March 22, 2010

Reporting from Washington

Ending the Democrats' decades-long quest to create a healthcare safety net to match Social Security, the House of Representatives on Sunday night approved sweeping legislation to guarantee Americans access to medical care for the first time, delivering President Obama the biggest victory of his young presidency.

The bill, which passed 219 to 212 without a single Republican vote, would make a nearly $1-trillion commitment in taxpayer money over the next decade to help an estimated 32 million uninsured Americans get health coverage.

And it would establish a broad new framework of government regulation to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage and, advocates hope, to begin making healthcare more affordable to most Americans.

"Tonight, at a time when the pundits said it was no longer possible, we rose above the weight of our politics," the president said in a televised address from the East Room of the White House after the House completed its last vote. "We proved we are still a people capable of doing big things and tackling our biggest challenges."

On the House floor, Democrats erupted into cheers of "Yes, we can!" at 10:45 p.m. Eastern time as the decisive 216th "yes" vote was recorded, capping a tortuous campaign that several senior lawmakers linked to the historic battle for civil rights two generations earlier.

"This is the Civil Rights Act of the 21st century," said Democratic Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking black member of the House.

Obama will sign the bill within the next few days, while the Senate plans this week to begin debating a package of changes to the healthcare legislation that the House also passed Sunday, 220 to 211.

Angry protesters swarmed over the Capitol lawn throughout the day, cheering sympathetic Republicans who urged them on from the House balcony. They called for lawmakers to "kill the bill" and warned of dire political consequences for Democrats who voted for the legislation. "We will remember in November," the crowd chanted.

Thirty-four Democrats, most from Republican-leaning districts, voted against the main legislation approving the blueprint for healthcare.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R- Texas), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, promised that GOP candidates would turn the 2010 midterm elections into a referendum on healthcare. "We will run on a promise of repeal," he said.

Many Republicans say the overhaul will drive the nation deeper into debt at a time when it is still struggling to recover from recession.

But after a final flurry of negotiating defused an intraparty dispute over abortion and locked down the last votes, Democratic lawmakers, some of whom have spent decades in Congress pushing for universal health coverage, were celebrating the payoff of a monumental gamble.

Obama and his congressional allies succeeded in pushing through the most sweeping piece of social legislation since the 1965 Medicare bill, despite a crippling recession and an increasingly angry electorate.

Now, Democrats must steer a package of fixes to the healthcare bill through the Senate by using the arcane budget reconciliation process.

The maneuver allows Senate Democrats to skirt a GOP filibuster and pass the package with only 51 votes rather than 60. But if Republicans succeed in making any changes to the package on the Senate floor -- as Democratic officials acknowledge is possible -- the House would have to take another healthcare vote.

But Sunday, after more than a year of procedural delays, partisan battling and a nail-biting search for votes, congressional Democrats seemed more focused on history than the remaining parliamentary obstacles.

Meeting at midday across the street from the Capitol, they received a final pep talk from Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a veteran of the civil rights movement who, the day before, had been the target of racial epithets from a crowd of protesters.

Lewis reminded the assembled lawmakers Sunday that they were voting on the 45th anniversary of one of the famous civil rights marches between Selma, Ala., and Montgomery, Ala. Lewis had been beaten by police during the first of those marches.

After the caucus meeting ended, Lewis linked arms with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and other senior Democrats for a walk with the assembled lawmakers to the Capitol through a gauntlet of protesters shouting, "Drop dead Pelosi" and "Save the Constitution."

By late afternoon, Democrats cleared the final obstacle as the White House struck a deal with a group of antiabortion Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan who had withheld their support over concerns that the legislation did not sufficiently ensure that federal funding would not be used for abortion.

The president agreed to issue an executive order directing his administration to develop guidelines to prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for abortion services.

The executive order drew immediate fire from several antiabortion groups that called it inadequate. "Executive orders can be undone or modified as quickly as they are created," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life.

But Stupak, flanked by other socially conservative Democrats, said he was satisfied Sunday with the protections.

Party leaders designed their healthcare overhaul to preserve the employer-based healthcare system in which most Americans get their insurance.

But the legislation would dramatically expand federal regulation of healthcare. Federal law would for the first time require insurance companies to cover all Americans, regardless of their health status, and would prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people who become sick.

Individuals would also be required to buy insurance. And large employers would have to provide employees with health benefits or in some cases face penalties.

The bill would open the nation's 45-year-old Medicaid insurance program for the poor to all Americans earning less than 133% of the federal poverty line -- $14,404 for an individual or $29,327 for a family of four.

The government would also create new state-based insurance marketplaces for millions who do not get coverage through work.

Commercial insurers would offer plans in these marketplaces, or exchanges, and be required to provide a minimum set of benefits, including mental health services, maternity care and preventive care.

The most expensive feature is a commitment by the federal government to provide nearly $500 billion in subsidies over the next decade to help millions of low- and moderate-income Americans buy insurance in an exchange.

To pay for their legislation, Democrats approved a new 3.8% tax on investment income for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000. In 2018, people with high-end "Cadillac" health plans would be subject to a new tax on their benefits.

And medical device makers, pharmaceutical companies and insures would be subject to new excise taxes.

The bill would also cut more than $400 billion over the next decade in what Medicare pays to hospitals, nursing homes and insurance companies that provide Medicare Advantage plans, a provision that proponents hope would ultimately help make the system more efficient.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22,0,3003305,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Effects of health overhaul will take time to become clear

Rising costs facing insurers could cut into increases they see in revenue as more Americans are covered. For patients, much is unclear.

By Duke Helfand

March 22, 2010

Giant health insurers could see revenue jump under Washington's new health overhaul that will require millions of additional customers to sign up for coverage in the coming years.

But large insurers and Wall Street analysts say the prospect of a revenue bonanza may be tempered by the escalating costs of medical care and by provisions of new legislation that could eat into profits. The extent of the benefits to consumers is also unclear.

The bill approved by the U.S. House on Sunday will require most Americans to buy insurance starting in 2014, with the federal government providing subsidies for many who can't afford new policies.

The measure also will reduce funding for Medicare services, impose taxes on insurance plans and create state exchanges that will expand access to policies for individuals and small businesses.

Insurance industry experts say there is no way to fully gauge the effect because of its extended time frame. Four years from now, they say, Congress and the White House could have new occupants who may try again to reshape the healthcare landscape.

"It's very difficult to have a lot of conviction in what the next five years for this industry is going to look like," said Steve Shubitz, a healthcare analyst with Edward Jones in St. Louis. "We don't have clarity."

An estimated 32 million uninsured Americans will have health coverage under the legislation by the end of this decade, providing a huge new source of revenue for companies. But insurance experts say the new requirement that insurers accept all applicants regardless of preexisting health conditions will drive up medical costs if healthy customers choose to forgo insurance. Those who do will be required to pay annual fines to the government.

"There is no way to tell the impact," said Dave Shove, a senior healthcare analyst at BMO Capital Markets in New York. "The profitability of those [new policyholders] is unknown."

For consumers, other questions remain:

Will sweeping changes in the legislation lead to expanded availability of preventive care services?

Will younger, healthier people see their rates surge as those rates subsidize care for older and more expensive customers?

Will medical costs spiral out of control, as industry leaders predict, without a concerted effort to rein in the fees of doctors, hospitals and drug companies?

Consumer advocates say the legislation will expand policyholder protections by bringing greater accountability to an under-regulated industry.

"If implemented correctly, insurers will have to compete on the basis of cost and quality, rather than on how deftly they deny coverage," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy coalition. "Now, the business model . . . is to collect premiums from healthy people and avoid covering sick people."

Most of the roughly 200 million Americans who have health coverage receive it through their employers. About 17 million people buy policies on their own in the individual market, where insurers can reject applicants or raise rates because of preexisting health conditions.

The legislation approved Sunday will require insurers to accept all comers regardless of health status. Although industry executives say they support the idea, they add that the reform will work only if all are required to buy insurance -- thus spreading risk and costs.

"Virtually everyone believes that we have a huge number of issues that remain to be addressed," said Jay Gellert, chief executive of Woodland Hills-based Health Net Inc. "If anyone thinks that just by passing this we're going to solve the problems, they are seriously mistaken."

The industry's Washington lobbying arm, America's Health Insurance Plans, has been waging a fierce counteroffensive for months, making the case that reforms in Congress will do little to curb the growth of exorbitant healthcare costs.

The lobbying group said cuts to Medicare Advantage plans could reduce enrollment by one-third in 2019. And it said a new way of factoring age into insurance rates would drive up premiums more than 50% for people under age 30.

The insurance organization ran ads in national newspapers last week criticizing the overhaul for failing to adequately contain costs. Without bolder action, it warned in its "Open Letter to the American People," the country could face a healthcare cost "crisis similar to the financial crisis that has rocked our economy."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure22-2010mar22,0,2599729,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What each said about the healthcare vote: Obama, John Boehner, Tim Kaine, Michael Steele

March 22, 2010 | 12:04 am

Remarks by President Obama after House vote, as provided by the White House

Good evening, everybody. Tonight, after nearly 100 years of talk and frustration, after decades of trying, and a year of sustained effort and debate, the United States Congress finally declared that America’s workers and America's families and America's small businesses deserve the security of knowing that here, in this country, neither illness nor accident should endanger the dreams they’ve worked a lifetime to achieve.

Tonight, at a time when the pundits said it was no longer possible, we rose above the weight of our politics. We pushed back on the undue influence of special interests. We didn't give in to mistrust or to cynicism or to fear. Instead, we proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things and tackling our biggest challenges. We proved that this government -- a government of the people and by the people -- still works for the people.

I want to thank every member of Congress who stood up tonight with courage and conviction to make health care reform a reality. And I know this wasn’t an easy vote for a lot of people. But it was the right vote. I want to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her extraordinary leadership, and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn for their commitment to getting the job done. I want to thank my outstanding Vice....

...President, Joe Biden, and my wonderful Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, for their fantastic work on this issue. I want to thank the many staffers in Congress, and my own incredible staff in the White House, who have worked tirelessly over the past year with Americans of all walks of life to forge a reform package finally worthy of the people we were sent here to serve.

Today’s vote answers the dreams of so many who have fought for this reform. To every unsung American who took the time to sit down and write a letter or type out an e-mail hoping your voice would be heard -- it has been heard tonight. To the untold numbers who knocked on doors and made phone calls, who organized and mobilized out of a firm conviction that change in this country comes not from the top down, but from the bottom up -- let me reaffirm that conviction: This moment is possible because of you.

Most importantly, today’s vote answers the prayers of every American who has hoped deeply for something to be done about a health care system that works for insurance companies, but not for ordinary people. For most Americans, this debate has never been about abstractions, the fight between right and left, Republican and Democrat -- it’s always been about something far more personal. It’s about every American who knows the shock of opening an envelope to see that their premiums just shot up again when times are already tough enough. It’s about every parent who knows the desperation of trying to cover a child with a chronic illness only to be told “no” again and again and again. It’s about every small business owner forced to choose between insuring employees and staying open for business. They are why we committed ourselves to this cause.

Tonight’s vote is not a victory for any one party -- it's a victory for them. It's a victory for the American people. And it's a victory for common sense.

Now, it probably goes without saying that tonight’s vote will give rise to a frenzy of instant analysis. There will be tallies of Washington winners and losers, predictions about what it means for Democrats and Republicans, for my poll numbers, for my administration. But long after the debate fades away and....

...the prognostication fades away and the dust settles, what will remain standing is not the government-run system some feared, or the status quo that serves the interests of the insurance industry, but a health care system that incorporates ideas from both parties -- a system that works better for the American people.

If you have health insurance, this reform just gave you more control by reining in the worst excesses and abuses of the insurance industry with some of the toughest consumer protections this country has ever known -- so that you are actually getting what you pay for.

If you don’t have insurance, this reform gives you a chance to be a part of a big purchasing pool that will give you choice and competition and cheaper prices for insurance. And it includes the largest health care tax cut for working families and small businesses in history -- so that if you lose your job and you change jobs, start that new business, you’ll finally be able to purchase quality, affordable care and the security and peace of mind that comes with it.

This reform is the right thing to do for our seniors. It makes Medicare stronger and more solvent, extending its life by almost a decade. And it’s the right thing to do for our future. It will reduce our deficit by more than $100 billion over the next decade, and more than $1 trillion in the decade after that.

So this isn’t radical reform. But it is major reform. This legislation will not fix everything that ails our health care system. But it moves us decisively in the right direction. This is what change looks like.

Now as momentous as this day is, it's not the end of this journey. On Tuesday, the Senate will take up revisions to this legislation that the House has embraced, and these are revisions that have strengthened this law and removed provisions that had no place in it. Some have predicted another siege of parliamentary maneuvering in order to delay adoption of these improvements. I hope that’s not the case. It’s time to bring this debate to a close and begin the hard work of implementing this reform properly on behalf of the American people. This year, and in years to come, we have a solemn responsibility to do it right.

Nor does this day represent the end of the work that faces our country. The work of revitalizing our economy goes on. The work of promoting private sector job creation goes on. The work of putting American families’ dreams back within reach goes on. And we march on, with renewed confidence, energized by this victory on their behalf. In the end, what this day represents is another stone firmly laid in the foundation of the American Dream. Tonight, we answered the call of history as so many generations of Americans have before us. When faced with crisis, we did not shrink from our challenge -- we overcame it. We did not avoid our responsibility -- we embraced it. We did not fear our future -- we shaped it. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

####

Remarks by Republican House Leader John Boehner opposing the healthcare bill, provided by his office

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I rise tonight with a sad and heavy heart. Today, we should be standing together, reflecting on a year of bipartisanship, and working to answer our country’s call and their challenge to address the rising costs of health insurance in our country.

Today, this body, this institution, enshrined in the first article of the Constitution by our Founding Fathers as a sign of the importance they placed on this House, should be looking with pride on this legislation and our work. But it is not so.

No, today we’re standing here looking at a health care bill that no one in this body believes is satisfactory.

Today we stand here amidst the wreckage of what was once the respect and honor that this House was held in by our fellow citizens. And we all know why it is so.

We have failed to listen to America.

And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents.

And when we fail to reflect that will – we fail ourselves and we fail our country.

Look at this bill. Ask yourself: do you really believe that if you like the health plan that you have, that you can keep it?

No, you can’t.

In this economy, with this unemployment, with our desperate need for jobs and economic growth, is this really the time to raise taxes, to create bureaucracies, and burden every job creator in our land?

The answer is no.

Can you go home and tell your senior citizens that these cuts in Medicare will not limit their access to doctors or further weaken the program instead of strengthening it?

No, you cannot.

Can you go home and tell your constituents with confidence that this bill respects the sanctity of all human life, and that it won’t allow for taxpayer funding of abortion for the first time in 30 years?

No, you cannot.

And look at how this bill was written.

Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals, and struck behind closed doors, hidden from the people?

Hell no, you can’t!

Have you read the bill? Have you read the reconciliation bill? Have you read the manager’s amendment?

Hell no, you haven’t!

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes, we will cast some of the most consequential votes that any of us will ever cast in this chamber.

The decision we make will affect every man, woman and child in this nation for generations to come.

If we’re going to vote to defy the will of the American people, then we ought to have the courage to stand before them and announce our votes, one at a time.

I sent a letter to the Speaker this week asking that the ‘call of the roll’ be ordered for this vote.

Madame Speaker, I ask you. Will you, in the interest of this institution, grant my request?

Will you, Mr. Speaker, grant my request that we have a call of the roll?

Mr. Speaker, will you grant my request that we have a call of the roll?

My colleagues, this is the People’s House.

When we came here, we each swore an oath to uphold and abide by the Constitution as representatives of the people.

But the process here is broken. The institution is broken.

And as a result, this bill is not what the American people need, nor what our constituents want.

Americans are out there are making sacrifices and struggling to build a better future for their kids.

And over the last year as the damn-the-torpedoes outline of this legislation became more clear, millions lifted their voices, and many for the first time, asking us to slow down, not try to cram through more than the system could handle.

Not to spend money that we didn’t have.

In this time of recession, they wanted us to focus on jobs, not more spending, not more government, certainly not more taxes.

But what they see today frightens them.

They’re frightened because they don’t know what comes next.

They’re disgusted, because they see one political party closing out the other from what should be a national solution.

And they are angry. They are angry that no matter how they engage in this debate, this body moves forward against their will. Shame on us.

Shame on this body.

Shame on each and every one of you who substitutes your will and your desires above those of your fellow countrymen.

Around this chamber, looking upon us are the lawgivers – from Moses, to Gaius, to Blackstone, to Thomas Jefferson.

By our actions today, we disgrace their values.

We break the ties of history in this chamber. We break our trust with Americans.

When I handed the Speaker the gavel in 2007, I said: “this is the people’s House – and the moment a majority forgets this, it starts writing itself a ticket to minority status.”

If we pass this bill, there will be no turning back. It will be the last straw for the American people.

And In a democracy, you can only ignore the will of the people for so long and get away with it.

And if we defy the will of our fellow citizens and pass this bill, we are going to be held to account by those who have placed us in their trust. We will have shattered those bonds of trust.

I beg you. I beg each and every one of you on both sides of the aisle:

Do not further strike at the heart of this country and this institution with arrogance, for surely you will not strike with impunity.

I ask each of you to vow never to let this happen again – this process, this defiance of our citizens.

It is not too late to begin to restore the bonds of trust with our Nation and return comity to this institution.

And so, join me.

Join me in voting against this bill, so that we may come together anew, and address this challenge of health care in a manner that brings credit to this body, and brings credit to the ideals of this nation, and most importantly, it reflects the will our people.

####

Remarks by Chairman Tim Kaine, as provided by his Democratic National Committee

Today, President Obama and Congressional Democrats accomplished something that has eluded Presidents, Congress and the American people for decades. After a year of hard work, we have passed health insurance reform. We owe great thanks to the President, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and their leadership teams.

Most importantly, what does this mean for our country?

The American people -- not the insurance companies -- will now have control over their own health care. No longer will insurance companies be able to deny you coverage because of preexisting conditions or drop your coverage when you get sick and need it most. Parents will be able to keep children on their policies through the age 26. Reform will control costs and lower costs for middle class families who are struggling under the skyrocketing cost of health insurance. Families won’t have to choose between paying their mortgages and paying their premiums. It will make it easier for small businesses to provide health insurance for their employees. And once these changes go into effect, an unprecedented 95% of Americans will have health insurance.

And we’ll do this while reducing the deficit by over a trillion dollars over the next twenty years. So this isn’t just good news for the health of our people, it’s also good news for the health of our economy. This is the largest deficit reduction package since President Clinton’s 1993 budget, which set our country on a path to years of growth and helped create a budget surplus. This is fiscally responsible reform, and it’s an important step towards getting our economy back on track for the short and long term.

The passage of reform today is a monumental accomplishment. This historic legislation is further evidence of the change President Obama has been able to bring about. It is a symbol of what the Democratic Party stands for—relief for middle class Americans, fighting unfair business practices, and helping people live happier, healthier lives. I want to congratulate President Obama and Congressional Democrats for this victory. But above all, I say to the American people – we have delivered on our promise to bring about health insurance reform that you have wanted for decades. Better and more affordable health care is coming.

####

Remarks by Chairman Michael Steele, as provided by his Republican National Committee

Today, America witnessed the first vote for the end of representative government. Congressional Democrats said no to the will of the American people and voted yes to President Obama’s $2.5 trillion government run health care system.

The President, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the architects of a system that encourages out of control spending, increased national debt and does nothing to control the cost of health care.

Americans across the country made their voices heard and flatly rejected this legislation loaded with special deals and tax increases, but Democrats did not listen and instead chose to force this bill through because they believe they know what’s best for the American people.

The simple truth is this bill will allow taxpayer dollars to pay for elective abortions, as confirmed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and that the Executive Order negotiated by Rep. Bart Stupak does nothing to trump the language in the bill.

It is, at best, a ruse.

Further, the bill will cause 9 million people to lose the insurance they have now; it will increase the deficit by over a hundred billion dollars when all the components (including the physician fee schedule change) are included; it will increase taxes by $569 Billion;

it will cut Medicare by $524 Billion; it will increase premiums by 10 percent for people without employer-based insurance; and, it will create a new marriage penalty with new income and investment taxes. And after all the spending has been done and the bill is fully implemented, 23 million people will still be uninsured in 2019.

The American people are sick of the blatant arrogance of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and the Senate Majority Leader Reid. Congressional Democrats can be sure that voters in their districts will not forget this vote that will negatively affect Americans for generations to come.

It is time to fire Nancy Pelosi and send a message to President Obama that it’s time to stop their partisan liberal agenda of government takeovers and start working for Americans to create jobs and grow our economy.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/03/obama-boehner-steele-kaine-healthcare-text.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jewish groups work to fight 'food deserts'

Alliances organize a tour of areas where grocers are scarce, and members consider what they can do to help. 'Food, liberation and sustenance are closely intertwined in Judaism,' organizer says.

By Teresa Watanabe

March 22, 2010

Why is this day unlike any other day?

As Jews worldwide prepare to celebrate next week their liberation from slavery, a group of Los Angeles Jews went to Boyle Heights on Sunday to ask that variation of their traditional Passover Seder question.

The answer, however, did not recount Jewish oppression in Egypt as is customary. Activists from major Jewish organizations instead focused on what they see as a modern injustice afflicting their fellow Angelenos, marking the day with a new push to bring quality grocery markets and healthful food to underserved neighborhoods such as East Los Angeles.

"We want to transform the food deserts of Los Angeles into a promised land of access to healthy food," said Elissa Barrett, executive director of the Progressive Jewish Alliance, which helped organize a tour Sunday to showcase the problem. "Food, liberation and sustenance are closely intertwined in Judaism."

Jewish community groups aim to broaden the growing local and national campaigns to attract more supermarkets to poor neighborhoods, where limited access to healthful food has been linked to obesity, diabetes and other diseases. Programs are sprouting up in Louisiana, New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

The issue has also landed on the agenda of First Lady Michelle Obama, who announced a goal to eliminate food deserts within seven years as part of her initiative against childhood obesity. The Obama administration has proposed $400 million in financing to lure grocery stores to underserved areas.

In Los Angeles, the Community Redevelopment Agency received $240,000 in federal stimulus money to help six convenience stores transform themselves into more attractive sites offering healthier foods. The agency has developed an incentive package for grocers, restaurants and produce marts to invest in South Los Angeles, said Jenna Gulager, an assistant project manager.

And Los Angeles Councilman Ed Reyes has asked the city to draft an ordinance that would offer investment incentives to grocers citywide.

"There's a huge conversation around the country about what can be done," said Elliott Petty of the Alliance for Healthy and Responsible Grocery Stores, a coalition of more than 30 community, faith, labor and environmental groups.

The alliance, which took the lead in organizing the tour, convened a blue ribbon commission to hold hearings and issue a report in 2008 on how food deserts affect poverty and public health.

The groups are pressing Reyes to include not only carrots but also sticks in his proposed ordinance, urging him to use the city's permitting powers to challenge grocers who locate in well-heeled neighborhoods but not poor ones.

But grocers say it is not always easy to operate in inner-city neighborhoods. One major challenge is finding lots large enough to accommodate full-service supermarkets, said Dave Heylen of the California Grocers Assn., which represents 80% of the state's markets. Other barriers, he said, include regulatory red tape that can cause delays and increase operating costs.

But Heylen said grocers, particularly independent ones, are showing more interest in urban areas in part because of all the new incentives.

Among Jews, interest in the food desert issue is also percolating. Representatives from several synagogues and organizations, including the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, attended the tour.

Michelle Paster, a 30-year-old teacher, filmmaker and member of the Ikar congregation, said she came with questions about what role Jews could play in helping the largely Latino community bring better markets to their neighborhoods. Growing up in Encino with the privileges of private schools and every possible material comfort, she said, had kept her insulated from the struggles of Angelenos across town.

And Ilana Schachter, 26, a rabbinical student at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, said the food desert issue was a natural one for Jews, whose traditions are rooted in social justice and religious rituals nearly always involving food -- challah on Sabbath, latkes on Hanukkah, apples and honey on Rosh Hashana, matzo and bitter herbs on Passover.

Passover in particular, she said, calls Jews not only to recount their own oppression in Egypt but also to connect it to modern-day struggles against injustice.

Organizers had to rent a second bus to accommodate demand for the tour, which began at the historic Breed Street Shul. Community members gathered to begin pondering the Passover questions. The traditional four questions about the Passover rituals were replaced by questions about why Angelenos who live in food deserts purchase so much unhealthful food and have difficulty finding good markets paying decent wages.

The tour featured testimony from students at Lincoln High School, residents of the Ramona Gardens housing project and an Asian American community activist helping to launch a community garden. Ivonne Nieto, a Lincoln High student and vegetarian, said it is nearly impossible to find a variety of soy-based products in the local market, where she said food is more expensive and of lower quality than the larger supermarkets in her old neighborhood, Echo Park.

"How are we supposed to achieve healthy minds without healthy bodies?" asked Angelica Reyes, another student.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-food-desert22-2010mar22,0,1052258,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Big immigration march in Washington

Tens of thousands call for an overhaul to be the next priority in Congress, even as lawmakers debated the passage of healthcare legislation.

By Clement Tan and Don Lee

March 22, 2010

Reporting from Washington

Determined to push a major overhaul of the immigration system to the top of the nation's political agenda, tens of thousands of people rallied Sunday on the National Mall, challenging Congress to fix laws that they say separate families and hurt the country's economic and social vitality.

Organizers and supporters of the "March for America" campaign -- who demonstrated as House members cast a historic vote on healthcare -- want to make an immigration overhaul the next big undertaking in Washington.

"The reality is that immigrants keep jobs in America, they help businesses move forward," said Angelica Salas, director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, one of hundreds of community, labor and faith-based groups nationwide that joined the march.

The organizing group, Reform Immigration for America, said Sunday's rally was larger than the massive Washington demonstration in April 2006, when thousands protested around the country over immigrant rights and enforcement practices. On Sunday, the crowd stretched nearly five blocks on the mall.

Although the event had a festive, almost carnival-like feel to it -- young and old in T-shirts walking amid white tents and balloons while drummers and musicians played -- many participants came bottled up with frustration or sorrow.

One group carried white crosses etched with names of border crossers who died in the Arizona desert. Crowds chanted in Spanish, "Obama, listen, remember your promise!" -- referring to President Obama's campaign pledge to make overhauling immigration policies a priority in his first year.

Earlier this month, Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) proposed a new blueprint for immigration overhaul, which the White House has endorsed. Among other measures, the plan would require biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; additional border security; a temporary worker plan; and some path to legalization.

Yet Graham, the lone Republican senator inclined to support the overhaul, has already said he believed that passage of the healthcare overhaul would probably kill the immigration effort this year.

Immigration could also be crowded out by other domestic issues, such as financial regulations and energy policy. And advocates for putting the roughly 11 million illegal residents on a path to citizenship will face resistance from many Republicans, as well as some moderate Democrats, facing the midterm election in November.

With resources and emotions running deep from immigrant rights activists and opponents, "things are on a collision course as they were in 2006 and 2007," said Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington group that seeks immigration restrictions.

Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony alluded to Obama's promise when he said in a brief interview after his speech at the rally, "The Democrats campaigned for Latino votes with a lot of immigration promises, so we'll see if they don't act on what they promised."

Latinos, in particular, have criticized the Obama administration's record on enforcement, as the number of deportations of undocumented immigrants increased 5% to 387,790 in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Others at the rally were blunt, saying that officials will pay a price at the polls if they ignore the calls from a small but fast-growing electorate. "I can't vote, but I have 60 family members who can," said Elmo Siap, 55, a Filipino businessman who came from Chicago.

Foreign-born workers account for 15.5% of all U.S. workers, and their jobless rate went up to 9.7% last year from 5.8% in 2008. For native-born workers, the unemployment figure was also 5.8% in 2008 but rose to 9.2% last year, according to the Labor Department.

Julio Salgado, 26, a senior at Cal State Long Beach, hopes the changes come soon.

He came to America when he was 11 and graduated from high school in 2001 with a 3.6 grade-point average, he said. But without a green card or a legal resident status, he said, he couldn't qualify for federal student loans for college. Even so, he said he would be graduating this spring -- nine years after first enrolling in community college.

"We've done everything we've been told to do as kids, but I'm at a loss here," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immigration-march22-2010mar22,0,2597392,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OPINION

What if Iran gets the bomb?

Many now argue that containment, not a military strike, is the best way to deal with Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Doyle McManus

March 21, 2010

'It is not this calendar year" that the world will face a nuclear-capable Iran, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus told a Senate committee last week. He was being conservative: Most experts now estimate that Iran needs about 18 months to complete a nuclear device and a missile to carry it.

Iran's march toward nuclear weapons has been slowed by several factors: technical bottlenecks, the exposure of secret facilities and equipment breakdowns (sometimes thanks to flaws baked into equipment by Western intelligence agencies).

But progress toward the bomb hasn't been stopped -- not by sanctions, negotiations or domestic unrest.

The Obama administration's goal is still to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But like many of the president's worthy aspirations, this one may be unattainable. The administration is working diligently on stepped-up economic sanctions against Iran, but even the proponents of that approach don't promise immediate results. And the option of a military strike against Iran faces strong opposition from an important constituency: the U.S. military, which doesn't relish adding a third war to the two it's already fighting. As Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates never tires of pointing out, a military strike wouldn't prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; it would merely postpone it.

That's why national security thinkers from both parties are talking more openly about what happens next: what to do when the Iranians get a nuclear weapon.

An Iran with one or two nuclear bombs is a very bad thing, their reasoning goes, but it's not the end of the world. As Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barak, put it last month: "I don't think that the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, are going to drop it immediately on some neighbor. They fully understand what might follow. They are radicals but not total meshugenehs" (Yiddish for "nut cases"). He went on to say that a nuclear Iran would be "unacceptable" because it would strengthen the Tehran regime as a regional power and increase the danger of nuclear proliferation -- but the Israelis are also thinking about what to do if the "unacceptable" happens.

Hawks, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, argue that military action is the only remaining option. But a growing chorus that includes former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, are warning against a military strike on Iran by either the United States or Israel. A military strike, they say, would create chaos and strengthen its hard-line regime. And it wouldn't stop Tehran from eventually acquiring a nuclear weapon.

As Bruce Riedel, a 29-year veteran of the CIA who directed the Obama administration's initial review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, put it to me last week: "Bombing Iran is a truly bad option."

Even a surgical airstrike against Iran's nuclear installations, he warned, would touch off a much wider conflagration around the Persian Gulf and beyond. "It's not a war the United States needs right now," he said. "It would be disastrous to the wars we're already in [in Afghanistan and Iraq], and it would lead to a fourth war, one between Iran and Israel."

So what should we do instead? At the same time the U.S. tries to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, it should also turn to an option it has long experience with: containment. That doesn't mean passively accepting a nuclear Iran. Instead, it means working on several fronts to deprive Iran of any advantage it hopes to gain from possessing nuclear weapons.

It means escalating sanctions on Iran to increase the cost of owning nuclear weapons. It means providing a more explicit American defense umbrella to Israel, Saudi Arabia and other countries that Iran might threaten. It means a more active U.S. role in the region -- presumably the opposite of Iran's desires. And it means a continued demand on Iran to freeze and eventually reverse its nuclear program, even if it produces actual weapons.

In fact, even though the Obama administration isn't ready to accept that Iran will become a nuclear power, it is already doing all those things -- and laying a foundation for containment.

Riedel makes one more provocative point: He argues that President Obama should actually take the military option off the table and forswear any intention of attacking Iran -- because, in his view, it gets in the way of an effective containment policy. "It makes it harder for a lot of other countries to come on board," he said.

But Obama and his aides, after vowing repeatedly to keep the military option on the table, are unlikely to agree.

The most important thing is this: Obama shouldn't allow himself to be boxed in by past formulas. If Gates is right that a military attack on Iran is a bad idea, the time to begin talking about alternatives is now.

In 2003, the United States went to war in Iraq without a thorough debate of the alternative -- which was containment. Then, as now, hawks argued that military action was the only remaining option. This time, before another rush to war, that claim should be put to a more exacting test.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus21-2010mar21,0,77304,print.column

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDITORIAL

Keeping our blood supply safe

The FDA must not let politics intrude on decisions about loosening donation guidelines.

March 22, 2010

Decisions on whether to ease restrictions on blood donation must be based on science and the protection of public health, not political considerations. As obvious as that sounds, the rules of blood donation have become the topic of a social and emotional debate more than one of scientific policy. Gay men want the federal government to loosen the virtual ban on their participation, saying it stigmatizes homosexuality. Hemophiliacs, whose bleeding disorder makes them frequent recipients of blood transfusions, are pushing back.

The current policy, stemming from the early years of the AIDS epidemic, bans donations from men who have had sexual relations with another man at any time since 1977. As the gay and lesbian community gains a toehold on expanded civil rights, such as same-sex marriage, it sees this restriction as a discriminatory barrier to future progress. The nation's blood banks, hoping for a new source of donations, are lobbying to exclude only gay men who have been sexually active in the last year. But hemophiliacs remember the agonizing period in the late 1970s and 1980s during which 10,000 people with the disorder developed AIDS because of an inadequately protected blood supply. The possibility of any liberalization of the donor rules frightens and angers many of them.

The job of the Food and Drug Administration, which has agreed to review the guidelines, is to ignore both sides -- and the pressure from senators advocating looser rules -- and to look solely at whether protection from transfusion-related illnesses would be weakened by a change. We deplore discrimination against gays and lesbians and support both same-sex marriage and an end to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. That's different from having legitimate health concerns about the higher prevalence of HIV infection in sexually active gay men.

Donated blood is put through testing for various diseases, but although these tests are extremely effective and detect HIV and other diseases within a month of the donor being infected, they're not perfect. If a certain percentage of tests give a false negative result -- or a unit of blood is accidentally released before being tested -- there is, at least theoretically, a higher danger of tainted blood entering the supply when high-risk populations are allowed to donate.

At the same time, the understandable worries of hemophiliacs should not prevent a change of rules if there is no reason to expect new dangers in the blood supply.

But the science itself is complicated and depends largely on statistical modeling to calculate theoretical probabilities. Beyond the theories, the reality is that there were only four known cases of transfusion-related HIV infection from 1999 to 2007, out of more than 112 million units of blood. In all four cases, the donors had denied having any risk factors. In addition to sexually active gay men, the high-risk groups banned from donating include anyone who was ever an intravenous drug user, people with a history or family history of certain illnesses and anyone who has ever accepted payment for sex. Other groups cannot donate for up to a year -- people who have had acupuncture or body piercings, for instance, or heterosexuals who have engaged in high-risk sexual practices.

In other words, even today's extensiverules didn't prevent at least a few people with HIV from giving blood or keep that blood from getting to patients. The donors might not have understood the guidelines that were reviewed with them; they might have been too embarrassed to divulge that they were in one of the risk groups; or they might have been in none of the groups but nonetheless were exposed to the virus that causes AIDS. There is no such thing as absolute, 100% safety.

That doesn't mean the exclusions are ineffective. Studies have found that higher-risk donors generally decide against donating during the routine screening when they are told about the rules. They have no vested interest in lying; payment for blood is prohibited.

Then what would happen if the restrictions were lifted or loosened?

A 2008 report by the American Medical Assn., which reviewed a host of pertinent studies, concluded that there was a very small but statistically significant increase in risk of transmission of AIDS and other diseases if men who had abstained from sex for one year were allowed to give blood. That risk, small as it might be, is nonetheless too big. The FDA should reject a shift to a one-year abstention policy.

But the agency should seriously consider allowing donations from gay men who have abstained from sexual contact for at least five years. Under that scenario, the AMA found, the risk would be indistinguishable from current levels. The figures are theoretical, of course, based on statistical probabilities. If anything, they are probably conservative. The four transfusion-related HIV cases in recent years were a tiny fraction of what the statistical models predicted. Because not all donors remember exactly how long they have abstained from sex, the FDA should consider adding a buffer of several more years. If it does ease the restrictions, it should require immediate reporting of whether a change in policy results in more donated blood testing positive for disease.

No one should be deceived about how meaningful such a change would be. Mostly, it would give a symbolic victory to the gay and lesbian community. The number of gay men who have abstained completely from sex for at least five years is considered to be quite small. Fewer yet would be interested in donating blood. The AMA report predicts that even though changes in risk would be unnoticeable, the number of blood donors would not increase appreciably.

But that's not a valid defense for clinging to what might be outdated guidelines. The country has more effective tests and other safety measures than when these rules were devised. If there is no reason to think the country would see a rise in transfusion- related illness with a five- to 10-year rule, refusal to relax the restriction would indeed be unfairly discriminatory.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-blood22-2010mar22,0,2413569,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Daily News

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Air travelers to see tougher security before beach

By Harry R. Weber, The Associated Press

03/21/2010

ATLANTA - For those who haven't flown in a while, be prepared to be scanned, swabbed or thoroughly patted down. Maybe all three.

Many spring break travelers are about to have their first encounter with airport security measures stepped up after Christmas, when a man was accused of trying to blow up a U.S. jetliner using explosives hidden in his underwear.

As the extra measures are rolled out and travel demand picks up, security lines are expected to grow. Airlines, meanwhile, worry the government will require them to pay to maintain the beefed-up security checkpoints.

The Obama administration is committing tens of millions of dollars to deploy more state-of-the-art screening equipment, and it is tightening enforcement of some older security measures.

For example:

There are now 44 full-image body scanners at 21 U.S. airports, a 10 percent increase from before Christmas. Chicago's O'Hare and Boston's Logan are the latest airports to add these. Nearly 1,000 scanners will be in use nationwide by the end of next year.

The use of "swabs," or Explosive Trace Detection machines, has been expanded in recent weeks. Security agents are now more frequently roaming boarding areas and security lines with portable machines, which can detect traces of explosives after a cotton swab is applied to hands or luggage.

The Transportation Security Administration has sought to make screening less predictable. At some airports, passengers are asked to choose between a body scan or a pat down. A passenger who refuses a 30-second body scan may receive a two- to four-minute manual pat down.

A passenger might proceed to their plane after clearing just one form of screening. Or they could run the gamut like software executive Bob Thomas did on a recent flight departing from Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson airport.

A gum wrapper made of aluminum foil in Thomas' pocket set off a metal detector. After that, he went into a cylindrical machine 6 feet wide by more than 8 feet high to have his body image taken. Next came the hand swab. Lastly, he sat down and lifted his legs for a pat down by an airport screener. All clear.

For the former Marine officer, the extra few minutes were "a big waste of my time." But he understands the agents' predicament. "They don't know" which passenger is a potential threat, he said.

Fliers say they are understanding of the new measures, but nevertheless agitated by them.

Merle Thompson, a 77-year-old retired college professor from Alexandria, Va., recently got a taste of the enhanced screening measures.

Because her steel replacement knee often sets off the walk-through metal detectors, agents usually screen her with a hand wand. But that wasn't enough ahead of a recent flight to San Francisco from Washington, D.C.

"They patted me down," Thompson said. "Which I found humorous and ridiculous."

In a recent survey of more than 3,200 U.S. air travelers by travel Web site TripAdvisor, 39 percent cited long security lines as the most annoying part of being at an airport.

Security lines subsided in the slower winter months. But airlines are starting to see increased demand in March as the economy recovers and spring vacations get under way. As a result, lines are likely to grow again, said aviation expert Mark Kiefer of Charles River Associates.

Because full-body scans take slightly longer to go through than a simple metal detector, that can add up to longer waits when airports are busy, Kiefer said.

TSA says it doesn't believe the scanners will "significantly" increase the wait on security lines.

Some airlines advise passengers to arrive 75 minutes ahead of a domestic flight and up to three hours ahead of an international flight.

The increasing use of body-imaging technology makes some fliers uneasy. In addition to finding hidden explosives and weapons, the scanners reveal more bodily detail than passengers might prefer.

Sanjeev Verma, a technology entrepreneur from Lincoln, Mass., was at Logan International in Boston just a day after the airport began using three new scanners. He called them "intrusive," even though he had not yet been through one.

Some people find the images too revealing. The issue is sure to linger as hundreds more scanners appear this year at airports such as Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International and Charlotte Douglas International.

But security isn't the only bane of travelers. They're also concerned about pocketbook and comfort issues like fees for checked baggage and limited legroom on the plane. And Verma says he's more annoyed by the limits on liquids like shampoo or toothpaste.

The airlines, buoyed by a pickup in passenger traffic, worry about eventually bearing the costs of more security. That could impact passengers, who already pay a smorgasbord of taxes and fees when they buy a ticket, said David Castelveter of the Air Transport Association, an industry group that represents U.S. airlines.

Tickets include a 9-11 security fee of $2.50 for each individual flight. The fee is capped at $5 in each direction. That fee could be raised or a new one added on, though TSA hasn't made a request to do so.

For airports, the high cost and lack of space can hinder efforts to expand scanner use.

The Minneapolis-St. Paul airport is remodeling two checkpoints at its expense to install new baggage-screening equipment, a move that also would make room for body scanners. But if TSA wants scanners at other checkpoints, it's unclear who will pay for any remodeling, airport spokesman Patrick Hogan said.

The government is installing 450 scanners this year. At an average of $150,000 each, that's $67.5 million just for the machines. President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget requests $88 million for an additional500 units.

TSA is also using $15 million to buy 400 more portable explosive detection machines this year. Obama has requested $39 million to buy an additional 800 machines in fiscal 2011.

In addition, Obama has promised to put more air marshals on flights. His fiscal 2011 budget includes $85 million "for increased federal air marshals on international flight coverage."

http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_14726562

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the New York Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mexican Traffickers Sow Chaos With Blockades

By MARC LACEY

MEXICO CITY — Traffic jams are nothing new in Mexico’s largest cities, but drug traffickers intent on frustrating the authorities have added them as a new weapon to their arsenal, blocking city streets and creating long lines of frustrated motorists, law enforcement officials said.

The center of the action last week was the bustling commercial city of Monterrey, where the authorities said criminals commandeered dozens of tractor-trailer trucks and other vehicles on Thursday and Friday to block more than 30 streets and highways. The blockades, called narcobloqueos by the Mexican news media, resulted in traffic chaos, with the trucks parked horizontally across highways and vehicles jammed up behind them.

Luis Carlos Treviño Berchelmann, head of public security for the state of Nuevo León, which encompasses Monterrey, described the blockades as a response by the drug cartels to recent antidrug offensives by the government. Other government officials agreed, labeling the stealing of vehicles and abandonment of them on busy highways as a desperate attempt by drug gangs to show their power.

The chaotic scenes that the criminals created did give the impression they had the upper hand. Local newspapers described young men carrying stones, baseball bats and, in some cases, even more deadly weapons, assaulting drivers and stealing their vehicles, only to leave the cars abandoned at odd angles on roadways. In some cases, the vehicles were shot up or burned.

Across northern Mexico, rival drug gangs have been clashing fiercely among themselves and with the authorities.

On Friday, the army said it had killed two trafficking suspects during a shootout at the front gates of a prestigious private university in Monterrey. Over the weekend it emerged that the two victims were students. On Saturday, there were 53 killings across the country, making it one of the deadliest days in the past three years, Mexican newspapers reported.

The sense of lawlessness around Monterrey, a main commercial hub in Mexico’s northeast and home to many American business operations, prompted the State Department to recommend recently that Americans avoid using highways that run between the city and the United States border.

Friday’s traffic problems in Monterrey began early, about 3 a.m., when a bus was left blocking a bridge at the intersection of two large avenues, the newspaper Milenio reported.

Later, abandoned vehicles were found scattered across the city and surrounding municipalities, the authorities said. As of Friday, one state official was quoted in the local media as saying that two men had been detained.

Such mass actions by Mexico’s drug gangs are not unprecedented. Eager to encourage the authorities to back off, drug gangs have organized street protests in Monterrey in the past and blocked some of the bridges running between Mexico and the United States, Mexican authorities said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/world/americas/22mexico.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nonprofit Groups Foresee Tough Year

By STEPHANIE STROM

A new survey of nonprofit groups suggests that this year will be as challenging for them as 2009, when many organizations suffered from declines in giving, delays in government payments and increased demand for their services.

Some 80 percent of the 1,315 nonprofit groups responding to the survey said they expected the demand for service to be even greater this year, and only 49 percent of the respondents expected to be able to meet that demand, according to the survey by the Nonprofit Finance Fund, a charity that provides loans and other financial services to nonprofit groups.

Only 18 percent expect to end the year above break-even financially, compared with the 35 percent that ended 2009 with a surplus.

“One of the clearest messages coming out of this survey is that any kind of green shoots of recovery are very slow to get to the nonprofit sector,” said Clara Miller, chief executive of the fund. “Any recovery is not actually reaching people in dire need and the frontline organizations that serve them.”

More than 40 percent of the respondents predicted that government, corporate, foundation and United Way and other federated giving would fall this year. Only 21 percent predicted a decrease in giving by individuals and their board members, while 39 percent said giving would stay the same and 32 percent expected it to increase.

Ms. Miller said the survey left her impressed with how many organizations had taken steps to address the financial shortfalls they faced.

“The nonprofit sector is managing incredibly effectively” with limited resources, she said, “even though doing so has obviously been painful.”

More than half of the organizations responding to the survey, for instance, said they had collaborated on programs, which nonprofit groups are often loath to do but which can cut costs. And more groups reported expanding and adding programs than the number that said they had reduced and eliminated programs.

Citizen Schools, for example, pulled its after-school educational programs for middle school students out of a handful of schools. It also cut salaries by 2 percent to 5 percent, with executives taking a bigger hit.

At the same time, it increased the number of students enrolled in the remaining programs to as many as 250 from 100.

“We are serving more students in the places that are showing the best results,” said Eric Schwarz, chief executive and co-founder of Citizen Schools. “We prioritized and were able to keep growing and adding staff in the places we were doing best.”

Mr. Schwarz said that the fiscal year that ended in June 2009 had been very strong but that fund-raising in the second half of last year had been tough. “We’re hoping to maintain revenues at a level about flat to last year,” he said. “That’s a change for us because we’ve had a history of pretty significant growth every year.”

Last year, Seguin Services Inc., a nonprofit organization in Cicero, Ill., that provides services for adults and children with disabilities, thought its revenue from the state might drop by 30 percent, so its senior administrative staff came up with a contingency plan that incorporated cost cuts and ideas for increasing revenues.

Thanks to a strong advocacy effort, the state cuts never materialized.

“We have this contingency plan, though, so everyone knows what we have to do when we face cuts, as we almost certainly will this year,” said Jim Haptonstahl, Seguin’s senior vice president.

Seguin did lay off some workers who maintained its facilities, outsourcing that work to save about $180,000, and it decided to self-insure for worker’s compensation claims, reducing insurance costs.

The organization is also working to lessen its reliance on government payments, which account for about 90 percent of its revenues. It has doubled its number of donors and is working harder to win grants from foundations and competitive government grant programs.

It used $2 million it won in one such competition to open a car resale business, complete with a carwash and detailing center. The cars are donated, and participants in its programs work in the operation. “I never thought we’d be in the used-car business, but it is a great new revenue stream for us,” said John Voit, chief executive of Seguin.

Shunpike, a tiny organization in Seattle that helps nonprofit arts groups manage the business aspects of their work, also retooled its operations. It had charged its clients a percentage of the donations they received, but more and more of them were turning to earned revenues from things like ticket sales as philanthropy dwindled.

“Our fees aren’t based on earned revenue, and their nimbleness in responding to their financial challenges hurt us,” said Andy Fife, Shunpike’s executive director.

Shunpike applied for some federal stimulus money that was being distributed by a local arts agency and used that money to rethink its business model. The result was a plan to charge a fee based on its clients’ entire revenues and offer them expanded services like human resource management and assistance in applying for permits.

“What started out as an effort to fix a hole in our revenue stream became a much more profound opportunity for us to increase our services and grow in new ways,” Mr. Fife said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/us/22charity.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

.