I know you're all trolling the news for analysis about President Obama's speech to Congress last night. I thought I'd follow up on the questions in yesterday's post, and highlight some of the answers he provided, just to save you all the time of doing the same. So here goes:
Q. Is the “public option” still on the table? Is it off the table? What is it anyway?
A. The short answer is, it's still on the table (and in some Congressional proposals) but may be more likely to take the form of an "insurance exchange." Quoting the President, "... if you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage. We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have preexisting medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill."
"...an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange....it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance."
Q. Is health care reform without the public option really reform at all, since theoretically one of the goals is to correct the market failure of the existing health insurance industry and make sure that everyone can have some kind of health care coverage that doesn’t break the bank?
A. I confess, that was a retorical question. Still, President Obama made it clear that the goal continues to be to provide affordable coverage to anyone who wants it.
Q. And speaking of breaking the bank, how much will health care reform cost, and where will the revenues come from to pay for it? Are there ways to increase the efficiency of the health care system so those dollars can be used to cover more people?
A. "...the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years..."
"most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."
"...we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding ..savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse."
"We have long known that some places... offer high-quality care at costs below average.
So the commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system -- everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.
Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan."
Q. Finally, if I’m a voter who currently gets health care coverage through an HMO, partially paid for by my employer, how will the current reform proposals affect me and my family?
A. "...if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the V.A., nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have...What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition."
So that's where we are, from President Obama's point of view. So far today, various members of Congress have responded by talking about co-ops as an alternative to the public option, busting on Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) for his ill-advised and downright rude heckling, for which he has since apologized, and setting out a new target date of Thanksgiving for passing a bill.
If that happens, I will indeed be thankful.
For a full transcript of President Obama's remarks provided by The Washington Post, click here.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Back to School on Health Care
Yesterday, President Obama told school children across America that, “There is no excuse for not trying” when it comes to learning. The same could be said of Congress in its current efforts to pass health care reform.
News reports are filled with accounts of the ins and outs of this attempt to overhaul our health care system, using the term “system” loosely, and the degree to which the Obama administration has learned, or even over-learned, from President Clinton’s earlier attempt at reform. President Obama has steered clear of the backroom approach the Clintons were charged with in producing their own legislation, and has asked Congress to take the lead in crafting reform. But he has clearly made some of his own missteps, mostly in the area of communication to the public about why we need health care reform, how it will affect them, and how it will be paid for. Oh yeah, and whether the public option is actually “socialism” or whether it’s more akin to the public insurance options already available through Medicaid, Medicare, the U.S. Military and the Federal Government.
I want health care reform to succeed, especially for the children and families among the individuals who make up the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans. According to Families USA, in 2007 more than 8.6 million children had no health insurance, and about 88% of those children had a parent who was employed. Children and their families need access to preventive health care, treatment for chronic conditions, and a more rational system of care than the emergency room. But the most recent polls show that the public needs some questions answered clearly before it can fully embrace health care reform that helps the people who need it most. To that end, I would like policy-makers to read the following questions, write down compelling and accurate answers, and carry those answers around on cards in their pockets a la Grover Norquist followers until real, rational health care reform passes the House and the Senate.
News reports are filled with accounts of the ins and outs of this attempt to overhaul our health care system, using the term “system” loosely, and the degree to which the Obama administration has learned, or even over-learned, from President Clinton’s earlier attempt at reform. President Obama has steered clear of the backroom approach the Clintons were charged with in producing their own legislation, and has asked Congress to take the lead in crafting reform. But he has clearly made some of his own missteps, mostly in the area of communication to the public about why we need health care reform, how it will affect them, and how it will be paid for. Oh yeah, and whether the public option is actually “socialism” or whether it’s more akin to the public insurance options already available through Medicaid, Medicare, the U.S. Military and the Federal Government.
I want health care reform to succeed, especially for the children and families among the individuals who make up the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans. According to Families USA, in 2007 more than 8.6 million children had no health insurance, and about 88% of those children had a parent who was employed. Children and their families need access to preventive health care, treatment for chronic conditions, and a more rational system of care than the emergency room. But the most recent polls show that the public needs some questions answered clearly before it can fully embrace health care reform that helps the people who need it most. To that end, I would like policy-makers to read the following questions, write down compelling and accurate answers, and carry those answers around on cards in their pockets a la Grover Norquist followers until real, rational health care reform passes the House and the Senate.
- Is the “public option” still on the table? Is it off the table? What is it anyway?
- Is health care reform without the public option really reform at all, since theoretically one of the goals is to correct the market failure of the existing health insurance industry and make sure that everyone can have some kind of health care coverage that doesn’t break the bank?
- And speaking of breaking the bank, how much will health care reform cost, and where will the revenues come from to pay for it? Are there ways to increase the efficiency of the health care system so those dollars can be used to cover more people?
- Finally, if I’m a voter who currently gets health care coverage through an HMO, partially paid for by my employer, how will the current reform proposals affect me and my family?
When President Obama speaks tonight, he is expected to answer some of those questions… but then Congress has to carry the ball. Yes, health care reform is big and complicated and potentially expensive. But it’s also needed. Desperately. And as the President said, there is no excuse for not trying.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Chatter About Charters
Did you listen to President Obama’s speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce today? I don’t know how much it varied to his standard stump speech on education. I was happy, but not surprised, to hear him identify high quality early childhood education as a priority.
But today I was listening with a new perspective, and this bit caught my attention:
“Now, that leads me to the fourth part of America's education strategy - promoting innovation and excellence in America's schools. One of the places where much of that innovation occurs is in our most effective charter schools. And these are public schools founded by parents, teachers, and civic or community organizations with broad leeway to innovate - schools I supported as a state legislator and a United States senator.
But right now, there are many caps on how many charter schools are allowed in some states, no matter how well they're preparing our students. That isn't good for our children, our economy, or our country. Of course, any expansion of charter schools must not result in the spread of mediocrity, but in the advancement of excellence. And that will require states adopting both a rigorous selection and review process to ensure that a charter school's autonomy is coupled with greater accountability - as well as a strategy, like the one in Chicago, to close charter schools that are not working. Provided this greater accountability, I call on states to reform their charter rules, and lift caps on the number of allowable charter schools, wherever such caps are in place.”
I confess that I am a newcomer to the charter school debate. I have been vaguely aware for some time that the teacher unions weren’t crazy about them. And since I have great respect for teachers and count many as friends, I assumed that I agreed. I’ve also been engaged in many a stressful budget year as a parent in the local public schools, so the thought of children leaving their home schools and taking their per child state education funding with them (in our case out of district) didn’t sit well with me. And finally, I generally lumped charter schools into the same category as private schools and school vouchers – options that could potentially drain engaged students and parents out of the struggling public schools that need them the most.
So it was almost with embarrassment that I recently entered my own child in the local charter school lottery. When we learned that he had a spot, I was filled with a mix of relief and excitement for my son, who I am certain will thrive in the new environment, and guilt for all the reasons I listed above.
The experience has made me look a little more deeply into charter schools and the debate they engender. Here are the basic arguments on both sides.
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools says that because charter schools are more flexible (they typically have fewer restrictions on curriculum, structure, hiring, etc.) they are more responsive to their students. In some cases, charters use innovative strategies to meet the needs of underserved students. Because they usually report to their own boards, charter schools argue that they have a high level of accountability, and that they have a strong track record of success.
While the National Education Association cautiously acknowledges some potential benefits that can be drawn from charters, they also point to accountability issues. Citing a report from the U.S. Department of Education on its web site, the NEA argues that, “…the U.S. Department of Education found that many charter school authorizers lack the capacity to adequately oversee charter school operations, often lack authority to implement formal sanctions, and rarely invoke the authority they do have to revoke or not renew a charter. Where charters have been revoked or not renewed, the decision has been linked more to noncompliance with state and federal regulations and financial problems than with academic performance.” In other words, when charters fail to make an academic difference for their students they don't always get shut down.
Obama’s speech today addressed some of those concerns, while simultaneously calling on states to lift any caps on the number of charter schools approved. I think that’s a sound way to move forward in a policy area with such strong potential. In addition to meeting the needs of many students today, the lessons learned as charter schools innovate and experiment could be more widely and effectively disseminated into the public school community at large – exponentially increasing the number of students they benefit. That’s what I believe as a student of policy. As a parent who values public education, I'm grateful that the option is there for my child.
Currently the Massachusetts Legislature is considering two proposals related to charter schools. The first, which the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association opposes, would create a separate budgetary account for charter school funding, and reduce the per-student state expenditure for each student. This is consistent with the Massachusetts Teachers Association’s position that charter schools should not divert public school funds at the local level.
The other proposal would, as President Obama suggested, lift the cap on the number of charter schools in the Commonwealth, and target their development to high need areas.
If you are a parent, a student, a teacher or just a concerned citizen in Massachusetts, you might want to weigh in on these proposals with your state legislators.
Have you had experience with charters, positive or negative? What do you think of President Obama’s casting of them as a tool for the “advancement of excellence?” As I learn more about the charter experience on the personal and professional level, I would appreciate your comments.
But today I was listening with a new perspective, and this bit caught my attention:
“Now, that leads me to the fourth part of America's education strategy - promoting innovation and excellence in America's schools. One of the places where much of that innovation occurs is in our most effective charter schools. And these are public schools founded by parents, teachers, and civic or community organizations with broad leeway to innovate - schools I supported as a state legislator and a United States senator.
But right now, there are many caps on how many charter schools are allowed in some states, no matter how well they're preparing our students. That isn't good for our children, our economy, or our country. Of course, any expansion of charter schools must not result in the spread of mediocrity, but in the advancement of excellence. And that will require states adopting both a rigorous selection and review process to ensure that a charter school's autonomy is coupled with greater accountability - as well as a strategy, like the one in Chicago, to close charter schools that are not working. Provided this greater accountability, I call on states to reform their charter rules, and lift caps on the number of allowable charter schools, wherever such caps are in place.”
I confess that I am a newcomer to the charter school debate. I have been vaguely aware for some time that the teacher unions weren’t crazy about them. And since I have great respect for teachers and count many as friends, I assumed that I agreed. I’ve also been engaged in many a stressful budget year as a parent in the local public schools, so the thought of children leaving their home schools and taking their per child state education funding with them (in our case out of district) didn’t sit well with me. And finally, I generally lumped charter schools into the same category as private schools and school vouchers – options that could potentially drain engaged students and parents out of the struggling public schools that need them the most.
So it was almost with embarrassment that I recently entered my own child in the local charter school lottery. When we learned that he had a spot, I was filled with a mix of relief and excitement for my son, who I am certain will thrive in the new environment, and guilt for all the reasons I listed above.
The experience has made me look a little more deeply into charter schools and the debate they engender. Here are the basic arguments on both sides.
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools says that because charter schools are more flexible (they typically have fewer restrictions on curriculum, structure, hiring, etc.) they are more responsive to their students. In some cases, charters use innovative strategies to meet the needs of underserved students. Because they usually report to their own boards, charter schools argue that they have a high level of accountability, and that they have a strong track record of success.
While the National Education Association cautiously acknowledges some potential benefits that can be drawn from charters, they also point to accountability issues. Citing a report from the U.S. Department of Education on its web site, the NEA argues that, “…the U.S. Department of Education found that many charter school authorizers lack the capacity to adequately oversee charter school operations, often lack authority to implement formal sanctions, and rarely invoke the authority they do have to revoke or not renew a charter. Where charters have been revoked or not renewed, the decision has been linked more to noncompliance with state and federal regulations and financial problems than with academic performance.” In other words, when charters fail to make an academic difference for their students they don't always get shut down.
Obama’s speech today addressed some of those concerns, while simultaneously calling on states to lift any caps on the number of charter schools approved. I think that’s a sound way to move forward in a policy area with such strong potential. In addition to meeting the needs of many students today, the lessons learned as charter schools innovate and experiment could be more widely and effectively disseminated into the public school community at large – exponentially increasing the number of students they benefit. That’s what I believe as a student of policy. As a parent who values public education, I'm grateful that the option is there for my child.
Currently the Massachusetts Legislature is considering two proposals related to charter schools. The first, which the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association opposes, would create a separate budgetary account for charter school funding, and reduce the per-student state expenditure for each student. This is consistent with the Massachusetts Teachers Association’s position that charter schools should not divert public school funds at the local level.
The other proposal would, as President Obama suggested, lift the cap on the number of charter schools in the Commonwealth, and target their development to high need areas.
If you are a parent, a student, a teacher or just a concerned citizen in Massachusetts, you might want to weigh in on these proposals with your state legislators.
Have you had experience with charters, positive or negative? What do you think of President Obama’s casting of them as a tool for the “advancement of excellence?” As I learn more about the charter experience on the personal and professional level, I would appreciate your comments.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
States Should Act Now to Invest in Children
One of the guidelines I’ve read about blogging is that you shouldn’t start a blog unless you have something that interests you so much that you will be able to write about it at least once a week. Hmmm. I seem to have fallen behind, and I apologize. But I assure you that my absence wasn’t due to lack of interest, but to a paralysis of indecision regarding where to start (ok, that and school vacation – all you parents out there will understand). Actually, the situation is that there are so many ideas to act upon that I’m not sure where to start.
Kind of like states implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (also known as the stimulus package).
I just got off a timely conference call hosted by Danielle Ewen at the Center on Law and Social Policy and Helen Blank at the National Women’s Law Center. Here’s the gist. There is money available to states to do important work in the area of child care and early childhood education, that will create and preserve jobs and help families get through this economic crisis. Funding will come through increases in the Child Care and Development Block Grant, Head Start, and Title I. A state by state breakdown of dollars is available from the National Education Association here. States have a lot of flexibility in how to use the new funds, but they have to act now.
With $2 billion new dollars in federal child care funding, $1.1 billion in Early Head Start, $1 billion in Head Start, and $10 billion in Title I, there is clearly an opportunity to strengthen child care and early childhood education services at the state and local levels, which will create and preserve jobs (think teachers, trainers, quality specialists) and help parents stay in their jobs by making child care more affordable. You can track how states are using federal recovery dollars here.
It’s important for state and local administrators not to fall prey to the paralysis of indecision, but to act quickly to turn that money around and invest it in children, families, and communities. It’s important to get these investments right, and they will be held accountable by the feds for the numbers of jobs created and saved. But we have children on the waitlist for child care subsidies today. And programs closing classrooms and laying off teachers because parents can’t afford to send their children. States should not wait until they have the perfect plan to act. As President Obama said in his address last night, “the cost of inaction will be far greater.”
Kind of like states implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (also known as the stimulus package).
I just got off a timely conference call hosted by Danielle Ewen at the Center on Law and Social Policy and Helen Blank at the National Women’s Law Center. Here’s the gist. There is money available to states to do important work in the area of child care and early childhood education, that will create and preserve jobs and help families get through this economic crisis. Funding will come through increases in the Child Care and Development Block Grant, Head Start, and Title I. A state by state breakdown of dollars is available from the National Education Association here. States have a lot of flexibility in how to use the new funds, but they have to act now.
With $2 billion new dollars in federal child care funding, $1.1 billion in Early Head Start, $1 billion in Head Start, and $10 billion in Title I, there is clearly an opportunity to strengthen child care and early childhood education services at the state and local levels, which will create and preserve jobs (think teachers, trainers, quality specialists) and help parents stay in their jobs by making child care more affordable. You can track how states are using federal recovery dollars here.
It’s important for state and local administrators not to fall prey to the paralysis of indecision, but to act quickly to turn that money around and invest it in children, families, and communities. It’s important to get these investments right, and they will be held accountable by the feds for the numbers of jobs created and saved. But we have children on the waitlist for child care subsidies today. And programs closing classrooms and laying off teachers because parents can’t afford to send their children. States should not wait until they have the perfect plan to act. As President Obama said in his address last night, “the cost of inaction will be far greater.”
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Economic Recovery Conference Committee Meeting
The conference committee is meeting as we speak to work out differences between house and senate versions of the economic recovery plan. Here are the members (thanks NWLC!).
The House conferees include:
Rep. David Obey (D-WI)
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI)
The Senate conferees are:
Senators Harry Reid (D-NV)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Ben Nelson (D-NE) aren't conferees, but are likely to have a role in the discussion.
If you have an opinion on the economic recovery bill, and you live in the district of one or more of these members of Congress, now is the time to get in touch! If you don't know how to reach them, go here. If you don't live in one of these districts, you can still call your members of Congress and ask them to pass your message on to the conferees. This will be a quick process, so act now!
Some great comparisons of the early childhood content of the two proposals can be found at NWLC and NAEYC.
The House conferees include:
Rep. David Obey (D-WI)
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI)
The Senate conferees are:
Senators Harry Reid (D-NV)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Ben Nelson (D-NE) aren't conferees, but are likely to have a role in the discussion.
If you have an opinion on the economic recovery bill, and you live in the district of one or more of these members of Congress, now is the time to get in touch! If you don't know how to reach them, go here. If you don't live in one of these districts, you can still call your members of Congress and ask them to pass your message on to the conferees. This will be a quick process, so act now!
Some great comparisons of the early childhood content of the two proposals can be found at NWLC and NAEYC.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Economic Updates
One of my "frolleagues" just sent me a fun link, and it included this White House-produced summary of how the economic recovery proposal would create jobs and strengthen the economy in each state. Find your state in this document if you need more reasons to ask your Senators to move the bill.
As an update, the Senate is expected to vote on its proposal tomorrow, and the conference committee will probably work things out within the following 48 hours.
If you are concerned about child care funding (see earlier post below), then you'll be happy to know that both the Senate and House version include $2 billion in child care subsidy funding that states can use to move children of working families off waitlists for care, so their parents can find jobs or continue working as their income shrinks. Speaking of which, there was a great local article on the topic yesterday.
As an update, the Senate is expected to vote on its proposal tomorrow, and the conference committee will probably work things out within the following 48 hours.
If you are concerned about child care funding (see earlier post below), then you'll be happy to know that both the Senate and House version include $2 billion in child care subsidy funding that states can use to move children of working families off waitlists for care, so their parents can find jobs or continue working as their income shrinks. Speaking of which, there was a great local article on the topic yesterday.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Jobs, the Economy, and the Health of a Community
I live and do my work from a popular vacationland – Cape Cod. Although it’s a gloriously beautiful place to live, and the summers truly are fabulous (come on down and stimulate our local economy this summer!), it has a significant year-round population that’s made up of normal working people – not the Kennedy’s, and not the affluent who own summer homes here, but the people who work in the clam shacks, hotels, and retail shops during the summer but struggle to make ends meet in the off- season.
So when eight jobs are cut by one organization in mid-winter, it doesn’t go unnoticed. Here’s the story of eight such people losing their positions at the Outer Cape Health Services. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the geography, if the Cape looks like an arm to you then Outer Cape’s locations span from just above the elbow to its fingertips. According to the Cape Cod Times article, in 2007 the organization provided treatment and preventative care to 11,000 individuals of all ages. The closest hospital to its clinics in Wellfleet and Provincetown is 50 miles away in Hyannis.
Other than my concern for those eight neighbors who lost their jobs, as well as concern for their families and the many people who get their health care from the clinics, why would I write about these job losses on this blog? This is a state and federal policy blog, not one that catalogues the many economic challenges of my chosen home.
Here’s why. When critics of the current economic stimulus bill criticize the proposal for not creating jobs, they’re forgetting about those eight people on the Lower and Outer Cape, and many others like them across the country.
About 40% of Outer Cape Health Center’s revenue is federal, state and local public funding. The stimulus bill proposed by the House proposes an additional $250 million for health center operations in FY09, and $250 million more in FY10. In addition, both the House and Senate proposals include provisions to train people in health care jobs. Here’s a summary of how current stimulus proposals would strengthen community health centers – and the many people who have jobs at them.
Passing the economic recovery plan wouldn’t completely solve Outer Cape’s problems. As the Cape Cod Times article explains, they could also use an additional physician so they could serve more patients and increase the piece of the organization’s revenue (currently at 52%) that comes from patients. But the funds outlined above and the $37 billion + in Medicaid funds included in at least the House proposal (see analysis from the National Conference of State Legislatures highlighted earlier in this blog) would go a long way toward helping community health centers, the people who still have jobs in them, and the people they serve – a population that will only increase during these economic times.
There’s one more reason to move the economic stimulus plan out of Congress now. If you need contact information for your Senators, click here.
So when eight jobs are cut by one organization in mid-winter, it doesn’t go unnoticed. Here’s the story of eight such people losing their positions at the Outer Cape Health Services. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the geography, if the Cape looks like an arm to you then Outer Cape’s locations span from just above the elbow to its fingertips. According to the Cape Cod Times article, in 2007 the organization provided treatment and preventative care to 11,000 individuals of all ages. The closest hospital to its clinics in Wellfleet and Provincetown is 50 miles away in Hyannis.
Other than my concern for those eight neighbors who lost their jobs, as well as concern for their families and the many people who get their health care from the clinics, why would I write about these job losses on this blog? This is a state and federal policy blog, not one that catalogues the many economic challenges of my chosen home.
Here’s why. When critics of the current economic stimulus bill criticize the proposal for not creating jobs, they’re forgetting about those eight people on the Lower and Outer Cape, and many others like them across the country.
About 40% of Outer Cape Health Center’s revenue is federal, state and local public funding. The stimulus bill proposed by the House proposes an additional $250 million for health center operations in FY09, and $250 million more in FY10. In addition, both the House and Senate proposals include provisions to train people in health care jobs. Here’s a summary of how current stimulus proposals would strengthen community health centers – and the many people who have jobs at them.
Passing the economic recovery plan wouldn’t completely solve Outer Cape’s problems. As the Cape Cod Times article explains, they could also use an additional physician so they could serve more patients and increase the piece of the organization’s revenue (currently at 52%) that comes from patients. But the funds outlined above and the $37 billion + in Medicaid funds included in at least the House proposal (see analysis from the National Conference of State Legislatures highlighted earlier in this blog) would go a long way toward helping community health centers, the people who still have jobs in them, and the people they serve – a population that will only increase during these economic times.
There’s one more reason to move the economic stimulus plan out of Congress now. If you need contact information for your Senators, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
