Blue Dog Democrats, generally conservative and mostly from Southern and Western states, appear to working almost as hard to kill health care reform as the Republicans. Hiding behind a mantle of fiscal conservatism, they are showing political cowardice and indebtedness to contributors. Before you know it they'll be quoting the Lewin Group, the GOP's favorite source of health care and insurance reform information. The Lewin Group, funded by United Healthcare Group is hardly an unbiased source. This is the same United Healthcare that paid a $400 million settlement in January of this year over charges of manipulating the costs of health care insurance. Full disclosure, they are also my insurance carrier.
United Healthcare's interests in maintaining the status quo is understandable as they are in the business to make money not provide health care. Members of Congress, on the other hand, are there to serve the people, not mind the interests of corporations. Any arguments that a public option would hurt private industry are completely specious unless the politician is also profiting from the current mess.
Perhaps what motivates the Blue Dogs is a lack of political courage. Rather than weathering a few political attacks and delivering for the nation, they are prepared to buckle so they won't be called a "Nancy Pelosi puppet" by their opponent in the next general election. What the Blue Dogs don't realize is that if they ruin health care for the people of this country they will never make it through the primary. This will become their political Waterloo if they kill health care and insurance reform.
Starting today, this column will maintain a health care watch. Republicans are expected to continue to be the party of no, offer no solutions and generally obfuscate. They are the party of the corporation, they are only standing up for their interests. The Blue Dogs, on the other hand, appear afraid of standing up for the interests of their constituents.
The Democratic leaderships commitment to reform must also be questioned. Why is Max Baucus (D-Montana), seemingly the Democratic Senator most resistant to reform, leading the committee to develop the Senate plan?
What is really preventing this nation from moving forward with health care reform? Politicians appear to be motivated by two primary factors: money and votes. Which will the Blue Dogs choose?
My own congressman, Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), will be the first name on the watch list along with Senator Baucus. He may be reached at his Washington office at (202) 225-6401 and at his Asheville, NC office at (828) 252-1651 or at http://shuler.house.gov/zipauth.htm
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Where Were Our Leaders?
On the same day that it was revealed that the CIA had destroyed 92 tapes of interrogation of detainees, nine (9) secret legal opinions of the Bush (mis)Administration were revealed by the Justice Department. Taken together, these reveal a culture of lawlessness, and contempt for the Constitution and the basis of common law.
George Bush apparently claimed powers not seen since King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. In addition, his administration's obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence made Nixon's men look like a bunch of schoolgirls.
First the destruction of evidence. The CIA's torture tapes have been the source of numerous lawsuits filed by the ACLU and other groups trying to penetrate the wall of secrecy of the Bush (mis)Administration. At first denied to exist, we now find that 92 of these tapes were destroyed. If the destruction of 92 pieces of evidence is not a sign of knowingly committing wrongdoing, what is?
More frightening than the destruction of evidence, are the purported legal opinions under which the Bush-ites operated. To catalog these rulings here would be prohibitive, but just this one quote is horrifying enough, "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully." In other words, dissent would be suppressed. Other opinions swept aside the Posse Comitatus Act, suggested that Congress had no power to limit the president, justified warrant-less arrests and domestic spying. In essence, these rulings effectively suspended the U.S. Constitution.
To believe that no one in Congress, that no one in the Justice Department, that no one at all was aware of what was in these memos strains credulity. Everyone was informed. This was official operating policy. Where was the outcry? Members of Congress, such as Nancy Pelosi, are now hiding behind the idea that to have blown the whistle would have been a violation of national security.
Subversion of the Constitution is a violation of national security. Would that politicians were as interested in preserving the principles of our nation as they are at preserving their political careers. All those who knew and did nothing: treason would seem to be the appropriate charge.
And where were the Republicans in all this? Bush, after all, was a member of their own party. It was their duty, especially as the party in power at the time, to stop him. Instead, they acted with complicity. To hear some off them howl now that they are out of power that they are concerned about the Constitution is just sheer hypocrisy. Where were they when the country needed them?
This aggression must not stand. Leaders of this nation have committed crimes against WE, THE PEOPLE. Hearings and commissions are not enough. They must be held accountable. Otherwise, the Constitution must be viewed as it has become, a nice fiction that we once made real. What hath George Bush wrought?
George Bush apparently claimed powers not seen since King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. In addition, his administration's obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence made Nixon's men look like a bunch of schoolgirls.
First the destruction of evidence. The CIA's torture tapes have been the source of numerous lawsuits filed by the ACLU and other groups trying to penetrate the wall of secrecy of the Bush (mis)Administration. At first denied to exist, we now find that 92 of these tapes were destroyed. If the destruction of 92 pieces of evidence is not a sign of knowingly committing wrongdoing, what is?
More frightening than the destruction of evidence, are the purported legal opinions under which the Bush-ites operated. To catalog these rulings here would be prohibitive, but just this one quote is horrifying enough, "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully." In other words, dissent would be suppressed. Other opinions swept aside the Posse Comitatus Act, suggested that Congress had no power to limit the president, justified warrant-less arrests and domestic spying. In essence, these rulings effectively suspended the U.S. Constitution.
To believe that no one in Congress, that no one in the Justice Department, that no one at all was aware of what was in these memos strains credulity. Everyone was informed. This was official operating policy. Where was the outcry? Members of Congress, such as Nancy Pelosi, are now hiding behind the idea that to have blown the whistle would have been a violation of national security.
Subversion of the Constitution is a violation of national security. Would that politicians were as interested in preserving the principles of our nation as they are at preserving their political careers. All those who knew and did nothing: treason would seem to be the appropriate charge.
And where were the Republicans in all this? Bush, after all, was a member of their own party. It was their duty, especially as the party in power at the time, to stop him. Instead, they acted with complicity. To hear some off them howl now that they are out of power that they are concerned about the Constitution is just sheer hypocrisy. Where were they when the country needed them?
This aggression must not stand. Leaders of this nation have committed crimes against WE, THE PEOPLE. Hearings and commissions are not enough. They must be held accountable. Otherwise, the Constitution must be viewed as it has become, a nice fiction that we once made real. What hath George Bush wrought?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
What Obama Didn't Say
Last night, February 9, 2009, Barack Obama held a press conference in the East Room of the White House that was remarkable. What he said was interesting enough, but it was what he did not say that was even more noteworthy.
The whole event, which lasted one hour, was a welcome change from the past eight years. Speaking in complete sentences and actually answering questions, rather than blithering platitudes such as "Freedom's on the march," Obama gave thoughtful, coherent answers that were direct and complete. Spending seven minutes answering one question demonstrated that a different approach is being taken with the media. He even called on Helen Thomas.
Speaking of Helen Thomas, this is where what Obama didn't say comes into the picture. In general, the press conference was marked by a forthright approach that did not try to sugar coat things. Using phrases such as "permanent recession," he did not avoid the dire circumstances of the moment. However, it was with a question by Helen Thomas, the maven of the White House press corps who Bush avoided out of fear, that Obama appeared to dissimulate. Thomas asked a multi-part question related to the Middle East and at the end inquired as to whether "any nation" in the Middle East had nuclear weapons. Obama answered the bulk of the question and ignored the final part about nukes. Throughout the evening he routinely answered a number of multi-part questions, taking his time to address each sub-question. But with the question by Thomas, he avoided the question even when she persisted with a follow-up.
In not answering that one question, Obama slipped. His only alternative, I believe, was to lie. By not categorically denying that there were nations in the Middle East that had nuclear weapons, he appeared to reveal there are. Who could it be? Technologically, there are only two nations in the region that seem anywhere near capable: Iran and Israel. It is unlikely that Iran has developed nuclear weapons because the moment they do they will almost assuredly tell the world. Israel, on the other hand, has long been rumored to have this capacity. Obama seemingly verified this.
There was one other question that was more notable for what he did not say than what he did say in response. In reference to a question concerning trying members of the Bush Administration for crimes, in which he was asked if he would guarantee no prosecutions for them, Obama gave a very interesting response. He did not categorically state that there would be no prosecutions. He talked about following evidence and the rule of law. He seemed to imply that if Congress or the Justice Department were to proceed with investigations and prosecutions, he would not interfere. He added his usual line about moving forward instead of backwards. However, he preceded this statement with the phrase, "... in general, ...". The "in general," bit of this phrase is the crucial part. Linguistically he is stating that he agrees with what follows the "in general," but that he excepts what preceded it. In effect, he is prepared to let prosecutions proceed.
I willingly admit that I may be reading too much into what he did not say. However, Obama appears to choose, and use, his words very carefully. To the other questions he gave precise, in depth answers. Only in these two questions did he avoid a direct answer. In this sense, what he did not say was far more noteworthy than what he did say.
The whole event, which lasted one hour, was a welcome change from the past eight years. Speaking in complete sentences and actually answering questions, rather than blithering platitudes such as "Freedom's on the march," Obama gave thoughtful, coherent answers that were direct and complete. Spending seven minutes answering one question demonstrated that a different approach is being taken with the media. He even called on Helen Thomas.
Speaking of Helen Thomas, this is where what Obama didn't say comes into the picture. In general, the press conference was marked by a forthright approach that did not try to sugar coat things. Using phrases such as "permanent recession," he did not avoid the dire circumstances of the moment. However, it was with a question by Helen Thomas, the maven of the White House press corps who Bush avoided out of fear, that Obama appeared to dissimulate. Thomas asked a multi-part question related to the Middle East and at the end inquired as to whether "any nation" in the Middle East had nuclear weapons. Obama answered the bulk of the question and ignored the final part about nukes. Throughout the evening he routinely answered a number of multi-part questions, taking his time to address each sub-question. But with the question by Thomas, he avoided the question even when she persisted with a follow-up.
In not answering that one question, Obama slipped. His only alternative, I believe, was to lie. By not categorically denying that there were nations in the Middle East that had nuclear weapons, he appeared to reveal there are. Who could it be? Technologically, there are only two nations in the region that seem anywhere near capable: Iran and Israel. It is unlikely that Iran has developed nuclear weapons because the moment they do they will almost assuredly tell the world. Israel, on the other hand, has long been rumored to have this capacity. Obama seemingly verified this.
There was one other question that was more notable for what he did not say than what he did say in response. In reference to a question concerning trying members of the Bush Administration for crimes, in which he was asked if he would guarantee no prosecutions for them, Obama gave a very interesting response. He did not categorically state that there would be no prosecutions. He talked about following evidence and the rule of law. He seemed to imply that if Congress or the Justice Department were to proceed with investigations and prosecutions, he would not interfere. He added his usual line about moving forward instead of backwards. However, he preceded this statement with the phrase, "... in general, ...". The "in general," bit of this phrase is the crucial part. Linguistically he is stating that he agrees with what follows the "in general," but that he excepts what preceded it. In effect, he is prepared to let prosecutions proceed.
I willingly admit that I may be reading too much into what he did not say. However, Obama appears to choose, and use, his words very carefully. To the other questions he gave precise, in depth answers. Only in these two questions did he avoid a direct answer. In this sense, what he did not say was far more noteworthy than what he did say.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Saved (Momentarily) by Incompetence
In failing to pass the bail-out/give-away to Wall Street, the House of Representative stumbled, at least momentarily, into carrying out the will of the people. This failure is most noteworthy, not for its effect on the economy, but for its stunning defeat in an era when the final votes are a foregone conclusion.
Cowed by fear of voters so close to the election, the House members voted in whatever way would benefit them back in the home district. A few dogmatic sorts on both sides, for completely different reasons, banded together with those afraid of their constituents, and the "Peevish 12," who apparently changed their votes at the last minute because their feelings were hurt. This group formed the nucleus of those who voted "no." For the time being we are saved.
One might reasonably argue with analysis that suggests the failure of the give-away is a necessarily good and saves us. However, what seems inarguable is that the bill failed not because our representatives did not desire to turn over $700 billion to $1trillion to the greedy, incompetent miscreants that caused this alleged crisis, it is that they were unable to do it in a way that satisfied their own needs.
But do not rest easy. Those who are bent to steal all of the common wealth of the nation have only a little while longer to pillage before the worst administration in history is out of office. The politicians in Congress, the worst that money can buy, will now be called onto the rug for their attempted display of independence. A bill will eventually be passed and you can be assured that the details will show who really pulls our leaders strings.
We cannot expect the momentary display of incompetence to save us forever. Usually the incompetence of politicians works against us (e.g. the failure of the Democrats to defeat the Republicans in every election they have blown over the years). Soon the incompetent will rise to their usual level.
Certainly the Democrats are trying. What possesses this bunch of spineless, weak-willed, alleged liberals, that keeps them toadying up to, and voting for the policies of the Bush Administration? If the Democrats had any competence as a party at all they would refuse to go along with anything proposed by the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration, wrong on almost everything; Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, Patriot Act, energy policy, human rights, etc., suddenly is about to be given a blank check. If the Democrats have any ability to see past trying to blow another election or have any concern for the people they claim to represent, they will refuse to accept this bail-out/give-away. If they truly want to lead this country and represent the people they should demand equity ownership of any corporation participating in this action. Further, any money that goes out should be loaned, with interest. We're talking about bankers, they should understand interest. Finally, if the government is going to get into the banking business it should at least be smart about it. Rather than overpaying for assets, the government, as the representative of "We the People," should dictate terms just like good capitalist bankers do, and pay pennies on the dollar for these assets. That's the way the free market would operate if the situations were reversed. To do otherwise is to allow theft from the public.
Time, for once, to be saved by competence. What of the odds of that? I don't know. Let's bet $700 billion.
Cowed by fear of voters so close to the election, the House members voted in whatever way would benefit them back in the home district. A few dogmatic sorts on both sides, for completely different reasons, banded together with those afraid of their constituents, and the "Peevish 12," who apparently changed their votes at the last minute because their feelings were hurt. This group formed the nucleus of those who voted "no." For the time being we are saved.
One might reasonably argue with analysis that suggests the failure of the give-away is a necessarily good and saves us. However, what seems inarguable is that the bill failed not because our representatives did not desire to turn over $700 billion to $1trillion to the greedy, incompetent miscreants that caused this alleged crisis, it is that they were unable to do it in a way that satisfied their own needs.
But do not rest easy. Those who are bent to steal all of the common wealth of the nation have only a little while longer to pillage before the worst administration in history is out of office. The politicians in Congress, the worst that money can buy, will now be called onto the rug for their attempted display of independence. A bill will eventually be passed and you can be assured that the details will show who really pulls our leaders strings.
We cannot expect the momentary display of incompetence to save us forever. Usually the incompetence of politicians works against us (e.g. the failure of the Democrats to defeat the Republicans in every election they have blown over the years). Soon the incompetent will rise to their usual level.
Certainly the Democrats are trying. What possesses this bunch of spineless, weak-willed, alleged liberals, that keeps them toadying up to, and voting for the policies of the Bush Administration? If the Democrats had any competence as a party at all they would refuse to go along with anything proposed by the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration, wrong on almost everything; Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, Patriot Act, energy policy, human rights, etc., suddenly is about to be given a blank check. If the Democrats have any ability to see past trying to blow another election or have any concern for the people they claim to represent, they will refuse to accept this bail-out/give-away. If they truly want to lead this country and represent the people they should demand equity ownership of any corporation participating in this action. Further, any money that goes out should be loaned, with interest. We're talking about bankers, they should understand interest. Finally, if the government is going to get into the banking business it should at least be smart about it. Rather than overpaying for assets, the government, as the representative of "We the People," should dictate terms just like good capitalist bankers do, and pay pennies on the dollar for these assets. That's the way the free market would operate if the situations were reversed. To do otherwise is to allow theft from the public.
Time, for once, to be saved by competence. What of the odds of that? I don't know. Let's bet $700 billion.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Requiem for the 4th Amendment
Today, July 10, 2008 the Telecom Immunity/FISA Bill passed the Senate 69-28 and was signed into law by George Bush. The bill, which if there was truth in naming, would be called the Evisceration of the Fourth Amendment Bill, codifies the ability of the government to snoop wholesale into our lives.
What the bill also does is provide the most tangible victory yet for al-Qaeda. The Bush Administration, with the help of a collaborating Congress, has trampled upon the very principles that founded America. If there has ever been a victory for terrorism it is undermining the very values which the nation purports to uphold.
Bush has often stated that "freedom is on the march." Unfortunately, it needs to be on the run. On the run from would be monarchs and the spineless opposition. Will there be no end to the attack on our freedoms and liberties until every single line of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been scrapped?
Today is a dark day for this nation. It was not done to us by our enemies. It has been done to us by our elected officials. What's next?
What the bill also does is provide the most tangible victory yet for al-Qaeda. The Bush Administration, with the help of a collaborating Congress, has trampled upon the very principles that founded America. If there has ever been a victory for terrorism it is undermining the very values which the nation purports to uphold.
Bush has often stated that "freedom is on the march." Unfortunately, it needs to be on the run. On the run from would be monarchs and the spineless opposition. Will there be no end to the attack on our freedoms and liberties until every single line of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been scrapped?
Today is a dark day for this nation. It was not done to us by our enemies. It has been done to us by our elected officials. What's next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
