The following link is to the Dem's website, and presents a pretty tough letter that Harry Reid wrote to Mitch McConnell: Leader2Leader.
(Thanks to Sarah who found it via Krugman's NYTimes Blog -- always worth reading.)
I've seen some suggestions that Nancy Pelosi believes Bart Stupak is bluffing when he says he has a dozen votes against the Healthcare bill if his anti-abortion demands aren't met. Clearly there's nothing she or Steny Hoyer can do for him in the immediate future in any case except promise him a separate vote on the issue, which the Senate would have to approve separately. Abortion issues are probably not subject to reconciliation since they are more regulatory than budgetary. He could demand a promise that the House take up his strong anti-abortion stance, but she could hardly promise him that either the House or the Senate would pass it as a stand-alone measure. As I said in a previous blog, any Dem voting against the Healthcare bill at this time risks being branded as the person who killed Democratic Healthcare (Kucinich and Capuano take note), and probably put the whole party and the President in the category of "losers." If the House can pass the bill without Stupak and his supporters (however many they may turn out to be), then he's a paper tiger. Let's hope that Pelosi and Hoyer are reading the cards correctly.
(The progressive website Talking Points Memo (TPM) has an article that speculates on who Stupak's supporters in the House may be: here's the LINK.)
Finally (at least for now): no day would be complete without the daily petty intolerance report:
High school cancels prom rather than let openly lesbian student attend (AP). I happened to read it: don't bother unless you're sure that more idiocy from Mississippi won't ruin your day. Why are people so nasty when they don't have to be???
Friday, March 12, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The Big Lies about Barney Frank
I've mentioned this before, but it can never be said too many times: One of the prime tools used by the Tea Partiers and the PTR is "the Big Lie": Repeat an untrue or imagined allegation enough times and people start to believe it. Hitler referred to the technique, but it is most associated with George Orwell and his book "1984" -- a satire of the totalitarian state, based on the former U.S.S.R. Do students still read "1984" or "Animal Farm" or even "Homage to Catalonia"? I've reread a few of Orwells works and I can say his clear thinking and writing are still a pleasure.
Anyway, as you might expect, the radical right -- there doesn't seem to be any "moderate right" these days -- has taken aim at Barney Frank, who happens to be my rep in Congress. Frank has certainly gotten their attention over the years by being an outspoken progressive on many issues, especially ones related to banking, since he is chair of the House Committee overseeing that industry. A loony from the Wall Street Journal editorial board named John Fund has attacked Frank for pushing what seems to be a ridiculously permissive voting-rights bill. The usual suspects Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh etc. have taken up the issue; here's a typical example from American Daughter. The only problem is that there is no such bill in either house of Congress or any sponsors for such a bill. Yes, it's the Big Lie: say anything or do anything to defeat people you don't like. Stalin would approve for sure. It's right up there with the Death Panels, Black Helicopters, and U.S. complicity in 9/11.
This is not to say the Democrats have never lied; it's just that lying is not a way of life for them. Liberals may occasionally be naive and loose with facts, but their hearts are with the vast majority of people; conservatives are also loose with the facts, but their hearts are invariably with the wealthy and powerful -- just look at the results from their years in power: tax breaks for the rich, de-regulation of corporations and banks, a Supreme Court with a solid majority and a Chief Justice that invariably sides with the top of the economic spectrum. Given a choice between two types of flawed political positions, I'll go with the one whose instincts and sympathies are on the side of most of us.
Anyway, as you might expect, the radical right -- there doesn't seem to be any "moderate right" these days -- has taken aim at Barney Frank, who happens to be my rep in Congress. Frank has certainly gotten their attention over the years by being an outspoken progressive on many issues, especially ones related to banking, since he is chair of the House Committee overseeing that industry. A loony from the Wall Street Journal editorial board named John Fund has attacked Frank for pushing what seems to be a ridiculously permissive voting-rights bill. The usual suspects Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh etc. have taken up the issue; here's a typical example from American Daughter. The only problem is that there is no such bill in either house of Congress or any sponsors for such a bill. Yes, it's the Big Lie: say anything or do anything to defeat people you don't like. Stalin would approve for sure. It's right up there with the Death Panels, Black Helicopters, and U.S. complicity in 9/11.
This is not to say the Democrats have never lied; it's just that lying is not a way of life for them. Liberals may occasionally be naive and loose with facts, but their hearts are with the vast majority of people; conservatives are also loose with the facts, but their hearts are invariably with the wealthy and powerful -- just look at the results from their years in power: tax breaks for the rich, de-regulation of corporations and banks, a Supreme Court with a solid majority and a Chief Justice that invariably sides with the top of the economic spectrum. Given a choice between two types of flawed political positions, I'll go with the one whose instincts and sympathies are on the side of most of us.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The calm before ... what?
This was a quiet weekend with the small exception of Rep. Eric Massa's (D, NY) resignation, which is a plus, since he was originally a "no" vote on healthcare reform.
The big crunch will involve "C-streeter" Bart Stupak and the anti-abortion contingent in the House. I simply don't see any easy argument that will change things. If you believe that an embryo, whether unimplanted, an hour old or a day old, is equivalent to a mature fetus or delivered baby, or mature person, then you are likely to vote against any bill that spends any dime of federal money on abortion under almost any accounting method. It is important for "choice" proponents to understand that the belief that a blastula of a hundred or so cells has a spirit or soul that makes it a human is a religious belief that you can't simply talk a person out of, any more than than you can simply tell that person that souls and God don't exist. Arguing about "church and state" will not cut it with people so committed to their religious beliefs.
Perhaps Rep. Stupak can be bought off by an offer from House Whip Steny Hoyer to have a separate reconciliation vote on abortion rules. The only thing that might make this offer at all attractive for Stupak is that he won't have to bear the burden of being "the person who killed healthcare" if it comes to that. I simply don't know how this will play out.
In the long run, the best way to keep this from happening again is to wage strenuous campaigns against candidates who make abortion their exclusive and deciding issue. Even if you believe in souls, the world is a complicated and dangerous place, there are a lot of good and vulnerable people out there, and abortion is only one way to die.
The big crunch will involve "C-streeter" Bart Stupak and the anti-abortion contingent in the House. I simply don't see any easy argument that will change things. If you believe that an embryo, whether unimplanted, an hour old or a day old, is equivalent to a mature fetus or delivered baby, or mature person, then you are likely to vote against any bill that spends any dime of federal money on abortion under almost any accounting method. It is important for "choice" proponents to understand that the belief that a blastula of a hundred or so cells has a spirit or soul that makes it a human is a religious belief that you can't simply talk a person out of, any more than than you can simply tell that person that souls and God don't exist. Arguing about "church and state" will not cut it with people so committed to their religious beliefs.
Perhaps Rep. Stupak can be bought off by an offer from House Whip Steny Hoyer to have a separate reconciliation vote on abortion rules. The only thing that might make this offer at all attractive for Stupak is that he won't have to bear the burden of being "the person who killed healthcare" if it comes to that. I simply don't know how this will play out.
In the long run, the best way to keep this from happening again is to wage strenuous campaigns against candidates who make abortion their exclusive and deciding issue. Even if you believe in souls, the world is a complicated and dangerous place, there are a lot of good and vulnerable people out there, and abortion is only one way to die.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Opting out of healthcare?
Today's NY Times has an interesting column by sociologist Paul Starr on trying to buy conservative/libertarian votes on healthcare by giving people the choice of opting out if they sign a 5-year waiver on buying into the the plan. You can read it HERE. In other words, if you sign this waiver you don't need to purchase insurance, but if you get sick within 5 years you can't buy in and expect your illness to be covered. Starr himself thinks that taking this option would be foolish, but he acknowledges that there is widespread opposition to making health insurance mandatory.
I'm not going to pick a fight with a sociologist on why citizens oppose the Democratic healthcare bill. Some of the opposition may be based on not liking to be coerced, or a distrust of a complicated and poorly understood bill, or some distrust of "big government" based on decades of PTR propaganda. I don't know exactly; maybe Prof. Starr does.
However, he is totally wrong if he thinks that any change in the bill short of removing 90% of its provisions would create bipartisan support. Opposition to the bill from the PTR is based on the desire to kill any legislation by the Obama administration, or Democrats in general, that might be popular and be viewed as a [political] success. That is why the PTR is opposing nearly every bill that they don't originate (and many appointments). The Republican leadership threatens to fillibuster nearly everything. If they can't get the required 41 votes to do so, and the bill might be popular, they eventually sign on so as not to be perceived as being merely obstructionist. We just saw that in the last jobs bill where more Republicans voted to fillibuster it than eventually voted against it. As Obama pointed out, they oppose a bill, then, later, show up at ribbon-cutting ceremonies for projects that the bill established.
I would like to discuss Starr's idea of an opt-out provision. Please send comments to the blog, and we'll get back to it later. Once again, here's the LINK.
I'm not going to pick a fight with a sociologist on why citizens oppose the Democratic healthcare bill. Some of the opposition may be based on not liking to be coerced, or a distrust of a complicated and poorly understood bill, or some distrust of "big government" based on decades of PTR propaganda. I don't know exactly; maybe Prof. Starr does.
However, he is totally wrong if he thinks that any change in the bill short of removing 90% of its provisions would create bipartisan support. Opposition to the bill from the PTR is based on the desire to kill any legislation by the Obama administration, or Democrats in general, that might be popular and be viewed as a [political] success. That is why the PTR is opposing nearly every bill that they don't originate (and many appointments). The Republican leadership threatens to fillibuster nearly everything. If they can't get the required 41 votes to do so, and the bill might be popular, they eventually sign on so as not to be perceived as being merely obstructionist. We just saw that in the last jobs bill where more Republicans voted to fillibuster it than eventually voted against it. As Obama pointed out, they oppose a bill, then, later, show up at ribbon-cutting ceremonies for projects that the bill established.
I would like to discuss Starr's idea of an opt-out provision. Please send comments to the blog, and we'll get back to it later. Once again, here's the LINK.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Response to some comments from Ted
Ted, as usual, has contributed several interesting comments -- on the last two blogs:
Nothing leads like leadership
What part of beneath contempt.
I agree pretty much with the things he has to say, but I'd like to make a few points. First of all, I don't think we need be that concerned about the few folks who aren't really interested in working, and would gladly trade a low-wage job for more free time. Most of these people are living in their parents' basements and mooching meals. It is difficult to live on under $20,000 per year; many hard-working grad students do it, though not because they are slackers and prefer it to having a decent job. As we all know, this recession has idled millions of workers who want to have a good life for themselves and their families; these are the ones we should care most about. Larry Summers may not understand their problems and desires, but I think it is safe to say that they would be very eager to take a job that pays their bills and gives them some disposable income. As Ted suggests, John Kyl doesn't care about the poor in any case, and is only latching on to Summers' argument in order raise himself from beneath contempt to being merely contemptible. (Don't get me started on Jim Bunning.)
As far as the ability of the Chinese to develop sophisticated green technologies, I have read that they are making good progress, both in developing a workforce trained in the appropriate skills and in supplying the ncecessary resources. They have been willing to license developed and developing technology from other countries to give them a leg up. If you want to read more, I suggest this article from the New Yorker (12/21/09): Letter From China.
Thanks Ted.
Nothing leads like leadership
What part of beneath contempt.
I agree pretty much with the things he has to say, but I'd like to make a few points. First of all, I don't think we need be that concerned about the few folks who aren't really interested in working, and would gladly trade a low-wage job for more free time. Most of these people are living in their parents' basements and mooching meals. It is difficult to live on under $20,000 per year; many hard-working grad students do it, though not because they are slackers and prefer it to having a decent job. As we all know, this recession has idled millions of workers who want to have a good life for themselves and their families; these are the ones we should care most about. Larry Summers may not understand their problems and desires, but I think it is safe to say that they would be very eager to take a job that pays their bills and gives them some disposable income. As Ted suggests, John Kyl doesn't care about the poor in any case, and is only latching on to Summers' argument in order raise himself from beneath contempt to being merely contemptible. (Don't get me started on Jim Bunning.)
As far as the ability of the Chinese to develop sophisticated green technologies, I have read that they are making good progress, both in developing a workforce trained in the appropriate skills and in supplying the ncecessary resources. They have been willing to license developed and developing technology from other countries to give them a leg up. If you want to read more, I suggest this article from the New Yorker (12/21/09): Letter From China.
Thanks Ted.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
What part of beneath contempt don't we understand?
Several news sources, including the Huffington Post, report the following quotes from Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, PTR whip:
[unemployment benefits dissuade people from job-hunting] "because people are being paid even though they're not working."
[Unemployment insurance] "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work"
"And the same thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here".
[COBRA = "Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act" enables families to continue their health insurance for up to 18 months after employment is terminated. It was passed under President Reagan by -- you guessed it -- reconciliation.]
So far, not a single example of a layed-off person who would rather collect a tiny fraction of his/her previous salary in unemployment benefits has been produced by PTR researchers, but they're still working on it.
Yes, that's why it's called the PTR = Party for The Rich. Their program is sometimes called LTEC = Let Them Eat Cake, or just simply Antoinette.
[unemployment benefits dissuade people from job-hunting] "because people are being paid even though they're not working."
[Unemployment insurance] "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work"
"And the same thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here".
[COBRA = "Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act" enables families to continue their health insurance for up to 18 months after employment is terminated. It was passed under President Reagan by -- you guessed it -- reconciliation.]
So far, not a single example of a layed-off person who would rather collect a tiny fraction of his/her previous salary in unemployment benefits has been produced by PTR researchers, but they're still working on it.
Yes, that's why it's called the PTR = Party for The Rich. Their program is sometimes called LTEC = Let Them Eat Cake, or just simply Antoinette.
Nothing leads like leadership
While it wasn't FDR-like, President Obama's firm hand in leading -- even dominating -- the healthcare "summit" last Thursday is beginning to reap rewards. More than half a dozen members of the House who voted against the plan last time around indicate that they are having second thoughts, and may vote for a Senate-like plan this time in order to get healthcare done.
There are many opportunities for the U.S. to move in progressive directions which will help the economy and bring back jobs. Healthcare is just one of them; green energy development is another, in which we are currently losing ground seriously to China. This is not your Chintzy-Unsafe-Toys gap, but the development of a significant new complex technology that we simply can't afford to sleep through. As usual, the PTR will fight a government "industrial policy", so Obama will have a chance to use some more of his newly-found semi-mojo.
Whoa, stand back.
There are many opportunities for the U.S. to move in progressive directions which will help the economy and bring back jobs. Healthcare is just one of them; green energy development is another, in which we are currently losing ground seriously to China. This is not your Chintzy-Unsafe-Toys gap, but the development of a significant new complex technology that we simply can't afford to sleep through. As usual, the PTR will fight a government "industrial policy", so Obama will have a chance to use some more of his newly-found semi-mojo.
Whoa, stand back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
