Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Ohio Department of Mental Health Cultural Competence

http://www.mh.state.oh.us/what-we-believe/cultural-competence.shtml

Cultural Competence

In Ohio, cultural competence has been defined as a continuous learning process that builds knowledge, awareness, skills and the capacity to identify, understand and respect the unique beliefs, values, customs, languages and traditions of all Ohioans in order to provide effective programs and services. This continuous learning process is necessary to support recovery and to deliver consumer-driven, person-centered mental health services. The Ohio Department of Mental Health (ODMH) is committed to assuring that cultural competence is considered when developing statewide policy, programs and practices because services are most effective when delivered in a culturally competent way.

Multiethnic Advocates for Cultural Competence (MACC)
ODMH funds MACC, which promotes culturally and linguistically appropriate services in Ohio through an annual cultural competence conference, cultural competence training and the promotion of cultural competence resources. By conducting a thorough needs assessment, MACC has identified how Ohio's various cultural groups perceive and respond to mental illness and has identified the special needs of various groups. Using this information, MACC develops reports to share with local mental health boards and agencies with the goal of enhancing their ability to deliver culturally and linguistically appropriate services. For more information, visit the MACC Web site.

Cultural Competence and the Transformation State Incentive Grant
MACC serves as one of the Content Working Groups of the Transformation State Incentive Grant. Through this grant, ODMH is bringing together statewide organizations such as MACC, and other state agencies, such as the Ohio Department of Health and Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, to integrate cultural competence into community behavioral health and other systems of care. The goal is to ensure quality care and treatment for Ohio’s diverse populations. Strategies developed through this collaboration include:

  • Developing a uniform and widely accepted definition and model/approach to cultural competence
  • Identifying and assessing systemic barriers and gaps in services
  • Creating a comprehensive staff/systems cultural competence infrastructure and development model, which may include training, credentialing, licensing, accreditation, technical assistance and other strategies to eliminate disparities

For more information, visit the Transformation State Incentive Grant page.

Deaf and Hard of Hearing
ODMH is striving to ensure that services and programs for deaf and hard of hearing individuals are readily accessible and available throughout the state. Through its Office of Consumer Recovery and Supports, ODMH works with the deaf and hard of hearing community and their statewide organizations to develop and implement programs and strategies needed to promote recovery-based services that are consumer-driven and accessible to this population. Such programs and strategies not only include traditional clinical services, but also include services such as telemedicine, skilled mental health interpreters, advocacy and peer support. ODMH works with other stakeholders to develop community forums, printed information and local advocacy networks designed to support consumer voice and empowerment. For additional information regarding issues affecting deaf and hard of hearing individuals, visit the Communication Service for the Deaf Web site.

Diversity Circles
ODMH is presently implementing dialogues about diversity and racial equity among its staff. The program follows a model developed by Everyday Democracy (formally known as the Study Circles Resource Center), which includes small group discussions that explore multiple world views crossing ethnic and cultural boundaries. The process is designed to create a better understanding between people, build a higher level of trust and create a deeper form of communication among staff to foster a better understanding of the impact of culture on ODMH work. This 18-month program is projected to kick-off in January 2009.

Historical Timeline 1984 – 2000
To learn more about how ODMH’s commitment to cultural competence has grown and transformed throughout the years, view our Cultural Competence Historical Timeline (PDF, 88 KB).

Honduras Defends Its Democracy

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html#printMode

Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton object.

Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution.

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.

But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.

[THE AMERICAS] Associated Press

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.

Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.

Many Hondurans are going to be celebrating Mr. Zelaya's foreign excursion. Street protests against his heavy-handed tactics had already begun last week. On Friday a large number of military reservists took their turn. "We won't go backwards," one sign said. "We want to live in peace, freedom and development."

Besides opposition from the Congress, the Supreme Court, the electoral tribunal and the attorney general, the president had also become persona non grata with the Catholic Church and numerous evangelical church leaders. On Thursday evening his own party in Congress sponsored a resolution to investigate whether he is mentally unfit to remain in office.

For Hondurans who still remember military dictatorship, Mr. Zelaya also has another strike against him: He keeps rotten company. Earlier this month he hosted an OAS general assembly and led the effort, along side OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza, to bring Cuba back into the supposedly democratic organization.

The OAS response is no surprise. Former Argentine Ambassador to the U.N. Emilio Cárdenas told me on Saturday that he was concerned that "the OAS under Insulza has not taken seriously the so-called 'democratic charter.' It seems to believe that only military 'coups' can challenge democracy. The truth is that democracy can be challenged from within, as the experiences of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and now Honduras, prove." A less-kind interpretation of Mr. Insulza's judgment is that he doesn't mind the Chávez-style coup.

The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Insulza expose their true colors.

Write to O'Grady@wsj.com

"Study, Study, Study" - A Bad Career Move

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2009/06/by_ward_connerly_about_five.html

By Ward Connerly

About five years ago, shortly before my term ended as a Regent of the University of California (UC), I was having a casual conversation with a very high-ranking UC administrator about a proposal that he was developing to increase "diversity" at UC in a manner that would comply with the dictates of California's Constitution and the prohibition against race, gender and ethnic preferences.

As I listened to his proposal, I asked him why he considered it important to tinker with admissions instead of just letting the chips fall where they may. In an unguarded moment, he told me that unless the university took steps to "guide" admissions decisions, UC would be dominated by Asians. When I asked, "What would be wrong with that?" I got an answer that speaks volumes about the underlying philosophy at many universities with regard to Asian enrollment.

The UC administrator told me that Asians are "too dull - they study, study, study." He then said, "If you ever say I said this, I will have to deny it." I won't betray the individual's anonymity because to do so would put him in a world of trouble - and he would, indeed, deny having said it. Yet, it is time to confront the not-so-subtle hand of discrimination against Asians that masquerades as "building diversity" at many elite college campuses.

It is a mistake to believe that all forms of discrimination flow from hate and inherently foul motives. Certainly, the desire to attract more black students to a campus that is lacking in blacks is not an evil aspiration; however, when it becomes necessary to reject those who "study, study, study" in order to admit those who study insufficiently, then the mission to include more blacks becomes a much more ominous one.

Since the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996, Asian enrollment at UC has skyrocketed. UC Berkeley currently has a 42% Asian undergraduate enrollment; UC Irvine is at 55%; UC Riverside is 43%; and UC Los Angeles is 38%. The overall percentage in the nine undergraduate UC campuses is over 40%, in a state where the Asian population is about 13%. Thus, Asians are excelling under policies that emphasize and reward academic achievement at a ratio that is over three times their actual statewide population. If you are a proponent of "diversity" and representation (essentially a de facto quota system), this outcome is your worst nightmare.

As the percentage of Asians has skyrocketed, there is no question that UC administrators and social engineers on the UC faculty have become increasingly alarmed and feel a sense of obligation to do something to reverse the direction of UC's rapidly growing Asian student population; and, clearly, the only way to reduce the Asian presence is to place less emphasis on academic achievement.

In recent months, the UC Regents have deliberated about - and approved - a proposal that would significantly revise the admissions policies of the university. Beginning in 2012, UC will no longer automatically admit the top 12.5% of all students based on statewide performance, and will no longer rely so heavily on grades and test scores. Instead, the eligibility pool will be expanded by a projected 40% by eliminating the requirement for applicants to take the SAT subject matter tests. The net effect of these changes is that academic achievement will be less significant and UC admissions administrators will have the "flexibility" to discriminate against those "dull" Asians who "study, study, study" all the time without violating Proposition 209.

As is generally the case, the UC faculty was well aware of the probable effect of its proposed changes upon different racial and ethnic groups. Such knowledge is gained by the use of simulation models that are run as a matter of standard practice when new admissions criteria and policies are being proposed. Clearly, the UC leadership was fully aware of that its proposals would result in fewer Asians in UC admissions once the new policies kicked in.

Until now, it was certain that any change in policies that would adversely affect Asians would go unchallenged by Asians. The so-called Asian civil rights groups, such as Chinese for Affirmative Action, which purport to represent the interest of Asians, have not served their communities with distinction. Having cast their lot with the "diversity" and inclusion crowd, they have looked the other way when Asians have been the victims of blatant discrimination. The absence of a squeaky wheel demanding grease allowed the UC faculty and Regents to roll right along with their proposal and to approve it.

The proposed UC admissions policies are so egregious and so dramatically discriminatory against Asians that these groups could not remain silent - and have credibility within their communities, as the grassroots opposition from within specific Asians groups began to surface. It is noteworthy that what concerns these groups most is not the discriminatory effects of UC's proposals upon Asians, or the prospect of more blacks and Latinos being admitted, but the possibility that those devilish whites might stand to benefit from the changes. As one Asian advocate put it, "...it is patently unreasonable to herald any sort of increase in student diversity if it comes with an increase in white students... this is unacceptable."

There is one truth that is universally applicable in the era of "diversity," especially in American universities: an absolute unwillingness to accept the verdict of colorblind policies. Until that fact changes, UC and other American institutions will continue trying to fix that which is not broken, to achieve their arrogant version of "diversity," by discriminating against those "dull" Asians, such as two of my grandchildren whose mother is half-Vietnamese.

Obama says coup in Honduras is illegal

By Arshad Mohammed and David Alexander

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a "terrible precedent" of transition by military force unless it was reversed.

"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there," Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term.

The Honduran Congress named an interim president, Roberto Micheletti, and the country's Supreme Court said it had ordered the army to remove Zelaya.

The European Union and a string of foreign governments have voiced support for Zelaya, who was snatched by troops from his residence and whisked away by plane to Costa Rica in his pajamas.

Obama said he would work with the Organization of American States and other international institutions to restore Zelaya to power and "see if we can resolve this in a peaceful way."

"TERRIBLE PRECEDENT"

"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections," Obama said, noting the region's progress in establishing democratic traditions in the past 20 years.

Despite Obama's comments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration was not formally designating the ouster as a military coup for now, a step that would force a cut-off of most U.S. aid to Honduras.

Under U.S. law, no aid -- other than for the promotion of democracy -- may be provided to a country whose elected head of government has been toppled in a military coup.

"We do think that this has evolved into a coup," Clinton told reporters, adding the administration was withholding that determination for now.

Asked if the United States was currently considering cutting off aid, Clinton shook her head no.

The State Department said it was unable to immediately say how much assistance the United States gives Honduras.

The State Department has requested $68.2 million in aid for fiscal year 2010, which begins on October 1, up from $43.2 million. This covers funds for development, Honduran purchases of U.S. arms, military training, counter-narcotics and health care but does not include Defense Department aid, a U.S. official said.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he did not believe Obama had spoken to Zelaya since the ouster.

He said the administration had worked in recent days to try to prevent the coup from happening, and "our goal now is on restoring democratic order in Honduras."

OBAMA CRITICISM

Analysts said quick criticism of the coup by Obama and Clinton on Sunday pleased Latin American countries bitter about the long history of U.S. intervention in the region.

The Obama administration's stance contrasted with the equivocal position taken in 2002 by former President George W. Bush's administration, which was seen as tacitly accepting a coup against Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez.

A senior U.S. official who spoke on condition he not be named said that by holding off on a legal determination that a coup has taken place, Washington was trying to provide space for a negotiated settlement.

"If we were able to get to a ... status quo that returned to the rule of law and constitutional order within a relatively short period of time, I think that would be a good outcome," Clinton said.

(Additional reporting by Doug Palmer; Editing by Xavier Briand)



Obama scoffs at Ahmadinejad's demand for apology

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's criticism of Iran escalated Friday into an unusually personal war of words. To Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's demand he apologize for meddling, Obama shot back that the regime should "think carefully" about answers owed to protesters it has arrested, bludgeoned and killed.

"The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous," Obama said. "We see it and we condemn it."

The president spoke at an East Room news conference capping his third set of meetings with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one of several European leaders who spoke out more forcefully, more quickly than Obama on the unrest in Iran that followed the disputed June 12 elections.

"We will not forget," Merkel said.

Turning to Iraq, where a deadline for U.S. combat troops to leave all cities was just four days away, Obama offered no support for allowing a spate of recent violence to push back the withdrawal. "If you look at the overall trend, despite some of these high-profile bombings, Iraq's security situation has continued to dramatically improve," Obama said.

Of bigger concern than the violence, Obama said, is the lack of movement on laws to share oil revenues and other matters that keep Iraq deeply fractured along sectarian lines. He called on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to step up his leadership.

Merkel's visit happened to coincide with the day that a sweeping global warming bill came up for a vote in the House amid contentious partisan sniping about its effect on jobs and consumer costs. With the vote still hours away and the outcome in doubt, Obama and Merkel, who has made climate change a top priority, presented the rare sight of an American president and a visiting foreign leader together urging the U.S. Congress to act.

Obama said he had been "very blunt and frank" with Merkel that it will take significant time to turn the U.S. into a world leader on climate change but that the "critical" bill before the House was a good start.

Merkel sympathized with the difficulty of approving such legislation, which would impose the first-ever limits on greenhouse gas pollution and force a shift to cleaner energy sources. "I know what's at stake, when you talk about reduction targets, how tricky that is," Merkel said.

In Iran, the government proclaimed the incumbent hardline president, Ahmadinejad, the landslide winner of the June 12 voting over opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, prompting widespread protests followed by a brutal state-led crackdown.

Ahmadinejad told Obama Thursday to "show your repentance" for criticizing Tehran's response.

"I don't take Mr. Ahmadinejad's statements seriously about apologies, particularly given the fact that the United States has gone out of its way not to interfere with the election process in Iran," Obama responded sternly.

"I would suggest that Mr. Ahmadinejad think carefully about the obligations he owes to his own people," he added. "And he might want to consider looking at the families of those who've been beaten or shot or detained. And, you know, that's where I think Mr. Ahmadinejad and others need to answer their questions."

It was Obama's first direct criticism of any of Iran's leaders. Even more, it was coupled with his first specific boost for Mousavi. "Mousavi has shown to have captured the imagination or the spirit of forces within Iran that were interested in opening up," Obama said.

The remark sought to clarify what many view as Obama's biggest misstep — saying last week in a television interview that there may not be much difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. But it appeared to swing over to an outright endorsement of Mousavi, though White House press secretary Robert Gibbs denied it was meant that way.

Obama also said for the first time that his offer to loosen the decades-old U.S. diplomatic freeze with Iran through direct talks is now in question.

"There is no doubt that any direct dialogue or diplomacy with Iran is going to be affected by the events of the last several weeks," Obama said, without elaborating.

Gibbs said Obama was "more stating the obvious" that no talks are possible while developments are still unfolding. And Obama said that an existing system of multilateral talks with Iran over its suspected goal of building a nuclear bomb, involving nations including the U.S., Europe, China and Russia, must continue.

"The clock is ticking. Iran is developing a nuclear capacity at a fairly rapid clip," he said.

Merkel agreed there must be no letup among nations trying to stop Iran's nuclear development, which Tehran insists is aimed at providing only electric power, not weapons. She said "we have to bring Russia and China alongside," referring to the two nations most historically unwilling to get tough with Iran over the nuclear standoff.


http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200906290843dowjonesdjonline000272&title=eu-regrets-honduras-coupcalls-for-respect-for-democracy

But Europe says no such thing

EU Regrets Honduras Coup, Calls For Respect For Democracy



BRUSSELS (AFP)--The European Commission on Monday urged that "the democratically elected institutions" be respected in coup-hit Honduras, and called an urgent meeting with Central American ambassadors to consider the future of trade talks.

"I regret the recent events which have taken place in Honduras," E.U. External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said after the Honduran army ousted elected President Manuel Zelaya and sent him into exile.

"The European Commission attaches the greatest importance to the respect for the rule of law, democracy and the democratically elected institutions," she stressed.

"Therefore, we urge all parties involved to resolve their differences peacefully, in full respect of the country's legal framework, and to promptly engage in a dialogue," Ferrero-Waldner added.

The E.U. commissioner offered "support" in such a dialogue and stressed Europe's "long history of close relations with Honduras and the Central American region as a whole."

However, a spokeswoman for Ferrero-Waldner said the E.U. Commission had arranged a meeting for later Monday with Central American ambassadors to consider the impact of the events in Honduras on efforts to secure an Association Agreement, including a free-trade deal between the regions.

Honduras is part of those E.U. negotiations along with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua.

Ferrero-Waldner will meet the Honduran ambassador separately in Brussels on Tuesday, her spokeswoman said.

"Then we will decide the way forward" for the regional talks, she added.

"The commission attaches great importance to the finalisation of the negotiations with the Central American region and we still hope that we can do this by the end of the year," as scheduled, the spokeswoman continued.

"The ambassadors will have to tell us whether it is still possible," to wrap the talks up this year.

A meeting on the subject between the E.U. executive and the Central American nations concerned had already been set for next month.

Honduras interim leader Roberto Micheletti imposed a nationwide 48-hour curfew after the national congress voted him in as the country's new leader just hours after Zelaya fled to Costa Rica and later Nicaragua.


But UN of course sides with Obama

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_coup

UN backs ousted Honduran leader


TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – The U.N. General Assembly demanded the immediate restoration of Honduras' ousted president on Tuesday, but the man who replaced him said Manuel Zelaya could be arrested if he returns home.

The U.N. vote by acclamation added to an avalanche of international denunciations of the coup that removed Zelaya on Sunday, an action that raised fears of more of the military overthrows that have scarred Latin American history.

The world body called on all 192 U.N. member states to avoid recognizing any government in Honduras other than Zelaya's.

Zelaya then thanked the assembly for the "historic" resolution that expresses "the indignation" of people worldwide.

The Organization of American States planned an emergency meeting in Washington hours later to reinforce the pressure to reinstate Zelaya, whose foes claim he was plotting with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez to change the Honduran constitution in hopes of extending his rule.

The United States, which had privately expressed concerns to Zelaya about changing the constitution, has stood behind him since masked soldiers sent him, still wearing pajamas, into exile.

President Barack Obama said Zelaya remains "the democratically elected president."

"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," Obama said Monday.

Zelaya also got support from Latin American leaders in Nicaragua on Monday, and said OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza had agreed to accompany him back to Honduras on Thursday.

But the man Honduras' Congress named as interim president, Roberto Micheletti, said Zelaya risks arrest if he returns because "the courts of my country have issued arrest orders."

Micheletti, speaking to Colombia's Caracol Radio on Tuesday, insisted it was Zelaya who had violated the constitution and that his court-ordered removal was legal.

"We have not committed a coup d'etat, but a constitutional succession," he said.

His foreign minister, Enrique Ortez Colindres, told CNN's Spanish language service that Zelaya faces allegations of "violation of the constitution, drug trafficking, of protecting organized crime, diverting multimillions in resources."

"Just entering (the country) he is going to be arrested; we already have the arrest warrants ready," Ortez said, adding that Micheletti "is going to obey what the judges say, but it is most likely he (Zelaya) will wind up in jail."

Ortez alleged that "every night three four Venezuelan-registered planes land ... bringing thousands, but thousands of pounds ... of packages of money that are the fruits of drug trafficking."

He said the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration had evidence of those shipments, though DEA spokesman Rusty Payne said he cannot confirm or deny the DEA is investigating Zelaya.

About 5,000 anti-Zelaya demonstrators gathered at a main plaza in Tegucigalpa on Tuesday to celebrate his ouster.

"Freedom has won, peace has triumphed, Honduras has won," newly appointed deputy foreign minister Marta Lorena Casco told the crowd. She said Zelaya had planned to make the country a socialist pawn. "Chavez consumed Venezuela, then Bolivia, after that Ecuador and Nicaragua, but in Honduras that didn't happen," she said.

Soldiers and police set up a chain link fence before dawn to seal off the area in front of the presidential palace in Tegucigalpa, preventing a repeat of Monday's clashes in which security forces used tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons to disperse pro-Zelaya protesters who were throwing rocks and bottles.

Some local television stations remained off the air and local media carried few reports of any demonstrations in Zelaya's favor.

At least 38 pro-Zelaya protesters were detained, said Sandra Ponce, a government human rights official.

Congresswoman Silvia Ayala said she counted 30 injured at a single Tegucigalpa hospital and an Associated Press photographer in another area close to the palace saw protesters carrying away five injured people.

"In the name of God, in the name of the people, stop repressing the people," Zelaya said in Nicaragua, urging soldiers to return to their barracks.

Zelaya said more than 150 people were injured and 50 were arrested but added that he didn't "have exact figures, because I'm not there."

Mexico and Colombia's conservative governments joined the region's leftist leaders in condemning Zelaya's removal and blocked trucks began lining up on both sides of the border with Honduras as neighboring countries imposed a trade ban.

"They're not letting in loaded or empty trucks," said Salvadoran trucker Carlos Alas, who had been stuck in the border town of El Poy since Sunday trying to ferry Honduran fabric to a Salvadoran factory.

Chavez urged a rebellion by the Honduran people, and vowed to halt shipments of subsidized oil, though Honduras gets most of its oil from other sources.

"I'll do everything possible to overthrow this gorilla government of Honduras. It must be overthrown," the socialist leader said Monday. "The rebellion in Honduras must be supported."

The OAS was considering suspending Honduras under an agreement meant to prevent the coups that for generations spawned military dictatorships in Latin America.

Micheletti vowed to ignore foreign pressure and began naming Cabinet members, including a new minister of defense. But he also told Caracol Radio that he would leave office after serving out the final seven months of Zelaya's term.

The U.S. military, which has close ties with the Honduran military leaders, tried to avoid getting caught up in the dispute.

The more than 800 U.S. military personnel at the Honduran Soto Cano air base were restricted to base except for "mission-essential" tasks such as flying helicopters to the hospital ship Comfort, which is on a humanitarian mission in Nicaragua, said Jose Ruiz, a spokesman for the U.S. military's Southern Command, based in Miami.

The base, 60 miles (100 kilometers) from the capital, is used for counternarcotics, disaster relief and medical and civil engineering missions.

Zelaya, a wealthy rancher, alienated the courts, Congress, the military and even his own party in his tumultuous three years in power but maintains the support of many of Honduras' poor.

Sunday's ouster was the first military power grab in Latin America since a brief, failed 2002 coup against Chavez.

Coups were common in Central America until the 1980s, but Honduras had not seen a coup since 1978, when one military government overthrew another.

___

Associated Press writers Marcos Aleman in Tegucigalpa, Kathia Martinez and Filadelfo Aleman in Managua, Nicaragua, Frank Bajak in Bogota, Ian James in Caracas, Venezuela, and Ben Feller in Washington contributed to this report.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Obama "excited" by Iran's robust election debate

Obama "excited" by Iran's robust election debate

Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:42pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSTRE55B4SG20090612

By David Alexander

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday he was hopeful the robust debate taking place in Iran's presidential election would advance his administration's efforts to engage longtime U.S. rival Tehran in new ways.

"We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran," Obama told reporters when asked about the Iranian election during an event at the White House.

"Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways," he said.

Iranians voted on Friday in a hotly contested election that will determine whether hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets a new term or is unseated by one of his more moderate challengers.

The United States has had no ties with Iran since shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution, but Obama has expressed an interest in a dialogue if Tehran "unclenches its fist."

Obama said he had tried to send a clear message during a speech to the Islamic world last week in Cairo that his administration sees a possibility for a change in relations.

He said while "ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide," voters in the Middle East had shown they were looking at the possibility of a change.

Obama was referring to the victory of Saad al-Hariri's anti-Syrian bloc in Lebanon on Sunday. The bloc won 71 of parliament's 128 seats, versus 57 for an opposition alliance that included Hezbollah, a pro-Iranian group Washington formally has designated a "foreign terrorist organization."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was encouraged by the size of the Iranian voter turnout.

"It's a very positive sign that the people of Iran want their voices and their votes to be heard and counted. And like many people inside and outside of Iran we are going to wait and see what the results are," Clinton told reporters.

A senior State Department official said the United States would not be surprised if there was a run-off.

"It's anyone's guess what is going to transpire. If you were a betting person you would probably look at some sort of run-off," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

There will be a run-off on June 19 between the two front-runners if none of the four candidates wins 50 percent of the votes in the first round.

(Additional reporting by Sue Pleming)


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5juui7didNwh_vzBmJyrbjxkeF-IgD992IRFO2

Obama scoffs at Ahmadinejad's demand for apology

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's criticism of Iran escalated Friday into an unusually personal war of words. To Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's demand he apologize for meddling, Obama shot back that the regime should "think carefully" about answers owed to protesters it has arrested, bludgeoned and killed.

"The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous," Obama said. "We see it and we condemn it."

The president spoke at an East Room news conference capping his third set of meetings with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one of several European leaders who spoke out more forcefully, more quickly than Obama on the unrest in Iran that followed the disputed June 12 elections.

"We will not forget," Merkel said.

Turning to Iraq, where a deadline for U.S. combat troops to leave all cities was just four days away, Obama offered no support for allowing a spate of recent violence to push back the withdrawal. "If you look at the overall trend, despite some of these high-profile bombings, Iraq's security situation has continued to dramatically improve," Obama said.

Of bigger concern than the violence, Obama said, is the lack of movement on laws to share oil revenues and other matters that keep Iraq deeply fractured along sectarian lines. He called on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to step up his leadership.

Merkel's visit happened to coincide with the day that a sweeping global warming bill came up for a vote in the House amid contentious partisan sniping about its effect on jobs and consumer costs. With the vote still hours away and the outcome in doubt, Obama and Merkel, who has made climate change a top priority, presented the rare sight of an American president and a visiting foreign leader together urging the U.S. Congress to act.

Obama said he had been "very blunt and frank" with Merkel that it will take significant time to turn the U.S. into a world leader on climate change but that the "critical" bill before the House was a good start.

Merkel sympathized with the difficulty of approving such legislation, which would impose the first-ever limits on greenhouse gas pollution and force a shift to cleaner energy sources. "I know what's at stake, when you talk about reduction targets, how tricky that is," Merkel said.

In Iran, the government proclaimed the incumbent hardline president, Ahmadinejad, the landslide winner of the June 12 voting over opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, prompting widespread protests followed by a brutal state-led crackdown.

Ahmadinejad told Obama Thursday to "show your repentance" for criticizing Tehran's response.

"I don't take Mr. Ahmadinejad's statements seriously about apologies, particularly given the fact that the United States has gone out of its way not to interfere with the election process in Iran," Obama responded sternly.

"I would suggest that Mr. Ahmadinejad think carefully about the obligations he owes to his own people," he added. "And he might want to consider looking at the families of those who've been beaten or shot or detained. And, you know, that's where I think Mr. Ahmadinejad and others need to answer their questions."

It was Obama's first direct criticism of any of Iran's leaders. Even more, it was coupled with his first specific boost for Mousavi. "Mousavi has shown to have captured the imagination or the spirit of forces within Iran that were interested in opening up," Obama said.

The remark sought to clarify what many view as Obama's biggest misstep — saying last week in a television interview that there may not be much difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. But it appeared to swing over to an outright endorsement of Mousavi, though White House press secretary Robert Gibbs denied it was meant that way.

Obama also said for the first time that his offer to loosen the decades-old U.S. diplomatic freeze with Iran through direct talks is now in question.

"There is no doubt that any direct dialogue or diplomacy with Iran is going to be affected by the events of the last several weeks," Obama said, without elaborating.

Gibbs said Obama was "more stating the obvious" that no talks are possible while developments are still unfolding. And Obama said that an existing system of multilateral talks with Iran over its suspected goal of building a nuclear bomb, involving nations including the U.S., Europe, China and Russia, must continue.

"The clock is ticking. Iran is developing a nuclear capacity at a fairly rapid clip," he said.

Merkel agreed there must be no letup among nations trying to stop Iran's nuclear development, which Tehran insists is aimed at providing only electric power, not weapons. She said "we have to bring Russia and China alongside," referring to the two nations most historically unwilling to get tough with Iran over the nuclear standoff.


Monday, June 22, 2009

Obama's Class War: Wall Street Bailouts Killed Healthcare Reform

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/06/19/obamas-class-war-wall-street-bailouts-killed-healthcare-reform_print.htm

Obama's Class War: Wall Street Bailouts Killed Healthcare Reform
By James P. Pinkerton 
Posted June 19, 2009

James P. Pinkerton, a fellow at the New America Foundation and a contributor to the Fox News Channel, was a domestic policy aide in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses.

This week has brought retreat and retrenchment on healthcare. The headline in Politico was, "Health reform hits Senate speed bumps." As Politico explained, the bumps began on Monday, when "The Congressional Budget Office returned a $1.3 trillion pricetag on Sen. Ted Kennedy's bill—a number that far exceeds what most lawmakers are willing to pay." 

And here's how the Associated Press summarized the Capitol proceedings: 

The Senate set off on its major overhaul of the nation's health care system Wednesday, but its first steps were quickly overtaken by fresh cost concerns and partisan anger. An ambitious timetable that called for completing committee action in early summer seemed in danger of slipping away.

And Bloomberg News reports that Obama's legendary grassroots campaign cadre is having a hard time with its new mission. '"The election was easy because it was telling you to do one thing: vote for Obama,'" lamented an activist. "Working on healthcare is 'kind of frustrating."'

Indeed, for the first time, Congressional Republicans are thinking that maybe they can beat back Obamacare, after all. Concerns about the deficit and debt are rising, and startled Democrats are being forced to pay close attention to surging popular anxiety. So what happened? How did Obama take his mandate for healthcare action and fritter it away—in less than five months?

The answer, of course, is that Obama made other things a priority. He said that bailing out the banks was a higher priority, and so that's what he did—he has presided over the greatest upward wealth transfer in American history. The fiscal future of the country was thus given over to Wall Street. The perceived "march to socialism" that has antagonized so many over the past few months was not a trek on behalf of Main Street's healthcare needs, it was a trek on behalf of Wall Street's red-ink needs. And so healthcare has been left as a straggler; if any bill passes this year, it will be substantially truncated, falling far short of the goal of full coverage for the 46 million uninsured.

For his part, Obama insists that he was saving the economy. But if so, why has unemployment jumped from 7.6 percent in January to 9.4 percent in May? It sure seems as if the top priority of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, et al., was comforting the comfortable, as opposed to comforting the afflicted. Indeed, Obama himself has said that joblessness will continue to rise into double digits. And this is supposed to be a new New Deal?

In fact, it's obvious that the president—under the tutelage of Geithner, Lawrence Summers, and others who have made cushy careers for themselves as servants of high finance—has chosen to make propping up coastal enclaves of billionaires, and their institutions, his basic policy. (A policy that was once known as "trickle down.") And so Obama never did anything to stop the notorious bonuses going to AIG executives; that was $400 million of your money down the drain. And how much more waste of millions, billions, and maybe even trillions is waiting to be discovered as we dig through the fiscal fallout of the bailout hail?  

When confronted with a choice between healthcare for the poor and the near-poor on the one hand, and the continued overstuffing of the overclass on the other hand, Obama made a decisive choice: He chose the overclass. He put rich people first.

Such skewed preferences in him were evident last October, when Senator Obama voted for the Wall Street bailout. That was a signal, the first of many, that Obama was supportive of bank bailouts, and a generally Wall Street-centric policy. Since then, the bailouts have grown more and more costly, as the Treasury, Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation—to name just three spigots of off-budget cash to banks and rentiers—all joined in the bailout binge.

By late November 2008, the cost of the bailout was estimated to be $3.5 trillion. But Obama, by then the president-elect, had no objection; indeed, his financial team worked closely with the outgoing Bush team to keep the money coming. Those great minds all thought alike, and so by January, when Obama was inaugurated, the total cost of those bailouts had risen to $8 trillion. The next month, February, the new president added nearly another trillion in spending, signing into law a $787 billion stimulus package. And thus by May, the cost of the various bailouts had swelled to as much as $12 trillion.

That's a lot of money, and not surprisingly, it's driving up interest rates, causing the dollar to fall, and even causing other countries to make plans to convert their assets to currencies other than the greenback—or even to create a new world currency altogether. Such talk has spooked not only the markets, but also the country. And Democrats are getting the message on spending: enough is enough.

But don't take my word for it. Take the word of America's No. 1 Democrat, Barack Obama. On May 22, C-SPAN's Steve Scully put this question to the president: "You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?"

And here's the answer, dooming a big healthcare plan: "Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on healthcare so far." 

True enough. America ran out of money before the Obama administration did anything about healthcare—although, of course, the Obamans did just about everything for the banks.

Yet in the meantime, the projected cost of his de-prioritized healthcare plan keeps rising; estimates now vary from $1.6 trillion to $4 trillion over the next 10 years. That's a lot of money—but it's chump change compared to what was spent on the bailouts. Even the total at the high end of current projections, $4 trillion, works out to $400 billion a year. And as we have seen, the bailouts of 2008-2009 ran up the fiscal score by as much as $12 trillion. In other words, the bailouts cost 30 times the annual bill for a new healthcare plan. And from the looks of things now, any healthcare plan that might survive will cost a great deal less than that.  

For his part, Obama seems cool and calm as always. He's happy enough with his economic team, keeping his poise as his healthcare agenda goes down the drain. It's all a question of priorities. As Vice President Joe Biden has said many times, "My dad had an expression, 'Show me your budget, and I'll show you what you value.'"

Well, Obama has done that. Without ever quite saying so, he has made his values clear.

The 44th president has, indeed, played class warfare. But it hasn't been a class struggle in which he sided with the poor against the rich, or even the middle class against the rich. Just the opposite. He has championed trillion-dollar subsidies for the investor class, enshrining bank bailouts as a higher priority than universal healthcare. That is, he has privileged Wall Street over perhaps the most sacred priority that Democrats hold dear: health insurance for all.

One day, rank-and-file Democrats will figure out that they have lost yet another class war—defeated by their own president.

Want to see a GP? Gipsies come first as NHS tells doctors that travellers must be seen at once


By Emily Andrews

Last updated at 7:49 AM on 18th June 2009

Gipsies and travellers should be given priority in NHS hospitals and GP surgeries, doctors have been told. 

They will be fast-tracked for doctors, nurses and even some dentist appointments above all other patients. 

GPs have also been told to see any travellers who simply walk in without an appointment, even if all consultation times for the day are full.

They will also be given longer consultations than other patients. Five or ten minutes is the average but travellers will be given 20 minutes and allowed to bring relatives into the consulting rooms. 

Staff will be given 'mandatory cultural awareness' training so they can fully understand what it is like to be a traveller or gipsy. 

It raises the prospect that other patients will suffer worse healthcare and have to wait even longer to see their GP. 

The guidelines have been introduced because, under race laws, gipsies and travellers are defined as minority ethnic groups and the NHS is obliged to consider their special needs and circumstances. 

Yet no special treatment is promised for other groups such as those from the Asian sub-continent or Africa. 

The guidance also encourages Primary Care Trusts to establish new services for travellers if none exist, and to designate a senior manager to be a named lead for 'Gipsy and Traveller Health'. 

The rules form part of the Primary Care Service Framework, drawn up by the NHS Primary Care Commissioning - an advisory service for local health trusts - to help all PCTs understand the Department of Health's policy. 

t will go on trial for between three and five years, Although PCTs do not necessarily have to follow the guidelines, they could be breaking human rights law and the Race Relations Act of 2000 if they do not. 

Groups covered by the framework include Scottish gipsy travellers, Welsh gipsies, bargees, circus and fairground showmen and new travellers. 

Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley said: 'No one should get priority treatment in the NHS apart from our Armed Forces, to whom we owe a special debt of gratitude. 

'Decisions about who should be treated first should be based on a patient's medical needs, not their ethnic group. 

'NHS managers need to get off doctors' and nurses' backs and start letting them get on with what they do best - looking after sick people. 

'Such a policy of fast-tracking one section of society over another goes against the founding principles of the NHS.

Labour's botched handling of the new GP contracts and obsession with a tick-box target culture in the NHS mean many people find it difficult to get a GP appointment quickly. 

'Families will feel aggrieved that it will now be even harder.' 

Mark Wallace, from the Tax-Payers' Alliance, said: 'This kind of special treatment is totally uncalled-for and utterly unjustified. 

'The NHS is meant to treat people equally so matter who they are or whatever their race.

he only priority should be how ill someone is, not their politically-correct concerns. 

'This will be incredibly frustrating for people who have paid tax all their lives to fund the NHS and are left struggling to get a doctor's appointment and prompt treatment. H

'Hardworking people will be outraged at this double standard.' 

The NHS estimates there are 120,000 to 300,000 gipsies and travellers in the UK but there are no firm numbers as the census does not include them as a category. 

Traveller spokesman Gratton Puxon, from the illegal camp at Crays Hill in Essex, welcomed the initiative. 

He said: 'The problem stems from years ago when there was simply no access to healthcare, but things have greatly improved. Health workers visit the site quite regularly if people have chronic problems.' 

The Department of Health said: 'We are aware that gipsies and travellers have experienced tremendous difficulties in accessing primary care. 

'Partly as a result, community members experience the worst health inequalities of any disadvantaged group. 

'The framework suggests fast-tracking for two reasons. First, as a matter of urgency, inroads need to be made into the health problems of gipsies and travellers. 

'Second, if mobile community members are not seen quickly, the opportunity could be lost as they move on or are moved on. This should not be to the detriment of service provision to the settled community.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193810/Want-GP-Gipsies-come-NHS-tells-doctors-travellers-seen-straight-away.html#




Sunday, June 21, 2009

POLLS. Obama Losing on Issues



By David S. Broder
Sunday, June 21, 2009

In a conversation the other day with a White House official, I heard something I'd never expected from an employee of Barack Obama's. "I wish," he said, "George Bush would speak up a little more."

In the five months since he left the presidency, Bush has immersed himself in his memoir. He has stayed home in Texas and rarely spoken publicly. The result has been that he has largely disappeared from the news and -- the point the Obama aide was making -- pretty much has been forgotten.

Bush's silence has made it harder for Obama to keep the public focused on Bush as being responsible for our present difficulties -- the weak economy, the unsettled wars, the scandals of Guantanamo and the detainee program.

It is not for lack of trying. Obama regularly reminds the public in his speeches and news conferences of all the problems he inherited from his predecessor. But to reporters covering the White House, those reminders have become familiar boilerplate. And since Bush won't fight back, they rarely get much coverage.

Five months into his tenure, Obama has become the only president the American people think about. And a series of polls last week showed that when Americans think about Obama, they are becoming increasingly critical.

The Wall Street Journal-NBC, the New York Times-CBS and the Pew Research Center polls all reported similar findings. Barack Obama retains his personal popularity, with overall job approval scores at upward of 60 percent. But when asked about specific important policies of the administration, the scores are much lower -- or even negative.

In Andrew Kohut's survey for Pew, the share of voters applauding Obama's handling of the economy declined from 60 percent in April to 52 percent now. He barely broke even on his approach to the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts, with 47 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. By a 22-point margin, those polled disagree with spending billions to keep the companies operating.

For weeks, polls have consistently registered opposition to Obama's decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. His speech blaming Bush for opening the prison apparently did little to ease the political fallout.

The New York Times-CBS poll had more worrisome news. As the size of the budget deficits has become more evident, concerns about the budget policies of the administration have grown. By a 2-1 margin, this survey found that voters answered negatively when asked if Obama has developed a clear plan for dealing with the deficit. A 52 percent to 41 percent majority rejected the Obama priority for stimulating the economy at the cost of higher deficits. They said the focus should be on reducing the deficit.

Health care, Obama's latest and biggest fight, will provide another test of his leadership, with indications in several polls that Republicans and Democrats are taking opposing stands, despite the president's calls for a bipartisan bill.

At least until Iran exploded in popular protest against what appears to have been a rigged presidential election, there was broad approval here at home for Obama's handling of foreign policy. But the White House expects more criticism of the troop buildup in Afghanistan, with the summer likely to produce more fighting and higher casualties.

In sum, Obama has probably extracted most of the political benefit available from the high pitch of activity at home and abroad that has marked the early months of his presidency. Now people are starting to take a more critical look at the decisions he has made. And they are waiting, with varying degrees of patience, to see how the big policy gambles of the early days play out.

Obama is fortunate that the public does not see a clear alternative coming from congressional Republicans. But he misses being compared on a daily basis with his predecessor. Thus, the irony of Obama people saying, "Bring back Bush."

davidbroder@washpost.com

Trust on Issues
Voters Now Trust Republicans More than Democrats on Economic Issues

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

Monday, June 08, 2009

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more.

This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue. The parties were close in May, with the Democrats holding a modest 44% to 43% edge. The latest survey was taken just after General Motors announced it was going into bankruptcy as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration that gives the government majority ownership of the failing automaker.

Voters not affiliated with either party now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues by a two-to-one margin.

Separate Rasmussen tracking shows that the economy remains the top issue among voters in terms of importance.

Republicans also now hold a six-point lead on the issue of government ethics and corruption, the second most important issue to all voters and the top issue among unaffiliated voters. That shows a large shift from May, when Democrats held an 11-point lead on the issue.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter.

For the eighth straight month, Republicans lead on national security. The GOP now holds a 51% to 36% lead on the issue, up from a seven-point lead in May. They also lead on the war in Iraq 45% to 37%, after leading by just two points in May and trailing the Democrats in April.

Fewer voters see national security as a very important issue this month, but confidence that the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror is at its highest level since February.

Republicans lead the Democrats on immigration for the third straight month, pulling ahead to a 35% to 29% advantage on the issue.

On taxes, the GOP leads the Democrats for the fifth straight month, 44% to 39%. In May and April, Republicans held six-point leads on the issue.

Democrats continue to hold the lead on the issues of health care, Social Security and education. While Democrats have a 10-point advantage on health care, that’s down from the 18-point lead the party had a month ago.

Democrats lead by six points on Social Security, down from nine points in May. The parties were tied on the issue in April.

On education, Democrats hold a 44% to 37% lead over Republicans.

The parties are tied on the issue of abortion for the second straight month, each earning 41% support from voters.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs for Trust on Issues I and Trust on Issues II are available to Premium Members only.
ShareThis

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

======

Gov Heath Care - no way

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1534

Section 2: Opinions About Health Care

As health care reform legislation moves forward in Washington, the political environment is somewhat different than the last time a major overhaul of the health care system was attempted sixteen years ago. In early 1993 the sense of a health care crisis was far more widespread than it is today – a 55% majority in 1993 said they felt the health care system needed to be “completely rebuilt” compared with 41% today. Health care costs were also a broader problem in 1993 – 63% of Americans said paying for the cost of a major illness was a “major problem” for them, compared with 48% currently.

The issue of limiting overall health care spending is also more prominent in 2009 than it was in 1993. Somewhat fewer today say the country spends “too little” on health care, and a larger share believe that limiting the overall growth in health care costs is a higher priority than expanding coverage. But overall, public support for guaranteed access to medical care for all Americans remains widespread.

Health Care Spending

Relatively few Americans believe the country as a whole is spending the right amount on health care at this point, but there is no consensus on what the problem is. Just as many Americans say we are spending too much on health care (38%) as too little (40%).

This represents a sharp turnaround in the balance of opinion from three years ago. In early 2006, a 57% majority said that the country as a whole was spending too little on health care, while about half as many (26%) said we were spending too much. And this shift in opinion crosses party lines – more Democrats, Republicans and independents today say the country spends too much on health care than said this in 2006.

In April 1993 – as Bill Clinton was initiating his health care reform effort – 49% of Americans felt the country was spending too little on health care, while 36% said the country was spending too much. Just a year later – in June of 1994 – the public was divided, much as it is today, with 38% saying too much and 40% saying too little.

Most Democrats (51%) believe we are spending too little on health care in this country, while about a third (34%) say too much. By comparison, a plurality of Republicans (43%) say we are currently spending too much on health care, with 30% saying too little. Overall, the share of Americans saying we spend too much on health care rose from 26% to 38% since 2006, and this rise occurred among Republicans (up eight points), Democrats (up 14 points) and independents (up 11 points) alike.

While a minority viewpoint, Republicans are roughly twice as likely as Democrats (19% vs. 10%) to say the country is spending the right amount on health care. This viewpoint is particularly prevalent among conservative Republicans, 23% of whom express satisfaction about current levels of health care spending.

By a 50% to 30% margin college graduates are more likely to say the country spends too much, not too little, on health care. By contrast, adults with no more than a high school diploma tend to think we spend too little (46%) not too much (32%) on health care in this country. There is a similar, though less prominent, pattern when it comes to income levels.

Most Back Overhaul; Fewer Than in 1993 See Crisis

Most Americans believe that the nation’s health care system is in need of substantial changes. Four-in-ten (41%) say the health care system needs to be completely rebuilt, while 30% think it needs fundamental changes. About one-in-four (24%) believe that the health care system works pretty well and needs only minor changes.

But there is less support for completely rebuilding the health care system than there was during the early stage of the Clinton administration’s unsuccessful effort to revamp health care. In April 1993, a majority of Americans (55%) said the health care system needed to be completely rebuilt. As discussion of Clinton’s proposals progressed, support for completely rebuilding the health care system declined. By June 1994, just 37% said the health care system needed to be completely rebuilt.

Support for a complete rebuilding of the health care system is lower than in early 1993 among all partisan groups. Today, 53% of Democrats, 38% of independents and 28% of Republicans support completely rebuilding the health care system. In April of 1993, 70% of Democrats, 55% of independents, and 41% of Republicans supported completely rebuilding the system.

People with no more than a high school education (47%) or some college (42%) are far more likely than are college graduates (31%) to favor a complete rebuilding of the health care system. The education gap was even wider in 1993, when 63% of those with no-college and 56% of those with some college education said the system needed to be completely rebuilt, compared with 36% of college graduates. Income is also a factor, with those living in low income households backing the most dramatic overhaul of the health care system.

Health Reform Priorities

Most Americans favor ensuring health coverage to all Americans, and most also say it is very important to limit the overall annual increase in health care costs. Neither of these objectives, however, receives as overwhelming support as they did in early 1993. When Americans are asked to prioritize between these two goals, most continue to say that expanding health insurance to all is the more important goal. But the share who rate costs as the more important concern is nearly double what it was in 1993.

The public’s overall support for expanding health insurance to cover all Americans remains widespread, though more sharply partisan than in 1993. In the spring of that year, 83% of Americans favored changing the health care system so that all Americans would have health insurance that covers all medically necessary care. Today, 75% support such a reform.

The difference is that support for universal health insurance was more bipartisan in early 1993 than it is today. While there has always been a partisan gap, two-thirds (67%) of Republicans said they favored health coverage for all Americans in 1993, compared with barely half (52%) today. By contrast, the share of Democrats backing this kind of change remained a solid 92% in both years.

There has also been a 15-point drop in the share of independents backing universal health insurance – from 89% in 1993 to 74% today.

The share of Americans who say it is very important to change the health care system in this country in order to limit the overall annual increase in the nation’s health care costs is also slightly lower today (61%) than in 1993 (69%). Today fewer than half of Republicans (47%) rate this as very important, compared with 72% of Democrats and 60% of independents.

When asked whether reining in health care costs or expanding health care coverage is the more important goal for the nation, 56% prioritize guaranteeing access to all while 36% side with limiting growing health care costs. Opinion was more one-sided in early 1993, when 74% prioritized expanded health care coverage and just 20% saw reining in costs as the bigger concern.

The balance of opinion among Republicans is the reverse of what it was in 1993. Then, 55% prioritized expanded care while 37% emphasized reining in costs. Today, 37% prioritize expanded care while 54% emphasize reining in costs. While most Democrats and independents continue to see expanding access to health care coverage as the higher priority, it is by slimmer margins than was the case sixteen years ago.

Fewer See Cost of Care as Major Problem

In the current survey, far fewer say health care expenses are a major problem for themselves and their families than was the case in 1993. Just under half of Americans (48%) say that paying for the cost of a major illness is a major problem, substantially lower than the 63% who said this in early 1993. Similarly, about a third of Americans (34%) say paying for the cost of routine medical care is a major problem for them. In 1993, 40% said this was the case.

But for the most part, it is those who are relatively well off who are feeling more at ease. Just 27% of high income Americans say the cost of a major illness is a major problem for them today, down from 48% in 1993. By comparison, 67% of low income Americans say this is a major problem, little changed from 73% sixteen years ago.

Similarly, the share of high income Americans who say paying for routine medical care is a major problem fell from 25% in 1993 to 13% today. Meanwhile, just over half of low income Americans – at both points in time – say this is a major problem for them.

There is far less concern about the quality and availability of medical care in people’s communities. Just 24% say the quality of medical care in their community is a major problem for them and their families, and 21% say the availability of medical care is a major problem. These figures are virtually unchanged from 1993. Income is an overwhelming factor in these assessments, as lower income people are far more likely than higher income people to say health care quality and availability are major problems for them.

Nationwide, 43% of Americans say paying for the cost of health insurance poses a major problem for them and their family. Fully 59% of Americans with family incomes under $30,000 say health insurance is a major problem for them. Not surprisingly among the low income who currently have no health insurance 73% rate insurance costs as a major problem.

The share of Americans who say paying for the cost of prescription drugs is a major problem dropped from 44% in 2006 to 34% today. This decline has occurred across both age and income categories at about equal rates.




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124527518023424769.html#printMode

o

Public Wary of Deficit, Economic Intervention

WASHINGTON -- After a fairly smooth opening, President Barack Obama faces new concerns among the American public about the budget deficit and government intervention in the economy as he works to enact ambitious health and energy legislation, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

These rising doubts threaten to overshadow the president's personal popularity and his agenda, in what may be a new phase of the Obama presidency.

"The public is really moving from evaluating him as a charismatic and charming leader to his specific handling of the challenges facing the country," says Peter D. Hart, a Democratic pollster who conducts the survey with Republican Bill McInturff. Going forward, he says, Mr. Obama and his allies "are going to have to navigate in pretty choppy waters."

There's good news for the administration, too, including tentative support for Mr. Obama's health-care plan and approval of his nominee for the Supreme Court. The public seems more optimistic about the country's economic future than it did a few weeks earlier, and Americans are still more likely to blame the last administration for the deficit.

But the poll suggests Mr. Obama faces challenges on multiple fronts, including growing concerns about government spending and the bailout of auto companies. A majority of people also disapprove of his decision to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Nearly seven in 10 survey respondents said they had concerns about federal interventions into the economy, including Mr. Obama's decision to take an ownership stake in General Motors Corp., limits on executive compensation and the prospect of more government involvement in health care. The negative feeling toward the GM rescue was reflected elsewhere in the survey as well.

A solid majority -- 58% -- said that the president and Congress should focus on keeping the budget deficit down, even if takes longer for the economy to recover.

Laura Zamora, 40, of Orange, Calif., voted for Mr. Obama but says she is frustrated by the economy and finds her support for the president waning. She says she's facing a possible layoff as a local government worker in California.

"He's bailing out the private sector. He's putting all kinds of money into the private sector," says Mrs. Zamora. "The money should be going to social programs, not to bailing out banks and GM. It should go to people who are unemployed."

The survey of 1,008 adults, conducted Friday to Monday, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for the full sample.

The results come after weeks of Republican hammering of Mr. Obama for spending too much and taking on too many issues, arguments that appear to be resonating with some voters.

Mr. Obama's overall job approval and personal ratings have slipped, particularly among independent voters. His job approval rating now stands at 56%, down from 61% in April. Among independents, it dropped from nearly two-to-one approval to closely divided.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, President Obama acknowledged the toll.

"If you have an argument made frequently enough -- whether it's true or not -- it has some impact," he said Tuesday. "If you want to attack a Democratic president, how are you going to attack him? Well, you're going to talk about how he wants more government and he wants to socialize medicine and he's going to be oppressive towards business. I mean, that's pretty standard fare."

Mr. Obama ran down some of problems he said he had been forced to deal with, and said the real argument is about whether to take on health care and energy.

"I suppose we could just stand pat and not do anything on either of those fronts...That's been tried for four or five decades. And in both energy and health care, the problems have gotten worse, not better," he said.

By some measures, the public seems to agree. Only 37% of people said that Mr. Obama is taking on too many issues. A solid majority -- 60% -- said that he is focused on many issues because the country is facing so many problems.

The president and his advisers appear to be aware of the peril they face over the deficit. That helps explain why Mr. Obama has emphasized his effort to cut health-care costs over his effort to expand health-insurance coverage, and why he has promised that the cost of any health-care package will be covered by spending cuts or tax increases.

When asked what the most important economic issue facing the country is, 24% cited the deficit, vs. just 11% who named health care.

Mr. Obama has some breathing room. Nearly three in four respondents said that the president inherited the current economic conditions, versus just 14% who said he is responsible for them. Only 6% said the Obama administration is most responsible for the budget deficit. Nearly half blame the Bush administration.

[Rising Doubts]

On the economy, the poll had some bright spots, with a rising expectation of recovery. The portion of people who think the economy will improve over the next 12 months rose to 46% from 38% in April. And 20% predicted the recession would end in six months to a year, nearly double the comparable figure from April.

Still, overall, the public finds the economy in dreadful shape today, and people living in the Midwest were much less likely to express optimism about the future than those on the coasts.

On health care, the public remains open to persuasion. Without being told anything specific about the Obama plan in the survey, about a third of people said it's a good idea, about a third said it's a bad idea and the rest had no opinion. When given several details of his approach, 55% said they favored it, versus 35% who were opposed.

There was also support for the Democratic push to let people sign up for a public health-care plan that would compete with private companies, one of the toughest issues in the health-care debate. Three in four people said a public plan is extremely or quite important. But when told the arguments for and against the plan, a smaller portion, 47%, agreed with arguments in support of the plan, with 42% agreeing with the arguments against it.

At the same time, nearly half the participants said it was very or somewhat likely that their employer would drop private coverage if a public plan were available.

As for how to pay for the package, estimated at more than $1 trillion over 10 years, the public favors proposals to require all Americans to get insurance, to raise taxes on the rich and, to a lesser extent, to require all but the smallest businesses to offer insurance or pay into a fund.

But majorities oppose plans to tax health benefits, even if the taxes only apply to particularly generous plans. The public is divided about cuts to Medicare.

Regarding Mr. Obama's pick to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, half the public said she's qualified for the post, versus just 13% who said she's not qualified. That's equivalent to numbers in November 2005 for Samuel Alito, Mr. Bush's nominee who was subsequently confirmed to the court.

One in three people said her decisions and views seem out of the mainstream, vs. 28% who say they are in the mainstream. The rest had no opinion. But overall support for her confirmation is strong.

There was some good news for General Motors, despite the widespread antipathy to using taxpayer money to aid the company. More than half the participants said they are considering or have recently considered buying an American car. Of those people, 40% said the recent problems of the U.S. auto industry make them more likely to buy American. Just 14% said it made them less likely.

—Jake Sherman contributed to this article.


d