"Of course, as the Washington Independent notes, the House bill already has the anti-trust exemption - but it was removed at the behest of Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE). One thing I learned from the item - Nelson is a former insurance company president."

That looks like another reason to agree with Peter DeFazio.

Good idea. Almost makes up for his wanting to tax some worker's HI benefits, no matter how little they actually earn in wages.

If we can get that, it improves the Senate bill significantly. And if AFL-CIO's bid to eliminate the HI plan tax for anyone making under 200K annually, the final version might not be as disappointing as it looks now.

If Ron Wyden had anything positive to say or do in this matter he would have:

(1) pushed back hard against the "single payer is off the table" meme;

(2) demanded unambiguously and consistently a strong and universal public option that would have effectively brought down the for profit monopoly that he is now posturing against

(3) not have betrayed progressives at the crucial moment in July when he and the rest of the gang of six said they would hold up legislation so that it could not be rushed through before August recess, thus allowing the corporate lobbyists to fling obscene amounts of money and astroturfed assholes at the bill, thus driving the bill to the right

(4) return the millions from the corporations that have him by the balls.

These kinds of statements by Wyden now are . . . whatever word is beyond laughable.

Joe, are you saying you prefer that he be against removing the anti-trust exemption? Or are you simply once again part of the small but determined knee-jerk anti-Wyden contingent that is so hopelessly out of touch with the Democratic Party and the state that you are reduced to constant carping about our senior senator?

Here are a few questions for you:

1. Which member of the Oregon delegation fought for single payer? Are you aware that Wyden's amendment, which Sen. Sanders is fighting to protect in conference, will allow the states to put in place their own single payer plans?

2. At what point was Congress ever seriously considering a public option that would be available to all American or in any way threaten the insurance monopoly? At no time did either the Senate or House have in play a plan that would have had more than 6 million Americans in the proposed public option, and of course, the Nelsons and Liebermans of the world wouldn't even accept that.

3. Based on what you have seen over the past six months, do you really think Congress was prepared to sew this health bill up before the August recess? Further, please go to the actual letter Wyden signed and cite the specific sentence with which you have a problem. I read it and could not find a single assertion or request that I disagreed with.

4. Which member of the Oregon delegation refuses corporate PAC contributions?

Bradley, these are good challenging questions, and I'll try and answer them (although I think I'm not going to have the chance to do them justice right now).

(1) I'm not aware that any member of our delegation fought for single payer, more's the pity. I believe (perhaps wrongly) that DeFazio has been quoted as saying he favors it, and that Blumenauer would accept it. I've personally heard Blumenauer be offensively dismissive of Kucinich, so . . . not sure there. Yes I am aware of Senator Sanders' defense of this point. I hope this particular thing happens. I don't think that having single payer in particular states is Wyden's crusade, particularly. Wyden's crusade has been the equivalent of vouchers with the same actors in play. It's a lousy plan, and it is still a big wet French kiss to the insurance companies. It fails to address the key problem which is to get the profit motive out of health care.

Is your point here that since no other person in the delegation has taken the lead on single payer, that Wyden ought not to be held to that standard? If so, I disagree. Once you make health care reform a key issue, single payer is so obviously the only rational just choice, that anyone who does not lead in this direction is in the hip pocket of corporate America. Cf. Wyden's specific contributions - Q.E.D.

(2) I believe that what you mean here is that at no point did the House or Senate leadership ever allow such a plan to be written and come to public debate. Sometimes there were very crude tactics to make sure this did not happen - e.g. the tactics against Kucinich and others in the House, the very public tactics against Sanders in the Senate. It recalls what Chomsky often talks about as the bete noir of American foreign policy - the "threat of a good example." So, it is disingenuous to argue that nothing has come to the floor or that no one supports them when the entire axis of corporate/legislative power has quite openly been undemocratically (overwhelmingly the American people are for these positions) been marshalled against them.

(3) I think that Obama said that he wanted that bill signed and delivered by August and he ought to have gone all FDR on their collective asses. I think that your defense of Wyden and his Republican collaborators is weak. I think this all should have happened very quickly, precisely because the corporations were the bad guys, and every hour of delay gave them time to organize a response. I think that Wyden did what he did because he was bought and paid for by the medical industries - you don't get those millions for nothing. Well, also because he is a flaming self-important narcissist who got played. But mostly, he's just bought. He doesn't get it. At all.

(4) As for refusing PAC contributions, all members refuse contributions from some sources (e.g. NAMBLA). In the spirit of my patron saint, Bertolt Brecht, who famously asked: "What is the crime of the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank?" I ask you: What has now done more damage, cost more lives, dragged us more surely and desperately to hell . . . a bedraggled circle of old men who would like to have sex with boys (gotta squick there, I admit), or the insurance and pharma companies that contributed over the years to Ron Wyden's campaign?

Answer honestly. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Whatever comes out of Congress and the White House will be significantly inferior in quality to what Western Europeans nations and Japan and Taiwan have.

Nelson is a loose cannon on deck. He was also responsible for pushing a Senate version of "Stupak" and held up the vote until the Conference of Catholic Bishops signed off on it. How about some party leadership? If you didn't know, you could read his whole website and never realize he is a Democrat.

Kari Chisholm: Sorry, Bob, but you're mistaken. The "cadillac health plan" tax is not, and never was, a tax on workers. It's a tax on the insurance companies.

No, it isn't, not in any reality-based analysis. The history of insurance company behavior makes it obvious they will simply add the tax to the premium. The only way to keep the premium below the taxed level is to cut benefits. Even with an exchange, nothing I've seen prohibits this.

This idea only had merit in the context of a robust public option, or straight medicare-for-all. Then the HI companies would have had to cut profit margins to compete with a lower cost public plan.

Furthermore, the term "Cadillac plan" to describe high cost plans is used only by those lacking knowledge of how these plans work, or a vested interest in spinning the idea that high cost = luxury plan. The fact is that the few of us left who have middle-class incomes and decent plans (mostly unions anymore) have no such plan. What we have is a reasonable deductible and out of pocket maximum (meaning the insurance plan actually pays the bills) and none (or at least fewer) of the loopholes which allow HI companies to avoid coverage.

Combine that with job security language which effectively prevents employers from finding excuses to get rid of employees who do have serious medical issues, and we also have an older workforce.

Add reasonable deductibles and old age, and you get high cost. A few people in the political have chosen to spin that as "Cadillac" coverage.

If you want to tell a custodian in his 50's, with multiple chronic conditions and an annual income of 30K that he can afford either higher out-of-pocket medical costs or a pay cut to pay the new, higher premiums, then our political views do not stem from the same roots.

Somebody mentioned Currently, a 60-year-old likely would pay five or six times more for private medical insurance than someone in his twenties but it may not be true always check http://bit.ly/68ShhE for lower price coverages

Couple comments:

1) Under the current system, all employer-provided health care benefits are tax free. Because of this, companies like Goldman Sachs use them as a tax shelter and give their employees $40,000/year health plans. This needs to be stopped. It sounds like they came up with a good compromise to stop it. The average family health plan in the US costs about $15,000 a year, so a threshold in the mid 20s for the excise tax is more than generous, and an 8 year phase in will allow unions to renegotiate their salary/benefits mix. Additionally, the exclusion favors benefits over salary, so limiting it should push up wages over the long term, according to economists, and especially if it helps control health care costs as many believe it will.

2) We should not forget that it was Congressman DeFazio who put the repeal of the antitrust exemption for insurers in the House Bill. Let's hope it makes it into the final conference report and we should all thank him for his efforts on this issue, which went from a long shot to a real possibility in a very short time.

The standard progressive cry - on this blog and elsewhere - is "F#%K THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! THOSE PROFIT-HUNGRY BEASTS RAPING THE PUBLIC!" I agree. What I don't understand is why some of those same people are defending the rapacious pricing of those same insurance companies?

It's a bitch when people call themselves progressive and then act all status quo, isn't it!

Totally agree.

"No, the only way to keep the premium below the taxed level is to cut the premium."

Yeah, that must be why the most vocal opponents are the pub employee unions with the best benefits.

I love your reasoning - "You're making too much profit designing that WEBSite for me, cut your price 50%!" Tell me you hear that one all the time.

What a breath-taking collection of vintage Kari-ism in this thread:

Sorry, Bob, but you're mistaken. The "cadillac health plan" tax is not, and never was, a tax on workers. It's a tax on the insurance companies.

In Kari-land, that would be just like how a sales tax, albeit a graduated one in this case, is just a tax on the merchant/product manufacturer.

The only way to keep the premium below the taxed level is to cut benefits.

No, the only way to keep the premium below the taxed level is to cut the premium.

In Kari-land, that apparently would be because the premiums, we will pay required to pay by the way due to the mandate we buy insurance, are just arbitrary numbers that can be mad anything rather than reflecting what the insurance companies payout to one of Ron Wyden's biggest supporters (health care and pharma) plus their allowed markup of 20%-25%.

My health insurance - the most generous Kaiser plan - costs my employer (my own business) around $350 a month.

In Kari-land, apparently the Kaiser managed-care system in which you had better be happy with Kaiser doctors, unless you want to fight the company to see other doctors, is all the medical care people should have a right to. (Do you have a Kaiser HMO or PPO plan Kari?) Of course, Kaiser was the company mentioned in Sicko that Nixon loved because their amazing "health care" business model was to discourage people from getting medical care, remember? And oh yea, they are one of the companies behind this.

The standard progressive cry - on this blog and elsewhere - is "F#%K THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! THOSE PROFIT-HUNGRY BEASTS RAPING THE PUBLIC!" I agree. What I don't understand is why some of those same people are defending the rapacious pricing of those same insurance companies?

In Kari-land, "progressive" means to attack the disappearing middle class to throw rancid scraps to those who have fallen even further down the economic ladder to give welfare to the private insurance industry with the mandate, and to then attack those who point out this fraud, and that the whole premium tax is a sick sideshow, as not being tough on the industry. Even small employers (like 50-100 employees) with even a moderate number of older employees 50 and older will easily pay over $1900 per employee for a reasonable PPO plan, add on dental and vision and one is easily into a so-called "Cadillac Plan" territory.

<hr/>

Kari-land of course is the land of corporate Democrat propaganda and Orwellian double-speak in which we ought to be happy with whatever they choose to give us and call it "progressive".

In Kari-land, "progressives" are the ones who support "Democrats" like Wyden, Rahm Emanuel, the DLC, the DSCC, and the DCCC, and now even Obama, who have gotten on board with mandating working people pay corporate welfare to the private insurance industry and the only legitimate quibble is the rate. (take the pledge Kari: No Public Option? No Mandate! and start railing against Wyden and Merkley in this blog.)

In Kari-land, Wyden gets credit for "urging" repeal of the anti-trust exemption (but not pledging No Repeal? 'No' Vote!) that Wyden never worked for in in the past, while DeFazio has been fighting for for years and was just castigated for again on this very blog while Kari said nothing nor gave DeFazio credit in this piece. (Nice example of journalistic "integrity" Kari.)

In Kari-land, liberals, progressives, or just folks who stand up for values that put working and poor people first like Democrats used to stand for, call us what you will, don't tread, because it is a land of self-serving madness and betrayal.

You have become one sick puppy Kari, and a fine example of what is so twisted with the "not-progressive" wing of the Democratic Party here in Oregon and the nation that has put winning and keeping power ahead of pretty much anything else, just like the sick freaks on the other side.

Sorry I took awhile to get back to you, Joe. Damn boss always wants me to work while on their time!

1. Are you saying that Earl, Peter, Wu, and Merkley didn't make health reform a key issue? Both Earl and Wu made a big deal about how their committees were the committees that wrote the House bill and frequently touted their contributions. While I personally strongly agree with you that single payer would have been a fine choice, I think my point was that you are going out of your way to single out Wyden and it diminishes your argument and makes it look personal.

As I understand Wyden's position, it is that states like Oregon, Vemont and others will rightly be dissatisfied by the lack of real reform in the congressional bill, and should be allowed to chart their own course. And while this does not make Wyden the leading advocate of single payer, per se, it does happen to make him and Sanders our single payer's two best champions for the chance to prove our point and deliver the goods. For that, I and other supporters of single payer should give him enormous thanks. Without him, we would be dead in the water for many more decades.

1. Here was your original criticism of Wyden on public option: that he never "demanded unambiguously and consistently a strong and universal public option that would have effectively brought down the for profit monopoly that he is now posturing against."

My original question to you, once again, spoke to your apparent singling out of Wyden and multiple standards for various member of Congress. Just as the more conservative members of Pelosi's caucus conspired to thwart Kucinich, a coalition of pro-business and pro-labor members conspired to limit the number of people who would be allowed to enter the originally proposed public option. As a result, a robust public option was dead on arrival. I have at least found Wyden to be consistent, saying from the outset that he didn't believe a public option was the only way to achieve reform, but arguing that if we are going to have one, in order to derive its benefits, it needs to be open to everyone.

I have said it before on Blue Oregon and no one has refuted it successfully, but I will give you another stab: Had Wyden had worn a "public option now" sash and performed a marathon break dance routine in the Capitol rotunda from January 2009 to today, it would not have changed the result. No amount of advocacy by him or anyone else on the public option was going to change Nelson, Lieberman, and the other Democrats who determined the fate of public option.

Finally, and I have read a few comments that this was somehow an empty gesture, while Wyden never pushed public option as his central reform, once Baucus rejected his bill, his only job as a Senator was to vote on the bill before him. He not only voted for Schumer's public option, but he voted for Rockefeller's truly robust public option. If he had voted against that you would have severely criticized him for his vote, and once he voted for it, you criticized him for his vote. That betrays your obvious dislike of the guy. Which is fine, but don't try to hide your bias behind Chomsky.

1. I don't need to address your third point because you make clear that it reflects your unsubstantiated opinion and hatred of Wyden. This is your right, and some of your Pacific Green Party allies on Blue Oregon seem to share this view. Here is your opinion and conjecture: "I think that Wyden did what he did because he was bought and paid for by the medical industries - you don't get those millions for nothing. Well, also because he is a flaming self-important narcissist who got played. But mostly, he's just bought. He doesn't get it. At all."

2. Yes, comparing campaign finance to buggering young boys is probably a good sign that your hatred of Wyden has jumped the shark.

Even if you are right, that he took boatloads of their money, he appears to have taken their money and double-crossed them. He voted for drug reimportation, battled for bargaining power under Medicare Part D, for Rockefeller, and now for ending their sweetheart anti-trust deal.

I happen to be a fan of Wyden's. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he says or does, but love his courage, his intellect, his independence, and his effectiveness. I even like the fact that he is willing to stand up to me and you when we disagree with him. I don't want a mindless puppet for a Senator. I want a leader, and that is exactly what Wyden is. In my opinion.

And now, I will leave you to yours.

Right on Bradley!

(Nice example of journalistic "integrity" Kari.)

You missed the memo from Kari-land!

Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jan 8, 2010 12:06:55 PM

Blue Oregon could certainly learn something about objectivity from the Merc.

You do understand that this is a blog and not a newspaper, right?

The differences, including objectivity, are fundamental. We don't seek objectivity here (as general rule) on purpose. If that's your pony, you're riding in the wrong part of town.

...

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 8, 2010 12:55:10 PM

Blue Oregon could certainly learn something about objectivity from the Merc.

BlueOregon's goals are many, but "objectivity" isn't one of them.

...

Posted by: Zarathustra | Jan 8, 2010 2:28:44 PM

I didn't mean objectivity as in not taking a stance. I meant being data oriented in support of those stances. Take a stance, process the facts, let the chips fall where they may. Intellectual honesty. Surely, you're not saying I've got that wrong as well?

...

Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jan 8, 2010 2:30:39 PM

I didn't mean objectivity as in not taking a stance. I meant being data oriented in support of those stances. Take a stance, process the facts, let the chips fall where they may. Intellectual honesty. Surely, you're not saying I've got that wrong as well?

Yes. I'm saying you've got that wrong as well.

...

Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jan 9, 2010 4:14:20 PM

Carla seems to be giving the back of her hand to Zara's pitfully idealistic hopes for Blue Oregon poster integrity even in the heat of battle.

...

Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jan 10, 2010 8:47:17 AM

Maybe you and Zara and the rest of Zara's sock puppets can have a meeting about it and decide for sure.

At least that's how I read it......

I sincerely doubt that. But carry on.

...

In Kari-land, there is no such thing as a VPN, either: But here's another guideline: If you're a troll (left or right) that insists on using multiple identities to engage in sockpuppetry, you're going to get ignored.

Use your real name, and use it every time, and you'll find a much more receptive audience here.

No doubt you're happier now that blueoregon.com has been added to the blacklist, and only the net admin posts anymore!

And mp...you're a sock puppet too. Screw your clients and their stupid opinions! Use your real name if you want to talk. We can't be bothered to link to FB or any other such scheme! Oh, but maybe you're not a "troll". Could we have a list, please?

Oh, and, for the record "billy", "jaimieee", "JK", and "marie" have been ignored! You know it's funny, but I could have sworn that Carlock and retorts have accounted for more than 1/2 the verbiage on EVERY thread on the environment.

Also forget to mention that it's pretty low banning the IP address involved in the above, and not mentioning that in your response, allowing the silence to implicate all that raised your hackles!

I'm not in the whole reactionary, frustrated kill the bill vote for Republicans group. I think there have probably been some good fixes in conference and I am looking forward to this bill going into law.

A strong supporter of the public option it was whittled down to nothing. However I do like the national exchanges. The Dems by letting the Senate get out of hand could loose their seat in Mass. That would be something else to hang around Lieberman's neck.

He of course loving to grab center stage forgot to look at the big picture. The public option was nothing at that point but he made a big stink about it and here we are with voter fatigue, and anger at the sheer stubbornness of those politicians completely sold out to the status quo.

All that being said if this bill brings down cost for the middle class and says to the 1% uber wealthy - you need to contribute to the well being of this Country that has been so good to you - with its military, infrastructure and system of laws, and this bill makes them contribute their fair share - based on the giveaways they have enjoyed the past decade then I can support this bill.

The bottom line is that there is wide agreement across a broad market sector of the public, doctors, and business that the monopolies the insurance companies currently enjoy have abused our economy for decades.

In a Country based on a system of checks and balances we have to restore those checks and balances to the Insurance Industry.

Rolling back the anti-trust exemption and putting the power of the people onto the bargaining table not chopped up into 50 little pieces but through a "national" exchange is one way to do that.

Better times are on the way and more money in our 'national" pockets will make for a better more vibrant market and Country that can better compete globally than just the 1% getting richer and richer and richer and being the only ones benefiting from our laws.

That we might help single working mothers and those less fortunate than ourselves is the real mandate from above. It will be a better world for all when we all start doing the right thing....right Joe

Paul Burke Author-Journey Home

Kari Chisholm: No, the only way to keep the premium below the taxed level is to cut the premium.

What possible reason do you have for believing HI companies will voluntarily do that? Without either competition or mandated price controls, the obvious conclusion is that they will add the tax to the premium.

Do you have a health benefit that you and your employer pay $1917 a month for?

Currently Full Family is $1528.39 per month, and anual increases have been averaging above 10%.

My health insurance - the most generous Kaiser plan - costs my employer (my own business) around $350 a month.

Good for you. We don't have Kaiser in Eugene, and not everyone wants an HMO.

I don't know for certain, but I've heard from reliable sources that even the most "generous" (i.e. most expensive) health plans for unionized employees in Oregon run about $1300 a month.

Should we really have health plans that cost two grand a month? What the hell are people buying? Or are those plans merely a way for health insurance companies to suck at the public teat?

Respectfully, I suspect I have more experience in negotiating union HI plans than you do.

The single biggest driver is experience. If you have an older workforce, with a lot of people who have done physical work most of their lives, you get higher claims and thus higher prices.

The standard progressive cry - on this blog and elsewhere - is "F#%K THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! THOSE PROFIT-HUNGRY BEASTS RAPING THE PUBLIC!" I agree.

As do I. Which is why I support (in descending order): Medicare being available for all; or A strong public option, open to all; or Strong price controls on HI plans.

What I don't understand is why some of those same people are defending the rapacious pricing of those same insurance companies?

I'm doing no such thing. I'm pointing out that the tax on high cost plans fails does not force the HI companies to pay the tax out of profits; they will simply pass the cost along. So anyone who happens to have both a decent plan, and a middle class income will get screwed.

Have you noticed that of all the things the HI companies absolutely refuse to accept, the tax is not one of them? It's because they know full well that a few companies have so dominated the market that they can pass on the tax, or simply reduce the cost of the plan by cutting the benefits.

In the interest of empowering consumers, you'll get to pick which of those two you get: higher cost or lower benefits. Reduced profits in the HI industry isn't even on the list.

Let me get this. "We don't have to be objective, but give your real name"? Dude, blogging 101: the email is the primary key, not the alias. "Trolling" is looking for a reaction without engaging in debate. Calling those that have a bona fide point "trolls" is just saying, "my ball, you can't play"!

While he's at it, why not remove the anti-trust exemption from the drug companies too?

Re: "At no time did either the Senate or House have in play a plan that would have had more than 6 million Americans in the proposed public option"

And that's why the whole process has been a complete sham. A culture that cannot distinguish between reality and illusion dies.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that the Dear Leader plans to ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it.” - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Wyden was in Bend earlier this week and spoke at a high school. The event prompted a letter to the editor of the Bend Bulletin. The first paragraph challenged the belief that young people are not paying attention to what is going on in the world of politics and included reference to a question from a student asking how his generation was supposed to pay back the debt incurred by this administration. Apparently, the audience cheered.

This was the second paragraph of the letter: "By the way, Sen. Wyden chose to narrowly construct this question and assured the young man that he could save money by remaining on his parents' health care plan until the age of 26. Sen. Wyden, even a 16-year old knows you didn't give him an honest answer."

In fairness, that young man and the author of the letter should have recognized that the debt set up for the younger generations is not uniquely attributable to Obama; although, with his willingness to continue Bush policies of trying to solve political problems with the military Obama will very likely make that debt burden horrendous.

As for the audience, they were naive if they believed Wyden would be a straight shooter.

It was a tea bagger question from a very hostile tea bagger audience. The baggers yelled and hooted every time Senator Wyden tried to talk. Two moderators attempted repeatedly to get the tea baggers to knock it off, but they just got more obnoxious. The Democrats in the audience thought the Senator had answered the guy's question, but I would like to see Bodden try answering questions with several hundred tea baggers yelling at his every response.

Bodden has now sunk to siding with tea-baggers to attack Wyden. Assclown.

"Bodden has now sunk to siding with tea-baggers to attack Wyden. Assclown. "

At least, Bend-anon, I'm not down in the gutter hiding behind a pseudonym slinging mud and calling someone childish names. Lotsa class there, fella. I was reporting what the letter said, and I believe it is unlikely any tea-bagger would have added "In fairness, that young man and the author of the letter should have recognized that the debt set up for the younger generations is not uniquely attributable to Obama; ..."

Now, as to Wyden's response to the question referred to in the letter, did he or did he not say what the letter alleged? If some reliable person informs me this was untrue, I would have no problem accepting it. If you know someone who qualifies as a reliable person, please have him or her post a correction.

Teabaggers writing Fox News-worthy letters to the paper after they disrupt Democratic town meetings is admittedly a difficult concept to accept, but my gosh, how advanced they have become!

Well, Bend-anon, here's your chance. If there were any inaccuracies in that letter - other than the one I referred to - why don't you write a letter to the editor of the Bend Bulletin and cite them. You'll have to give the Bully your name, address and phone number, though. Are you up to that?

You have a point. My employer doesn't approve of posting about politics online, so I will have to remain a chicken while online.

On the other hand day in and day out you are an irrelevant asshole.

Only one has a remedy.

"On the other hand day in and day out you are an irrelevant asshole."

What's your problem Bend-anon? Can't you come up with rational arguments? Is sophomoric name-calling all you are capable of?

"Bodden has now sunk to siding with tea-baggers to attack Wyden."

Bend-anon: Did you miss my letter to the Bully last May after the "Tea Party" in Bend? Here it is, in case you missed it:

"The recent nationwide “Tea Party” included an estimated 1,200 celebrants/protesters in Bend. The general theme was a protest against the Obama administration and its alleged liberal agenda. What meretricious nonsense!

"Case in point: one of the charges from an irate correspondent alleging in The Bulletin a liberal government takeover of the banks. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) in a moment of unusual candor for a politician said recently that the banks 'own' the senate. He might well have said the banks are also part owners of Congress and the White House regardless of the incumbents' party affiliations. If the government takes over any bank it will be for one of two reasons: The bank is either threatened with financial failure or wants to unload its troubled assets on to the taxpayers.

"The protesters expended a lot of hot air about spending money, democracy and liberty. Where were these “patriots” when the Bush administration and most of Congress – Republicans and Democrats - were shredding the Constitution and initiating an illegal war that has been estimated will eventually cost taxpayers two to three TRILLION dollars? Where were these “patriots” when the Bush administration and a bi-partisan Congress rammed through the Patriot Act and tossed habeas corpus in the toilet? Where were they sitting with their thumbs pressing their mute buttons?

"There should be concern for our declining democracy but more for reasons other than those that seem to have agitated the tea partygoers."

And, Bend-anon, where were you sitting with your thumbs pressing your mute button when the tea partygoers were doing their thing?

There is one thing, Bend-anon, that we do have in common. We both believe in right and wrong. The difference is that you appear like most Democrats, Republicans, Tea Partiers and Dittoheads to believe in "My tribe right or wrong." I prefer what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.

Nice letter, but that was then. Using tea baggers' attacks and letters to attack Wyden is now. That makes you an AssClown.

For some reason, "Rudy V" and "Anita Berber" (who comment from the same IP address) feel compelled to speculate about our troll/sockpuppet/spam management practices.

It was a response to the "Kari-land" post. Yes, responding to someone is one esoteric reason.

And we'll take that as a confession that you DON'T know what a VPN is.

That makes you an AssClown

Could we not use the word "ass" with relation to him? Puts me off my dinner!

<hr/>