividends out of earnings, something that’s more difficult for younger banks.

Fresno First Bank, a 3-year-old community bank, is among those eight, but Chief Financial Officer Steve Canfield said the bank expects to gain approval from state regulators to pay the dividends on the $2 million investment later this summer. The bank plans to use the TARP money primarily to fund the bank’s “very, very rapid” growth, he said. “It wasn’t our intention to take the money and stiff the government.”

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.

Democrats' Campaign Groups Push Back In Healthcare Reform Battle

A key progressive group pushing for healthcare reform is looking to prod senators to support a public insurance option amid reports that a key Senate panel is looking to weaken, or drop, inclusion of such an option.

Democracy for America (DFA) is urging supporters to get their senators on the record in favor of a federally run alternative to private health insurance. President Obama wants a public option included in a reform package, but the Senate Finance Committee reportedly is looking to weaken such a requirement. Led by Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the Finance panel is the perhaps the congressional committee most aggressively pursuing Republican support for healthcare reform.

Most in the GOP have launched a fierce attempt to derail reform calling it to big a risk for the U.S. economy. Baucus and other Senate Democrats are hoping to pull in a small number of centrist Republican senators, however. Although Democrats numerically have 60 seats in the Senate to overcome GOP attempts to block a health bill, Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) have been ill and largely absent from the chamber.

"It's time to get your senators on the record about where they stand on the specifics of a public healthcare option," says an email from Meredith Stone of DFA, an organization founded out of former Vermont governor Howard Dean's 2004 bid for president. Also a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dean is a medical doctor.

The DFA email asks recipents to email their senators to ask the following questions:

1. Do you support a public healthcare option as part of reform?
2. Do you support a public healthcare option that is ready on day one?
3. Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to our government?
4. Do you support a public healthcare option that has the clout to establish rates with providers and big drug companies?

"We can build momentum for a universally available public healthcare option by getting members of Congress to make strong public statements clarifying their views on specifics. The time for vague statements and half-answers is over," Stone says in her email.

Meanwhile, the DNC advocacy operation begun out of Obama's own successful 2008 campaign, Organizing for America (OFA), has begun its own fundraising appeal out of the healthcare fight. An email from OFA Director Mitch Stewart asks supporters to contribute "$1 each day until we pass real health insurance reform."

"A huge response will show the insurance companies and their allies in Congress that their delay tactics will only make our movement stronger," Stewart says.

Each day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage and "[p]remiums continue to rise at three times the rate of wages," Stewart says.

"That's why our dollar-a-day campaign is so important: If the few senators and representatives who are opposing reform understand that dragging their heels makes us stronger every day -- and that the grassroots pressure on them will increase -- they'll be far less willing to keep slowing down the process," he adds.

Stewart directs recipents to donate at Obama's campaign website, http://www.barackobama.com/, but his email doesn't indicate how those funds specifically would be spent in support of passing health reform.

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.

TV Star Sam Waterston To Stump Capitol Hill For Campaign Finance Bill

TV star Sam Waterston is set to appear on Capitol Hill today to drum up support in Congress for a bill aimed at removing big-money fundraising from campaigns.

Waterston, star of the hit television series Law and Order, will be in Washington to meet with lawmakers and press to tout the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826 and S. 752), ahead of a scheduled hearing tomorrow by the House Administration Committee to receive testimony on the bill and the success of similar campaign reform laws at the state level, according to a coalition of reform groups, labor unions and campaign watchdogs supporting the legislation.

In addition to bill sponsors, others expected to testify Thursday include Arn Pearson, vice president of programs for Common Cause, a campaign finance expert with expertise on publicly funded election programs; Jeff Garfield, the election administrator of a similar program in Connecticut; and other election experts.

The bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act is modeled in part on successful state laws in Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, North Carolina, and elsewhere, the coalition says. The coalition backing the measure include the Brennan Center for Justice, Change Congress, Common Cause, Democracy Matters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG and is called the Fair Elections Now Coalition.

"[The] wisdom of the people, on which democracy depends, can't be heard -- and we can't change the results we've been getting -- without changing the way we fund our elections. Simple, voter-centered public financing will take the taint out of campaign donations and invite ordinary citizens into the political process," Waterston wrote in an opinion piece published April 30 in the Boston Globe, describing the Fair Elections Now Act.

The proposal, sponsored by Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), and Todd Platts (R-Pa.), would allow qualified candidates to run for Congress on a system of public funding and small donations. Candidates who voluntarily agreed to accept no more than $100 per contributor for each election, including a primary and general election, would be eligible for a 4-1 match of federal funding, the coalition says.

The legislation has 70 sponsors and cosponsors in the House. Senate Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) is the lead sponsor of companion legislation in the U.S. Senate. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) is another Senate backer of the bill. President Obama was a sponsor of similar legislation when he was a U.S. and Illinois state senator, the coalition says.

Current congressional wrangling over health care reform, climate change legislation and other key legislation highlights the need for the the Fair Elections Now Act.

The coalition notes that Durbin said recently that the banks "owned the place" after losing on a provision to allow homeowners to have bankruptcy judges renegotiate the terms of mortgages instead of going through the foreclosure process.

The group also cites data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, health and insurance interests have made $16.8 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties in the first part of this year to make their case on health-care reform. Likewise, the energy sector made $6.1 million in federal donations, and the finance, insurance, and real estate sector contributed $23.8 million.

"Despite the economic downturn, influence-peddling is a growth industry in our nation's capital," the coalition says in a statement.

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.

Study: Newspapers Near Mexican Border Slant Against Immigration

A new study released by Rice University in Houston finds that California newspapers located closer to the border of Mexico routinely provide a more negative slant on immigration in general news reporting and on their opinion pages than the state’s newspapers located further away from the border.

The study, “Slanted Newspaper Coverage of Immigration: The Importance of Economics and Geography,” was conducted by Rice University political scientist Regina Branton and Johanna Dunaway of Louisiana State University and published in the Policy Studies Journal.

President Obama has indicated he wants to to start addressing immigration reform this year to deal with the undocumented aliens living in the United States. Previous attempts at such immigration reform undertaken by President George W. Bush failed as conservative Republicans torpedoed the effort.

Using content analysis, geographic information systems and contextual data, Branton says she and her research staff examined 1,227 California newspaper news articles and opinion pieces from 2004-05.

“We found that newspapers located closer to the Mexican border often report the more negative side of the immigration issue,” Branton says. “Moreover, we found corporate-owned newspapers are more likely to report a negative slant to the issue than privately owned newspapers.”

Branton says that the reason for the difference is that newspapers are trying to please their audience – the readers – and thus maximize profits.

“While all news organizations are driven somewhat by the need to make profits, a public group of shareholders seeks to maximize profits and considers that the main goal,” she says.

“It’s been well-documented that the media report heavily on sex, violence and crime to appeal to readers,” she says. “The immigration issue is an emotional national issue that newspapers can sensationalize and provide influence on.”

While the study looked at California specifically, Branton believes that further studies would likely confirm the same trend in other U.S.-Mexico border states, like Texas and Arizona.

Branton said that while opinion pages are typically used for the publisher’s point of view, newspapers closer to the Mexican border rarely call for differing views in column space.

To obtain a copy of the full study, visit here.

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.

Cutting Transportation Emissions 'Critical' To Achieving Goals of House Climate Bill

Successfully reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from transportation is "critical to meeting national goals" to cut GHGs, according to a new report released today by a diverse group of federal agencies and advocacy groups, including Environmental Defense Fund.

The study, Moving Cooler: Transportation Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, is authored by the transportation consulting firm, Cambridge Systematics. The study is described as the first-ever comprehensive analysis of transportation efficiency and its relationship to greenhouse gas reductions and consumer savings.

"Moving Cooler provides an expanded array of options for policymakers to begin considering to ensure America can adapt to a rapidly changing world, especially given the impacts of decisions on future generations, when the climate crisis and the stability of U.S. energy supplies may present far more acute societal challenges," says Michael Replogle, a member of the Steering Committee for the report on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and an advisor to the U.S. Department of Transportation. "If America is to retain a globally competitive economy, it will need to address these issues squarely."

The House this month narrowly approved a bill to contain the GHG emissions blamed for global climate change. The bill has moved to the Senate for consideration, where it has stalled for the time being. President Obama has called climate legislation -- along with healthcare reform -- his top priority for the year.

The findings of Moving Cooler include:

Maximum implementation of the complete portfolio of the six strategy bundles outlined in the report - except for road-use pricing (e.g., congestion pricing, pay-as-you-drive insurance, vehicle miles traveled) -- could achieve transportation GHG reductions of up to 24 percent annually by 2050.

With the addition of pricing strategies, annual GHG reductions of up to 47 percent could be achieved by 2050.

Innovations in vehicle and fuel technology will have a substantial impact on GHGs, but these gains will largely be offset by increases in travel along with growth in the U.S. population.

Transportation agencies and other decision makers could create effective combinations of transportation strategies that provide high-quality transportation services, while achieving meaningful GHG reductions.

Additional investment in highway capacity and bottleneck relief could result in GHG reductions through 2030 and a negligible increase in GHGs through 2050.

Higher levels of investment in public transportation and highways have returns of two or three times to one in terms of benefits in relation to the costs of these strategies.

"This landmark study found that in most cases, savings in vehicle costs exceed the costs of implementing the strategies considered, even without counting added co-benefits from reduced accidents, air pollution, and other indirect impacts," says Replogle. "Many of these transportation strategies -- such as pay-as-you-drive insurance and transit-oriented development -- also support stronger economic development and reduce America's dangerous dependence on imported oil."

Transportation contributes roughly 28 percent of the total U.S. GHGs and transportation emissions have been growing faster than those of other sectors, EDF says. Between 1990 and 2006, growth in U.S. transportation GHG emissions represented almost one-half (47 percent) of the increase in total U.S. GHGs. If the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), which the House passed last month becomes law, U.S. GHGs would need to be reduced 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, EDF says.

"We can't get there from here without reducing emissions from transportation," says Colin Peppard, climate and infrastructure policy director for Environmental Defense Fund. "Fortunately, many of the strategies analyzed in Moving Cooler -- like congestion pricing and expanded transit services -- could be implemented within a few years and could begin to generate reductions in greenhouse gases prior to 2020. These strategies would achieve reductions relatively quickly and reduce the cumulative greenhouse gas reduction challenge in later decades."

EDF says that Moving Cooler was commissioned by a diverse group of stakeholders representing environmental action groups, transportation experts, industry, federal agencies, trade associations, and leading foundations. They include the: American Public Transportation Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Kresge Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Foundation, Shell, Surdna Foundation, Funders Network for Smart Growth, and the Urban Land Institute.

"Moving Cooler shows that vehicle efficiency is not the only way to reduce emissions from transportation," says Environmental Defense Fund Vice President Andy Darrell. "Around the country, states and cities are experimenting with ideas like road-use pricing and transit tailored to the communities they serve. By supporting transportation innovations like those outlined in Moving Cooler, the federal government could achieve an outcome that's good for the planet and good for business: fewer greenhouse emissions and less congestion."

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.

Analysis: Lawmakers Against Health Reform Receive 65% More In Industry Donations Than Those Voting For Reform

A new analysis of campaign contributions to members of key congressional committees handling health reform legislation found that members of three committees who voted against reform have received significantly more in campaign contributions from the health and insurance industries than those who voted for reform.

In addition, the legislation appears to have been slowed in two final committees whose members received much more from the health and insurance industries than their colleagues on the three committees that have passed legislation, the study reports.

"These numbers tell a story that Americans already know to be true: committee members who voted in the interests of the health and insurance industries have received more money, on average, than those who didn't," says David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund (PCAF), the organization that conducted the study.

"The blocs of lawmakers on both the House Energy and Commerce and Senate Finance Committees who are slowing the pace and scope of reform are also huge recipients of health and insurance money," he adds.

The report, titled "Five Committees, Three Votes: Advancing Health Care Reform Through the Swamp of $187 Million in Interested Political Money," reviewed the lifetime campaign contributions from health and insurance interests, as coded by the Center for Responsive Politics, to members of Congress currently serving on the following committees: House Ways and Means; House Education and Labor; House Energy and Commerce; Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP); and Senate Finance.

Comprehensive health reform legislation has passed three of the committees: House Ways and Means; House Education and Labor; and Senate HELP. Approval from the Senate Finance panel may prove most difficult, as committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has been trying to hold negotiations to bring some Republicans on board for support of the bill.

President Obama has made comprehensive health reform a top priority this year, while Republicans have launched a fierce and sustained campaign to derail enactment of that reform.

The PCAF research found that members on three congressional committees who voted against health care reform received, on average, $353,105 more from the health and insurance industries, or 65 percent more, than their colleagues who voted for reform.

Other findings included:

The seven Blue Dog House members who are negotiating with the Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman have received significantly more money from the industries than their Democratic colleagues on the committee.

The 82 members of the two committees that have yet to vote on legislation -- the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Finance Committee -- took nearly $100 million from health and insurance interests over their career.

"These findings point to the need for Congress to pass the Fair Elections Now Act, which would free elected officials from the pressures of fundraising," says Donnelly.

The Fair Elections Now Act would provide qualified congressional candidates limited public funding to run a viable campaign in exchange for agreeing to take no contribution larger than $100. PCAF has been a vocal supporter of that legislation.

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.

Homeland Security Inspector General Report Echoes ProPublica Investigation

By Joaquin Sapien, ProPublica

The Federal Emergency Management Agency failed to speedily react to a public health threat posed by formaldehyde-contaminated trailers it provided to Hurricane Katrina victims, according to a report (PDF) released Thursday night by the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security.

The report bolsters the findings of a ProPublica investigation published last year, which found that FEMA misused a flawed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study to suppress public concerns about the formaldehyde problem.

Our investigation found that CDC officials who studied formaldehyde levels in the trailers used the wrong safety standard to determine exactly how harmful the fumes were.

Formaldehyde is considered a probable carcinogen by the CDC and can increase the risk of asthma attacks and other respiratory problems in people who inhale it.

The CDC’s own standards say that people exposed to as a little as 30 parts of formaldehyde per billion parts of air for more than two weeks can suffer constricted airways, headaches and rashes. The trailers that the CDC studied all measured above that level.

But the scientists who conducted the CDC study used a much higher standard to evaluate the formaldehyde in the trailers: Instead of 30 parts per billion, they said health dangers wouldn't occur until the substance reached 300 ppb, 10 times as great as the long-term standard.

According to the CDC, people exposed to that amount for just a few hours can suffer respiratory problems and other ailments.

Not long after that study was provided to FEMA, Christopher De Rosa, a senior CDC scientist, sent FEMA a letter (PDF) saying it was inaccurate and misleading. ProPublica found that the letter was received by a FEMA attorney, who didn't share it with anyone else because he thought "everything in that letter was already known to FEMA."

The inspector general's report confirms that the attorney kept the letter to himself and suggests that the attorney’s involvement “may have caused or allowed FEMA officials to make assurances about the safety of the FEMA trailers that were later shown to be incorrect.”

While trailer-occupants repeatedly complained about headaches, rashes and burning eyes, FEMA officials continued to cite the CDC study to make their case that the formaldehyde levels weren’t high enough to harm people.

At a May 2007 congressional hearing (PDF), then-FEMA administrator David Paulison told Congress that “we've been told that the formaldehyde does not present a health hazard."
For its part the CDC never formally corrected FEMA’s public statements, even though top CDC officials knew the study they provided to FEMA was flawed. ProPublica found that Dr. Howard Frumkin, head of the CDC division that produced the study, received several e-mails mentioning FEMA's public statements, and attended over a dozen meetings where formaldehyde or trailers were listed as a topic of discussion. But in interviews with ProPublica Frumkin said that he was not aware how FEMA was using the study.

The inspector general's report also sheds light on an even earlier study (PDF, see p. 20) produced in October 2005 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which should have raised red flags about the formaldehyde fumes. The report was done in response to complaints from workers who were setting up the trailers. According to the inspector general's report, high formaldehyde levels were present in several trailers that OSHA tested, and the results of those tests were provided to a FEMA contractor overseeing the setup and maintenance of the trailers, but never to FEMA itself.

The report also notes that FEMA and the CDC have invested $14 million on a health registry and children's health study to examine how children who lived in these trailers may have been affected by the formaldehyde.

In November 2008, ProPublica found that the Children's Health Study was also muddled by delays and confusion, and that the agencies hadn’t yet begun to recruit people for the study.
In November, Michael McGeehin, the CDC official who is leading the study, told ProPublica that the final bill for the study could reach $87 million, far more than the $14 million the inspector general said has been committed so far.

The inspector general's report’s recommendations to FEMA include the suggestions that the agency needs a more effective process to deal with health complaints lodged by disaster housing occupants and that it should provide better guidelines to the contractors that build mobile homes and trailers that the agency provides to disaster victims.

In its response to the report, FEMA said that it is following the inspector general’s recommendations. The former acting director of FEMA, Robert Farmer, said in a May 2009 letter to the inspector general that the report doesn’t fairly describe how other federal agencies like the CDC and the EPA shared responsibility for the government’s lethargic response.

The inspector general's report came as a result of an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill passed last year.

The lawmakers responsible for the amendment, led by Joe Lieberman, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs chairman, said in a letter (PDF) to FEMA that the report is a "disturbing testament of FEMA's missteps and delays that might well have had a detrimental effect on the health and safety of those living in the trailers."

Many of the documents referenced in this story are available on our interactive feature: Timeline of CDC's and FEMA's Response to Formaldehyde Danger

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.

House OKs End To Needle Exchange Ban

The House approved a spending bill for federal labor and health programs that ends a federal ban on needle exchange programs.

The bill, which which funds the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services for the 2010 federal fiscal year, passed in the House by a vote of 264 to 153.

The bill would end a ban on needle exchanges provided they are not located within 1,000 feet of a school, public swimming pool, park, playground, video arcade, or youth center, or an event sponsored by any such activity, according to an appropriations statement on the bill.

Needle exchange programs allow intravenous drug addicts to swap needles for clean ones, so as to avoid potential HIV infection. Needle exchange programs exist in the United States, but under the ban, they may not receive federal funds.

"Sound science is an essential component of good public health policy, and the scientific support for needle exchange could not be more clear," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says. "The Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes for Health, the World Health Organization, and former Surgeon General David Satcher have all confirmed the scientific evidence in support of needle exchange programs. These initiatives are an effective public health intervention that reduces the number of new HIV infections without increasing the use of illegal drugs.

"By lifting the ban on federal funding for needle exchange, the language in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill reflects this sound science," Pelosi adds. "Today's defeat of an amendment that would have reinstated the ban was a victory for science, for public health, for people living with HIV/AIDS, and for people at risk for HIV infection. As this bill moves forward, we must continue to ensure science comes first in our public health policy."

The needle exchange provision must survive negotiations with the Senate, in order to go to President Obama's desk to be signed into law.

Pelosi touts needle exchange as a key tool in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

"We simply cannot rest until we have done everything we can to prevent new HIV infections, including ensuring access to effective interventions such as needle exchange. We cannot rest until every person living with HIV has access to the care and medications they need to stay healthy. And we cannot rest until we have a cure."

Pelosi also praised other provisions of the Labor-HHS spending bill, including "strong increases" for key health, education and worker training initiatives. Those increases include boosts for research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Pell Grants to assist paying for college education, Head Start for young children and clean energy jobs.

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.

Global Poll Finds Widespread Belief that Afghans Want NATO Forces Out

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of nations around the world finds that most publics polled believe that the Afghan people want NATO forces to leave Afghanistan now. On average 53 percent have this belief, while 30 percent assume that most Afghans want NATO forces to stay.

Among those who believe that the Afghan people want NATO forces to leave, 76 percent say that NATO forces should leave. Among those who believe that the Afghan people want NATO forces to stay, 83 percent say NATO forces should stay. Overall, on average, 37 percent think that NATO forces should remain in Afghanistan, while 50 percent think the mission should be ended now.

At the same time there is considerable concern about the possibility of the Taliban regaining power. In 18 of 20 nations polled most think that it would be bad if the Taliban were to regain power in Afghanistan, with an average of 61 percent saying that it would be bad and just 21 percent saying that it would be good. In Pakistan, where many Afghan Taliban insurgents are based, 61 percent of the public also say that it would be bad if the Taliban were to regain power.

"Even though there is widespread concern about the possibility of the Taliban regaining power in Afghanistan, most people seem to be saying that the Afghan people should decide whether or when NATO forces leave," says Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org.

President Obama has directed the U.S. military to ramp up operations in Afghanistan that first began in 2002 following the September 11, 2001, attacks. Obama has argued that the Iraq war has been a distraction from dealing with the situation in Afghanistan. Some leading Democrats in Congress, however, have expressed reservations about Obama's strategy. U.S. forces are part of a larger multinational NATO presence in Afghanistan.

WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 19,178 respondents in 20 nations that comprise 62 percent of the world's population. This includes most of the largest nations--China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Russia--as well as Mexico, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Kenya, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, and South Korea. Polling was also conducted in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.

WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations between April 4 and June 18.

The belief that most Afghans want NATO forces out is especially widespread in majority-Muslim nations, including Pakistan (86%), the Palestinian territories (74 percent), and Egypt (67 percent). However, this view is also widely held in Russia (63 percent), Germany (55 percent), and Mexico (76 percent).

The belief that the Afghan people want NATO to stay is the dominant position only in India (57 percent), the United States (56 percent), Nigeria (53 percent), Kenya (52 percent), and the majority-Muslim nation of Azerbaijan (44 percent to 36 percent).

Within every nation people's assumptions about the attitudes of the Afghan public are highly correlated with their attitudes about continuing the operation, the pollsters say.

So how do the Afghan people feel? The most recent polling in Afghanistan was conducted by ABC/BBC/ARD in January of this year. At that time a majority of 59 percent of Afghans supported the NATO forces' presence in the country. However, this was down from 67 percent who favored it in 2007, and majorities also expressed frustration with the way the mission was being conducted.

In the WPO poll, national assumptions about Afghan public attitudes are also reflected in national attitudes about the recent increase in US troops in Afghanistan. On average, 54 percent disapprove of the increase and 34 percent approve. However, in all of the nations where more believe that Afghans support the NATO presence, most people support the increase. In nearly all of the nations where more believe that Afghans oppose NATO presence, most people oppose the increase.

The two exceptions to this pattern are Britain and Iraq. Though in both cases pluralities believe that Afghans want NATO to leave, in Britain a plurality (50 percent) approves of the increase and in Iraq views are divided.

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.

Progressive Expert: 'Getting More Value For What We Put Into Healthcare'

President Obama touched down in Ohio today to promote his embattled healthcare reform proposal, including wringing greater efficiencies out of the U.S. healthcare system so as to get "more value for what we put into the health care system," as one healthcare expert puts it.

In the face of sliding poll numbers and increasingly restive members of Congress who fear health reform will only add to the national budget deficit, Obama has begun to more aggressively sell the cost-savings his reform plan will bring.

The United States could save 550 billion over the next decade, but that would mean modernizing healthcare in the way Obama wants to, says Karen Davenport, director of health policy at the Center for American Progress, an influential progressive Washington think tank.

"Overall, it means getting more value for what we put into the health care system, and I think there are three major parts of that," Davenport says. "First is making investments in the infrastructure of our health care system, particularly around information so that doctors and patients make good decisions. Second is making sure that we have the right kind of payment incentives so that doctors and other health care providers get paid more when they provide better value--and by that I mean keeping people healthier. And then finally, to make sure that we have enough competition in our health care system so that we can keep prices down."

In addition to pitching his message for healthcare reform at a town hall meeting, Obama toured Cleveland Clinic for an inside look at its model of healthcare, how it utilizes health information technology, and a demonstration in the operating room. The visit gave the president a sense of how the clinic provides patients with cost-effective, high-quality clinical results, the clinic says in a statement.

The president's tour included a presentation on the clinic's health information technology (HIT) initiatives and a demonstration of robotically assisted heart valve repair that speeds up patients' recovery time and decreases cost. Obama has emphasized increasing reliance on HIT systems to improve health delivery and enhance efficiency, driving down costs in the process.

"We are honored to have President Obama at the Cleveland Clinic today to observe our patient-centered system that delivers high-quality care to patients while controlling costs," says Dr. Delos "Toby" Cosgrove, M.D., CEO and president of Cleveland Clinic. "We strongly believe that our focus on quality, efficiency, wellness and prevention combined with clinical innovation and health information technology positions Cleveland Clinic as a leader in healthcare and a model for the future."

Obama's visit included a demonstration of robotically assisted mitral valve repair. This minimally invasive technique is an example of how Cleveland Clinic -- ranked No. 1 for heart care for 15 straight years by U.S. News & World Report -- provides outstanding outcomes at lower costs, the clinic says. Compared with valve replacement, mitral valve repair provides better long-term survival, lower risk of complications, and usually avoids the need for long-term use of blood thinners, it explains.

Cleveland Clinic also touts the fact its physicians are paid a salary only. There are no bonuses or other financial incentives for the number procedures performed or the number of patients seen, it says. Every physician has a one-year contract and renewal is based upon the results of an annual performance review, it adds.

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.

Feingold Touts Health Reform Progress In Senate Even As Leader Reid Puts On Brakes

Sen. Russ Feingold today touted success so far for healthcare reform in the Senate among progressives, even as his leader was putting the breaks on the legislation.

"The pressure is working! We would be nowhere on this important legislation without your continued hard work and dedication putting the pressure on your elected officials through phone calls, petition deliveries, and local actions," Feingold (D-Wis.) says in an email to supporters of Democracy for America (DFA), a key progressive advocacy group.

Feingold's email heralded the approval last week of healthcare legislation by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee. The email encourages recipents to thank the committee's chairman, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), and the other Democrats on the panel for approving the bill.

"I'm not interested in passing a bill in name only, and neither are my Democratic colleagues on the HELP Committee," Feingold says. "Every American deserves the right to quality healthcare and allowing Americans to choose a strong public healthcare option will help ensure that for all of us."

Feingold does not explicitly mention, though, the action among members of the Senate Finance Committee, which also must act on healthcare reform. Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is moving more slowly, in trying to coax support from Republican lawmakers.

Feingold's email came as reports surfaced that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is acknowledging that the full Senate would miss President Obama's Aug. 7 deadline to approve healthcare reform legislation.

Feingold's email did signal the fight to approve a health bill "is far from over," and the senator exhorted supporters "to keep the pressure up."

"Insurance industry executives and special interests shouldn't rule the debate, and they shouldn't rule decisions about the kind of health care your family needs," Feingold says. "The Affordable Health Choice Act is the first step towards giving families a choice, and making sure that all Americans are covered.

"So keep the pressure up. We need to hear from you. All of us in Congress need to hear from all of you. There is too much at stake to sit at home hoping for change. It's up to each of us to work together to make change happen," Feingold adds.

At a healthcare reform town hall meeting in Ohio, Obama reportedly reacted to Reid's announcement by saying, "I want the bill to get out of the committees. I want it done by the end of this year."

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.

Defeat Of Senate Thune Amendment Victory For 'Sane National Gun Policy'

Today's narrow defeat of a measure to loosen federal concealed gun restrictions is a victory "for those who support a sane national gun policy," according to an opponent of the amendment offered by Sen. John Thune.

Opponents of the measure offered by the South Dakota Republican that would have allowed gun owners to carry their weapons across state lines without regard for stricter laws in certain states failed by just two votes in the Senate. The measure was offered as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill.

"Concealed carry permit holders have already killed police officers, murdered innocent citizens, and committed mass shootings," says Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center (VPC), which calls itself a national educational organization working to stop gun death and injury.

"The Thune Amendment would have nullified laws in states such as New York and California that have tough standards for the issuance of concealed handgun permits," Rand adds. "Those states would have been forced to allow the carrying of concealed handguns within their borders by people with permits issued by states with the lowest standards, such as Idaho and Florida. The amendment would have also undermined state assault weapons bans because it would have allowed permit holders to carry concealed assault weapons into the seven states that currently ban these guns."

The Thune amendment failed on a 58-39 procedural vote that blocks the measure. The vote fractured Democrats, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada voted to support Thune's amendment. It fell to Reid's deputies, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to lead opposition to the Thune amendment. Reid reportedly backed the amendment because he faces re-election next year in a pro-gun state.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg emerged a vocal opponent to the Thune amendment.

Earlier this week, the VPC released a new study showing that concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009.

"The danger of the Thune amendment is demonstrated by the fact that proponents of a nationalized concealed carry system argue that lax concealed handgun laws are the answer to mass shootings, but the hard facts are that concealed handgun permit holders do not prevent mass shootings, they perpetrate them," Rand says.

Among the findings in the study:

* Over the two-year period May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit holders have slain seven law enforcement officers resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All of the killings were committed with guns. An additional three law enforcement officers were injured in these incidents.

* Over the two-year period May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit holders have slain at least 44 private citizens resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter.

*All but one of the killings were committed with guns. An additional six private citizens were injured in these incidents.

* In six of the 31 incidents (19 percent), the concealed handgun permit holder killed himself, bringing the total fatality count to 57.

* Five of the incidents were mass shootings resulting in the deaths of 23 victims.

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.

Global Poll: Most Want More Aggressive Government Action on Economic Crisis

A new poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org finds that the public in 14 of 19 nations surveyed feel their government's efforts to address the economic crisis do not go far enough. Three additional publics lean to this view. Most publics favor government support for troubled companies and a global body that would monitor large financial institutions.

However, nations differ on whether, in the current crisis, their government should put up new trade barriers to protect domestic industries.

A majority or plurality in nearly every nation polled faults their government for not doing enough to remedy the economic crisis. Across all nations, an average of 56 percent say their "government's efforts to address the current economic crisis do not go far enough;" 25 percent say they "are about right"; and only 15 percent say these efforts "go too far."

The notable exceptions to the desire for governments to do more are the Chinese public (63 percent feel government efforts "are about right") and India, where as many think efforts "go too far" (37 percent) as think they "do not go far enough" (36 percent; 21 percent say "about right").

"People around the world want more robust action from their governments in the face of the economic crisis", says Stephen Weber of WorldPublicOpinion.org. "Only in China and India, rare countries still on a growth track, do the public seem content with policy."

Government action to provide financial support for large industries in trouble is widely supported, with majorities in most nations taking the position that "if they fail it damages the general economy and too many people lose their jobs." The American public, alone among nations polled, opposes government financial intervention.

WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 18,066 respondents between April 4 and June 12, (margins of error +/- 3-4%) in 19 nations that comprise 62 percent of the world's population (China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Mexico, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Kenya, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, and South Korea). Polling was also conducted in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.

WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project of research centers worldwide, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

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.

Should AIG Be Keeping Terms of Deals Secret?

by Sharona Coutts, ProPublica

Last week we reported that while AIG has sold — or agreed to sell — a dozen subsidiaries as part of its efforts to repay the $85 billion it still owes taxpayers, the company is keeping the financial terms of nearly half those sales secret.

On Friday afternoon, AIG announced that it had completed the sale of two subsidiaries in Mexico. Though the sale is now final, the company repeated its mantra: A press release said, “Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.”

Treasury told us last week that they are “actively monitoring” AIG’s sales, but they would keep AIG’s confidence about how much the company was getting for the pieces of its former empire, “until binding sales are announced.” Treasury did not return our e-mail or a call asking whether they would release that information, now that the sales are final.

Why does this matter? As financial risk analyst Sylvain Raynes told us last week, the secrecy raises questions as to whether AIG is getting a good deal for the taxpayer, which owns nearly 80 percent of the company and is owed $85 billion in loans. “There’s nothing wrong with private transactions between consenting adults,” said Raynes, founder of R&R Consulting, a firm that analyzes market risk. “But when the government is involved, everything changes.”

But Paul Hickey, of Bespoke Investment Group, says companies frequently decide not to disclose financial terms. “Companies sometimes withhold that information whether it’s a small deal or they just choose not to,” he said.

Requiring that AIG comply with higher standards of transparency than other companies could also damage the firm’s chances of getting the best prices, according to Hickey.

“If I’m an investment firm and I do show interest in an asset, do I necessarily want the public knowing what I paid for it? Especially with AIG, given that anyone who makes a profit, Congress gets all up in arms about it. It could open them up to too much criticism,” he said. “But you can also see how people would say, oh they’re not publicizing the terms of the deal because they’re not getting enough money from them.”

AIG delivered the news through its new “vice president for divestiture,” Alain Karaoglan. As we pointed out a couple weeks back, Karaoglan was once one of AIG’s most ardent critics. As a Deutsche Bank analyst in 2005, he authored a scathing 30-page report that pointed out large disparities in how AIG reported earnings, dissected the way AIG valued its companies, and argued that the whole business was overvalued.

Karaoglan again declined to speak with us about that report, or about the Mexico sales he just announced.

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.

DNC Chief Counters Republican Effort To 'Break' Obama Over Healthcare Reform Plan

The Democratic National Committee has begun to mount an effort to fight back over GOP opposition to healthcare reform legislation, which the DNC says is a "political ploy" aimed at "breaking President Obama" and his larger agenda, according to an email sent by DNC Chairman Tim Kaine.

"On Friday, GOP Senator Jim DeMint [S.C.] told a special-interest attack group that if they're 'able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him,'" Kaine, also governor of Virginia, says in his email. "And just this morning, Republican Chairman Michael Steele backed up DeMint's statement 100%. At the same time, the Republican National Committee is running deceptive ads to scare Americans away from the reform we need."

Steele came out strongly against the Democrats' healthcare plans yesterday in a speech in Washington, the latest salvo in what has been a steady GOP drumbeat against the reform plans. These attacks come as polls indicate a sharp downturn for Obama's approval ratings, including on the healthcare issue.

Says the DNC's Kaine, "[The Republican] plan is simple: oppose health care reform as a political ploy to weaken the President and defeat his entire agenda of change. But if we follow the Republican 'Party of No' and do nothing, we'll not only ensure more of the same, but saddle our children and grandchildren with a growing burden of exploding costs and declining care that they may never overcome."

For his part, Obama has begun taking a higher profile to fight for healthcare reform, which the president has indicated is a top priority for the year. Obama must also continue to build support for his healthcare policies even in his own party.

In his email, Kaine says Obama yesterday responded to DeMint's comments with the president saying, "Think about that. This isn't about me. This isn't about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America's families, breaking America's businesses and breaking America's economy. And we can't afford the politics of delay and defeat when it comes to health care. Not this time, not now. There are too many lives and livelihoods at stake."

Kaine asks supporters to sign an online petition in favor of Obama's healthcare reform principles.

"We can't let this kind of slash and burn politics succeed. We can fight back by collecting as many signatures as possible backing the President's principles for health care reform," Kaine says. "A huge response will show Washington and the media that when Republicans try to 'break' the President, Americans are ready to stand up for what's right."

Kaine notes Obama's strong support for health reform that includes a "strong public insurance option" that is opposed by Republicans and some conservative Democrats.

"But special interests and Republican leaders are so concerned with scoring points that they seem to think health care reform is a political game. They are literally playing politics with our lives and livelihood, and it has to stop," Kaine says.

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.