Bojack has definitely returned to his scandal sheet since having the premise flatly debunked, yet the original and flatly inaccurate headline remains unchanged. His entire response has been to post two additional comments that essentially attempt to call Williams' story into question. He worries that other meetings were held that are not listed on the report. Uh, maybe he didn't attend those meetings? And as I indicate below, Williams' attempt at excess disclosure is turned by Bojack into something just as 'suspicious' as if he'd not disclosed at all...
-------------
Since last week, when a new and much more City-favorable agreement was reached with Merritt Paulson on the remodeling of PGE Park for an MLS Portland Timbers franchise, I've been figuring on professional Drudge-accurate curmudgeon Jack Bogdanski either shutting up for good on the subject, or going into hyperdrive to keep his festering opposition going.
Can you guess which he picked? Undaunted by news that the primary sticking point of "taxpayer funding" has been largely eliminated due to the tabling of urban renewal dollars, that Paulson is now agreeing to pay 2/3 of the estimated costs, and the City's administrative honcho says there's plenty of money in the Spectator Fund to cover the rest even if ticket sales don't pan out, Bojack continues to try and find angles for his opposition.
His complaints on the deal from the day the agreement was announced (I'm not going to link to any of it except the specific story I'll reference in a moment) were that it was foisted on Council with only 10 minutes of lead time (uh, plus the two weeks they're taking before voting on it), and the possibility that Paulson will ask for more money later (rather than celebrating the $6mil reduction in overall costs for the new plan).
Oh, but that was just for starters! Subsequently, Bojack fed the home-team trolls at his site with stories on:
"Uncomfortable" stands (despite apparently being an inch wider than standard)
Poor soccer attendance...for a Timbers AWAY game
Rain for the AAA All-Star activities at PGE, as a way of lamenting the jettisoning of the Beavers from current plans
The fact that Paulson doesn't routinely open the books of his private holding company to the City
and the City of Petaluma failing to reach a deal with Paulson in 2006 for a single-A franchise.
Today's hit piece, however, represents the apex of drive-by blogging--using his frequent source of "an alert reader" to attack his target. Maybe Jack would do well to vet some of those reader comments before he publishes under a blustery headline like OHSU is Involved in Paulson Stadiums Deal:
When Portlanders get a strong hit of that real estate development scam smell, a number of suspects immediately come to mind. But who would have thought that Oregon Health and Sciences University had an interest in the Paulson soccer-baseball empire?
An alert reader points us to this document-- a disclosure of lobbyist contacts with Portland city officials for the first three months of the year. And there we find that OHSU had someone named Mark Williams have no fewer than five personal meetings with Fireman Randy to discuss "soccer/baseball." In 31 years in Portland, we thought we'd seen everything, but the explanation for this one ought to be a doozy. Williams heads OHSU's planning, development and real estate unit. How is that connected with the Paulson deal?
So in yesterday's Medford Mail Tribune, one of the featured op-eds was co-written by a 50-year nurse and OHSU professor--and her writing partner is a small business owner, another group we should be listening to on the subject. I'll let you read the whole thing, but they bring up some points about Wyden's bill that we haven't touched upon here, so I'll reprint those:
Wyden's legislation contains substantive problems beyond its lack of a public health insurance option. It eliminates two successful public programs: Medicaid and S-CHIP, health insurance for poor adults and children, respectively. In their place, Wyden would provide subsidies for the poor to purchase private insurance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes, however, that neither the level of the subsidies offered nor the annual increases allotted will adequately cover low-income individuals and families, leaving them worse off than they are now.
Ron Wyden has championed his own brand of health-care reform for years. He claims his approach is winnable because he has bipartisan support. Look again. Wyden wrote his bill during the Bush administration. It was an innovative idea at the time. But, over the past three years, he's recruited only 14 of his colleagues to sign on as co-sponsors. And five out of the seven Democratic co-sponsors have come out in support of a public option.
We believe there can be no real health-care reform without the option of a public health insurance plan. Even Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe says, "We can't entirely depend on the private insurance market to deliver. They haven't delivered thus far; that's why we're in the predicament we're in today."
I had not heard about the CBPP analysis of Wyden's plan with regard to subsidies for the poor; if their take is accurate, then it's one more reason to see why the GOP likes it so much: not only does it not create good public health care, it takes away some of that which we already have.
The 90s were a festival of "block grant" bills, where long-standing traditional funding of national priorities were dismantled and replaced by bulk subsidies to states, within certain parameters to use (or not) however they wished. In some cases it does allow states to experiment and tailor the funding to their specific needs, but in others it's simply an excuse to cut previous funding levels and divert the money elsewhere. For health care--where the insurance industry has been very successful in gaining favorable state legislation--it stands to be a disaster.
Interestingly, the authors cite Wyden as "opposing" the public option bill in Jeff Merkley's HELP Committee, something Wyden would probably object to with his standard "I support it, if..." rejoinder. But after repeated attempts from media and constituents alike to pin the Senator down on his specific views, maybe it's not so inaccurate. If you support something, generally you say so. If you don't support it, but there is political risk for that stance, generally you avoid saying so, perhaps even while trying to make it seem as if you DO support it. Like, by saying you support it, if...
Here's one more paragraph that aptly sums up the argument for a strong public option: it's effective policy:
A public option significantly can decrease costs by increasing competition, emphasizing prevention and primary care and streamlining paperwork. Just as important, we would all receive quality, affordable health care while choosing between keeping our current insurance, shopping the private market for the best deal or enrolling in a public health insurance plan that cannot be taken away.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
