Net neutrality is the concept that internet service providers should not be allowed to filter the web so that certain content loads faster or costs more for user. Advocates fear that without a policy instituting net neutrality, service providers will form partnerships with corporations that make their web content operate faster, thereby shutting out smaller websites and content producers.

In the editorial, titled “The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time,” Franken lays out the reasons why it is necessary for the government to intervene in the operations of how consumers are delivered internet access.

As a source of innovation, an engine of our economy, and a forum for our political discourse, the Internet can only work if it’s a truly level playing field. Small businesses should have the same ability to reach customers as powerful corporations. A blogger should have the same ability to find an audience as a media conglomerate.

Franken goes on to note that the likely FCC regulations would be particularly harmful for rural populations. Separated from the heavily wired urban areas, much of the country will depend on mobile internet access in order to gain access to new technologies. But under the FCC’s plans, mobile companies would be allowed to block users from accessing specific content.

Franken writes:

Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off your access to content or applications for any reason. For instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it costs money to use and isn’t nearly as good. Or a mobile provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a Tea Party group in your area).

Stressing the importance for net neutrality is not a new issue for Franken. In August he spoke in advance of a FCC meeting in Minneapolis. “Ultimately what I’m afraid of,” said Franken, “is that the internet service providers will be made up of about five companies.”

The story is overwritten. Nothing has changed from what the President said last week. We believe we need to extend the middle class tax cuts, we cannot afford to borrow 700 billion to pay for extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and we are open to compromise and are looking forward to talking to the Congressional leadership next week to discuss how to move forward. Full Stop, period, end of sentence.

That still leaves unclear, however, whether the White House will keep demanding that the majority of the tax cuts be permanent while the ones for individuals making more than than $200,000 be temporary. Republicans are pretty much categorically opposed to “decoupling” the time frames of tax cuts for these two groups, because then they’d be forced to advocate for an extension of tax cuts just for the rich at some point down the line.

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, emailed to offer his two cents:

The White House saying ‘we support’ a policy is meaningless — they ‘supported’ the public option and then let it die without a fight. The White House and congressional leaders need to say we are scheduling one vote, one vote only, and that vote is on renewing the middle class tax cuts — and if Republicans want to oppose tax cuts for 98% of Americans, we dare them to and will pummel them politically if they do. That’s how you fight and put Republicans on defense.

I’m inclined to agree with Green on this point. If Republicans are nervous about having to advocate for extending just the tax cuts for the wealthy at some later date, Democrats should jump at having that same debate with them right now. Instead, they’ve constantly backed away from a fight over the issue despite the fact that most polls show public opinion is on their side.

Shahien Nasiripour reports that three Fed governors — heads of three of the Federal Reserve’s regional banks — support ending too big to fail by breaking banks up. “If there was a good way to do so, if you had a clear road map about how you were going to go about it, and why you were going to break them up in this particular way,” James Bullard, the head of the St. Louis bank, said he would support it.

And Ryan Grim reports that Republican legislators mentioned they might support the “Volcker Rule,” an proposal by former Fed President Paul Volcker to restrict proprietary trading, where banks make speculative bets for themselves rather than on behalf of customers:

“Sixty percent of all the banking assets are concentrated in ten banks in the country,” said [Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)]. HuffPost asked if he’d support what’s known as the Volcker Rule, an administration plan to split off risky trading done by banks for their own gain from standard commercial banking activities.

“Yes,” he said, “I think that’s one approach.”

Without prompting, he added: “Glass-Steagall, we need to look at that.”

“We all — I say we all, but almost all of us — made the mistake of repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) told HuffPost. “Some of the problems of the big banks were brought about by the blurring of the restrictions on where they could go. And they went into brokerage and they went into derivatives they went into lots of other things. Maybe we need to look back to that, but it’s hard to put the genie back in the bottle.”

But the bill proposed by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) solves the too big to fail problem differently — by creating a $50 billion fund, paid for by banks, to cover the cost of resolving a failing bank and wiping out its shareholders and management — meaning such statements of support are likely too little, too late, even if they might be a more effective solution.

I admit I overlooked this case, because it was initially reported as a suicide. But it’s no longer so clear that that’s the case.  now looks like that may not have been the case. Guantanamo spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Brook DeWalt told According to journalist Naomi Wolf, “the status of the investigation into Mr al-Hanashi’s death … is now a Naval criminal investigation – meaning that he is no longer considered a suicide but a victim of a murder or a negligent homicide.”

Guantanamo spokesman Lt. Cmdr Brook DeWalt, however, who I spoke to after initially writing this post, denies that interpretation. According to DeWalt, “any death is investigated by NCIS [Naval Criminal Investigative Service] on navy bases. Whether it be natural causes, whether it be suicide, criminal, across the board.”

Wolf’s “news” has just gotten a little fuzzier. What is clear, though, is that five months after al-Hanashi’s death, we still don’t know what happened to him.

In all the discussion of where the administration is going to try Guantanamo detainees, the news about Hanashi has been buried.  It’s In fact, both the Bush and Obama administrations have been extremely tight-lipped about the deaths of detainees in U.S. custody. Although the government reports when a Guantanamo detainee dies, As I’ve pointed out before, at some point the military stopped reporting the deaths of its prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve repeatedly asked why, and I’ve asked the Pentagon to define its current policy for reporting deaths of detainees in U.S. custody overseas.

I’ve never received any explanation. I’ll keep trying.

This post has been updated for clarification, based on DeWalt’s statement that Wolf misinterpreted his remarks.

Take this latest one Sam Stein reports on for The Huffington Post, showing that 77 percent of Americans think it’s important to have a “choice” between government-run health insurance and private coverage.  That poll comes from Survey USA. Meanwhile, Rasmussen Reports  found just 34 percent of Americans support a health care reform plan without a public option. Okay — so far, so good.

So how is it that Rasmussen’s last poll on health care reform found that only 42 percent of voters supported the Democrats’ proposed health reform plan, when that plan still clearly included a “public option”? Back then (last week), the whole Democratic proposal for health reform was sinking, leading President Obama and some members of his administration to start backing away from the government-run option and proclaiming their newfound flexibility.

Well, that Rasmussen poll referred to the Obama plan as simply “the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats.” It seems significant that none of the Rasmussen questions included the word “choice” in them. And as pollsters for NBC found earlier this week, without the word “choice,” only 43 percent of the public favored “creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies.”

Meanwhile, another Rasmussen poll earlier this month found that “51% of the nation’s voters fear the federal government more than private insurance companies.” I guess that’s when they’re not offered a “choice” between the two.

If this confirms anything, it may be that Americans just don’t like to commit. MoveOn.org, which commissioned the SurveyUSA poll and supports the public option, was wise to that.

Still, as Stein notes, when read an actual description of the president’s health care plan (when it still included the public option), 51 percent of SurveyUSA respondents said they “favored” the approach; 43 percent opposed it. Asked the same question by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, 53 percent of respondents said they favored the president’s plan, and 43 percent opposed it.

Scott Horton reports on the case and provides links to all the court documents on The Huffington Post.

Azar claims he was threatened and coerced into signing a confession in ways that amounted to torture. He says he was hooded, strip-searched, photographed naked, exposed to extreme cold and sleep-deprived. He also alleges that while he was driven to the U.S. prison at the Bagram air base, a federal agent “pulled a photograph of Azar’s wife and four children from his wallet” and said he’d better confess to bribing a contract officer if he ever wanted to see them again.

The government denies that charge and calls Azar’s claims of torture “hyperbolic.”

This is something of a meta-story, an insight into how confident the RNC is about the health care debate. What gets reported at The Huffington Post as a “document obtained from a Democratic source” gets reported at the Examiner as a sneak peak inside the RNC, complete with a quote from an anonymous “strategist.” Of course, in both cases the RNC is getting reporters to write about what a crackerjack job it’s doing of framing the health care debate. Dana Milbank gets at the really interesting part of this, the man-behind-the-curtain message discipline, in his column about Michael Steele’s speech yesterday.

Anyway, here’s the memo:

To:  GOP Health Care Advocates

Re:  GOP Health Care Strategy

Fr:   Alex Castellanos

July 7, 2009

_____________________________________________________________

The research Chairman Steele has conducted at the RNC on health care has produced some significant new insights allowing us to advance GOP interests in the health care debate.

Following are a few observations based on that work, understanding these views do not necessarily reflect those of the Republican National Committee.

Where We Start

We are fighting something bigger than policies or plans.  The President and the Democrats are selling a cause.  Never mind that their plans will actually increase costs for individuals and the country:

Their cause is reducing health care costs.

To the public, reducing health care costs is health care reform.

Quality:  As Wes Anderson has noted, people are satisfied with the quality of their health care.  Quality is not driving this debate.

Access:  While everyone favors increasing access, access is only seen as a problem because of cost.  Access alone, unrelated to cost, is not driving this debate.

Choice:  Americans believe they have choice; so much so that it makes health care anarchic, confusing, and chaotic.  Choice confusion, they tell us, allows the system to take advantage of them. Though more choice may be a solution, Americans do not perceive the lack of it as a problem.  If anything, they perceive the abundance of choice as a problem. Choice is not driving this debate.

Cost is driving this debate.

We cannot compete with their cause v. our policies.  We must compete with their cause v. our cause.

Our cause must be about what is driving this debate as well.  Our cause must also be bringing down health care costs.

The good news is that reducing costs consistent with free-market principles is not only the GOP mission, it is also a different and better way of doing it than the Administration is proposing.  We only need to congeal what have become our talking points into a cause.   This cup needs a handle.

Language

We need to bring new language to this debate.  If we paint the house the same color, no one will notice anything has changed:

We will still be the same, outdated Republicans who have no new ideas and oppose everything.  We have to bring something new to the game.

We tested new language on the survey.

The GOP Cause

“Republicans are here today for a cause:  We want to help families and businesses get a hold of health care costs and bring them down.  Health care costs every family and every business too much. We all know that and we have to fix that.  Republicans see a new and better way of doing it.

“That’s why we are excited to join the growing number of Americans supporting the patient-centered health care reform movement.

“We believe the patient-centered health care movement offers the best way to reduce health care costs, bottom-up, with patients and doctors in control.

“The old, top-down Washington-centered system the Democrats propose will empower Washington to restrict the cures and treatments your doctor can prescribe for you.

“Their Washington-centered system will end up costing trillions more, not less, and bankrupting the country.  This is what they do – a trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon, our country ends up owing real money.

“It’s time to look at health care reform in a new way.

“The President sees the problem.  So do we.  He talks of making health care more affordable.  So do we.  But we have a completely different vision of how to fix it.

• “They want a Washington-centered plan.
• “We support patient-centered reforms.

• “They want a big Washington Experiment with our health.

• “We want common-sense simple fixes that will yield real results.

• “They want to start building a closed health care system where Washington decides how much money will be saved on health care by controlling the doctors you can see and limiting the treatments and cures your doctor can prescribe.

• “The patient-centered health care movement supports an open health-care system where patients and doctors make those decisions.

• “They want a top-down system where bureaucrats far away end up deciding what health care is worth paying for and what isn’t, and for whom.
• “We want a bottom-up, patient-centered system where control remains with your doctor and with you.
• “They want political and artificial cost-reductions from Washington.
• “We want to get politics out of health care not put more politics in.  We want common sense fixes not politically driven experiments.

• “They want to empower a big Washington-run monopoly to control your health care.

• “We say monopolies are just not natural.  Big monopolies are bad no matter who runs them, whether it is big government or big insurance businesses.

“Ultimately, with their Washington-centered plan, you won’t be able to keep the things you like about your health care:

• “Obama’s plan will put government in charge of the doctors you can see and the types of treatment you can receive.

• “Obama’s plan will cut hundreds of millions of dollars from seniors on Medicare.

• “Obama’s plan will further bankrupt the country with trillions more in deficit spending.

• “Obama’s plan will raise a lot of taxes on middle class families and businesses.  Taxing insurance, taxing sodas, even taxing health care benefits.  It doesn’t matter if your insurance charges you more through the front door in higher premiums or President Obama charges you more through the back door in higher taxes.  It’s the same thing.  You are going to pay a lot more.

• “Obama’s plan will tempt your employer to dump you into a cheaper, government-run health care program.  End of the day, it doesn’t matter who takes your private coverage away, whether it’s your insurance company, the government or your employer:  When it’s gone it’s gone. You are going to lose your health coverage, and then you will see a reduction in the quality of your health care.

“In a nutshell, getting government more involved is not going to reduce costs. It will extend wait times, limit what you can get, cost you coverage; raise your taxes and the deficit.

“They tell us more Washington will make health care cost less.  Really?  Can we stop for a second and ask when Washington has made anything cost less?

“The truth is the Obama-Pelosi plan doesn’t save money.  Their Washington-centered plan, from Day One, costs a trillion more dollars.

“Common sense tells us, something is wrong here: Saving money on health care shouldn’t be more expensive.”

Slow Down, Mr. President

“The Obama Experiment with our health could change everything we like about our health care — and our economy.

“This big a risk, that risky an experiment is not something leaders on either side should rush through Congress in a few days or weeks.

“This is 20% of our economy.  This is our health care and our future. If we screw this up, it could last for generations.  And Congress is trying to do this in two months!  This should scare the living daylights out of all of us.

“Slow down, Mr. President.  We can’t afford to get health care wrong.

“President Obama is experimenting with America, too much, too soon, and too fast.”

Key Message Point:

Even voters who support a “public plan” think Obama and Congress are moving too fast, with reckless speed, risking a huge part of our economy and our health care, when they don’t know what reform would really bring.

If we slow this sausage-making process down, we can defeat it, and advance real reform that will actually help.

Key Message Point:  We’ve got to “SLOW DOWN the OBAMA EXPERIMENT WITH OUR HEALTH.”

Reforms

The following is a menu of other bottom-up, common sense fixes (policy ideas) and new language that the patient-centered health care reform movement might support:

• We support requiring/incentivizing doctors and hospitals to post pricing and outcomes.  In this day and age, why aren’t the cost of all tests, treatments, procedures and office visits — as well as effectiveness of treatments posted openly on the Internet?

• We believe health insurance companies should compete with each other with simple, one-page contracts/summaries so insurance is simpler, cheaper, and fairer.  (Like many banks are doing w/ car or home loans).  And how about incentivizing insurance companies to have simple, one page reimbursement forms?

• We believe doctors should be protected from frivolous, expensive lawsuits so they can work together with other doctors and patients in their communities to reduce unnecessary and expensive tests and procedures.

• We want to change the law so you can take your health insurance with you if you have to change jobs (eliminating expensive and unnecessary insurance turnover).

• We want to change the law so insurance companies can’t deny you coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

• We want to cut out the “Washington health care middle-man,” reducing expensive bureaucracy to produce big health care savings.

• We support (tax incentives?) new paperless, computer-age health care IT systems to reduce the cost of health care management as well as reduce medical mistakes.

• Every American should have equal opportunity to get the best value and buy the cheapest insurance no matter where he lives or whom he works for. We want to change the law so any American can buy the lowest cost insurance available nationwide, not just in their states — whether from insurance companies, businesses, church groups, college alumni associations, or groups like the AARP, who often provide it less expensively.

• The Wall-Mart way to bring costs down is better than the Washington way.  So we want to use consumer-buying power, also called “group buying power,” not Washington price-controls, to bring health care costs down.

• We support effective prevention, wellness, and disease management programs because they will improve our health and save money.

• We support bold new tax deductions for companies that develop new treatments and cures because that is smarter than paying for chronic long-term illnesses we can’t cure today.

• We believe in bottom-up health care savings:  every American should get a tax deduction for their health insurance premiums.

• We believe the working poor should get a refundable, advanceable tax credit to help them get health insurance.

• We want to incentivize and expand practical, down-to-earth reforms that are already working and reducing health care costs all across America.  Safeway’s plan, which gives employees a stake in holding down health care costs, is a model.  Instead of cutting care or shifting costs to employees, Safeway has held health care costs flat the last 4 years, while it’s up 40% for the rest of corporate America.

• We support special “too much paperwork” tax credits for small businesses, so they don’t have to bear the intolerable costs of filling out insurance forms or meeting government mandates and regulations.

• We want to give small businesses the same cost-saving breaks big businesses get by helping them form small business health plans and small business health co-ops.

• And no lifetime health care benefits and insurance for Congressmen who leave their jobs — unless and until everybody else in America has the same.

And From Here…

“… and as I said throughout the campaign, change never begins from the top down. It begins from the bottom up.”  President Obama, Feb. 9, 2009

Unfortunately, what President Obama promised during the campaign, he has abandoned as President.  Instead of putting his faith in the American people and bringing change from the bottom up, he has put his trust in Washington and given us more, old, trickle-down big government. In health care and everywhere else, our President has given us nothing new.  It’s the same old thing, just bigger and more expensive:  One federal pill for every ill.

Such old thinking from such a young President is a disappointment and it is time to put it behind us.  The future belongs to those who really believe change comes from the bottom up — from the American people and not Washington, DC.

Ban Ki-moon, the secretary-general of the United Nations, put out a statement similar to what we’ve heard from President Obama, urging an end to the violence and for the regime to “respect fundamental civil and political rights, especially the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of information.” Reuters’ write-up says Ban calls on the regime and the opposition to resolve their differences through “peaceful means.” But without a re-vote, what’s the path for a peaceful de-escalation of hostilities?

Meanwhile, Nico Pitney from The Huffington Post is heading to the White House for President Obama’s press conference at 12:30 p.m., and is asking Iranians to send him questions to ask should he get called on. It would be a very good thing for Obama to call on Nico, without whom we’d know so much less about what’s happening in Iran.

So writes Mickey Kaus at Slate citing MSNBC, Mark Krikorian at National Review, and Jan Greenberg at ABC News. Frank Sharry quickly denounces the idea at The Huffington Post. If that was part of Obama’s goal, he says, it won’t work.

In truth, while there’s no denying that choosing Sotomayor wins Obama some political points with Hispanics, her elevation to the high court really has nothing to do with whether 12 million undocumented immigrants working in this country get to become legal and pay taxes and earn minimum wages, or whether the administration is going to try to deport them all. And anyone who cares about that issue isn’t going to be appeased because one Puertorriqueña gets a powerful seat in Washington that’s basically irrelevant to the immigration issue.

The Associated Press reports that Senate Democrats won’t support funding the closure of the Guantanamo prison, according to an unnamed senior Democratic official. Apparently, Obama needs $80 million to shut the facility down, and Senate Democrats aren’t going to give it to him.

Why? Are they caving to the Republicans, not wanting to look soft on terrorists? Or are they trying to force the Obama administration to hurry up and come up with a plan for what to do with the 240 detainees still imprisoned at the U.S. facility in Cuba.  It’s not clear.

The Obama administration, for its part, still insists it’s on target to close the place down by January 2010.

Update: Who needs the Republicans when you’ve got Harry Reid?  Here’s Reid’s enlightening explanation for why Gitmo detainees should never be allowed on U.S. soil.