The Catholic Church tells lawmakers in DC that if the law allowing same-sex marriage isn't overturned, they will be unable to continue aiding the city with programs that help the homeless, poor, and parent-less children.
More later.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Today's Story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html?hpid=topnews
Monday, November 9, 2009
The Real Health Care Bill
If you have been watching the news at all, you have heard about the massive happenings in the House Saturday afternoon. You've heard about the fanfare, the Speaker almost sobbing, the Republicans calling it a massive takeover of health care, Senator Graham declaring it dead on arrival in the Senate, and the Stupak Amendment, which will unprecedentedly rip away the reproductive rights of millions of women.
Before I discuss the Stupak Amendment, I want to quickly go over all of the positive aspects of the bill that few have spoken about.
If this was the bill that President Obama signed (thank God it won't be!) it would offer a consumer bill of rights of sorts for health insurance. No longer would someone be denied coverage and treatment due to past medical history, no longer would they be dropped, and health care would be able to be carried beyond states. An insurance marketplace would be created in order to make it easier, fairer, and more accessible to buy insurance policies. A public plan would be provided for a select few, in order to give more Americans health insurance. Good work.
Unfortunately, in the wee hours of Saturday morning, the Congress voted on an amendment
The game changer.
The Stupak Amendment dictates the following:
"No funds authorized under this act...may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of that includes coverage of abortion...." except in cases of rape and incest or if it threatens the life of the mother.
Let us realize that the bolded section is the real big issue here. If it is translated very strictly, then any health care plan that covers any consumer that has a federal subsidy for health care cannot cover abortions any longer. Talk about "you'll be forced to change your company, whether you like it or not!" Talk about a bureaucrat getting in between you and your doctor!
Come on! This is the worst abortion restriction we've seen in modern American history. This is exactly the type of thing that we as Progressives, as Democrats, must fight against! This is a gross example of the inequalities of representation between men and women.
What does the Bible say about inequalities between men and female? Look no further than the second chapter of the Bible, Genesis 2:18, which states, in the original Hebrew version of the Bible, וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר, כְּנֶגְדּ. This literally translates into: "And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'" It is widely recognized that "help meet" translates into, not a female or an assistant, but an "equal." Equal.
The Republicans, the Religious Right crazies that have taken over the party, have been able to successfully pervert the language of the Bible, so that many believe the Bible is anti-feminimism. If nothing else, the Book of Genesis can show us that there should be equal treatment under the law for women and men.
The Stupak Amendment is one huge step back for us. It will not be included in the final bill after conference, but just the fact that it passed the hurdles of the House is a sad thing for our American society.
Before I discuss the Stupak Amendment, I want to quickly go over all of the positive aspects of the bill that few have spoken about.
If this was the bill that President Obama signed (thank God it won't be!) it would offer a consumer bill of rights of sorts for health insurance. No longer would someone be denied coverage and treatment due to past medical history, no longer would they be dropped, and health care would be able to be carried beyond states. An insurance marketplace would be created in order to make it easier, fairer, and more accessible to buy insurance policies. A public plan would be provided for a select few, in order to give more Americans health insurance. Good work.
Unfortunately, in the wee hours of Saturday morning, the Congress voted on an amendment
The game changer.
The Stupak Amendment dictates the following:
"No funds authorized under this act...may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of that includes coverage of abortion...." except in cases of rape and incest or if it threatens the life of the mother.
Let us realize that the bolded section is the real big issue here. If it is translated very strictly, then any health care plan that covers any consumer that has a federal subsidy for health care cannot cover abortions any longer. Talk about "you'll be forced to change your company, whether you like it or not!" Talk about a bureaucrat getting in between you and your doctor!
Come on! This is the worst abortion restriction we've seen in modern American history. This is exactly the type of thing that we as Progressives, as Democrats, must fight against! This is a gross example of the inequalities of representation between men and women.
What does the Bible say about inequalities between men and female? Look no further than the second chapter of the Bible, Genesis 2:18, which states, in the original Hebrew version of the Bible, וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר, כְּנֶגְדּ. This literally translates into: "And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'" It is widely recognized that "help meet" translates into, not a female or an assistant, but an "equal." Equal.
The Republicans, the Religious Right crazies that have taken over the party, have been able to successfully pervert the language of the Bible, so that many believe the Bible is anti-feminimism. If nothing else, the Book of Genesis can show us that there should be equal treatment under the law for women and men.
The Stupak Amendment is one huge step back for us. It will not be included in the final bill after conference, but just the fact that it passed the hurdles of the House is a sad thing for our American society.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
House Passes Health Care
In the wee hours of Saturday morning, an amendment passed the House and was added to its health care reform bill. The amendment struck out any way federal money could be spent for abortions, excluding cases of rape, incest and where the mother's life would be threatened. Language was also struck out that would allow states to experiment with single payer systems.
Still, today is a great day for Progressives. We finally made it through the long and tough process of "bipartisanship" and debate and deliberation and came out with a gutless, but still game changing, health care reform bill. Yesterday, a majority of Congresspeople (220) voted for the bill, which would create a not-so-robust public option to complete in a public marketplace with the other private companies, along with many new regulations for the health care industry.
In the best way to illustrate what "bipartisanship" means in the American government, only one Republican- Rep. Cao, of Louisiana- voted in favor of passage of the bill.
Look out for a detailed description of the bill tomorrow here at Operation: Democracy, and what it means for Progressivism.
Until then!
Still, today is a great day for Progressives. We finally made it through the long and tough process of "bipartisanship" and debate and deliberation and came out with a gutless, but still game changing, health care reform bill. Yesterday, a majority of Congresspeople (220) voted for the bill, which would create a not-so-robust public option to complete in a public marketplace with the other private companies, along with many new regulations for the health care industry.
In the best way to illustrate what "bipartisanship" means in the American government, only one Republican- Rep. Cao, of Louisiana- voted in favor of passage of the bill.
Look out for a detailed description of the bill tomorrow here at Operation: Democracy, and what it means for Progressivism.
Until then!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
FOCUS: NY-23rd
Yes, we got trounced in Virginia.
Yes, our incumbent got taken down in New Jersey.
Yes, our incumbent got taken down in New Jersey.
But, fear not my fellow Progressives! These meant nothing.
As you may recall, I told you that Creigh Deeds, the Democrat in Virginia, was not a Progressive. He wasn't even a centrist Democrat. The man was a Rahm Emanuel Democrat. What do I mean by that title? Simply put, he was the type of Democrat only Rahm would recruit to run for Congress. Put it more bluntly: the guy was a DINO (That's right, Republicans! We can be clever too!) in that he was a Democrat, in name only. Deeds was pro-death penalty, pro-all-guns-rights, pro-war, pro-Conservative.
Governor Corzine's departure is something that we have needed for a while. He was unsympathetic to the concerns of his people. The Republican win in New Jersey is not at all a mandate to roll back all of the Progressive policies in New Jersey; rather, it is the People of New Jersey's way of rejecting the corruption and backwardness of the Corzine Administration.
The real way of showing where the People of America are is to look at the 23rd District of New York. This area was highly Republican-- the last time a Democrat won the district was 100 years ago-- and, two nights ago, it was decided for the Democrat. This Democrat is not Creigh Deeds. He isn't a Progressive's dream, either. But, the man who won this region, Representative-elect Bill Owens, is unequivocally supportive of the Middle Class, pro-health care reform, and pro-education. Simply put, Owens is the Progressive for that area, if not a Progressive through-and-through.
Think of that for a second. The exit polls in both New Jersey and Virginia, which accurately predicted the election results in both states, showed massive support for health care reform with a public option that was open to everyone. A robust public option. The Democrat's plan. The People of New York's 23rd showed their support for it in putting Owens into the House seat.
Don't listen to the pundits. It's not about a Republican regeneration. The elections were simply more people, angry with the status quo and in need of real change.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Projections, Part 2
Just to get the second and third projections of the Big 3 Elections in tonight before they come in through the news, I want to do quick ones.
Tonight or tomorrow, I'll explain in detail like I did for Virginia.
Race 2: NY 23- I'm very split on this race. It has been well over 100 years since a Democrat has won in the 23rd District of New York; indeed, either a Republican or Conservative party member has won this one. I will have to choose the Democrat, though. The Conservative, Doug Hoffman, has a good chance, but its my belief that most of those who were leaning towards Scozzafova will surely break to Democrat Bill Owens.
Race 3: New Jersey Governor- This is a very difficult one. If Governor Corzine loses, we can look at this as a voice of displeasure with Corzine, though, and not with the Democratic Party or with the Progressives, or even with the President. I say Corzine wins, as we may suspect that the traditionally blue state will keep their donkey. But! You never know. Its possible that we lose this seat. Like I said, though, it won't be New Jersey's way of throwing away Progressivism, just throwing away the ineffective and coarse Corzine.
Like I said, Operation: Democracy will go into more detail later on! Good luck to the Progressives in the local municipality races and the measures on Maine's ballot (a very interesting set of measures are located on it- check them out!)
McDonnell vs. Deeds: Virginia Governor Race
The gubernatorial race in Virginia is one of two governor elections taking place today. This election pits the poll-favored Republican, former state Attorney General Bob McDonnell, versus the underdog Democrat, State Senator Creigh Deeds.
So am I melancholy about the Virginia race? Not at all. A Conservative Democrat is not my Democrat. I don't support a purging of the party like what is happening to the Republicans. Yet, there has to be some type of common belief in our party, and that is definitely not illustrated with the inclusion of Deeds. Our party should encompass the center and the left. It shouldn't be center-right.
Before we go any further, I want to put something into perspective. In the last two months of the 2008 campaign, I made a map of state projections for the Presidential Election. I missed only two. To complete the map, I looked at a number of things-- fundraising, state history, state party affiliations, etc.-- but I put some more weight in the polls than anything else. Some will tell you the old axiom of politics, that the only poll that matters is the General Election.
Honestly, though, that is garbage. Don't believe it.
Sure, there are times when the polls fail us. Usually, it is when the difference is one or two points out of the margin of error, but there are times when it is a big swing of the numbers. When the numbers are close, you put more emphasis on the other factors. When the numbers are far a part, you still keep all factors in vision, but, unless there is a huge variable, the winner of the poll is going to win the election.
With that said, Creigh Deeds, the Democrat, my party's choice, is in deep trouble. Worse than that, actually. Deeds doesn't have a chance. Real Clear Politics (RCP) has the average of polls for the Virginia race at about 55% to 41%. Even the DailyKos, a Progressive blog much like the one you're reading now, is showing the race at a huge disadvantage to the Democrat Deeds, with a 10% difference being reported (54%-44%).
What could possibly make my projection wrong? A huge tidal wave of voters flocking to the polls. A Democratic base that is excited for this candidate. All in all, a very different situation we see now.
The Tidal Wave or a Tide
The Virginia Democrats can pray to whatever deity they choose, and perform as many rain dances as they feel fit, but the wave is not coming. According to recent reports, the turnout looks to be very much like most mid-term elections in Virginia- small. Filled with Conservatives. And filled with Republicans. What does it all spell for Creigh Deeds, the Democrat that supports a woman's reproductive rights along with her right to own an AK-47? A long career in the State Legislature.
Apathetic Democrats
I don't blame the local Democrats for not traveling to the polls. Deeds has failed miserably to give the donkeys in the Southern state something to be excited about. Why would anyone get excited about Senator Deeds? He is a Conservative Democrat going against an even more Conservative Republican in an historically red state. The Washington Post points out that only 75% of voters leaning for Deeds are excited or fairly excited about his candidacy, compared to over 90% of those voting for McDonnell. Here's why:
- Deeds is a big supporter of guns rights. So is McDonnell.
- Deeds is an even bigger supporter of the death penalty, even for minors and even for people who contributed to the killing of an individual but didn't actually kill the person. So is McDonnell.
- Deeds supports making English the official language of America and is a fool when it comes to immigration reform. So is McDonnell.
If McDonnell wins, Democrats don't face a problem. The DailyKos poll that showed McDonnell winning by a 10-point spread also illustrated that Virginians haven't lost this Progressive-resurgence we've been seeing. In the poll, Virginians were asked whether they supported or opposed a robust public option. Overwhelmingly, those polled in Virginia support it (50%-41%).
This race won't be an illustration of a Conservative resurgence. If anything, it is an example of a desire for more Progressive candidates in the South.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Rush On, Fox!
Rush Limbaugh was given a thirty minute spot on the Fox News channel to harp on his crazy, ideology-driven hate rhetoric.
Take that, Valerie Jarrett and the Obama Administration! Fox is not biased. Jeesh!
There are a few things I'd like to take him to task for. Some things he said on the program. You can watch it all in video parts here. Obviously, anytime Rush Limbaugh opens that vile mouth of his, I want to take him to respond and close it for him. The two biggest statements, though, are the ones we'll be discussing.
Statement One: "It was Barack Obama and the Democratic Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military.
While Rush was questioning President Obama's ability to lead as the Commander-In-Chief and his commitment to the US Troops, he stated this little sliver of ideological hate. In his opinion, the Democratic attempt during the Bush Error to end the unnecessary War in Iraq was our attempt at destroying the military and giving victory to "the terrorists."
Please! It has been obvious since the very beginning of the war that Iraq posed no threat to us. It was the lack of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden, the elusive WMD, and the dire number of world citizens dying due to the campaign that pushed the Democrats to do something. In fact, it was the Democrats that tried to save the military. We wanted our men and women out of harm's way so that their services could be used when necessary, to keep us safe, and when all other options were exhausted. Some will lead you to believe that is an illustration of
Statement 2: "We've never seen such a radical at this level of power...this is just outrageous what's been happening, the denial of liberty, the attack on freedom..."
First of all, the idea that President Obama is a radical is completely ridiculous. He is center-left at best, especially on the economy. A third of the rather modest recovery act that was passed earlier this year was tax cuts. A radical would have raised taxes! We need to realize that the act itself was much less Progressive than what we were told, unfortunately.
The most "radical" president we've ever had was during the Great Depression. President Roosevelt was a "liberal," seen by many Democratic Socialists as the best leader we've ever had in the Oval Office, along with much of the country, and is generally seen as one of the top three leaders we've ever seen. While he was in power, the government spent more as a percentage of GDP than the present Administration. He helped lift us out of the Great Depression. So, hey. Maybe Progressives can do something right!
As for what Rush said about the denial of liberty and the attacks on freedom, the only thing I have to say to him is this: the PATRIOT ACT, the thing you have supported. Twice.
For a bit of irony, Rush Limbaugh called President Obama's ego "out of this world." Yeah, Rush. But it hasn't reached you yet...you're still God.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Sorry for the delay
Sorry all!
I was out this weekend and could not really get to a computer to update Operation: Democracy.
As an update, last week's radio show was a pretty good success. This week, Thursday at 9:00 pm, if you don't listen then...then you aren't a real American!
Kidding. We're not like Fox News around here.
I may be adding a second hour-long show during the week, possibly Tuesday. Look out for it!
Tomorrow we'll be adding stories and continuing like usual!
Until then,
BobbyWit
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Listen to my radio broadcast!
Listen to my radio broadcast, tonight at 9 pm!
Go here, click the "Listen" tab, and click the link it brings you to. You will be able to listen to it from 9-11 pm tonight, and every other Thursday, on iTunes, Windows Media Player, or whatever else you have! See you then!
Don't forget to read the NEW POST under this!
Jobless Recovery
What does it mean when the economy grows at 3.5% in one quarter but the first-time unemployment claims (the amount of jobs lost) stays huge, at 530,000? Simple.
It means the rich are getting richer while the middle class lose their standing.
Well, that is the reality for our recovery right now. This is the exact paradox of economic growth that I spoke of in an earlier post. Economic growth is not always a plus. The belief of many is that when our gross domestic product, our GDP, increases, we should all rally behind the news and praise it. This news today should be the thing that puts this claim to rest. While the growth of our economy is the first percentage increase in four quarters (one year), our unemployment rate is still enormously high.
This is a fundamental problem in our society.
Yes, its good that we are producing more. Yes, its good that the economy is on the rise. But when the vast majority of the economic prosperity is going to the already prosperous Americans, we should hang our heads in shame. The continuous growth of a nation can never be maintained. The oxymoron of "sustainable infinite growth" is something that we will have to come to terms with, and soon.
We need to refocus our efforts on the community. Our economics must be less bent on the centralization of financial power. The big banks and big business that face no competition should be put to rest. As we continue to vest more of our deposits in one of five enormous banks, we put our economy at risk. In the soon-to-be-immortal-words of Sen. Bernie Sanders, "if it is too big to fail, it is too big to exist."
I reject the notion that power in the hands of the few is beneficial to the many. We will dispel the fallacy that "what is good for big business is good for you." It isn't.
What is good for big business is good for big business fat cats.
What is good for my community is good for me.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Say It Ain't So, Joe!
It is time for Joe to hit the road. It is time to oust the J-Man. Joe must go!
The Joe I'm talking about is Joe "Screw the Dems" Lieberman, who, after getting beat in his primary race a few years back, has abandoned his old Democratic stripes for the more conservative "centrist" stripes he now wears. Ever notice that "centrists" in America would be considered "rightists" in any other country?
Why do I say we need to get rid of the guy? Well, Droopy, as many call him, has now gone even farther right. He became vocal on the public option (the fake, opt-out public option) today, stating his desire to block it by joining Republicans in a filibuster in the Senate. If this happens, we don't get a bill. Months upon months of work will be wiped out, all because someone who caucuses with the Democrats is too held to the health care companies to challenge them.
Why keep someone on your side that isn't really on your side? The axiom of "keeping your enemies closer than your friends" is flawed here, because if the Democratic Party really wants to get good legislation passed they must have their full caucus vote as one. They don't have to vote on party lines at the final vote, but for something as simple as allowing the full process to take place, they should. Allowing the amendment process, allowing a final vote, allowing the President to pass or veto it, and everything in between would make for a complete process.
A vote against a filibuster does not entail a vote for the bill. Rather, it is a vote for the process, a process that is owed to the People of this nation.
Someone tell that to Joe. In the meantime, its time for Progressives to relieve the guy of his duty.
Sestak Gaining On Specter
It seems like the 2010 Democratic Primary for the Senate is heating up! And, as an ardent supporter of Congressman Joe Sestak and his real, Progressive policies, I could not be any happier!
According to the recent Rasmussen poll, there is now only a 4% gap (48% to 44%) between the incumbent, newly-registered Democrat Arlen Specter, and his more-left, more-capable challenger, Congressman Joe Sestak. This is following a trend, more upward for Sestak than downward for Specter. Put simply, the more people learn about Sestak, the more they like Sestak.
I can't lie to you. Specter has been an alright Senator, and, if he wins, I will support him in the general election. Supporters of Sestak cannot do a Hillary-supporter move of the 2008 election and vote for McCain out of frustration. Specter is center-right, definitely, but he espouses more of our beliefs than Pat Toomey.
But, at least for me, alright is not good enough. I want someone who goes to the Senate floor to vote for progress, and not for the status quo. Someone who will vote for the People and not for 25 years of special interests.
Don't forget to read the post under this! Subject: the Senate's public option!
According to the recent Rasmussen poll, there is now only a 4% gap (48% to 44%) between the incumbent, newly-registered Democrat Arlen Specter, and his more-left, more-capable challenger, Congressman Joe Sestak. This is following a trend, more upward for Sestak than downward for Specter. Put simply, the more people learn about Sestak, the more they like Sestak.
I can't lie to you. Specter has been an alright Senator, and, if he wins, I will support him in the general election. Supporters of Sestak cannot do a Hillary-supporter move of the 2008 election and vote for McCain out of frustration. Specter is center-right, definitely, but he espouses more of our beliefs than Pat Toomey.
But, at least for me, alright is not good enough. I want someone who goes to the Senate floor to vote for progress, and not for the status quo. Someone who will vote for the People and not for 25 years of special interests.
Don't forget to read the post under this! Subject: the Senate's public option!
Monday, October 26, 2009
Senate Public Option
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today declared that the Senate will vote on a health care bill with a modest, conservative public option.
This is very exciting!
Of course, it's not exactly the Progressive's dream. We knew this would never happen. What is my dream health care bill, you ask? Simply put, it is "medicare-for-all," a Canadian system in America where the government simply takes over the funding aspect but not the administering aspect. That would be the best bill.
Unfortunately, we won't be able to do that. Why, you may ask? Because the Democratic super-majority is not a Democratic super-majority. The majority we have is a cluster of Progressives and Conservatives, and many of these people are either held to special interests or are, simply put, spineless. But hey! At least these guys and gals have been able to rally around a public option.
An opt-out public option. Where states can decide whether they want to take part.
An opt-out public option, restricted to the uninsured. One that only can cover those without health care.
Is this competition? Of course not! The bill Reid is talking about does include a public option, but it is one where the legislators of a state, not the People, but the legislators, decide whether their state will take part in it. And, once a state chooses to take part, the only citizens that can take part are its uninsured!
The Senate fundamentally misunderstands the reason for a public option. Progressives don't favor government control of anything for no reason. We aren't socialists. The public option should be a fair option, and its goal should be to increase competition in the US insurance market. Its objective is to force the insurance companies to be answerable to its consumers.
Let's remember some things.
Firstly, like I said, the Progressive Doctrine must espouse the idea of Medicare-for-all, the deletion of "over 65" from the Medicare requirements, and a 100% insurance rate. The elderly in this country are happy with Medicare, and if anyone should know about health care, it is the elderly. If a 70 year old with diabetes is happy with the care they receive, a healthy 25 year old will too.
Secondly, if this is not a part of the Progressive Doctrine, then the only other belief we should include is a nation-wide formula based on the Veteran's Health Administration, which is basically based on the British model. The government chooses the doctors and funds the whole operation. Basically, rather than a government takeover of the funding of health care, the government would take over the administration of health care. It owns the hospitals, the nursing homes, and the clinics. The veterans are happy with it, and if its good enough for the men and women who serve our nation, it must be good enough for the citizens they protect.
Lastly, the public option that is both restricted to the uninsured and tagged with the opt-out option is not what the American People want, but they do want a public option (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation: 61% support public option). They want a public option everyone can take part in, one that assures real competition. You know, the thing most people on the left in Congress want. But Americans are still in the center-right. Yeah.
This is a big step. At the very least, we are exploring options and, maybe in a few more years, with the success of this public option, we can explore nation-wide Medicare or a real public option. Until then, I applaud Reid for his...open mindedness.
To leave you with a sobering note: every year, 18,000 people die a year due to lack of health insurance. I've seen numbers of upwards to 45,000.
We must work together, brothers and sisters. Looking to religion for some type of guidance, we see (among many passages) the story of the Good Samaritan, in the Bible. Luke 10: 25-37 tells of a man who found a complete stranger, beaten and robbed, lying in the road. The wealthy Samaritan felt compassion toward his fellow brother, brought the man to an inn after dressing his wounds and paid for the man's stay, along with aid he would need. It is a lesson in compassion. It is a lesson we should take to heart.
This is very exciting!
Of course, it's not exactly the Progressive's dream. We knew this would never happen. What is my dream health care bill, you ask? Simply put, it is "medicare-for-all," a Canadian system in America where the government simply takes over the funding aspect but not the administering aspect. That would be the best bill.
Unfortunately, we won't be able to do that. Why, you may ask? Because the Democratic super-majority is not a Democratic super-majority. The majority we have is a cluster of Progressives and Conservatives, and many of these people are either held to special interests or are, simply put, spineless. But hey! At least these guys and gals have been able to rally around a public option.
An opt-out public option. Where states can decide whether they want to take part.
An opt-out public option, restricted to the uninsured. One that only can cover those without health care.
Is this competition? Of course not! The bill Reid is talking about does include a public option, but it is one where the legislators of a state, not the People, but the legislators, decide whether their state will take part in it. And, once a state chooses to take part, the only citizens that can take part are its uninsured!
The Senate fundamentally misunderstands the reason for a public option. Progressives don't favor government control of anything for no reason. We aren't socialists. The public option should be a fair option, and its goal should be to increase competition in the US insurance market. Its objective is to force the insurance companies to be answerable to its consumers.
Let's remember some things.
Firstly, like I said, the Progressive Doctrine must espouse the idea of Medicare-for-all, the deletion of "over 65" from the Medicare requirements, and a 100% insurance rate. The elderly in this country are happy with Medicare, and if anyone should know about health care, it is the elderly. If a 70 year old with diabetes is happy with the care they receive, a healthy 25 year old will too.
Secondly, if this is not a part of the Progressive Doctrine, then the only other belief we should include is a nation-wide formula based on the Veteran's Health Administration, which is basically based on the British model. The government chooses the doctors and funds the whole operation. Basically, rather than a government takeover of the funding of health care, the government would take over the administration of health care. It owns the hospitals, the nursing homes, and the clinics. The veterans are happy with it, and if its good enough for the men and women who serve our nation, it must be good enough for the citizens they protect.
Lastly, the public option that is both restricted to the uninsured and tagged with the opt-out option is not what the American People want, but they do want a public option (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation: 61% support public option). They want a public option everyone can take part in, one that assures real competition. You know, the thing most people on the left in Congress want. But Americans are still in the center-right. Yeah.
This is a big step. At the very least, we are exploring options and, maybe in a few more years, with the success of this public option, we can explore nation-wide Medicare or a real public option. Until then, I applaud Reid for his...open mindedness.
To leave you with a sobering note: every year, 18,000 people die a year due to lack of health insurance. I've seen numbers of upwards to 45,000.
We must work together, brothers and sisters. Looking to religion for some type of guidance, we see (among many passages) the story of the Good Samaritan, in the Bible. Luke 10: 25-37 tells of a man who found a complete stranger, beaten and robbed, lying in the road. The wealthy Samaritan felt compassion toward his fellow brother, brought the man to an inn after dressing his wounds and paid for the man's stay, along with aid he would need. It is a lesson in compassion. It is a lesson we should take to heart.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Biden vs. Cheney
Ding. Ding. Ding.
The battle of the White Houses has officially begun. And Operation: Democracy can't be any more excited.
Finally, after months of former Vice President Cheney disrespecting the current administration from the sidelines, the present Vice President, Joe "Give Them Hell" Biden, gave him Hell. As Harry Truman would say, "I'm going to tell them the truth and they'll think it's Hell!"
Speaking in front of the Center for Security Policy a few days ago, Cheney called on the current administration, Obama in particular, to stop "dithering" on Afghanistan. In his opinion, the President was taking too much time in deciding the next step for Afghanistan. Cheney's belief is that we should not think through our options, that we should not wait for the contested election in the country to be decided, that we should simply elevate the forces and funds and forget about their domestic issues. He thinks thoughtful carefulness "emboldens our adversaries." Please.
Yesterday, speaking in Eastern Europe, Vice President Biden, the Sheriff as they call him in the White House, was about to say "Who cares what Cheney has to say?" He almost said it, when he stopped himself at "Who cares..." and went into the issue, saying that he believed Cheney and the past administration's Afghanistan review to be irrelevant. The Sheriff is, of course, entirely correct. Last year's Afghanistan is not this year's Afghanistan, much like next year's Afghanistan will be completely different from the present.
Let us put Cheney's comments into some type of understanding. The guy's time in power was plagued with jumping the gun on issues and wars, and a complete lack of thoroughness. They acted too quickly on Afghanistan and Iraq and too late on Katrina. Obviously his perception of timing is off.
The battle of the White Houses has officially begun. And Operation: Democracy can't be any more excited.
Finally, after months of former Vice President Cheney disrespecting the current administration from the sidelines, the present Vice President, Joe "Give Them Hell" Biden, gave him Hell. As Harry Truman would say, "I'm going to tell them the truth and they'll think it's Hell!"
Speaking in front of the Center for Security Policy a few days ago, Cheney called on the current administration, Obama in particular, to stop "dithering" on Afghanistan. In his opinion, the President was taking too much time in deciding the next step for Afghanistan. Cheney's belief is that we should not think through our options, that we should not wait for the contested election in the country to be decided, that we should simply elevate the forces and funds and forget about their domestic issues. He thinks thoughtful carefulness "emboldens our adversaries." Please.
Yesterday, speaking in Eastern Europe, Vice President Biden, the Sheriff as they call him in the White House, was about to say "Who cares what Cheney has to say?" He almost said it, when he stopped himself at "Who cares..." and went into the issue, saying that he believed Cheney and the past administration's Afghanistan review to be irrelevant. The Sheriff is, of course, entirely correct. Last year's Afghanistan is not this year's Afghanistan, much like next year's Afghanistan will be completely different from the present.
Let us put Cheney's comments into some type of understanding. The guy's time in power was plagued with jumping the gun on issues and wars, and a complete lack of thoroughness. They acted too quickly on Afghanistan and Iraq and too late on Katrina. Obviously his perception of timing is off.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
An Education Worthwhile: Teacher Minimum Wage
Today, again, Operation: Democracy will focus on education reform. If there is any issue more important then the economy right now, or health care, it is that very topic. The future of this nation is what most politicians should, and assumingly are, looking towards. Preparing the nation’s youth, in this economic climate and in the worldwide market, is of the utmost significance.
In order to increase the standard of our education in this country, one thing we must make sure to do is increase the amount of quality teachers at our disposal. Again, both ideologies have positions on how to get to this common goal. The conservative belief is that we should pay based on performance and, many believe, that the benefit of tenure should be taken out of the education system. Liberals believe that we must increase funding to schools to give necessities to teachers and that teachers should be paid better. So who is right?
I cannot give much testimony to the conservative side, but I can give the Progressive doctrine of what creates a better teacher. The funding for materials will be covered later on, so we will discuss teacher’s salaries at this moment.
The under-compensated profession of educating our youth is a national tragedy. The fact that a career, one that takes a large amount of personal sacrifice, hard work, and a lot of overtime, can be so absurdly underpaid is horrible. The pay for teachers needs to be raised, for the reason listed and for one we are about to speak of.
Simply put, the best way to make better teachers is to increase competition for the job itself. As we all know, raising a family off of a teacher’s salary is difficult enough, not to mention the added costs of a college education. A first year teacher can make as low as $30,000, in both urban and rural areas. With this reality, it should not be a thing of surprise that some of our nation’s educators are not up for the task of teaching hundreds of students every day! In order to assure a more widespread desire to become a teacher, we must first provide a reason for that desire to come about.
The government must come out with a national minimum wage for teachers across the nation, with a uniformed method of pay raises every x amount of years. Yes, it would cost more in terms of government expenditures towards education; yet, if you look at the budget of the United States, the amount of dollars going toward public education is ridiculously low. We must re-prioritize our national budget to fund these pay raises.
It should not be only those of us willing to work for $40,000 that can teach our youth. It should be those of us that claim the spot at the cream of the crop.
In order to increase the standard of our education in this country, one thing we must make sure to do is increase the amount of quality teachers at our disposal. Again, both ideologies have positions on how to get to this common goal. The conservative belief is that we should pay based on performance and, many believe, that the benefit of tenure should be taken out of the education system. Liberals believe that we must increase funding to schools to give necessities to teachers and that teachers should be paid better. So who is right?
I cannot give much testimony to the conservative side, but I can give the Progressive doctrine of what creates a better teacher. The funding for materials will be covered later on, so we will discuss teacher’s salaries at this moment.
The under-compensated profession of educating our youth is a national tragedy. The fact that a career, one that takes a large amount of personal sacrifice, hard work, and a lot of overtime, can be so absurdly underpaid is horrible. The pay for teachers needs to be raised, for the reason listed and for one we are about to speak of.
Simply put, the best way to make better teachers is to increase competition for the job itself. As we all know, raising a family off of a teacher’s salary is difficult enough, not to mention the added costs of a college education. A first year teacher can make as low as $30,000, in both urban and rural areas. With this reality, it should not be a thing of surprise that some of our nation’s educators are not up for the task of teaching hundreds of students every day! In order to assure a more widespread desire to become a teacher, we must first provide a reason for that desire to come about.
The government must come out with a national minimum wage for teachers across the nation, with a uniformed method of pay raises every x amount of years. Yes, it would cost more in terms of government expenditures towards education; yet, if you look at the budget of the United States, the amount of dollars going toward public education is ridiculously low. We must re-prioritize our national budget to fund these pay raises.
It should not be only those of us willing to work for $40,000 that can teach our youth. It should be those of us that claim the spot at the cream of the crop.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
An Education Worthwhile: Length of the School Year
As a student, I have the ideal perspective into education when it comes to what works and what does not work. I know, at least for like minded individuals, what instills in a student the desire to become an educated citizen. Among these things is the main reason why we all go to school: not the law, but the prospect of success.
That is why students flock to universities across the nation. The ability to be financially stable in our adult lives is the driving factor that takes us to the desks of higher learning. But for many of our fellow students, this is not the case. For thousands of high school students right now, the reality is that within four years, these teenagers will be joining in the ranks of the workers of the country, the military, or vocational schools.
While the future is undoubtedly something we must always keep in perspective, the quality of our colleges is not a source of frustration. The problems we see today are in the building blocks, in the core of our education system; that is, the youth of the nation are getting an education that is not up to the standards of our society. Our nation's education system was ranked in at 18th by UNICEF. South Korea's was number one. It seems quite obvious who has the better system.
The next few posts will be about education, but I think we should begin with looking at fundamentals. The length of our school calendars must change. Simply put, Korean youths go to school longer than American children. Much longer. Schools in the capital actually begin at 7:30 in the morning and ends at 5:00 at night. Its not just school day hours though; the typical school year consists of 220 school days, divided into two semesters with a 45-day summer vacation and 70-day winter vacation. Pre-school begins at ages 3-5, and first grade at age 8 or so. Comparatively speaking, American schools seem like pansies. Our students go to class for forty less days, have about 90 days of summer vacation, and go to school for about two hours less a day.
Am I proposing we undertake a full implementation of the exhaustive conditions of Korea? Not at all. I don't believe students should be expected to spend nine and a half hours a day in a school building. What I do propose, though, is a shift within our system to somewhat model the Korean system. Students should be attending more school days. If we are to go from 18th to the top 10, we must tackle this issue as one of our number one priorities in the reformation of our schools. Summer vacations should be shorter, there should be longer winter breaks, and American students should have two semesters. Americans should know how to read and write earlier and their multiplication and division should be taught earlier. Without a doubt, kindergartners ought to know the alphabet before entering the class room.
My problem with the Korean way of doing things, though, is within their school day hours. It has been proved true, at least for American teenagers, that starting school later in the day (8:30 or 9:00) would increase the performance of students. Teenagers need more sleep, and they operate better later in the morning than 7:00 or 7:30, the start time for many school. At the same time, school should not be going until 5:00 at night. When I played soccer and participated in track and field, the practices began at 4:00 so as to finish up before it became too dark to play and to make sure there was minimal impact on a student's academic performance. As sports will not (and should not) be leaving our schools anytime in the near future, we must make sure that there is ample time for that in the school schedules. Students do need fun and recreation; I have no facts to back up this claim because if this isn't a universally understood notion, than it should be.
That is the first reform, sisters and brothers. Longer school years.
That is why students flock to universities across the nation. The ability to be financially stable in our adult lives is the driving factor that takes us to the desks of higher learning. But for many of our fellow students, this is not the case. For thousands of high school students right now, the reality is that within four years, these teenagers will be joining in the ranks of the workers of the country, the military, or vocational schools.
While the future is undoubtedly something we must always keep in perspective, the quality of our colleges is not a source of frustration. The problems we see today are in the building blocks, in the core of our education system; that is, the youth of the nation are getting an education that is not up to the standards of our society. Our nation's education system was ranked in at 18th by UNICEF. South Korea's was number one. It seems quite obvious who has the better system.
The next few posts will be about education, but I think we should begin with looking at fundamentals. The length of our school calendars must change. Simply put, Korean youths go to school longer than American children. Much longer. Schools in the capital actually begin at 7:30 in the morning and ends at 5:00 at night. Its not just school day hours though; the typical school year consists of 220 school days, divided into two semesters with a 45-day summer vacation and 70-day winter vacation. Pre-school begins at ages 3-5, and first grade at age 8 or so. Comparatively speaking, American schools seem like pansies. Our students go to class for forty less days, have about 90 days of summer vacation, and go to school for about two hours less a day.
Am I proposing we undertake a full implementation of the exhaustive conditions of Korea? Not at all. I don't believe students should be expected to spend nine and a half hours a day in a school building. What I do propose, though, is a shift within our system to somewhat model the Korean system. Students should be attending more school days. If we are to go from 18th to the top 10, we must tackle this issue as one of our number one priorities in the reformation of our schools. Summer vacations should be shorter, there should be longer winter breaks, and American students should have two semesters. Americans should know how to read and write earlier and their multiplication and division should be taught earlier. Without a doubt, kindergartners ought to know the alphabet before entering the class room.
My problem with the Korean way of doing things, though, is within their school day hours. It has been proved true, at least for American teenagers, that starting school later in the day (8:30 or 9:00) would increase the performance of students. Teenagers need more sleep, and they operate better later in the morning than 7:00 or 7:30, the start time for many school. At the same time, school should not be going until 5:00 at night. When I played soccer and participated in track and field, the practices began at 4:00 so as to finish up before it became too dark to play and to make sure there was minimal impact on a student's academic performance. As sports will not (and should not) be leaving our schools anytime in the near future, we must make sure that there is ample time for that in the school schedules. Students do need fun and recreation; I have no facts to back up this claim because if this isn't a universally understood notion, than it should be.
That is the first reform, sisters and brothers. Longer school years.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Onto the problems of education
Here's an idea:
The national government should finally take our elementary and secondary education seriously in this nation.
Its a tragic flaw in our society that no one has truly looked at until now. Our nation takes education seriously only once the student has left his or her high school desk. Think about it this way: the average teacher salary for post-secondary schools in America is about $47,000. The average salary for a professor is about $98,000. The difference is huge.
I know what many of you are saying. The reasoning for this gigantic difference is the amount of time put in to become a professor. I understand the thinking. Yet, we are going to have to address the poor standards of our education in America soon. If not, American students are going to find themselves in a world economy that they simply cannot compete in. That is what we are going to be facing soon. The reality is that of the 25 best education systems in the world, America's ranks in at 18, a sad illustration of the effectiveness of the American system.
This post is not meant to be a contradiction of my Progressiveness. On the contrary, I believe in a strong public school system; indeed, in my belief, it is the backbone of our society. The idea that all children and young adults should be unleashed in a dog-eat-dog world with a sound education is something we all should espouse, and a system that makes this its main goal is one that we should all rally around.
Government officials that will form our education system as time goes on should keep something in mind. It is something that all students already know, as they chant it (usually like drones) every morning, five days a week. The act of doing it isn't as powerful as the words you say when you are completing the act. Indeed, it is our Pledge of Allegiance that states our ideals as a nation, ending in the words: "with liberty, and justice, for all." This is one of the best known times when we, as Americans, state our belief in equality. And the first way to get closer to an egalitarian society is the creation of a truly public education system, one that teaches all students equally, one that looks at neither prestige nor wealth when evaluating a student's learning abilities.
These will be the subjects of the next few days. If nothing else, Operation: Democracy will be a voice for all members of the present education system and the one we build for the future.
The national government should finally take our elementary and secondary education seriously in this nation.
Its a tragic flaw in our society that no one has truly looked at until now. Our nation takes education seriously only once the student has left his or her high school desk. Think about it this way: the average teacher salary for post-secondary schools in America is about $47,000. The average salary for a professor is about $98,000. The difference is huge.
I know what many of you are saying. The reasoning for this gigantic difference is the amount of time put in to become a professor. I understand the thinking. Yet, we are going to have to address the poor standards of our education in America soon. If not, American students are going to find themselves in a world economy that they simply cannot compete in. That is what we are going to be facing soon. The reality is that of the 25 best education systems in the world, America's ranks in at 18, a sad illustration of the effectiveness of the American system.
This post is not meant to be a contradiction of my Progressiveness. On the contrary, I believe in a strong public school system; indeed, in my belief, it is the backbone of our society. The idea that all children and young adults should be unleashed in a dog-eat-dog world with a sound education is something we all should espouse, and a system that makes this its main goal is one that we should all rally around.
Government officials that will form our education system as time goes on should keep something in mind. It is something that all students already know, as they chant it (usually like drones) every morning, five days a week. The act of doing it isn't as powerful as the words you say when you are completing the act. Indeed, it is our Pledge of Allegiance that states our ideals as a nation, ending in the words: "with liberty, and justice, for all." This is one of the best known times when we, as Americans, state our belief in equality. And the first way to get closer to an egalitarian society is the creation of a truly public education system, one that teaches all students equally, one that looks at neither prestige nor wealth when evaluating a student's learning abilities.
These will be the subjects of the next few days. If nothing else, Operation: Democracy will be a voice for all members of the present education system and the one we build for the future.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Off Day!
Sorry for the off day everyone! There really was a lot of news going around and plenty to write about, but I needed a day off as I'm sure you did!
Get the word out for the blog and hopefully we'll all be a part of something big!
In the meantime, get ready for tomorrow! Tomorrow, we will be addressing education. So, get out your reading glasses and make sure to come back often for some good posts!
Thanks, again, for the support.
Bobby Wit
PS: Go see Paranormal Activity. It was amazing.
Get the word out for the blog and hopefully we'll all be a part of something big!
In the meantime, get ready for tomorrow! Tomorrow, we will be addressing education. So, get out your reading glasses and make sure to come back often for some good posts!
Thanks, again, for the support.
Bobby Wit
PS: Go see Paranormal Activity. It was amazing.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Operation: Democracy TV
Brothers and sisters, the first ever video from Operation: Democracy is complete. View it here for now:
Operation: Democracy TV
Go there and enjoy!
PS: Yes, I say completely about ten times too much, and "completely wrong" about three or five times too many. It will be better next time :)
Operation: Democracy TV
Go there and enjoy!
PS: Yes, I say completely about ten times too much, and "completely wrong" about three or five times too many. It will be better next time :)
Policy Idea II: Change the Tax System
In the United States today, there are six different tax brackets. For those of us that are not brushed up on the tax code in the US, we will have a quick, crash course in the basics.
For individuals and married couples alike, there are six tax brackets. Each bracket taxes a different portion of your income, and, as your brackets increase, the rates go along with them. For individuals, these tax brackets are at $0-$8300 (10 percent), $33,950 (15 percent), $82250 (25 percent), $171,550 (28 percent), $372,950 (33 percent), and everything beyond this is taxed at 35 percent. So, for example, a first-year teacher making a $42,000 salary would pay:
$8300 x .10 = $830
($33950-$8300) x .15 = $3,847.50
($42,000-$33,950) x .25 = $2012.50
= $6690.00
Now remember, this is just the federal income tax. There are still state taxes to be added on.
What I want to point out about our system is this: our brackets end at $373,000. Why?! In a nation where millionaires walk our streets, why would we flood the first $300,000 of income with six different tax brackets without adding more to the upper echelons? It seems rather insane to continue with this system. This method provides a reason for people to not look for work and it is simply an unjust policy.
Think about this situation. If you are someone who is not working at the moment because you cannot find a good paying job, will you take one that has a lesser pay scale? Of course not! Why would someone work on minimum wage for 40 hours a week and make around $15,000 only to have it taxed at 10 percent. It is my opinion that starting out someone on taxes is harmful on our society. We should end the practice now so that we give a stronger incentive for people to work in the first place.
Not only is it a non-incentive, though, it is unjust. People who make one million dollars a year have over $600,000 that is taxed at the same rate, and the rate is rather low. How can this be? What do they have to say to nurses, life-savers who work considerably harder for an already lesser reward and are taxed at three or four different rates?! On top of this, think about college students! People like me and my friends who want to work to help pay off college loans right now but see it as irrational. Why is it irrational? Because we can only work so many hours a week, and with 10 percent always being taxed out, we'd come home with very little in reward. If you aren't going to give a real, formidable way to make college affordable, at least give us a way to afford the huge costs.
What is the Witmer Tax Plan? It is not completed. The idea, though, is that taxes for everyone earning under the poverty line (which is around 10,000 dollars for individuals and about 19,000 dollars for a family of three) would be completely abolished. The first tax bracket would then be increased by a percentage point or two. To compensate for the large loss of revenue, we would add a few tax brackets to the top, and increase the present last ones to 40 percent. I believe the added tax breaks would be at 600,000 dollars, 900,000 dollars and one in the millions. The tax brackets would increase by intervals of ten or so.
For those who believe the rich need the huge amounts of money they acquire each year, and therefore would be against this plan on the grounds of successful trickle down economics, I say these two things to you: the trickle down theory is NOT successful, and the tax brackets for millionaires used to be at 90 percent. Millionaires will be fine. Government needs to protect those with little from those with lots; that is, the have-nots from the haves.
Its something we must do. If not for the moral or ethical reasons I have laid out, then simply for the fact that every Senator, Representative, and President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, and, therefore, vows to promote the general welfare of all the People, not just the wealthy and prestigious.
For individuals and married couples alike, there are six tax brackets. Each bracket taxes a different portion of your income, and, as your brackets increase, the rates go along with them. For individuals, these tax brackets are at $0-$8300 (10 percent), $33,950 (15 percent), $82250 (25 percent), $171,550 (28 percent), $372,950 (33 percent), and everything beyond this is taxed at 35 percent. So, for example, a first-year teacher making a $42,000 salary would pay:
$8300 x .10 = $830
($33950-$8300) x .15 = $3,847.50
($42,000-$33,950) x .25 = $2012.50
= $6690.00
Now remember, this is just the federal income tax. There are still state taxes to be added on.
What I want to point out about our system is this: our brackets end at $373,000. Why?! In a nation where millionaires walk our streets, why would we flood the first $300,000 of income with six different tax brackets without adding more to the upper echelons? It seems rather insane to continue with this system. This method provides a reason for people to not look for work and it is simply an unjust policy.
Think about this situation. If you are someone who is not working at the moment because you cannot find a good paying job, will you take one that has a lesser pay scale? Of course not! Why would someone work on minimum wage for 40 hours a week and make around $15,000 only to have it taxed at 10 percent. It is my opinion that starting out someone on taxes is harmful on our society. We should end the practice now so that we give a stronger incentive for people to work in the first place.
Not only is it a non-incentive, though, it is unjust. People who make one million dollars a year have over $600,000 that is taxed at the same rate, and the rate is rather low. How can this be? What do they have to say to nurses, life-savers who work considerably harder for an already lesser reward and are taxed at three or four different rates?! On top of this, think about college students! People like me and my friends who want to work to help pay off college loans right now but see it as irrational. Why is it irrational? Because we can only work so many hours a week, and with 10 percent always being taxed out, we'd come home with very little in reward. If you aren't going to give a real, formidable way to make college affordable, at least give us a way to afford the huge costs.
What is the Witmer Tax Plan? It is not completed. The idea, though, is that taxes for everyone earning under the poverty line (which is around 10,000 dollars for individuals and about 19,000 dollars for a family of three) would be completely abolished. The first tax bracket would then be increased by a percentage point or two. To compensate for the large loss of revenue, we would add a few tax brackets to the top, and increase the present last ones to 40 percent. I believe the added tax breaks would be at 600,000 dollars, 900,000 dollars and one in the millions. The tax brackets would increase by intervals of ten or so.
For those who believe the rich need the huge amounts of money they acquire each year, and therefore would be against this plan on the grounds of successful trickle down economics, I say these two things to you: the trickle down theory is NOT successful, and the tax brackets for millionaires used to be at 90 percent. Millionaires will be fine. Government needs to protect those with little from those with lots; that is, the have-nots from the haves.
Its something we must do. If not for the moral or ethical reasons I have laid out, then simply for the fact that every Senator, Representative, and President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, and, therefore, vows to promote the general welfare of all the People, not just the wealthy and prestigious.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Bill Passes
As expected, the health care overhaul bill came out of the Senate Finance Committee along party lines, with one big exception: Senator Olympia Snowe.
This marks the first time in history that a health care reform bill has passed all of the necessary committees. It will now go on to the Senate floor. There, it will be sure to face hundreds of amendments and even more liters of hot gas from both parties. After both the House and Senate pass bills on health reform, they will move into a conference committee and develop one overarching bill.
The Baucus Bill that was just passed does not include a public health option. Instead, it proposes cooperatives that would allow the consumers to use their full muscle to negotiate with insurance companies for lower prices and premiums. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill (as it stands) will not add any money to the national debt; consequentially, over 13 million uninsured will stay uninsured. The health insurance companies will still be spending 17% of your money on overhead costs and, due to subsidies the government will give to low-income individuals to buy health insurance, a massive transfer of wealth will go from taxpayers to health insurance companies.
I am definitely not in favor of this bill. I think too much was given to the Republicans in order to pass this off as a "bipartisan" effort, which, at the present moment, seems to have given the Democrats nothing. Much like the Stimulus Bill, the Baucus Bill only received the support of one of the Republicans on the committee, and it is far off from what the Democratic base wants.
Don't fret. There are weeks of deliberations left, and the House is poised to pass a public health option in their bill. What would I do? I would use reconcilation! Reconciliation is a process to fast track budget-related measures in the Senate. Measures passed under this process only need a simple majority (51%). Some of the things in my dream bill would not be able to pass through the reconciliation process. This is why my bill would be split, the one half being passed through reconciliation and the other being voted on regularly.
Many will tell you that it is unfair to use reconciliation to pass health care. When you are presented with this, you look that person in the eyes and ask them if they believe it is fair that 8.3 percent of American children live without health insurance, or if they believe that 44 million Americans should be able to go without visits to doctors when they need it. Ask them about the human condition, about the general welfare of the People, and if they believe that "bipartisanship" is inherently against both of them.
The House and the Senate work for us. We pay their salaries. We send them on Congressional trips. Now we should call for something in return.
Real health care reform. Now.
This marks the first time in history that a health care reform bill has passed all of the necessary committees. It will now go on to the Senate floor. There, it will be sure to face hundreds of amendments and even more liters of hot gas from both parties. After both the House and Senate pass bills on health reform, they will move into a conference committee and develop one overarching bill.
The Baucus Bill that was just passed does not include a public health option. Instead, it proposes cooperatives that would allow the consumers to use their full muscle to negotiate with insurance companies for lower prices and premiums. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill (as it stands) will not add any money to the national debt; consequentially, over 13 million uninsured will stay uninsured. The health insurance companies will still be spending 17% of your money on overhead costs and, due to subsidies the government will give to low-income individuals to buy health insurance, a massive transfer of wealth will go from taxpayers to health insurance companies.
I am definitely not in favor of this bill. I think too much was given to the Republicans in order to pass this off as a "bipartisan" effort, which, at the present moment, seems to have given the Democrats nothing. Much like the Stimulus Bill, the Baucus Bill only received the support of one of the Republicans on the committee, and it is far off from what the Democratic base wants.
Don't fret. There are weeks of deliberations left, and the House is poised to pass a public health option in their bill. What would I do? I would use reconcilation! Reconciliation is a process to fast track budget-related measures in the Senate. Measures passed under this process only need a simple majority (51%). Some of the things in my dream bill would not be able to pass through the reconciliation process. This is why my bill would be split, the one half being passed through reconciliation and the other being voted on regularly.
Many will tell you that it is unfair to use reconciliation to pass health care. When you are presented with this, you look that person in the eyes and ask them if they believe it is fair that 8.3 percent of American children live without health insurance, or if they believe that 44 million Americans should be able to go without visits to doctors when they need it. Ask them about the human condition, about the general welfare of the People, and if they believe that "bipartisanship" is inherently against both of them.
The House and the Senate work for us. We pay their salaries. We send them on Congressional trips. Now we should call for something in return.
Real health care reform. Now.
BREAKING: Snowe will break ranks
Just in from C-Span: Senator Olympia Snowe, the real "maverick" Republican Senator from Maine, will cross party lines and vote for the health care bill in the Finance Committee! This means that the overhaul will pass through the committee with a 5 vote majority, 14-9.
And then, to the Senate.
And then, to the Senate.
And we wait
As we await the vote from the Finance Committee on their health insurance overhaul (which, says C-Span, is expected to pass along party lines), let me provide you with some health insurance facts:
- In 2008, nearly 44 million Americans were uninsured. This makes up 17 percent of the nation's population. Among children, 8.9 percent were uninsured. (CDC)
- National health care spending reached 17.6 percent of our national GDP, or about $2.5 trillion. In terms of GDP, the costs are expected to increase faster than GDP-- health expenditures are expected to rise 6.2 percent per year while the GDP increases at 4.1 percent. (NCHC) Let us remember, though, that this is not a call for a growing economy, but, rather, a more just economy economically with a cost-controlled health care policy.
- The average family's health insurance premium in 2008 was an astounding $12,680, up from $9950 in 2004. (US News and World Report). The price will continue to rise without a fundamental change in our system.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Another Case for Gun Control
Because of the tension of tomorrow's health care vote, I want to stay with the earlier post's subject: that is, gun control. I feel it is necessary to bring up more issues during the week so that health care, though extremely important, does not completely consume our minds. We need to keep alert for all of the nation's problems.
In an earlier post, I spoke about the terrorist threats we feel abroad. These are very real and very dangerous. Without a doubt, we must make sure to keep focused on the international problems we face from day to day. Yet there is something to be said about the more pressing threat to our citizenry. This is crime.
Every year, about 30,000 people die from guns (in assaults, accidents, and suicides), and about 11,000 are murdered by the weapons. Let us put this into perspective. The amount of people murdered by guns each year tallies to over three and a half 9/11's every year and over two and a half Wars in Iraq (as the number stands right now for Iraq) every year. That's excluding everyone who died from accidental fire or suicides!
More than two times as many people die from gun fire as AIDs in America. Every year.
But, above all, this may be the most telling and saddest figure I can come up with: over 3000 children will die each year from gun fire, according to the Children's Defense Fund. This is unacceptable.
Where is the public outcry?!
In a nation as prestigious, as "humane," and as advanced as ours, you would think that this would go against our moral fabric. The future of this nation is getting killed because of our obsession with misinterpreting what the founders meant by the Second Amendment. Anyone with half of a brain can tell you that this should call for more regulation, for cleaning up the streets, and for the real, sustainable destruction of poverty in our nation. It should be a sign of a lack of proper prioritizing; we would rather spend billions in sustaining the upkeep of outdated and unused military equipment like the Star Wars Missile Defense System or on trickle down economics (Bush Tax Cuts) than on education and housing. It sends the wrong message to our inner-city youth and does nothing to help the most pressing urban problems.
In America today, we hear a lot about Usama bin Laden and al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the media chooses to ignore gang violence. The urban folks in this nation are not afraid of Ayman al-Zawahiri, but they do share a fear of the Bloods and the Crips. You ask any teenager in an American city what they're most fearful of, and it won't be Islamic extremism. No, my brothers and sisters, it will be the streets at night and the gang members that walk them.
It is about time to start getting real about gangs and gun violence, and quick. If not, then we can lose all hope for the future of this nation.
In an earlier post, I spoke about the terrorist threats we feel abroad. These are very real and very dangerous. Without a doubt, we must make sure to keep focused on the international problems we face from day to day. Yet there is something to be said about the more pressing threat to our citizenry. This is crime.
Every year, about 30,000 people die from guns (in assaults, accidents, and suicides), and about 11,000 are murdered by the weapons. Let us put this into perspective. The amount of people murdered by guns each year tallies to over three and a half 9/11's every year and over two and a half Wars in Iraq (as the number stands right now for Iraq) every year. That's excluding everyone who died from accidental fire or suicides!
More than two times as many people die from gun fire as AIDs in America. Every year.
But, above all, this may be the most telling and saddest figure I can come up with: over 3000 children will die each year from gun fire, according to the Children's Defense Fund. This is unacceptable.
Where is the public outcry?!
In a nation as prestigious, as "humane," and as advanced as ours, you would think that this would go against our moral fabric. The future of this nation is getting killed because of our obsession with misinterpreting what the founders meant by the Second Amendment. Anyone with half of a brain can tell you that this should call for more regulation, for cleaning up the streets, and for the real, sustainable destruction of poverty in our nation. It should be a sign of a lack of proper prioritizing; we would rather spend billions in sustaining the upkeep of outdated and unused military equipment like the Star Wars Missile Defense System or on trickle down economics (Bush Tax Cuts) than on education and housing. It sends the wrong message to our inner-city youth and does nothing to help the most pressing urban problems.
In America today, we hear a lot about Usama bin Laden and al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the media chooses to ignore gang violence. The urban folks in this nation are not afraid of Ayman al-Zawahiri, but they do share a fear of the Bloods and the Crips. You ask any teenager in an American city what they're most fearful of, and it won't be Islamic extremism. No, my brothers and sisters, it will be the streets at night and the gang members that walk them.
It is about time to start getting real about gangs and gun violence, and quick. If not, then we can lose all hope for the future of this nation.
Bar Fight On Camera
And this could possibly be the best piece of evidence Progressives need for gun control. In the video, you'll see a pretty "poppin'" bar where a large group of people are having a good time. Out of nowhere, a bar fight erupts and, a few moments into it, a gun fight begins. See it for yourself:
For me, this is the best case for gun control reform. No one should be able to bring a gun into public places, unless you are an officer of the law. There's no reason for it, and there's especially no intelligent reason to have one on your person while you are drinking.
Drunk driving is bad. Drunk shooting is worse. Neither should be tolerated.
For me, this is the best case for gun control reform. No one should be able to bring a gun into public places, unless you are an officer of the law. There's no reason for it, and there's especially no intelligent reason to have one on your person while you are drinking.
Drunk driving is bad. Drunk shooting is worse. Neither should be tolerated.
Health Lobbies: Start Your Engines
Tomorrow, the Senate Finance Committee will vote on its ten-year long health insurance reform bill. It has taken about a year to write, numerous amounts of drafts to go through, and, of course, millions of dollars of health insurers' revenues to sway Congresspeople.
Most of the money that has gone into the bill-writing process from the health lobbies have been used for the actual creation of the bill. The money has been used behind the scenes, with hopes to sway Senators and Representatives to vote nay on reform. Thankfully for us, a large block of these men and women have stuck steadfastly on helping the American People. They understand the necessary course of action right now and will see it through for us.
While thinking in idealist terms-- like we are doing in the above sentences-- will help us in some ways, we must also realize that money is power. At this moment in time, the lobbies are now switching their tactics. Instead of sticking in the background, they have, late last night, come out in full force to undermine the process and feed the right wing with lies and "mistruths." The organization, America's Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, paid for a report that said that the Baucus bill in the Senate Finance Committee would add over $1600 in annual costs to families with health insurance. As I'm sure any of you in the intelligentsia out there can tell, the AHIP is a political advocacy group and, as such, is a biased organization. The people responsibly for the report yearn for reform about as much as Rush Limbaugh yearns for a late-night snack of nice, tasty rice cakes. In other words, they are hoping reform dies.
Here is the irony of this whole situation. The People pay their health insurance companies thousands of dollars in premiums every year, the intent being that, if they die, that money be used for their hospital bills. Then, these corporations take the money, and put it into organizations like the AHIP, which in turn uses the money to feed lies to the People.
This is not an isolated case. On average, health insurers spend 17% of every dollar on over head costs. Seventeen percent of your premiums goes to exorbitant administrators' salaries, private bureaucracies, real death panels, and, of course, marketing. We give these corporations our money so that they can spend it on getting more suckers into their ranks to give them more money. This is the cycle.
To put this all in perspective, Medicare spends only 5% on overhead charges. This whole idea of public programs as huge, wasteful bureaucracies is silliness. Its dangerous, and we should not allow the big wigs to get away with the lies. End it.
Forget about the public plan. Forget about the Baucus Bill. As I see it, everyone in the nation should be able to take advantage of a plan so efficient that it only spends 5% of their money on overhead costs. That is competition. Limbaugh should be proud.
Most of the money that has gone into the bill-writing process from the health lobbies have been used for the actual creation of the bill. The money has been used behind the scenes, with hopes to sway Senators and Representatives to vote nay on reform. Thankfully for us, a large block of these men and women have stuck steadfastly on helping the American People. They understand the necessary course of action right now and will see it through for us.
While thinking in idealist terms-- like we are doing in the above sentences-- will help us in some ways, we must also realize that money is power. At this moment in time, the lobbies are now switching their tactics. Instead of sticking in the background, they have, late last night, come out in full force to undermine the process and feed the right wing with lies and "mistruths." The organization, America's Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, paid for a report that said that the Baucus bill in the Senate Finance Committee would add over $1600 in annual costs to families with health insurance. As I'm sure any of you in the intelligentsia out there can tell, the AHIP is a political advocacy group and, as such, is a biased organization. The people responsibly for the report yearn for reform about as much as Rush Limbaugh yearns for a late-night snack of nice, tasty rice cakes. In other words, they are hoping reform dies.
Here is the irony of this whole situation. The People pay their health insurance companies thousands of dollars in premiums every year, the intent being that, if they die, that money be used for their hospital bills. Then, these corporations take the money, and put it into organizations like the AHIP, which in turn uses the money to feed lies to the People.
This is not an isolated case. On average, health insurers spend 17% of every dollar on over head costs. Seventeen percent of your premiums goes to exorbitant administrators' salaries, private bureaucracies, real death panels, and, of course, marketing. We give these corporations our money so that they can spend it on getting more suckers into their ranks to give them more money. This is the cycle.
To put this all in perspective, Medicare spends only 5% on overhead charges. This whole idea of public programs as huge, wasteful bureaucracies is silliness. Its dangerous, and we should not allow the big wigs to get away with the lies. End it.
Forget about the public plan. Forget about the Baucus Bill. As I see it, everyone in the nation should be able to take advantage of a plan so efficient that it only spends 5% of their money on overhead costs. That is competition. Limbaugh should be proud.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Getting Gay About Rights-- But Is It Enough
And this is a real victory, boys and girls. But is it enough?
Earlier today, President Barack Obama stood in front of a lively crowd of members of the LGBT Community and supporters of the same and declared that he will be repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy currently in use for gays serving in the military. As per the policy, members of the military who are homosexual cannot disclose their sexual preferences to anyone in the military, and, as such, no one in the military can question someone's sexuality. He did not give a process, nor did he give a timeline, but he pledged it. Let's put it this way: it will have to be in the next four years, and possibly in the next two. I don't say this because one's moral compass has a timeline; rather, I say it because elections are every two years, and this would be horrible politics to promise something and not deliver. Disastrous doesn't even begin to describe it.
Either way, I don't know what he is waiting for. An executive order-- one like Truman's in 1948 that allowed African Americans to serve-- is all that is necessary. For some reason, it seems like the President can fit one in, especially considering all the time he gives to the big banks.
Considering all of this, I was missing something from the speech. I didn't feel the same fire for other rights- for instance, I didn't feel the President Obama was as passionate about moving the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act through Congress. I am sure he is being genuine in saying that he plans to move it through the process. But, if I was in his position, this is what I would say:
Earlier today, President Barack Obama stood in front of a lively crowd of members of the LGBT Community and supporters of the same and declared that he will be repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy currently in use for gays serving in the military. As per the policy, members of the military who are homosexual cannot disclose their sexual preferences to anyone in the military, and, as such, no one in the military can question someone's sexuality. He did not give a process, nor did he give a timeline, but he pledged it. Let's put it this way: it will have to be in the next four years, and possibly in the next two. I don't say this because one's moral compass has a timeline; rather, I say it because elections are every two years, and this would be horrible politics to promise something and not deliver. Disastrous doesn't even begin to describe it.
Either way, I don't know what he is waiting for. An executive order-- one like Truman's in 1948 that allowed African Americans to serve-- is all that is necessary. For some reason, it seems like the President can fit one in, especially considering all the time he gives to the big banks.
Considering all of this, I was missing something from the speech. I didn't feel the same fire for other rights- for instance, I didn't feel the President Obama was as passionate about moving the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act through Congress. I am sure he is being genuine in saying that he plans to move it through the process. But, if I was in his position, this is what I would say:
My brothers and sisters, we are gathered here to affirm the greatness of our nation. It has been hundreds of years since we began our journey. This experiment has never been faultless; indeed, we have amended the Constitution, passed a countless number of laws, and given full rights to a myriad of citizens. And yet, as I look across you all, I must say, with a heavy heart, that we have forgotten about you. For far too long, you have been the punchline and the overlooked. But tonight, I can declare this: we accept you. We accept you, not just as soldiers, but as fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors. We accept you as doctors, and as lawyers, and as teachers. We accept you as mentors and guides. We accept you as humans, and never again shall we forget this notion.While we should be able to expect everything we want (meaning, full rights for all citizens), we must take it at one step at a time. This is progress, and, after all, we are Progressives.
"Great Recession" Statistics
I always find it extremely interesting to go back into history and look at statistics of different times and places. There is a lot to be learned in such seemingly overused data. For instance, the USSR lost 10.4 percent of its population, or over 20 million people, in World War II. This illustrates the role that the Soviets had in the defeat of fascism in Europe and the world and can lead to some sympathy in the eyes of Americans nation-wide for Stalin's nation.
On the Huffington Post today, I looked at a site of statistics for the Great Recession. The facts are extremely interesting: for example, the VIX Index, which shows the amount of fear within the nation towards the Stock Market, shows a historical average at 18-20, while last October it was 83. Two days ago, it was at 23.
There are tons of more statistics here. Some of them are interesting, but more are simply frightening. The volatility of our system is insane. It seems like America enjoys a system that can lose $11.2 trillion in a matter of two years. I simply believe it is a cycle of irrational behavior, and, hopefully soon, the rest of the nation will see it. That's all.
On the Huffington Post today, I looked at a site of statistics for the Great Recession. The facts are extremely interesting: for example, the VIX Index, which shows the amount of fear within the nation towards the Stock Market, shows a historical average at 18-20, while last October it was 83. Two days ago, it was at 23.
There are tons of more statistics here. Some of them are interesting, but more are simply frightening. The volatility of our system is insane. It seems like America enjoys a system that can lose $11.2 trillion in a matter of two years. I simply believe it is a cycle of irrational behavior, and, hopefully soon, the rest of the nation will see it. That's all.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The Afghanistan Decision
If you've been reading or watching the news in the past couple weeks, you can tell me just as well as anyone else that there is a debate going on about the War in Afghanistan. You have advisers, secretaries, generals, and the Vice President, all saying different things to President Obama. Some are proposing that he send more troops, some are proposing a lesser position in Afghanistan and a larger role in Pakistan. Not many are saying that we should leave Afghanistan all together and, as a Progressive, I must say I agree with that. We must have a force in Afghanistan.
Today, we found out that one adviser believes anything less than 25,000 more troops in Afghanistan means assured failure. In the report, three main problems are outlined: the government is seen as illegitimate, there are terrorist posts across the border into Pakistan, and there is a lack of military resources. All together, this simply increases the problems we see in Afghanistan.
While I may not be a top general within the Obama Administration, I still feel that it is necessary to have some type of opinion on this subject. I must say that the Biden Plan-- that is, a larger role in Pakistan while a bit of a smaller force in their neighbor-- is very appealing to me. I have always felt that Pakistan was the major problem; certainly, there is really no objection to the belief that Usama Bin Laden, if he is still alive, crossed the Hindu-Kush Mountains-laden border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and set up shop in the hills within Pakistan. I larger role in the destruction of terrorist havens in Pakistan would be a way to put more pressure on the al-Qaeda factions there.
There is one more note here that we should take to heart. Whatever we do, we must be very careful to make sure that it does not cause more destruction to the citizens living there. The way that someone is brought into a terrorist group is through hate. Anyone whose brother was killed, anyone whose house was blown up, anyone who lost their belongings and family in a fire due to an American-made missile will be easily recruited by a group calling for the death of the perpetrators. Our first mission must be to help the citizens in any country realize we are there to help us and them. Until this happens, the circle of terrorism will continue to roll, and we will be in deep trouble.
Today, we found out that one adviser believes anything less than 25,000 more troops in Afghanistan means assured failure. In the report, three main problems are outlined: the government is seen as illegitimate, there are terrorist posts across the border into Pakistan, and there is a lack of military resources. All together, this simply increases the problems we see in Afghanistan.
While I may not be a top general within the Obama Administration, I still feel that it is necessary to have some type of opinion on this subject. I must say that the Biden Plan-- that is, a larger role in Pakistan while a bit of a smaller force in their neighbor-- is very appealing to me. I have always felt that Pakistan was the major problem; certainly, there is really no objection to the belief that Usama Bin Laden, if he is still alive, crossed the Hindu-Kush Mountains-laden border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and set up shop in the hills within Pakistan. I larger role in the destruction of terrorist havens in Pakistan would be a way to put more pressure on the al-Qaeda factions there.
There is one more note here that we should take to heart. Whatever we do, we must be very careful to make sure that it does not cause more destruction to the citizens living there. The way that someone is brought into a terrorist group is through hate. Anyone whose brother was killed, anyone whose house was blown up, anyone who lost their belongings and family in a fire due to an American-made missile will be easily recruited by a group calling for the death of the perpetrators. Our first mission must be to help the citizens in any country realize we are there to help us and them. Until this happens, the circle of terrorism will continue to roll, and we will be in deep trouble.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Nobel Prize for Obama?!
It may have been a repudiation of the past eight years in America's history, or it may have been a true illustration of the Norwegian Nobel Committee's true opinion of the President: either way, it seems that a sitting President has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for only the third time in our history.
President Teddy Roosevelt, the bull moose himself, won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1906, and President Woodrow Wilson won the second in 1919. For the third Nobel Peace Prize ever given to a President, Former President Jimmy Carter was awarded the prize in 2002, making President Obama only the fourth president to ever receive the honor.
From Operation: Democracy to the White House, we offer our congratulations!
President Teddy Roosevelt, the bull moose himself, won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1906, and President Woodrow Wilson won the second in 1919. For the third Nobel Peace Prize ever given to a President, Former President Jimmy Carter was awarded the prize in 2002, making President Obama only the fourth president to ever receive the honor.
From Operation: Democracy to the White House, we offer our congratulations!
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Policy Idea 1: Public Housing
While our leaders debate about health care and the many, many ideas out there, another problem plagues many Americans at the moment-- as you sit here and read this blog, nearly 4 million people have lost their homes in foreclosures. For a great number of these people, their families' new homes are nothing more than tents in a larger tent community. This number only adds to the already hundreds of thousands of the impoverished homeless, who have set up shop in shelters across America. There is no way out for these people; indeed, the job opportunities for people without the means of transportation to get to those jobs, or any other necessity for the job market for that matter, are very low.
As stated in President Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights, the right of every man to have a home shall not be denied. It is true that basic food and shelter are essential elements to living. Without these things, you can not survive, much less raise a family.
Recognizing that shelter is essential to living, and realizing, as Progressives, that we must live in a real world. I am not going to attempt to debate with the right wingers whether it should be a responsibility of government to provide its citizens with a good home. There is no way of swaying the other side to our belief that the overlooked and disadvantaged within our society should be cared for by the central power. Rather, allow us to look at the real elements of the debate: people are homeless, some because of alcohol and abuse, but many more because of recent foreclosures or gross inequalities within our system. More on those later.
Because people are losing their homes (and jobs) at such a quick rate, the government, an institution put into effect to help people, should provide both of these things. I do not see a project more tailored for this than a vast, nation-wide public housing project. It could aid many elements of our economy, all of which are reeling from the past year and a half. Here is how it would work.
So, instead of this, we'll have a few tax cuts here and there, maybe a subsidy program, and they'll leave the real progress for the next generation.
Good thing we're here.
As stated in President Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights, the right of every man to have a home shall not be denied. It is true that basic food and shelter are essential elements to living. Without these things, you can not survive, much less raise a family.
Recognizing that shelter is essential to living, and realizing, as Progressives, that we must live in a real world. I am not going to attempt to debate with the right wingers whether it should be a responsibility of government to provide its citizens with a good home. There is no way of swaying the other side to our belief that the overlooked and disadvantaged within our society should be cared for by the central power. Rather, allow us to look at the real elements of the debate: people are homeless, some because of alcohol and abuse, but many more because of recent foreclosures or gross inequalities within our system. More on those later.
Because people are losing their homes (and jobs) at such a quick rate, the government, an institution put into effect to help people, should provide both of these things. I do not see a project more tailored for this than a vast, nation-wide public housing project. It could aid many elements of our economy, all of which are reeling from the past year and a half. Here is how it would work.
- The government would send agents to go to different cities and towns within the United States, some in the urban parts of the country, some in the rural. These agents would find buildings and lots of land that could be restored as new public housing. They would report back to their state governments.
- The state governments would report to the federal government about the possible size and scale of the project. The federal government would then, in categorical grants-in-aid, provide the states with funding.
- This funding would go to districts within the states of the housing project, and these districts would buy the necessary real estate. Real estate- check.
- Then, the real work would begin. Anyone in need of a job would be hired on the spot. These people would go to work, building or reconstructing homes or apartment buildings. Each would be big enough to sustain families of different sizes. Jobs- check.
- Once a new project was ready to hold a family, a family could apply for it. The application process would be quick and easy. At first, the homes would only be open to people who lost their homes in foreclosures or had previously already been homeless. Homelessness- check.
- The first 3 to 6 months would be rent free, utilities free. After this, the rent would be only high enough to pay back the government for its fees, plus the utilities cost, over a set number of years. Funding- check.
- After the start-up period, anyone in America could take advantage of public housing. This would be a way to make sure it was not a way to segregate by race and class. And, as the middle class pays a large portion of the taxes, they should be able to take some of the fruit of their labor.
So, instead of this, we'll have a few tax cuts here and there, maybe a subsidy program, and they'll leave the real progress for the next generation.
Good thing we're here.
Bachmann Responds
So obviously I'd love to say that my post yesterday made Representative Bachmann respond to all of her "leftist critics." While it may be because of higher profile blogs and people, and not because of this blog, Bachmann did respond yesterday night on the O'Reilly Factor. Like Bill O'Reilly always is, he applauded the Representative, saying that she was "good looking" and that the "far left" was merely jealous of her success. She agreed. Right. It's not all of her insane remarks that get us going. It's her success.
Geithner: Lobbyist in Costume?
We all know about the TARP fund, the bailouts, corporate welfare, and all of the rest of the ways that our government uses taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of the wealthy, especially in the past year. The dreaded redistribution of wealth has already taken place, and will continue to take place, from the pockets of middle-class Americans to the bank accounts of the corporate and Wall Street elite. This is a fact of the present government.
Unfortunately, it seems that President Obama's Administration will be a continuation of this unjust practice. According to the Associated Press, Obama's Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, is even more involved with the banks than we had ever thought.
Looking at Geithner's past, as we have before, his connections to Wall Street are obvious. As the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, he was able to create a vast amount of contacts, especially with three banks in particular: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citigroup. Through the years, the connections have apparently gone strong; according to the Huffington Post, Geithner has regularly taken calls from the bosses at these banks. Says Matt Apuzzo and Daniel Wagner at the Post...
The calendars, obtained by the AP under the Freedom of Information Act, offer a behind-the-scenes glimpse at the continued influence of three companies – Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. – whose executives can reach the nation's most powerful economic official on the phone, sometimes several times a day.
The report outlines that some of these one on one talks with bankers outnumbers the amount of talks Geithner has had with Rep. Barney Frank (Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee) and Sen. Chris Dodd (Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee).
The fear that we should all have with Geithner is the fact that he and the President speak regularly and often, and President Obama has great trust in this man. Geithner can come to the President any time he wants, offering his advice and recommendations for how to move forward. In a way, Geithner is an inexpensive, yet powerful, lobbyist in the inside of the White House. There is nothing more profitable for the banks, and, undoubtedly, nothing more troubling for the American People.
Unfortunately, it seems that President Obama's Administration will be a continuation of this unjust practice. According to the Associated Press, Obama's Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, is even more involved with the banks than we had ever thought.
Looking at Geithner's past, as we have before, his connections to Wall Street are obvious. As the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, he was able to create a vast amount of contacts, especially with three banks in particular: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citigroup. Through the years, the connections have apparently gone strong; according to the Huffington Post, Geithner has regularly taken calls from the bosses at these banks. Says Matt Apuzzo and Daniel Wagner at the Post...
The calendars, obtained by the AP under the Freedom of Information Act, offer a behind-the-scenes glimpse at the continued influence of three companies – Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. – whose executives can reach the nation's most powerful economic official on the phone, sometimes several times a day.
The report outlines that some of these one on one talks with bankers outnumbers the amount of talks Geithner has had with Rep. Barney Frank (Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee) and Sen. Chris Dodd (Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee).
The fear that we should all have with Geithner is the fact that he and the President speak regularly and often, and President Obama has great trust in this man. Geithner can come to the President any time he wants, offering his advice and recommendations for how to move forward. In a way, Geithner is an inexpensive, yet powerful, lobbyist in the inside of the White House. There is nothing more profitable for the banks, and, undoubtedly, nothing more troubling for the American People.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Progressive Manifesto Part III
Progressivism, at its core, is a realistic ideology. There is no necessary belief in predestination, no hope that all of our problems will simply be lifted off our shoulders in good time. Progressivism knows our limitations, our boundaries; in essence, it focuses on the world that we have, not the one that we believe we should have. That is a very fundamental distinction. It is helping people in the "here and now" that is our focus, not moving someone on the path to a better life in the future, or, in some cases, in Heaven.
It is this that separates us from almost every ideology.
And it is this that must make the Steady State Economy (SSE) one of the central policy issues we have. Undoubtedly anyone can tell that the current state of the economy is anything but stable. Over the past 100 years, we have experienced a myriad of economic problems, all simply because there was never enough regulation within the system. Obviously the problems were more intricate than just deregulation (much like the problems Conservatives see in the government are caused by much more than just their favorite line, "government thinking they can spend Americans' money better than the Americans themselves"). But the problems could be resolved if we were to adopt this strategy for our economic system.
Steady State Economics would prevent these enormous downward and upward ticks in our economy through a multitude of methods, all of which will be explained a little later on today. As an overview, though, SSE would set a natural limit to the amount we consume and produce. Nobody in this nation can honestly say they believe our ratio between consumption and production is desirable. We should all be embarrassed at our consumption, and the production of goods from this nation is absolutely abysmal; in short, this relationship between high consumption and relatively low production is one of the reasons for our pitfalls and will not be able to be sustained. This system must be eradicated if we are to remain one of the world's major powers, much less the world power.
A steady state would also ensure that the income gap between the wealthiest and, well, everyone else would decrease. The SSE does not, and never would, call for a completely economically egalitarian society (such as communism) but rather focuses on a more refined distribution of income. After all, this "pie" everyone talks about has only been made once. And much like a regular pie, the only thing that can get larger is the pieces, not the pie itself.
Because Progressives recognize we have this one world in the present day, we must adopt this to be the corner stone of our newly founded political philosophy. Until this happens, we are no different than any other political ideology.
It is this that separates us from almost every ideology.
And it is this that must make the Steady State Economy (SSE) one of the central policy issues we have. Undoubtedly anyone can tell that the current state of the economy is anything but stable. Over the past 100 years, we have experienced a myriad of economic problems, all simply because there was never enough regulation within the system. Obviously the problems were more intricate than just deregulation (much like the problems Conservatives see in the government are caused by much more than just their favorite line, "government thinking they can spend Americans' money better than the Americans themselves"). But the problems could be resolved if we were to adopt this strategy for our economic system.
Steady State Economics would prevent these enormous downward and upward ticks in our economy through a multitude of methods, all of which will be explained a little later on today. As an overview, though, SSE would set a natural limit to the amount we consume and produce. Nobody in this nation can honestly say they believe our ratio between consumption and production is desirable. We should all be embarrassed at our consumption, and the production of goods from this nation is absolutely abysmal; in short, this relationship between high consumption and relatively low production is one of the reasons for our pitfalls and will not be able to be sustained. This system must be eradicated if we are to remain one of the world's major powers, much less the world power.
A steady state would also ensure that the income gap between the wealthiest and, well, everyone else would decrease. The SSE does not, and never would, call for a completely economically egalitarian society (such as communism) but rather focuses on a more refined distribution of income. After all, this "pie" everyone talks about has only been made once. And much like a regular pie, the only thing that can get larger is the pieces, not the pie itself.
Because Progressives recognize we have this one world in the present day, we must adopt this to be the corner stone of our newly founded political philosophy. Until this happens, we are no different than any other political ideology.
Threats to Democracy: Michelle Bachmann
Michelle Bachmann was first elected to the House of Representatives in 2006 and assumed office in 2007. She represents Minnesota's 6th District. In 2008, despite the Democrat's winning Minnesota in the Presidential Election, she somehow managed to keep her seat. Without getting a simple majority of votes, she beat her opponent, Democrat Elwyn Tinklenberg, no I did not make that up, 46.4% to 43.4%.
I do not need to spend much time listing this woman's atrocious actions as of late, because I am sure many of you have either witnessed it or heard about them. However, I feel it is necessary to show some type of evidence against her. After all, as Progressives, we do believe in due process and civil liberties.
The first time I ever heard about Mrs. Bachmann was during her campaign in 2008. On Hardball with Chris Matthews, this insane woman literally came up with the idea to peruse the ranks of the House and Senate and expose those people who were, in her own words, "anti-American." McCarthyism. If there is something that threatens the very fabric of our nation it is the rebirth and reincarnation of McCarthyism. The US is a nation of thousands of philosophies and ideologies, and the only anti-American sentiments out there are ones that say there are such things as anti-American sentiments and that there should be investigations to find out if someone holds them. I mean, with all of the rhetoric about the President turning the "US" into the "USSR," you would think these people would study a little Russian history and read about the Great Purges!
We're going to discuss two more controversial events that she was a part of.
In the first of the two, the crazy was on a radio show called the Sue Jeffers show where she discussed her belief that Americorps is actually an evil plan to reeducate all of America's young idealists. In her own words...
“It is a dream come true for people who want to transform our country from a free-market economy to a centralized government planned economy. It is completely different and antithetical to what our founders gave us and I think people should be shocked, they should be stunned with what is happening and the speed at which it's happening and in particular, what is happening with the G-20 and the transnational aspects of what our President is committing our nation to.”
So, apparently, Americorps, something that allows the youth of America to build something out of their intense desires to help people and a program that touches the lives of millions of peoples for the better, is actually an evil creation of this omnipresent world government. She's right, of course. The founders of our nation would hate the idea of the young adults going throughout the nation to help others by building homes, helping to educate citizens, and finding others jobs. Maybe she will someday realize that it is Congresspeople like her that make Americorps necessary.
In the second, Bachmann discussed the idea of a cap-and-trade energy policy on a radio show. She openly said that she wanted the citizens of the United States to be "armed and dangerous" about this issue. The idea of one of our Representatives calling for the civilians of this nation to be armed and dangerous is not just dumb, but it is rather frightening. It seems odd to me that a Congresswoman would be calling for the overthrow of the very entity she works for, but then again, she is not exactly the brightest bulb in the knife drawer.
Allow me to bring this point one step further. In the preamble of our Constitution, the government outlines its major duties to us: provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare of the People. And again, under Section 1, Article 8, Congress' main function is to "provide for the common Defense and promote the general welfare of the United State." As per her swearing in, unless she was able to maneuver her way into Congress without taking an oath, Bachmann said...
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Welfare, as defined by the Legal Dictionary of TheFreeDictionary.com, means "the concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens."
All of this put together means that Michelle Bachmann, the two-term Representative, broke her oath. She did not support and defend the general welfare-- peace-- of her fellow US citizens when she called for Americans to be armed and dangerous. She was not pushing domestic tranquility when she thought the introduction of a cap-and-trade program was enough to ask for violence to erupt. She incited violence and, as such, is a threat to us and democracy.
With so many people actually listening and respecting what she says, its hard to believe we have not had an insurrection. This woman is a fear mongering, intollerant, anti-American threat to democracy.
Threats to Democracy
Good day, my brothers and sisters!
I am going to start out this day with a new segment that I have titled: "Threats to Democracy."
If I had a radio show or a TV show, this is where the very dark sounding audio would come in.
Anyways, the basic premise of this segment is to profile a public figure that I believe is a threat to our democracy. Without a doubt, there are thousands to profile and I do not think I'll ever be at a loss of words for this one.
When I came up with the idea for this portion of the blog, I was not intentionally thinking of a new whole category of posts. I was surfing my favorite websites and saw a new news story about Michelle Bachmann, the Congresswoman from Minnesota and right-wing crazy. I thought about it for a second, and wanted to really do a profile of her on Operation: Democracy, but realized that there are thousands of carbon copies of Bachmann. I think I would be doing an injustice to all of her replicas if I were to only profile the woman and not the machine.
In a few hours, the first segment of this new chapter of Operation: Democracy will debut. I am just attempting to put all of the links in the right places and proofreading the post to make sure nothing is wrong.
Get ready and check back soon!
I am going to start out this day with a new segment that I have titled: "Threats to Democracy."
If I had a radio show or a TV show, this is where the very dark sounding audio would come in.
Anyways, the basic premise of this segment is to profile a public figure that I believe is a threat to our democracy. Without a doubt, there are thousands to profile and I do not think I'll ever be at a loss of words for this one.
When I came up with the idea for this portion of the blog, I was not intentionally thinking of a new whole category of posts. I was surfing my favorite websites and saw a new news story about Michelle Bachmann, the Congresswoman from Minnesota and right-wing crazy. I thought about it for a second, and wanted to really do a profile of her on Operation: Democracy, but realized that there are thousands of carbon copies of Bachmann. I think I would be doing an injustice to all of her replicas if I were to only profile the woman and not the machine.
In a few hours, the first segment of this new chapter of Operation: Democracy will debut. I am just attempting to put all of the links in the right places and proofreading the post to make sure nothing is wrong.
Get ready and check back soon!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Obama's Approval Jumps 6%
Allow me to take a break for a few moments from the Progressive Manifesto posts to offer up a bit of news to you all.
According to the Huffington Post, a new poll out from AP and GfK shows the approval rating of President Barack Obama, whose early presidency has seen a downward trend in public approval as of late, will be seeing a six percent bounce this week! From the low 50% in September to 56% presently, the President seems to have begun a new upward trend. This could be because we are finally seeing something coming out of these separate negotiations in the House and Senate between Democrat factions, which began anew after the President's televised address to Congress. It may have been the House's passing of a major overhaul of the student loan market. Who knows?! Maybe after Letterman's sex scandal the American public said to themselves, "well, at least Lewinsky's not still working there!"
Whatever the reason, this one public opinion poll says that, as a whole, six percent more of the People see the President in a brighter light. Allow me to add a quick disclaimer: I campaigned, and voted, for Barack Obama from the very beginning. I was sixteen when I first heard about him, and watched him through the many draft-Obama movements throughout the US. I hoped beyond hope that he would accept these invitations from the hopefuls in our party, as it seemed like he was the only one in the field that could take our imaginations and make some type of reality out of them.
Yet, 9 months into his presidency, I must say that I, as a Progressive, as a watchdog, and as an American, am rather disapproving of his administration. I am a part of the machine that took him from nobody to rock star, from 19% in the polls to tied with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. If it was not for me and the base of the Democratic Party, President Obama would be Senator Obama and the Clinton (2) White House may actually be pushing hard on the public option!
In light of the Saturday Night Live skit detailing the President's failures, I think it is only appropriate to make a real list of complaints that our community has when it comes to the man we placed in that Oval Office.
- The economic policies of this administration have been far from Progressive. As the African American philosopher and intellectual Cornel West said of the administration, "don't appoint Larry Summers as an economic adviser and tell me you're progressive." He speaks the truth. Our community was looking for a stimulus package with the size and scope of a "new" New Deal, and what we received was a 787 billion dollar stimulus package, where nearly 300 billion dollars went to tax cuts. The so-called "shovel ready" jobs turned out to be less than ready. And none of the money went to things as creative as the CCC or WPA.
- Guantanamo Bay is still open and will remain open for the foreseeable future. Because our Supermax prisons are strong enough to hold Timothy McVeigh and 4-dozen killer Gary Ridgway, but not even the walls of a maximum security prison in the richest country in the world would be able to keep the cab driver Dilawar inside. That's why we tortured him to death.
- Millions of people who lost their homes in the Great Recession are still displaced, living on the streets or in tent cities. The best way to handle this would be a massive project to create a real, working, sustainable public housing system in America. We could put people to work by building homes, reconstructing buildings, fixing up dilapidated and foreclosed houses, and the like. Then, those who need places to live would have shelter at a minimal price, or for free until they found a job.
- Because of his faltering leadership in the health care debate, we have not even been able to tackle our other top priorities: climate change hasn't been given remotely the time it needs, public education is on the back burner, and don't even get me started on gay rights, the Employee Free Choice Act, and a whole host of other issues.
Heed this warning. We were given a great opportunity in 2008. If we squander it away with non action and the fluttering around of issues, then we will not see another in years. The movement we seek will be farther off in the distance. Be proactive. Call your Congressman. Make your voice heard.
The Progressive Manifesto Part II
If compassion is the fundamental pillar that Progressivism rests on, then realism is the ground that the pillar stands on. This is the second inspiration for modern Progressivism, and it is quite possibly the most important part of our philosophy.
Markets that are always in a state of combativeness between each other can never coexist; indeed, it is realism itself that shows us that straight capitalism, unregulated capitalism, in theory and in practice, is a self consuming beast. If we attempt to all live on top of a system that thrives on a gross inequality of the distribution of the means for production, we will fall. This was shown in the financial meltdown of 2008. It was not the regulation of the markets that tore down our economy. No, my brothers and sisters, it was this unregulated, unfettered system that made bad loans to risky debtors and packaged them off into the market.
It is also true that a nation under the powers of the capitalist system can never be a true democracy. The "democratic traditions" that this nation was founded on were, at some point, watered down and became, simply, the illusions of populism and equality. We are made to believe that our representatives are responsive to our demands, but a simple analysis of the facts of our system can prove something much darker. How can a state that has allowed the money of big business and lobbyists to enter its government truly call itself a state governed by the People? How can a government so infiltrated by the agents of the wealthy and most prosperous declare itself to be government of the People? In short, how can two philosophies that are eternally in conflict- democracy, which depends on an egalitarian society of one vote per one person, and capitalism, which depends on a culture of inequality- be the two philosophies that govern a nation?
The simple answer is that they cannot. Democracy and capitalism cannot coexist. Therefore, one always must win out. All too often, realists can tell which system beats the other. While I am sure the majority of our representatives enter their first campaign with a sense of dignity and pride, they are soon twisted one way and turned the other until, as far as we can see, they are molded into the perfect corporate puppet.
Soon, one will have to give way to the other.
We, the People, are here to make sure that the winners are us, not the corporate puppets.
Markets that are always in a state of combativeness between each other can never coexist; indeed, it is realism itself that shows us that straight capitalism, unregulated capitalism, in theory and in practice, is a self consuming beast. If we attempt to all live on top of a system that thrives on a gross inequality of the distribution of the means for production, we will fall. This was shown in the financial meltdown of 2008. It was not the regulation of the markets that tore down our economy. No, my brothers and sisters, it was this unregulated, unfettered system that made bad loans to risky debtors and packaged them off into the market.
It is also true that a nation under the powers of the capitalist system can never be a true democracy. The "democratic traditions" that this nation was founded on were, at some point, watered down and became, simply, the illusions of populism and equality. We are made to believe that our representatives are responsive to our demands, but a simple analysis of the facts of our system can prove something much darker. How can a state that has allowed the money of big business and lobbyists to enter its government truly call itself a state governed by the People? How can a government so infiltrated by the agents of the wealthy and most prosperous declare itself to be government of the People? In short, how can two philosophies that are eternally in conflict- democracy, which depends on an egalitarian society of one vote per one person, and capitalism, which depends on a culture of inequality- be the two philosophies that govern a nation?
The simple answer is that they cannot. Democracy and capitalism cannot coexist. Therefore, one always must win out. All too often, realists can tell which system beats the other. While I am sure the majority of our representatives enter their first campaign with a sense of dignity and pride, they are soon twisted one way and turned the other until, as far as we can see, they are molded into the perfect corporate puppet.
Soon, one will have to give way to the other.
We, the People, are here to make sure that the winners are us, not the corporate puppets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)