There are millions upon millions of words being spoken and written by both sides as they try to influence President Obama’s course of action, but this cartoon by Mike Luckovich says it all for me.
Year: 2009
Jobs and the Recovery
Very interesting blog entry today from Floyd Norris, Chief Financial Editor of the New York Times. We all know that the last unemployment figures showed a rise to 10.2% and that President Obama keeps trying to explain that jobs are the last thing to return after a recession. But Norris argues that maybe things have already started to turn.
The economic reactions over the weekend to Friday’s employment report all started from the assumption that things grew much worse in October. The unemployment rate leaped to 10.2 percent from 9.8 percent. Another 190,000 jobs vanished.
Actually, none of that happened.
In reality, the government report says unemployment rates remained steady at 9.5 percent. And the number of jobs actually rose, by 80,000. And the number of jobs for college-educated Americans rose more than in any month in the last six years.
If those were the numbers in the articles, we would hear about the economy stabilizing, and talk about the Obama stimulus plan starting to have the intended effect.
Why the disparity in numbers? Because of something called “seasonal adjustment”.
…For some reason, October is the month with the largest seasonal adjustment down in jobs. So the increase in the unemployment rate does not reflect people actually losing jobs. It reflects the belief that seasonal factors should have added more jobs than they did.
So if there were no seasonal adjustment factor, jobs would have actually increased.
Studying the unadjusted numbers provides some indication that the hiring is starting to improve for better jobs. The number of jobs for college graduates, according to the household survey, rose 755,000 in October, before seasonal adjustments. That is the third-largest increase since the government started counting those figures, in 1992. (It trails increases of 895,000 in February 2002 and 755,000 in October 2003.)
On the other hand, the number of jobs fell for those with less education. If this report does indicate that the job recession is ending, it is an end that is providing immediate benefits for the educated, not for many of the people who most need help.
So when the stimulus funding really gets out on the street, probably in the spring, employment for construction jobs should increase. In the meanwhile, we need to make sure unemployment benefits remain available.
So what is really in the Health Care Reform Bills? One Progressive Analysis
I ran across this very interesting piece by Maggie Mahar who works for the Century Foundation. The Century Foundation was founded in 1919 and is “committed to the belief that a mix of effective government, open democracy, and free markets is the most effective solution to the major challenges facing the United States.” 1919 places it with the progressive movement and so it remains.
Mahar writes “Why Congress’ Health Care Bills are better than you think” posted on AlterNet on November 6. (Before the vote and before the Stupak amendment which is upsetting and a backdoor way of extending the Hyde amendment, but now is not the time to kill reform. Repeal of the Hyde amendment is a fight for another day.) I have sampled a few of her observations, but the entire piece is very interesting, particularly her comments on the Congressional Budget Office which could be a blog on their own.
Many progressives are expressing deep disappointment with the health reform legislation now moving through Congress.
Some suggest that some legislators made deals with lobbyists and let them write the bills. Others complain that both the subsidies and the penalties are too low. Still others don’t like the fact that states can “opt out” of the public insurance option and decide not to offer “Medicare E” — Medicare for everybody.
Finally, many ask: “Why can’t everyone sign on for the public plan in 2013? Why do we have to wait until 2013? Why can’t they roll out universal coverage next year?”
Normally, I would be among the first to critique the bills. By temperament and training, I’m both a skeptic and a critic.
But in this case, I think it is important to recognize that we cannot expect this first piece of health reform legislation to be anything but wildly imperfect. In fact, I’m impressed by the progress Washington has made in just 10 months.
I’ve been watching the struggle for health care reform since the early 1970s, and compared to what has happened over the past 39 years, this is mind-boggling.
Mahar cites gains in three main areas: affordability, no denial of coverage, and a realignment of Medicare.
On affordability
For example, under the House bill, a family of three making $32,000 a year would pay $1,360 in annual premiums for good, comprehensive coverage; under the Senate Finance Committee bill, that family would be asked to lay out $2,013. Today, without reform, if that family tried to buy insurance, it would find that the average plan costs $13,500. For this household, the current legislation makes all the difference.
Too often, the press suggests that such a family would be expected to pay $10,000 out of pocket to cover co-pays and deductibles. That just isn’t true.
Even if the entire family were in an auto accident and racked up $200,000 in medical bills, at their income level, the House bill caps out-of-pocket expenses at $2,000 a year. Under the Senate Finance bill, the family would have to pay $4,000.
Moreover, under both bills, there are no co-pays for primary care. Even private insurers cannot put a $25 barrier between a family and preventive care.
Moving up the income ladder, a median-income household earning roughly $55,000 would pay premiums of $4,300 to $6,500 — depending on whether the Senate Finance bill or the more generous House bill sets the terms.
Without legislation, they too would face a $13,500 price tag — and that is if they could get a group rate. If they are buying insurance on their own, coverage could easily cost $16,000
No denial of coverage
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s health care reform fact sheet offers two outrageous examples of just how easy it is for insurers to deny coverage today:
- Peggy Robertson: The Colorado mother of two was denied health coverage because she had a C-section in 2006. The insurance company told her if she got “sterilized” she would be eligible for coverage.
- Christina Turner: After being sexually assaulted in Florida, Turner followed her doctor’s orders and took a month’s worth of anti-AIDS medication as a precautionary measure. She never developed an HIV infection. Months later, when shopping for new health insurance coverage, Turner was repeatedly denied coverage because of the precautionary anti-HIV treatment she received after being raped.
Realignment of Medicare which has the Republican opposition literally foaming at the mouth.
What many reformers don’t seem to understand is that when the public plan begins to negotiate fees with providers in 2013, Medicare fees for some very expensive services will be significantly lower than they are today, while reimbursements to primary care doctors will be substantially higher.
Medicare already has announced plans to cut fees for CT scans and MRIs by as much as one-third and has proposed trimming fees to cardiologists by 6 percent next year. Meanwhile, it would hike fees for primary care physicians by 4 percent.
…
Over the next three years, Medicare will be realigning financial incentives to reward preventive care and management of chronic diseases, while reducing payments for overly aggressive tests and treatments that have no proven benefit — and penalizing hospitals that don’t pay enough attention to medical errors. In the process, Medicare will be conserving health care dollars while protecting patients from needless risks.
As President Barack Obama has promised, Medicare cuts can make health care safer and more affordable for everyone — including the upper middle class. Because most private insurers will mime Medicare’s efforts to reduce overpayment, the cost of care will come down for everyone.
Mahar makes a couple of other interesting points about the new legislation including this on the Senate opt-out.
…even if the Senate’s opt-out provision for states remains in the final health care reform bill, states will not opt out. It would be too difficult for politicians to try to explain to voters why they cannot have access to a government plan that will be able to offer comprehensive insurance for less than what they pay for private insurance.
She concludes
If there ever was a time to avoid the traps of perfectionism, it’s now. As the old saying goes, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
And there’s a lot that’s good in the bills coming out of the House and Senate. No, they’re not perfect, but they offer a path to even better reform in the future while improving the lives and health care outcomes for millions of Americans. And that is all to the good.
We need to encourage Harry Reid and the other Blue Dog Senators to get a backbone. One way to ease re-election fears might be to have some provisions kick-in sooner rather than later. Mahar doesn’t talk about time tables and I know that the health exchange and public option are set for 2013. I think some more research is in order.
First Look at the House Health Care Vote
A few days after the one year anniversary of Barack Obama’s election, the House of Representatives has succeeded in passing what pundits of many stripes are calling “sweeping reform.” I’m one of those sick political junkies who stayed up to watch the vote. 220 to 215. 39 Democrats voted against final passage while one Republican voted for. The magic number was 218.
Speaker Pelosi and the House Leadership. Photo from the New York Times.
I’ve been looking at the voting pattern posted on the New York Times “Inside Congress” webpage. There were four votes taken last night. Looking at Democrat Rick Boucher, an old friend from the mountains of Virginia in a district that voted for McCain and two Republicans, An Cao from New Orleans and Timothy Johnson from Illinois, is quite interesting.
On the Stupak Amendment that added language relating to abortion beyond that of the horrible Hyde Amendment, all three men voted party line and the amendment passed 240 to 194. The next vote was on the Republican substitute bill. Rick Boucher and Timothy Johnson voted against the Republican bill while An Cao voted for it. The substitute was defeated 258 to 176. (Speaker Pelosi didn’t vote.)
The third vote was to recommit the Democratic Bill. This was defeated 247 to 187 with Boucher and Johnson (joined by Republican John Duncan from Tennessee) voted against and An Cao voting for recommitment.On the vote for final passage, Boucher and Johnson voted against the Democratic bill while An Cao voted for it. The Senate Democrats should take a lesson from Rick and vote to end the Republican filibuster even if they vote against the final bill. And An Cao stood with his leadership on everything but final passage. (Snowe and Collins take note. ) Harry Reid needs only 50 Democratic votes for passage and Joe Biden can break the tie.
Chris Cillizaa makes an interesting observation in the Washington Post this morning.
8That’s the number of House Democrats voting against tonight’s health care bill who represent districts carried by President Barack Obama during the 2008 election.
Of the eight, Obama’s highest percentage came in Rep. Artur Davis‘ 7th district where he won 74 percent of the vote. Davis’ vote is rightly understood through a political lens as, despite the overwhelming support for Obama in his district, he is running for governor of a conservative-leaning state next November and wants to safeguard against attacks from Republicans.
Six of the remaining seven members — Reps. John Adler (N.J.), Brian Baird (Wash.), John Barrow (Ga.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Scott Murphy (N.Y.) and Glenn Nye (Va.) — represent districts where the President took 55 percent or less in 2008, making their decision to vote “no” strategically defensible
(The last Democratic member holding an Obama district to vote against the bill was Rep. Dennis Kucinich who, as we all know, is tough to predict.)
That means — for you non-math majors out there — that 31 of the 39 Democrats who voted against the bill represent seats won by Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) last fall.
Hats off to Speaker Nancy Pelosi for getting the bill passed. Ball is now passed to Harry Reid.
2009 Elections
Call me an apologist for the Democrats, but I know why Creigh Deeds lost in Virginia. He lost because Virginia voters are historically strange. Eight to 12 years of one party and they switch. When Charles Robb was elected Governor he was the first Democrat in 12 years. He was followed by two more Dems. Then there were 8 Republican years followed by 8 Democratic ones. See the pattern here. I think the swing has become shorter because people’s attention span has become shorter. I’ve said for years that Virginia needs to change this crazy one term and you’re out rule for governors. I think Tim Kaine could have been re-elected.
I’ll leave the analysis of Jon Corzine’s loss to others, but I think it had something to do with raising taxes and the unemployment rate in New Jersey. The subway news-sheet I read on my way to work yesterday advised that if you were looking for a job, don’t think about moving to New Jersey.
Most disappointing is the rejection of gay marriage by the Maine voters. As I have said about California’s Prop 8, I think it is wrong to let people vote on other people’s civil rights. This also shows why we need national protections beginning with an ending “don’t ask” for the military and the Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, this will probably make the Obama administration even more cautious.
But,
Democrats won a special election in New York State’s northernmost Congressional district Tuesday, a setback for national conservatives who heavily promoted a third candidate in what became an intense debate over the direction of the Republican Party.
This is the district which clearly showed Republican party differences.
The district has been a Republican stronghold for generations, and the party has represented parts of it since the 19th century.
The battle became one of the most closely followed races in the nation, drawing in some of the biggest forces in politics in both parties. Republicans who viewed the race as a test of the party’s most deeply held conservative principles — including Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska; Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a presidential hopeful; and grass-roots groups that have forcefully opposed Democratic economic and health care policies — rallied behind Mr. Hoffman.
Democrats threw muscle behind the race as well, eager to avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat as President Obama’s approval ratings have softened and efforts to portray them as the party of big government and deficit spending appear to be sticking. A win in the Republican-leaning 23rd Congressional District would provide Democrats with a welcome boost, while a loss would reinforce the notion that the party is struggling.
The seat became vacant after President Obama appointed its long-serving Republican congressman, John M. McHugh, as secretary of the Army.
But as you will recall
Leading conservative voices — including The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page and The Weekly Standard and the talk show personalities Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck — took on the Republican nominee, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, who supports gay rights and abortion rights and had embraced some Democratic economic policies like the federal stimulus package. They labeled her as too liberal.
The attacks on Ms. Scozzafava eventually took their toll, and she stunned her party over the weekend first by withdrawing from the race and then by urging her supporters to vote for Mr. Owens, a 60-year-old lawyer from Plattsburgh.
So despite the gloomy election news elsewhere, we can watch the Republicans fight some more. I have a feeling they will try to run against more moderate Republicans. Maybe some of them should try to save themselves by supporting health care reform. And if, as some have speculated, the Democrats are appointing these moderate Republicans to set up a Democratic win in the next election, the strategy worked in New York’s 23rd.
The stage is set for 2010.
Michelle as Catwoman
I know there is a lot of serious stuff to write about: The war in Afganistand, the progress of the health care bill, the election tomorrow, people who expected instant change when President Obama was elected, etc. etc.. But when the the last time the First Lady donned a costume to greet trick or treaters at the White House? I don’t think it has ever happened.
According to the White House Historical Association, Tricia Nixon was probably the first to hold a Halloween party in the White House. She invited kids to a party. No mention of Tricia donning a costume. The Fords and Carters linked Halloween to charitable giving to groups like UNICEF. Bush 1 held an anti-drug youth rally int 1989.
This appears to be the first all out White House party.
Pictures from Politico.com
The first family members took to the front steps for about half an hour, passing out treats including White House M&Ms, a sweet dough butter cookie from the White House pastry shop and dried fruit (cherries, apricots, pears, apples and papayas).
The children aged 6 to 14, some with younger siblings in tow, came from 11 area schools — five in the District, three in Maryland and three in Virginia chosen by the Department of Education. One toddle burst into tears upon seeing the president, who said “happy Halloween” to each child as they passed.
Also out front, red and yellow butterflies inside giant bubbles, two giant orange and black eyes peering out from first-floor windows, a giant black spider and cobwebs hanging over the North Portico, walking “trees” on stilts. Also Star Wars and other characters handing out candy. Most of the characters came from theatrical groups, including the Red Moon Theater in Chicago and D.C. companies.
The President stuck with tradition: No costume. There was also a party inside.
Inside, a couple hundred military families and White House staffers and their children roamed the first floor of the White House as an old-fashioned turntable played actual albums. Among those making the scene were Robert “Lord Vader” Gibbs and son Ethan; and Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice as Goofy.
As the pool was being ushered out, the president spoke briefly. He told the military families “We are so grateful to you,” especially those who are separated from family members. He thanked staffers and their children, at which point FLOTUS piped in, “They’re so cute!”
“They’re adorable,” POTUS said, “as is, by the way, my wife — a very nice-looking Cat Woman.”
But almost topping the First Lady was press secretary, Robert Gibbs.
The Joe Problem
I started thinking about the Democrats Joe Lieberman problem back when the President (who was really new then and trying to play nice) gave his blessing to allowing Joe, a McCain and other Republicans supporter, back into the Democratic Senate caucus. They also let him be the Chair of the Homeland Security committee. So now why is Joe going to vote with the Republicans to let them filibuster the health care bill. He claims he is opposed to the public option and worried about the deficit.
The other night Rachael Maddow had an interesting piece about Joe and Birch Bayh. Yesterday, Bayh flipped flopped around, but in the end said he will vote with the Democrats to let Health Care Reform come to the floor of the Senate. I hope he was scared of the ads that reform supporters would be running showing his wife on the board of directors of Wellpoint and graphs of how much money they made from the insurance companies.
But Joe is a different problem. As Nate Silver writes
The reason this is a little scary for Democrats is because the usual things that serve to motivate a Congressman don’t seem to motivate Joe Lieberman.
Would voting to filibuster the Democrats’ health care bill (if it contains a decent public option) endear Lieberman to his constituents? No; Connecticutians favor the public option 64-31.
Would it make his path to re-election easier? No, because it would virtually assure that Lieberman faces a vigorous and well-funded challenge from a credible, capital-D Democrat, and polls show him losing such a match-up badly.
Would it buy him more power in the Senate? No, because Democrats would have every reason to strip him of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.
Is Lieberman’s stance intended to placate the special interests in his state? Perhaps this is part of it — there are a lot of insurance companies in Connecticut — but Lieberman is generally not one of the more sold-out Senators, ranking 75th out of the 100-member chamber in the percentage of his fundraising that comes from corporate PACs.
So what does Harry Reid need to do? Stroke Joe’s ego more? Buy him a puppy as Nate Silver suggests? And how many times does Reid do this? Back to Nate
The other way that this is damaging to Democrats, of course, is that it may embolden an Evan Bayh or a Blanche Lincoln or a Ben Nelson to adopt Lieberman’s stance. None of these guys want to be the lone Democratic member to filibuster — but it’s much easier to defray individual responsibility on a procedural vote against your party when you have someone else joining you.
But while a Nelson or a Lincoln is liable to have a fairly rational set of concerns — basically, they want to ensure they get re-elected — it’s tough to bargain with people like Lieberman who are a little crazy. In certain ways, he resembles nothing so much as one of those rogue, third-bit Middle Eastern dictators that he’s so often carping about, capable of creating great anxiety with relatively little expenditure of resources, and taking equal pleasure in watching his friends and enemies sweat.
In other word: Joe Lieberman is not rational and is more than a little nuts. And he must be feeling great because his, little Joe Lieberman, is standing single handedly in the way of what is looking like an acceptable health care bill.
World Series
So the Phillies are off to a good start and I’ll be pulling for Pedro (the former Red Sox ace) to help the Phillies win tonight. There is a theory that Sox fans are watching the series hoping that the Phillies can beat the Yankees, that if the Phillies were playing the Angels we wouldn’t care so much. Could be true. But as Tony Mazzarotti wrote in today’s Boston Globe
The transformation of Rasheed Wallace is complete, the enemy of the people now serving as the man of the hour. As seamlessly as Wallace has joined the Celtics on the floor this season, he made a similarly fluid entry last night in his first home game at TD Garden.
In Boston, Rasheed now dresses in white.
“I didn’t know if the fans wanted to keep it personal and still call me those names or what,” Wallace mused in the wake of the Celtics’ 92-59 annihilation of the outmanned, overmatched and outclassed Charlotte Bobcats. “It was cool though.”
Cool, indeed. Cool as Wallace entered the game to chants of Sheeeeeeeeeeeeed with 4:06 remaining in the first quarter, cool as Wallace drilled his first two shots, both 3–pointers, helping the Celtics build a 22-11 lead in the opening quarter. Cool even as Wallace dressed in front of his locker following the game, when he donned a black sweat jacket bearing the name and logo of the Philadelphia Phillies, as sure a sign as any that he has embraced Boston as firmly as Boston already has embraced him.
‘Sheed, it seems, plays by the same rules many of you do. If he is not necessarily rooting for the Red Sox, he is at least rooting for whoever is playing the Yankees.
The Celtics, by the way, are 2-0.
So to Red Sox fans, the New York Yankees are still the evil empire.
But why is today October 29 and just the 2nd game of the Series is being played tonight? The answer is in provided by Tyler Kepner in a New York Times story from last Sunday. Some of the reasons are:
¶When baseball scheduled the World Baseball Classic for March 2009, the players wanted two more weeks of spring training games after its conclusion. So pushing the Classic later would have further delayed the start of the regular season, and the players would not have been ready if it had started sooner.
¶The calendar did not help. Except for the Sunday night opener, the schedule always begins on a Monday, and the first Monday of April 2009 was the sixth. Teams do not want to start the season with a weekend series, because they already draw well on weekends. Opening on a Monday allows teams to sell out a weekday game that would otherwise be a hard sell.
¶The idea of starting the regular season in late March and playing only in warm-weather cities and domes is considered too problematic to be realistic. If both teams in New York and Chicago open on the road, that means overlapping home dates later. And the teams in warm-weather cities and domes would complain about losing dates for later in the season, when they can sell more tickets than they can in late March and early April.
¶The idea of shortening the regular season from 162 games is unrealistic, because teams would not willingly give away moneymaking home dates.
So you have a combination of greed and the quirks of the calendar that will have fans in New York and Philadelphia freezing in their seats. And another thing: Why no day games?
Moving closer to Health Care Reform
Everyone on the Sunday talk shows yesterday optined that the health care reform effort was moving closer to passage.
“We’re entering the final stage, and everyone is maneuvering to get the best possible deal,” said Drew E. Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. “The odds of passing legislation are steadily moving up.”
The final bill will not be perfect, but I believe it will contain a public option of some kind. The other big questions are financing and affordability. The reason I think the bill will have a public option is because a friend my husband was talking to the other morning supports one. He is not a political activist, tends to be conservative, and is a veteran. He talked about the rise in premiums he had experienced and the fact that vets have now come to understand that they won’t lose their coverage under VA – or have to pay for it – but that others will gain the kind of health care they have. He thinks this is a good thing. And the opinion polls show others are moving his way.
I think there will be an opt out provision for the states, but, unlike the stimulus funding, the governors will not be able to “refuse” to implement the reforms at all. I think it will end up will a 3 to 5 year trial period after which a state could opt out or a similar period during which the insurance companies in a state would have to lower premiums or they would have to become part of the government provided health care.
There are a lot of details to negotiate. Like how to pay for reform. We will have to see if the President has, in the end, provided the weapon to defeat the bill . Is his 900 Billion cap going to mean a bad bill or no bill?
Howard Dean has a great feature on his health care reform webpage. The vote tracker allow one to sort for public option supporters. Dean, like President Obama, is not supporting a particular bill, but iw helping to keep an eye on the votes in support of the public option. His latest count is 218 house votes and 51 in the Senate. We need to work on those undecideds in the House, but it appears that if all Democratic caucus members vote against the filibuster, the Senate can then pass a bill with a public option. Go to his list and filter for undecided Democrats and if your Congressperson or Senator is on the list, give them a call.
Even John McCain now thinks Congress will pass a bill with some kind of public option.
“I think the Democrats have the votes, and in the House, Blue Dogs bark but never bite,” Mr. McCain said on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” using the nickname for conservative Democrats . “So I don’t think they have a problem over in the House side. In the Senate I think the Democrats are very aware that they don’t want a repeat of the Clinton failure in 1994. So I think it’s very likely they will get something through. But it’s not clear to me what it is.”
The Democrats need to forget the Republicans and get the votes in the party. Even Senator Ben Nelson appears to be moving toward support of some type of public option.
The remaining big pitfall is abortion and whether the bill has a provision to pay for the procedure under the public option. Right now, I have to say that will be a compromise point and reproductive choice will remain a choice only for those that can afford a choice.
Built to Last?
I’m probably being snarky because the Red Sox aren’t still playing and the Yankees are, but it appears that the New Yankee Stadium has issues.
According to an article in the New York Times
The concrete pedestrian ramps at the brand-new $1.5 billion city-subsidized Yankee Stadium have been troubled by cracks, and the team is seeking to determine whether the problems were caused by the installation, the design, the concrete or other factors, according to several people briefed on the problems.
The Yankees have hired an engineering company to take samples from the ramps — they ascend from field level to the stadium’s upper tiers, carrying thousands of people each game — to determine the cause and the extent of the problems as the team finishes its first season in the new stadium and prepares for what could be its first World Series there.
A spokeswoman for the team, Alice McGillion, called the cracks “cosmetic,” saying that they posed no safety issues because they did not affect the structural integrity of the ramps. She characterized the work to repair the problems as “routine remediation,” which she said was “usual in this kind of building or in any other building.”
“There is no evidence that there is any issue or problem with concrete or any material in the building,” she said.
Several people briefed on the problems said, however, that they would cost several million dollars to fix. The cracks, some as much as an inch wide and several feet long, are visible on the slate-gray walkways. Those with knowledge of the defects spoke on the condition of anonymity, as did others, because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.
Sorry, Alice. I don’t think I want to be around when a fan stubs a toe in a crack, falls and gets injured.
This being New York, there are questions about mob involvement and all, but the bottom line is
The Testwell [the company that tested the concrete] indictment, unsealed last October, charged that the company failed to perform some strength tests and billed clients for work that was never done at the stadium and roughly 100 other projects, including the Freedom Tower. When the charges were announced by the Manhattan district attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, city officials said the structures were believed to be safe, but might deteriorate sooner than expected.
Not built to last.
Not like Fenway which was built in 1912.
In 2002 the Red Sox were sold to John Henry, Tom Werner and Larry Lucchino. Prior to the sale of the team, there had been discussion of building a new Fenway Park. This ballpark was planned to have the same distinct features of Fenway Park, but with more modern and up to date amenities. However, the current owners of the Red Sox are committed to preserving and improving Fenway Park for the foreseeable future.
I can’t find the quote, but the team announced this spring they were done with renovation fro now and that Fenway should be good now for another hundred years. Doesn’t sound like the New Yankee Stadium will make it that long.
FortLeft 