Blogs: Bill Scher

Quote Of The Day: Oil "Just Too Hard To Find"

Bill Scher — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:58:53 -0400

In a story about fluctuating oil prices, The New York Times quotes Carrizo Oil and Gas CEO Chip Johnson:

I can’t see oil getting cheap again ever. It’s just too hard to find, and too many people want to use it.

That's the bottom line. If we want an energy policy to increase supply and lower energy prices, we need to increase renewable supply. Because we have literally gone to the oil well too many times.

First Iraq, Now Health Care. AP's McCain Bias Continues.

Bill Scher — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:49:24 -0400

Over the weekend, Talking Points Memo called out the Associated Press for "demonstrably false reporting" in support of McCain campaign talking points about Iraq.

Now the bias appears to extend to health care.

Yesterday, the AP's analysis of McCain's health care plan gave the false impression that liberal health experts believe McCain's health care plan would have only a mild and "mixed" impact on the health care system:

McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, says the plan would "shred" the employer-based system that provides health insurance to about 158 million workers.

Most health analysts won't go that far, but both liberals and conservatives say McCain's approach would strengthen the individual and small-group insurance market. And by strengthening that market, it will pull in workers now covered through their jobs.

Not exactly.

The analysis of McCain's health plan, shared by liberals and non-ideological health experts, is not that it would "strengthen the individual and small-group insurance market," but it would shove consumers into an expensive, unregulated individual and small-group insurance market where many would pay more and get less.

But you wouldn't know that from the rest of the AP piece, because it doesn't quote any actual liberal experts.

Of course, Joseph Antos from the conservative American Enterprise Institute gets ample space to make his case (without much evidence) that "We're not going to see employers drop coverage en masse." To "balance" Antos, the AP quotes Len Burman from the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. But Burman has in the past given qualified support for President Bush's health insurance plan, which is similar to McCain's. Predictably, he limply says McCain's plan is a "mixed bag."

You don't see in the AP piece the searing criticism from liberal and non-ideological experts such as:

Our own Roger Hickey:

...they have adopted the most extreme right-wing ideological approach, premised on the idea that the big problem in health care is that Americans have too much insurance – in their words, we don’t have enough “skin in the game” – and that only when we have to buy health care with money that comes directly out of our own pockets will consumers force doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to become more efficient.

So that’s the theory. But it is contradicted by the facts. Most of us already pay part of our premiums out of our own pockets, and we increasingly have to shell out for co-pays in order to get to see a doctor. The result—in practice—is that most people, even those with good insurance, now think twice or three times about even getting regular preventive health checkups. Having lots of “skin in the game” has meant that millions of Americans don’t get health care they need—and that’s one of the big problems in U.S. health care driving costs up, not down.

Ezra Klein of The American Prospect.

The drawbacks are ... clear: very high deductibles, lots of personal financial risk, and relatively sparse coverage. "These accounts put the family in charge of what they pay for," enthuses McCain. But that's not quite accurate. Individuals have no more autonomy under these accounts than in a traditional sense. They are just more acutely sensitive to the price of their care, which means they'll purchase less of it, and overall health spending will fall.

If you're young and unlikely to get sick, these accounts are a good deal, as you'll pay lower premiums. If you're not as demographically and genetically blessed, they're a bad deal, as you'll pay much more out of pocket for your care. They are, in other words, the logical extension of the modern health coverage marketplace: They're health insurance for people who don't need health care.

Jonathan Cohn, from The New Republic and the book "Sick."

A big problem with this scheme, as critics like me pointed out, was that it wouldn't do much for people who were already sick. Insurance companies generally won't offer coverage directly to people with "pre-existing conditions," since they represent such bad financial risks. (It turns out people with medical problems need medical care!) So buying insurance on their own really isn't an option.

Jeanne Lambrew of the Center for American Progress.

The health plan proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would, by design, replace employer-based health insurance with individual-market insurance—a concern for people with chronic disease. Employers do not charge workers or their families different premiums based on their age, gender, health status, or health history. They also offer equal benefits and choices of plans. The individual market, however, plays by different rules. Individual insurers in most states can exclude people with pre-existing conditions directly by denying them coverage or indirectly by charging them exorbitant premiums.

This could be remedied with stronger rules for insurers—but the McCain plan moves in the opposite direction. It would allow insurers to play by the rules in any state—including the one that has the least protection for people with chronic diseases.

Dr. Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health, paraphrased by Time's Karen Tumulty:

Under McCain's approach, employers (who might be able to drop their coverage) would benefit, as might younger and healthier people, and those who live in states where health coverage is relatively inexpensive, like Minnesota. Those who would find their situation worse under the McCain plan include people living in high-cost areas, like New York and Massachusetts, as well as those who are already sick. For the sick and others who are hard to insure, McCain proposes high-risk pools. But Blendon notes that where this approach has been tried, both for health care and for auto coverage, it hasn't worked all that well, because people end up paying a lot more money for policies that are a lot skimpier. He also notes that McCain's proposed a refundable $5,000 family tax credit would fall far short of the $12,000 or more that it now costs a family to buy a "reasonably decent" health policy.

Robert Laszewski of Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review:

First, [McCain] is simply shunting the problem off to the states.

Second, he implies that one or more states have figured out what to do with people who can't get health insurance because of preexisting conditions. Just which state is that? I don't know of a single state that has been able to provide widely available access to health insurance for people who cannot get it.

Third, just who would finance this pool? States have tried so called high risk pools before. Time and again they are swamped by people trying to get in and there is never enough money. Since they have never worked before, how would they work this time?

As I flagged back in May, the Columbia Journalism Review warned media outlets that "The tax part of McCain’s health proposal is radical, far more radical than his rivals’ plans ... The media need to begin asking the hard questions, and soon."

The AP didn't take the advice, instead taking the opposite approach: downplay the radical nature of the plan and suppress the hard questions.

Where McCain's Change Is Bigger Than Obama's

Bill Scher — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:53:05 -0400

As Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama both plan to engage each other on the economy this week, this presents an opportunity for reporters and voters to focus on one of the biggest contrasts between them: health care. As Paul Krugman observes today, "[health insurnace] premiums surged again after 2000, imposing huge new burdens on business. It’s a good bet that this played an important role in weak job creation." Fixing our patchwork health insurance system would go a long way to getting our economy back on track.

In most areas of the campaign, Obama offers a change from the policies of the past eight years, and McCain offers a continuation.

But on health care, both offer change. In fact, McCain will change health care for more people than Obama.

All those people potentially affected will have determine if they want the kind of change McCain is offering.

How would McCain's plan change health care for more people? Because he wants to strip the underpinning of how the vast majority of people get their health insurance, through their employers. (Just under 60% of Americans get insurance from employers, down from when President Bush entered office as fewer businesses offered coverage and the number of uninsured Americans rose.)

Presently, you don't pay income taxes on the health benefits you get from your employer. McCain would end that policy, which would not only impose a new tax mainly on middle-class families, but also end a strong incentive for employers to offer health benefits at all, and move us all towards a "consumer-driven" health market.

There are arguments elsewhere on our site criticizing such a plan.

But putting aside the merits of the plan for the moment, it is politically relevant that McCain's strategy directly impacts the vast majority of people who have health insurance -- many of whom are content with what they have, even though the number of uninsured and underinsured Americans is rising.

In contrast, Obama's plan would create a public insurance option and set new standards for private insurance options so they will be, in his words, "at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency." But anyone happy with their health insurance could simply keep it and would find their plan untouched.

Obama's change is more targeted, aiming to help the uninsured and underinsured without unnerving the happily insured.

McCain's change is total, a frontal attack on the entire system as it stands, trying to convince all Americans that they will be happier if most everyone is moved into a new market where you buy insurance out of pocket.

Because Obama's plan involves an active role for our government -- both in creating a public insurance option and serving as a "watchdog" on private plans -- most Beltway pundits would argue that Obama is taking the bigger political risk.

But nearly two-thirds of Americans believe "the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans.”

There's hasn't been much polling about the specifics of McCain's plan. But as a general rule, the notion of losing something you currently like is always a troubling prospect.

It will take a particularly powerful argument from McCain to overcome that political hurdle, and convince those voters that his brand of health care change is the right change for them.

All In The Same Sinking Boat

Bill Scher — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:10:29 -0400

A disturbing but sadly predictable jobs report was released today by the Department of Labor: 62,000 jobs lost in June, 438,000 jobs lost during the past 6 months.

This is no limited recession. The New York Times observed that: "June’s job losses affected a range of industries, including banks, construction companies, manufacturing firms and car dealerships. Janitors and administrative workers were the hardest hit, with about 70,000 workers losing their jobs last month alone. Temp agencies lost 30,000 jobs."

Pain continues to trickle up, as those still working are also suffering under the weight of recession. NYT notes "employers are cutting hours for their full-time employees and shrinking salaries." USA Today reports, "Wages are lagging inflation as gasoline, energy and food prices surge."

But this is not a brief bump in the road, a mere cyclical dip that will be quickly forgotten. Weak job growth, flat wages and rising costs have been the hallmark of this eight-year conservative era.

Refusing to invest in modernizing our infrastructure. Suffocating the burgeoning clean energy industry, while keeping America hooked on increasingly expensive oil. Continuing a failed global trade strategy at the behest of multinational corporations. Neglecting to exercise oversight over the mortgage and financial industries. Saddling the next generation with burdensome debt.

The destructive results of these conservative policies is plain for all to see. Because the pain is felt by all.

UPDATE: Apparently it's worse than even I thought. The Onion News Network reports: "Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency"

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

To Win, Presidential Candidates Move ... Left

Bill Scher — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:09:51 -0400

The punditocracy won't tell you, but Barack Obama and John McCain are moving to the Left.

Take Iraq. Sensing that voters did not react kindly to McCain's December remarks expressing comfort with U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for 100 years, he predicted in May that if he was president, "By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom." He also changed his slogan to highlight "Peace," and released a TV ad in which he pronounced, "I hate war."

On the environment, McCain's website is covered with support for "green" energy. His campaign even attacks Obama for supporting "the energy bill promoted by President Bush and Vice President Cheney."

And on immigration, during the primary McCain said he would not vote for his own legislation providing a pathway to citizenship for those who immigrated illegally, to win votes from anti-immigrant conservatives. But now, he's embracing his pro-immigrant legislation again, calling it "my top priority yesterday, today and tomorrow."

Whereas Obama spent the first month of the general election campaign reiterating support for public investment in universal health care, renewable energy and other modernization of infrastructure, comparing his vision to major public works projects from progressive Presidents Jefferson, Lincoln and both Roosevelts.

On Iraq, Obama continues to argue for the same position he held throughout the primary: a gradual withdrawal of combat troops over 16 months and a total rejection of permanent military bases. (Attempts from conservative commentators to say he has shifted his position are false. They point to Obama foreign policy adviser's recent comment about the 16-month timetable, "That’s not a deadline. That’s a timetable." Such flexibility is not new. It was stated during the primaries on CBS' 60 Minutes, not exactly a low-profile platform. Obama was asked if he would "pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation?" Obama responded, "No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation.")

You may or may not be skeptical of the nuance. That's a matter of opinion. What's a matter of fact is Obama is running on the same position, opposing the policy of permanent occupation, as before.

Other issues where Obama is accused of moving rightward after the primaries -- such as gun rights, death penalty, faith-based initiatives, NAFTA and FISA -- he also has mainly reiterated previously held positions. With the exception of FISA, there's no movement.

He previously argued for different gun laws in different states and cities (a position Howard Dean advanced in his 2004 presidential run.) He writes in "Audacity of Hope" of support for "carefully tailored" faith-based initiatives and the death penalty for "beyond the pale" crimes including "the rape and murder of a child." His tone on NAFTA may have changed slightly, but his position of reform, not repeal, is the same.

Some of those positions wouldn't necessarily be considered liberal. But Obama never claimed to hold liberal positions on everything.

Even taking those positions into account, it's not plausible to argue Obama is trying to win by moving rightward when his campaign continues to be based on supporting a revitalized government role in creating jobs, fighting poverty, providing health coverage, generating clean energy, recruiting teachers, making college affordable and protecting retirement security -- not to mention revamping global diplomacy and rejecting permanent occupation of Iraq.

Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson disingenuously argues today in the W. Post that Obama has made a "head-snapping shift to the center [because America] remains a center-right country. And so Obama has shifted, trimmed or retreated on nearly every issue that won him the nomination."

That is factually wrong in every possible way.

In the aftermath of eight years of conservative failure led by Gerson's old boss, the distance between the average "liberal" voter and "moderate" voter has shrunk, and the distance between the average "moderate" voter and "conservative" voter is a gulf.

America has proven not to be the center-right country of Karl Rove's fantasies, but a country with a Progressive Majority.

Offering a clean break from failed conservatism is what is serving Obama so well, as he leads McCain in every poll.

Obama does not have to jettison to core planks of his platform to appeal to those moderate independent voters who did not participate in the primaries.

While McCain continues to have huge difficulty crafting positions that can appeal to both moderates and conservatives, forcing him to incoherently move Left and Right simultaneously. Still he recognizes that he cannot win simply by appealing to the conservative base. His rhetoric in some key areas has to move leftward for his political survival.

On the fundamental issues of any presidential election -- the role of our government and direction of our foreign policy -- it is the political center that moved to the left. The candidates are merely reacting accordingly.

McCain's Long Strange Trip South of the Border

Bill Scher — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:34:23 -0400

The McCain campaign gets ... stranger.

The American economy has been battered on multiple fronts, including the loss of 3.4 million manufacturing jobs. The current trade strategy has not only contributed to the offshoring of jobs, but helped harm the lives of workers abroad. NAFTA in particular has disrupted the agricultural economy in Mexico, displacing peasant labor and driving illegal immigration. Even the pro-NAFTA Heritage Foundation concedes that stark inequality still plagues Mexico.

In turn, public anger with trade agreements written by and for multinationals, protecting the interests of corporations but not workers, is on the rise.

And McCain decides to campaign ... across the border, where the jobs are being sent.

And he releases a new ad, standing by the delusion that the current strategy is creating good jobs for everyone.

MCCAIN: To fuel our economy, we must create more jobs for Americans and for our neighbors to the south. With better jobs, more of them will be able to stay in their country.

We can't go back on our word on free trade promises with Mexico, Canada, Central America or anyone else. We must encourage more trade agreements to create more jobs on both sides of the border. That's why I'm behind the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.

These were the same arguments made 15 years ago to get NAFTA passed. And yes, for our own economy's sake, we must support our neighbors so they will have healthy economies too.

But NAFTA didn't work. Period.

To not even acknowledge that, when it's quite clear to American workers hurting from the impact, is simply strange

To haul out the same musty arguments, and ignore the lessons from what has failed in the past, is only evidence of being out-of-touch with what's going in America and the world today.

This is not a question of trade vs. no trade. There will always be trade.

This is not a question of free trade vs. protectionism. There is no such thing as free trade. Trade agreements like NAFTA are chock full of trade rules, just rules slanting the economic playing field towards multinational corporations.

This is a question about what makes a smart global economic strategy -- with fair trade rules, strong labor and environment standards and forward-thinking public investment -- so workers in America and across the globe will thrive in a changing world.

Weekend Watchdog Wrap-Up

Bill Scher — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:12:30 -0400

Another 0-for-3 day for the Sunday shows, as they ignore the Watchdog's calls for questions on the oil shale boondoggle, the Minnesota bridge collapse, and the Justice Department political hiring scandal.

On NBC's Meet The Press, Tom Brokaw asked the Colorado and Wyoming governors a series of questions about energy prices and the environment, but oddly ignored the issue that directly impacts those states: President Bush's proposal to lift the federal ban on oil shale leasing.

But worth noting was Governor Dave Freudenthal's (D-Wyo.) explanation of his energy stance:

The [Bush administration] answer to everything is drill for oil and gas. They've ignored coal, they've ignored nuclear, they've ignored wind, and just a couple of days ago they decided that they're going to suspend all activities on solar on public lands.

What's notable? No embrace, not even a mention, of oil shale -- further evidence the Bush oil shale proposal is politically risky for his party.

On ABC's This Week Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn., was not asked about his record on infrastructure in light of his state's bridge collapse -- which has become par for the course whenever Pawlenty appears on TV.

And finally, Sen. Joe Lieberman was not asked on CBS' Face The Nation what his Senate committee on government operations will do in response to the Justice Department scandal of politicized hiring decisions. In fact, an effective media blackout of this scandal continues across broadcast television.

Clinton Impeachment Manager Says, Bush Is Worse

Bill Scher — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:02:26 -0400

Bob and Isaiah voiced concerns last week over the codification of President Bush's abuses of executive power, and the erosion of our constitutional system of checks and balances. Bob called for a "grand inquest into the powers that he has claimed" by the House, "registering a formal objection to them" to avoid continued congressional "inaction [which] can alter the Constitutional division of powers by establishing the president's claims as authority that the Congress or the courts may not infringe." Isaiah called for last-ditch effort to derail "immunity for telecommunication companies that broke the law to bend to Bush administration demands for surveillance activity."

As I noted, it is difficult to get these issues elevated to prominence with voters when so many are suffering from the ailing economy. But a surprising acknowledgment from a conservative presidential candidate may turn some heads.

Not Sen. John McCain. Former Republican congressman and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr,

Barr recently talked with FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher on Bloggingheads.tv (where I regularly appear). Jane posed a simple question to the former manager of the Clinton impeachment team, "Bill Clinton or George Bush?" Here's the response, video and transcript:

BARR: What George W. Bush has done to the fabric of our constitutional government -- to separation of powers, to a government of limited powers, to destroy the notion that we are a nation of laws not men -- is something that is absolutely unforgivable, irresponsible, and terribly, terribly destructive of our notion of government.

President Clinton, I certainly had my problems with him. But what he did in terms of perjury and obstruction was bad, but it was not destructive of the very systemic foundations of our country.

HAMSHER: That was good Bob. I think I need a cigarette now.

BARR: I'll have a cigar.

This exchange is notable on a couple of levels. The most obvious is how Bush's abuses of power have eroded the Republican Party's standing with some conservatives, to the point where he is a bigger target than Bill Clinton was in the eyes of some.

But it's also notable that elements of the progressive blogosphere -- which has long flashed a libertarian streak -- are receptive to Barr's message.

It would be short-sighted to assume that bloggers want to spotlight Barr only to siphon votes from McCain. Barr could just as easily siphon off votes for Obama if anger over the FISA/telecom immunity bill continues to simmer, even though so much of the Libertarian agenda conflicts with the progressive vision of active government and public investment on issues from health care to energy to jobs.

These constitutional issues may only be percolating on the edges of the political discourse, while the economy remains front and center to most voters.

But votes are votes. In a close race, anything can matter.

If the Barr campaign catches on, other candidates may be compelled to more seriously address how they would prevent Bush's damage to our Constitution from becoming permanent, and restore checks and balances back to our system of government.

Weekend Watchdog

Bill Scher — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:18:47 -0400

Every Friday in our Weekend Watchdog feature, we post suggested questions for scheduled Sunday guests. You can add your own questions in the comment thread. We'll also include contact information for the shows, so we can let them know what their viewers want asked. We'll post a wrap-up here on the blog on Monday.

For Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. (CBS' Face The Nation): The Inspector General of the Justice Department recently found, as reported by The New York Times, that "Justice Department officials illegally used “political or ideological” factors in elite recruiting programs in recent years, tapping law school graduates with Federalist Society membership or other conservative credentials over more qualified candidates with liberal-sounding résumés."

As chairman of the Senate committee that oversees the civil service, what actions will you be taking to make sure the Justice Department is staffed by people whose loyalty is to the law and not to political party or ideology?

For Gov. Bill Ritter, D-Colo. (NBC's Meet The Press): President Bush last week called for a lifting of the federal ban on oil shale leasing, which would open up your state for such development. You disagree with Bush, saying "No one — not even the companies working on oil-shale development — can tell us with any certainty how much energy it will take to develop this resource, where that energy would come from, what the impacts on Colorado's water supplies or quality would be, and what housing, transportation and other infrastructure needs will be."

How critical is this issue for your state, and what impact might it have on the November election?

And for Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn. (ABC's This Week), a Weekend Watchdog Classic Question: The Associated Press reported last month, "Transportation officials' concerns that fixing or replacing a Minneapolis bridge [the Interstate 35W bridge] would be a 'budget buster' may have led to bad maintenance decisions before its deadly collapse," according to a report commissioned by your state's legislature.

Did you have an anti-government conservative ideology that harmed public services and contributed to the tragic bridge collapse?

***

Full list of scheduled Sunday show guests, courtesy of Fishbowl DC

Meet the Press: Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), Dave Freudenthal (D-WY) and Bill Ritter (D-CO), and NBC political director Chuck Todd.

Face the Nation: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Gen. Wesley Clark.

This Week: Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), Ralph Nader and a roundtable with Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Huffington Post's Arianna Huffington and National Review's Byron York.

Fox News Sunday: Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA), former Reps. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Bob Barr. The "Power Player" is Nathans Restaurant owner/host of the Q & A Cafe Carol Joynt and a roundtable with Washington Managing Editor of Fox News Brit Hume, National Public Radio & Fox News' Mara Liasson, Weekly Standard & Fox News Bill Kristol and National Public Radio & Fox News Juan Williams.

***

Contact info for the Sunday shows

Contact ABC's This Week by clicking here

Email CBS' Face The Nation at ftn@cbsnews.com

Email Fox News Sunday at FNS@foxnews.com

Contact NBC's Meet The Press by clicking here

Remember: always be brief, polite and respectful when contacting the media, so our voices will be taken seriously.

Obama & Telecom Immunity: The Importance of Pushing

Bill Scher — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:34:18 -0400

Yesterday, Isaiah urged Sen. Barack Obama to take the lead in fighting immunity for telecom companies that may have helped the Bush administration break surveillance laws.

I do not have high expectations.

It appears quite clear to me, from Obama's recent statement on the new surveillance bill, that he is not interested in letting this bill become a flashpoint of disagreement between himself and his presidential rival Sen. John McCain. So he is expressing reluctant support of the overall bill, he will likely vote for an amendment stripping telecom immunity, the amendment will likely fail, and the overall bill will become law.

It will be a disappointing outcome. But there are worthwhile lessons to take, as progressives prepare for a possible Obama presidency.

It's a reminder that Obama is a politician. Not in either a negative or positive sense. It's just a plain fact.

Which means that we cannot sit back and assume he, or anyone else that may become President, will simply do what we like all the time. We will always have to push.

On telecom immunity, prominent liberal bloggers joined civil libertarian organizations and pushed their hearts out. But the hard fact remains that the push did not succeed in turning intense opposition into broad opposition.

No one in the netroots deserves blame for that. It was extremely difficult to draw attention to an abuse of power issue, when most voters see economic issues more directly impacting their lives. (And the traditional media's dismissal of the telecom immunity issue didn't help.)

In turn, Obama and other Democrats don't have evidence that elevating this issue -- potentially crowding out differences on the economy, gas prices and Iraq -- is something that enough people want to make it politically worthwhile.

Is it reason to be disappointed? Yes. Is it reason to feel that those politicians cannot be presumed to always act on progressive principles? Yes.

But it's not a reason to believe grassroots voices won't be heard or can't have a major impact.

Obama -- along with former rivals John Edwards and Sen. Hillary Clinton -- were successfully pushed to adopt bolder positions on health care and global warming than Democratic politicians in the recent past. Why? Because progressives pushed, and pushed well.

When we push well, and show that there is broader public support for ideas too bold for narrow-minded Beltway elites to accept, that's when we move our nation forward.

And there is, and will be, a need to keep pushing.

For example, while Obama is calling for greater public investment in infrastructure, his proposal of $60 billion in infrastructure investment over 10 years pales in comparison to the challenge we face. My colleague Eric Lotke recently noted that our infrastructure needs $1.6 trillion to get up to snuff. Robert Borosage lamented that Obama's specific proposal "won't build many bridges, much less seed modern transit."

Obama calls for more in the area of clean energy and energy-efficiency: $150 billion over 10 years. But the Apollo Alliance reports says we need twice that amount to rapidly transition to a clean energy economy a decade from now.

There are five months left to build a crystal clear mandate that will set the table for progressive change no matter who gets elected. It's indisputable that the desire to change from eight years of failed conservatism is strong across America. But there is still more work to do to define what real change looks like.

So if there anything to take from Obama's telecom immunity move, it's that the need to push the parameters of acceptable debate is as critical and urgent as ever.