So here it is, almost halfway through this President's first term, and it's starting to become abundantly clear that there is no way Obama is going to pursue the same agenda that he ran on in 2008.
In fact, as the President announces a deal that even he agrees the majority of the American people do not support, and he prepares the Nation for the news that we're going to have to borrow money for the very tax cuts he said we couldn't afford a few weeks ago, it's starting to look like Obama isn't even going to pursue the same agenda he campaigned for in October.
Now it is true that a lot of the problem here is the President's-but it's also fair to say that we Progressives have failed to force the President, and certain reluctant Members of Congress, to govern in a way that promotes that agenda.
That's a real problem, and it needs a real solution; before we get done today I'll offer a suggestion that could be not only highly effective, and a lot of fun besides, but a great chance to release your artistic muse as well.
I took a couple of weeks off, as Thanksgiving and snow came around (a subject we'll address in a day or so), but we are all again occupied as lots of things we've been talking about either will or won't come to pass, and it seems like all that's happening all at once.
Today we'll take on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT); this because the Pentagon's top leadership just came out and reported that revocation of the policy, following a period of preparation, would be their preferred way to go.
There will be lots of others who will take on the question of what's right and wrong here, and exactly how implementation might occur; my interest is, instead, to focus on one little fact that makes all teh rest of the conversation a lot more relevant.
That is the fact that about 70,000 LBGT troops serve in the military today, DADT notwithstanding, and, that if it wasn't for DADT, almost 45,000 more troops would be serving that aren't today.
And that one little fact leads to today's Great Big Question: exactly how much military would 115,000 troops be, exactly?
Over the course of the past couple of weeks we've been talking about how the War On Social Security was about to get under way and what happens when countries choose to privatize their systems.
Today we take on another bite-sized chunk of economic analysis: how can you get to a situation where Social Security is financially stable for the next 75 years?
We'll describe some proposals that are out there-but the big focus of this conversation will be to look at one change that, all by itself, could not only solve the entire funding problem, but could actually allow us to lower the Social Security tax rate, immediately, and still achieve fiscal balance.
"Well, if that's such a bright idea" you might ask, "why haven't we adopted it already?"
That's a great question-and after you hear the proposal, you may well have explanations of your own.
So if you've been following my work lately, you know that there is a renewed effort underway to change Social Security, and that the fight officially began just this very morning.
Now what's supposed to happen is that a television ad buy sponsored by a Wall Street billionaire is supposed to get you enthused about cutting your own Social Security benefits in the future; this is the tip of a "disinformation iceberg" that is trying to get you to act, right now, because if you don't you will never, ever, ever, ever, see a single dime of Social Security when you get older.
I was on a "let's talk strategy" conference call today that laid out some ideas for the "next steps"; we'll be talking about that call over the next couple of stories...but for today, we're going to talk about something you can do that will bring the message right to your favorite Member of Congress.
It is my job to bring to you not just the news that took place, but the news that has yet to happen.
Today, that's exactly what we have.
There is a war coming to try to change Social Security from a social safety net to a "revenue stream" for certain corporate interests, and that war is set to begin Tuesday morning, according to information that was provided to me yesterday afternoon.
Follow along, and you'll be both forewarned and forearmed.
Miami, Florida, September 13, 2018 (FNS)-Facing pressure from voters to "do something" following the disaster caused by the privatization of Social Security, the White House today announced that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is awarding a $2 billion contract to the Halliburton Company for the purchase of 22,000 "cardboard condos" that will be installed in public parks around the Miami area in an effort to alleviate the problem of homelessness among the impoverished elderly.
"Having homeless senior citizens drag their appliance boxes all over the city reduces the community's aesthetic appeal and leads to complaints", said Halliburton spokesman Tendei Furlough. "The new modular design, combined with our ability to print attractive images on the outside of the boxes, guarantees both increased protection from winter weather and fewer complaints from affected neighborhoods."
FEMA's Director of Emergency Housing Resources Spike Fromula agreed: "We thought we had a real problem with homelessness in a number of our major cities after the Social Security safety net collapsed...but now, we think...well, we think we have a way to wrap the problem up in a neat little package."
It is about a week before early voting begins for a bunch of us around the country, and that means this may be one of the last times I have to convince you that, frustrated progressive or not, you better get your butt to a ballot box or a mail-in envelope this November, because it really does matter.
Now I could give you a bunch of "what ifs" to make my point, or I could remind you how we spent all summer watching oil gush into the Gulf, and how that came to be...but, instead, it's "Even More Current Event Day", and we're going to visit Hungary for a extremely real-world reminder of what can go wrong when the environmental cops are considered just too much of a burden by the environmental robbers-and if today's story doesn't scare you to death, I don't know what will.
It ain't Texas, but we will surely visit a Red River Valley...and you surely won't like what you're gonna see.
Brighton, Colorado (FNS)-Attorneys from the Republican Study Group (RSG) descended upon the 17th Judicial District courtroom of Judge John T Bryan today to present an amicus brief and associated oral arguments in order to prevent a settlement in a lawsuit related to an automobile accident in this Colorado city.
The intervening attorneys claim the settlement reached between the two parties to the accident is a "shakedown" because the plaintiff had not yet exhausted all possible legal remedies when the agreement was finalized, and because the agreement was executed in the presence of the plaintiff's brother, a well-known local attorney.
They hope Judge Bryan will decline to approve the settlement in today's hearing, and that he will order the parties to move forward to trial.
"What we have is government transferring property from one party, an admittedly unattractive one, to others, not based on preexisting laws but on decisions by one man, a car czar", said Crush Mimbaugh, attorney for the RSG, "and we are here today to protect all Americans from this legally sanctioned rape of an innocent driver."
I had a pretty strong sense that the New York State Republican Party was as messed up as the Democrats, only without the voter registration advantage or the bench of candidate possibilities.
With the Republican State Convention approaching, the party is plagued by infighting, short of money and struggling to assemble a competitive slate of statewide candidates for the fall, leaving many party leaders worried that they are poorly positioned to exploit what might be the most favorable political climate for New York Republicans in years.
The national party is so concerned that Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, traveled to Manhattan recently for an emergency meeting with Mr. Cox.
When Michael Steele needs to have a meeting that isn't about Michael Steele's own fading prospects...
It seems that many of those who are regular guests of this space are committed to a worldview based on some degree of reason and rationality.
That's a handy thing if the "Covert Alarm Locator Apparatus" in your Isaac Daniel® Compass Global 1000 GPS sneakers should happen to fail and you need to find your way back to where the rest of us are; sadly, not all voters are equipped with such a helpful worldview.
Luckily for them, there are lots of conservative "mouth organs" ready to fill the "information gap".
They send out lots of emails every day, spreading their Word, and as a public service I receive several of them; this to help keep track of just what's out there, exactly.
If you ever wondered why otherwise normal people believe some of the craziest things about "Obama's Secret Death Care And National Virgin Sacrifice Program", have a look at some of the things I get every single day, and it might all make a bit more sense.
LANGUAGE WARNING: Today's story is uncharacteristically blunt, and from this moment forward we will be using lots of inappropriate language in making our points.
It is by now fairly well known that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's White House Chief of Staff, had a bit of a blow-up with liberals who were ready to start running ads against "blue dog" Democrats who were working very hard to shut down the health care reform effort.
Now we're not gonna get in the middle of that argument today; instead, since we're finally getting a chance to talk, I figured me and Rahm could get a few other things out of the way that have been on everyone's mind for the past year or so.
First, a critique. Keep in mind that because we did not start at single-payer, the public option was the progressive proposal instead of the compromise. So now we are in a position where we need to compromise. That's politics. A strong robust public option can pass both houses and a comprehensive health care reform bill should be passed. Progressives need to stand strong and Democrats need to remember which party they belong to and quit siding with the Republicans/conservatives on this issue.
It's real simple: Either you want reform or you want a primary. Your choice.
The opt-out provision can be the compromise. It should be the compromise solution and it isn't complicated. All the opt-out provision does is it allows states to "opt out" of the public option if they do not wish to take part.
So the new idea seems to be a public option offered at a national level, but with states having the right to opt out - that is, make it not available to their own residents.
At first blush, that sounds good. It's true that the states most likely to opt out will probably be small states that really need the competition. But many states, with probably a majority of the population, would opt in. And if the public option works well, there will soon be pressure on politicians in the others to do the same.
I guess there's a possible issue of principle: if states can opt out of one component of reform, why not all? But I haven't noticed principles playing much role in this process! And the idea of putting red-state governors on the spot, having to decide whether to deny their voters cheaper policies, definitely has some appeal.
I emphasized that last part because that is the key portion of this provision which could be our greatest asset.
The point is that it would be good for the Democrats to put the GOP in this position. If they don't want the public option (or what they call "socialized medicine" and "government-run health care") they can explain that to the citizens of their state instead of disrupting the national debate. States like New York would surely welcome the public option. But the red state governors would be put in a position where they would either have to accept the public option or tell their citizens that the public option won't be offered to them because they would rather put politics above their best interests.
This is not a bad provision. It's a lot better than "triggers" or any other past compromise proposal. Because the reality is that there probably won't be anyone who, as governor, would want to kill the public option in their state out of fear that they would lose re-election as a result.
One of the common critiques of the Republican Party is that they have gotten away from Republicans like Barry Goldwater or even Ronald Reagan. Instead of being for the Republican Party, they are instead a front for the conservative movement. It has worked in the past, but it only works so long and so often. With such a focus on conservatism (especially neo-conservatism), you are going to alienate certain moderates that consider themselves Republicans but aren't welcomed into a party whose leaders only want conservatives.
The NRCC has posted a story from Human Events on its website that reads, "Scozzafava Too Liberal for New York Conservatives." The piece highlights conservative outrage over Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava running on the Working Families Party line in the past, or as the piece called the WFP, "a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACORN."
Now, with the special election for McHugh's seat likely to be held November 3, will Scozzafava become the first Republican U.S. House hopeful to run with the ballot line of the Working Families Party -- whose co-founders include veteran leftist organizers Dan Cantor and Bob Master, the United Auto Workers and ACORN?
When I mentioned the endorsement of the WFP in the House race, Scozzafava spokesman Matt Burns told me "there has been no discussion of this." Asked about the party's ties to ACORN, Burns said that had Scozzafava been in Congress during the vote last week, "she would have voted to defund ACORN." He added that she has "straight As" from the National Rifle Association and voted against Democratic Gov. David Paterson's "bloated" budget this year (Burns conceded there were other issues on which the Republican has problems with conservatives in her party: she is pro-abortion, voted for gay marriage and, while not endorsing the controversial "card check" provision in the Employee Free Choice Act, she does support "reform in workers' ability to organize" -- a stand not too different from that of AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka when he said he could support EFCA without card check).
Regarding Scozzafava's ties to the WFP and the recent attacks from Hoffman and the Conservative Party, Burns and other Republicans in upstate New York reminded me that this is a "first," that since 1998, more than eighty Republican candidates have sought office running with both the Conservative and WFP ballot lines.
"Yes, and when I have learned about candidates who have the Conservative Party endorsement and then allow themselves to be corrupted by accepting the Working Families endorsement, I try to strip them of our ballot line," New York Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long told me, "Running with the WFP and our line is totally unacceptable."
...
Given the Working Families Party's ties to ACORN and the furor over tax dollars to the community action colossus, it will be interesting to watch whether Dede Scozzafava pursues their endorsement once again.
While I would love to see the Working Families Party endorse someone else, I don't really see why the NRCC would endorse this piece by posting it on their website nor do I see the logic of Republicans jumping on board with this. The Working Families Party is a ballot line. If Scozzafava has it, that means no one else has it. She gets the votes on that line. Who wouldn't want that?
But this willingness to essentially throw their candidate under the bus could come back to bite the Republicans. They are already facing heat from conservatives for backing Scozzafava and the Conservative Party in New York has gone with their own candidate, Doug Hoffman. There are duels going on between conservatives and conservative Republicans. Some Republicans support Scozzafava, but others are siding with Hoffman based on ideology. If that holds up heading into this election, it could be trouble for both.
The state that was well represented in the "nay" column? New York. Four New York congressmen voted against the resolution and a fifth, Congressman Eliot Engel, voted present.
Why did these four oppose it? Perhaps Congressman Maffei put it best in his statement:
It does not promote civility to have a party line vote and spend an afternoon debating whether Mr. Wilson's apology for what he said during the President's address last week is 'good enough.' Clearly, Mr. Wilson thoroughly embarrassed himself. And while I disagree with Mr. Wilson and I strongly support the President, I think we should be moving on and not piling on. As Voltaire wrote, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' We all agree Mr. Wilson's behavior was inappropriate, now it is time to get back to work.
Speaking as a blogger, I think we did pile on in this situation. It was nice that we were able to raise money for Wilson's opponent, Democratic candidate Rob Miller. But Wilson raised money too. While we did mobilize for Miller, the right followed and did the same thing for Wilson. That was to be expected. They weren't going to hang him out to dry in a district that he came close to losing last time to Miller.
It is time to get back to work.
Congressman Massa also issued a statement on this vote:
"My vote against formally reprimanding Rep. Wilson is based on my belief that we should be doing more important things now that Congress is back in session," said Congressman Eric Massa. "I strongly disapproved of Joe Wilson's outburst last week, but I think it's more important for us to be working on solutions rather than voicing more objections to something that happened almost a full week ago. The issues facing the American people are more important than myself, Rep. Wilson, or President Obama and I think we owe it to the public to continue working for them right now."
Out of the four who voted, I will say this about Massa. Massa has shown during his time in office that he has no time for partisan politics. Some of the bigger media outlets always try to get his thoughts on various issues, whether it's why he hadn't endorsed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand or his thoughts on the gubernatorial race next year in New York. So it didn't surprise me when he voted against this resolution.
Now that it's out of the way and some members of the Democratic leadership got what they wanted, we can get back to the people's business.
After President Barack Obama's speech to Congress, Louisiana Congressman Charles Boustany, a cardiothoracic surgeon, gave the Republican rebuttal.
You can read the whole speech here. Let's take a look at it one segment at a time.
"Republicans are pleased that President Obama came to the Capitol tonight. We agree much needs to be done to lower the cost of health care for all Americans. On that goal, Republicans are ready - and we've been ready - to work with the President for common-sense reforms that our nation can afford.
"Afford is an important word. Our country is facing many challenges. The cost of health care is rising. Federal spending is soaring. We're piling huge debt on our children. And families and small businesses are struggling through a jobless recovery, with more than 2.4 million private-sector jobs lost since February.
"It's clear the American people want health care reform, but they want their elected leaders to get it right. Most Americans wanted to hear the President tell Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the rest of Congress that it's time to start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality. That's what I heard over the past several months in talking to thousands of my constituents.
We all can agree that health care costs are high. It is a fact that the United States spends more on health care than any other nation in the world. Yet, our quality of care does not correspond with the money we are paying for that care and that is without millions of those who are uninsured who do not have access to such care.
Health care reform is about costs. But it is also about improving access to health care and insurance. Not mentioning that shows where the Republican mindset is on this issue. For them, it's all about selective fiscal conservatism. It was okay to spend billions (perhaps into the trillions now) on the war effort in Iraq. But it is not okay to spend that money on your own citizens to make sure they have the best access to health care.
"Replacing your family's current health care with government-run health care is not the answer. In fact, it'll make health care much more expensive. That's not just my personal diagnosis as a doctor or a Republican; it's the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office - the neutral scorekeeper that determines the cost of major bills.
Obviously, the Republicans haven't been listening. A single-payer system - which is where we should have started with in this discussion - would create that government-run system they talk about. The public option? Not so much.
The Republicans are trying to scare families into opposing reform. They are trying to say that the government is going to move in and replace your health care. That is not what the public option will do. The public option is there to provide an opportunity for those without insurance to get insurance. That is why the public option will exist and that is why a public option is necessary.
"Let's also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance. Unfortunately, the President disagrees.
This was a concept pushed by 2008 Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. It was dismissed then and it will be dismissed now. The reasons are many. For one, allowing this would create a consumer protection mess. The Republicans wouldn't mind that (see financial crisis) but when you are talking health insurance, it's not a good thing.
Also, as the New America Foundation showed last year, premiums would go up, benefits would decrease and more people would become uninsured over time. So instead of serving as reform, this would create more of a problem.
Altogether, Boustany mentioned lowering the cost of health care five times in his speech. He talked about improving quality. But not once in his speech did he mention increasing access to health care or insuring more Americans. The cost of health care is a problem. The quality is also a problem. But providing more and better access to health care is also a problem and Boustany and the Republicans failed to address that, which was a glaring omission in their poorly constructed rebuttal.
Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) crossed a line tonight. While President Barack Obama was debunking some myths about health care, including the claim by some Republicans that health care reform will apply to illegal immigrants.
When President Obama was setting the record straight, Congressman Wilson decided he couldn't contain himself.
Apparently, Wilson's actions weren't tolerated by many, if anyone.
He has issued an apology and has called the White House to offer an apology.
"This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility."
When I heard it, I was shocked. I couldn't believe that someone would yell out during a presidential address in Congress like that. It's one thing to do it in these town halls. It's another to do it, as a member of the House of Representatives, to the President of the United States.
The President deserves better than that. The House of Representatives deserves better too.
So it's the day of the big speech, Mr. President, and we got trouble with a capital "T" right here in Health Care City.
What are you gonna do? Do we follow the traditional Democratic Party legislative process of passing...something...at any cost, assuming the entire time that the Left and the Netroots will "go along with the program", or is there a risk that the calculus doesn't work as well today as it did in 1994 and 1996?
Well, lucky for you, I'm a fake consultant, and I know a few things about your "target market", so before you answer that question...we need to talk.
Congresswoman Louise Slaughter has made it clear why she won't host health care town hall meetings. She believes that the town halls have been nothing but forums for protesters and those who only want to disrupt and misinform the public.
The powerful Democrat said she held meetings during the health care debate of 1993 but is concerned about public safety this time. During a meeting of the Democrat and Chronicle editorial board, she referred to a town hall meeting with President Barack Obama in New Hampshire in which a man brought a gun.
"I think it's a way to disseminate misinformation," Slaughter said. "They're not debating things that are in the bill."
...
Reform of the system has attracted great public interest and caused rumors about the bill, many of which are not true.
"The idea that any American citizen would believe that their country would line up old people and do away with them is so, it's embarrassing that Americans would believe that," Slaughter said.
Slaughter remembers the debate over health care during the Clinton administration and said that Democrats are no more prepared for the opposition now than they were 14 years ago.
"We simply can't control any message anywhere," she said. "We are so big on transparency, let's write it all down, let's make sure it's all up on the Internet, knowing full well ... that people are going to pick out something that isn't there."
The right-wing is trying to take advantage of everything Democrats say, even safe ones like Slaughter. In a recent radio interview, Slaughter said the following:
The video was posted on Breitbart, a conservative website. Now, Politico has picked up on the misinformation by pushing the claim that Slaughter saying "won't give these people a forum" was a message intended for her constituents, which is far from the truth and distorts reality. The intent was clear: Slaughter will not give a forum to the conservative lunatics whose only goal is to disrupt, not debate.
Yet, this is an outright distortion that is exactly the type of misinformation Slaughter is talking about. The same people that are responsible for this distortion are also the ones distorting the facts on the health care reform bill and on health care reform in general. Coincidence? Definitely not.
I am going to make something clear: I, along with many other Americans, are sick of these "concerned citizens" who stand up and ask questions that are meant to pose as legitimate questions but really are questions fed to them by Republicans, conservatives and the tea party organizers to shift the debate to their side instead of taking a serious look at health care reform.
So, here's the deal: You stand up and ask a question, I look into you. Period.
"On page 30 of that bill, you call it a committee, you call it a commission, you call it a death panel. Somebody is making a decision for my health, and I don't want that."
So who is Ms. Tillinghast?
She is a former Kodak executive who would not be impacted by the health care bill. After all, if she has private health insurance, she can keep that insurance. The goal isn't to target people like Ms. Tillinghast. The goal is to target people who don't have health insurance coverage.
Ms. Tillinghast also is a Republican donor, having given $1,450 to Republican candidates and committees in 2004 and 2006. She gave $200 to the George W. Bush presidential campaign in 2004, $250 to the RNC in 2006 and made two $500 contributions to the NRCC in 2006. Locally, she hasn't given much. She did make a $100 contribution to Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks, a Republican.
It is one thing to be a real, concerned citizen who has serious questions about the bill. Those people do exist. It's another thing when your question is derived from a desire to derail reform for political gain.
There are a lot of myths about health care reform. Part of the problem is that Republicans have made it their goal to oppose President Barack Obama at all costs. They do not care about reform. And to be blunt, they do not care about bettering America.
Unless, of course, they are the ones in power to "better America."
