Somebody needs to get to know the American Constitution

Particularly, Article VI, Paragraph 3:

"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Afghanistan

I didn't watch the speech and haven't as of yet read the transcript, but I've read a bit about what other people have said of the speech so I guess that's the same thing.

I don't think the deadline is serious. I don't think Afghanistan can be fixed. I'm not even so sure any more that the original 2001 invasion was worthwhile.

Among the things I've read on this subject in the last two days, one of the more interesting was a column by David Brooks, of all people. Pakistan is, and probably has been for some time, as much if not more of a problem than Afghanistan. There are also some interesting thoughts at Sullivan's blog as usual, particularly from his readers, pertaining to the utility of deadlines.

Once I come upon the transcript of the speech I'll try to give this subject more serious attention.

Wars are free, etc

Greenwald on Senator Bayh:

It's impossible to find a more perfectly representative face for the rotted Washington establishment than Evan Bayh. He is the pure expression of virtually every attribute that makes the Beltway so dysfunctional, deceitful and corrupt...

When the sad and destructive history of the U.S. over the last decade is written, the coddled, nepotistic, self-serving face of Evan Bayh should be prominently included. It embodies virtually every cause.

Here's how this fierce deficit-hawk responds to Chris Wallace's question on financing our wars:

WALLACE: Senator Bayh, you brought up the question of cost, and the administration has put the cost -- and this is kind of astonishing to, I think, a lot of people -- $1 million per soldier per year, so if you sent 30,000 soldiers, that would be a $30 billion price tag.

Now, some top Democrats are talking about the idea -- the new idea of a war tax to pay for the escalation in Afghanistan. Good idea?

BAYH: No, I don't think it's a good idea, not at this point, Chris. First of all, you need to provide for the nation's security regardless of your financial situation, and there's no bigger deficit hawk in Congress than I am.

I think we need to start coming to grips with this. We're going to have a big vote coming up on the debt ceiling. I don't think we should vote to raise the debt ceiling until we have a strategy in place to get our deficits down.

So we've got to take the fiscal situation seriously, but, number one, national security comes first.
Number two, we've got to look at cutting spending in other parts of the budget before we even talk about raising taxes.

I don't know how serious Wallace's question was in tone but at least one of the Villagers put the question our there. Even to accept the argument that "national security" spending takes priority over "lowly" domestic spending, shouldn't one ought to propose some means of financing our military necessities? And to want to finance them if absolutely needed from those who can most afford to pay for them? Say hello to our Democratic Party "majority".

The (Evangelical) Kids Aren't Alright

In case you might have missed it, the usual gang of misanthrops, malcontents, and professional panty-sniffing scolds got together to try to intimidate the Democratic Majority and the rest of us:

Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.

“We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says.

The manifesto, to be released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush. The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America.

They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Yes, the Civil Rights movement's opposition to the South's racial segregation, legal and extra-legal denial of African-American voting rights, and KKK lynching is just like the conservative religious establishment's opposition to teh gay.

But this next statement from Watergate criminal Charles "Chuck" Colson is really pretty choice:

They say they also want to speak to younger Christians who have become engaged in issues like climate change and global poverty, and who are more accepting of homosexuality than their elders. They say they want to remind them that abortion, homosexuality and religious freedom are still paramount issues.

“We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues,” said Charles Colson, a prominent evangelical who founded Prison Fellowship after serving time in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. “A lot of the younger evangelicals say they’re all alike. We’re hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues.”

Well, poop. The old fundies have had such a good thing going, with the abortion wars, the war on Christmas, and how teh gay is going to ruin marriage. But the young Christians are ruining the mission. They must be educated. Maybe shipping these youngsters to some survival-ish camp like place or locking them in Daddy Dobson's Ministry of Truth for a while will wake them up and make them conform.

Trying non-citizens, war criminals in U.S. civilian courts on U.S. soil

Conservatives unhappy about the KSM terrorist trials in NYC (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

[T]hese men are not citizens of the United States. Second, they’re accused war criminals. They simply should not be tried in U.S. civilian courts. Rather, they should either be held accountable in a Nuremberg-style international forum or treated as war criminals by a U.S. military tribunal under the mechanisms provided by Congress and approved by the Supreme Court.

Aside from the virtual certainty that the trial will devolve into a media circus, there’s an incredibly good chance that Mohammed and his comrades will go free. The fact that KSM was repeatedly waterboarded would seem to taint any subsequent evidence, including his own confession.

Hmmmm. Well, a few years ago we invaded this country and brought this guy back for a civilian trial on U.S. soil:

Trial
Immediately after Noriega's apprehension, the standby crew of a USAF 8th Special Operations Squadron MC-130 Combat Talon at Howard AFB was alerted, and within 12 minutes had its engines running. Accompanied by U.S. Marshals, DEA, and other federal law enforcement agents, Noriega was flown to Homestead Air Force Base, under conditions of minimum radio communications.[21] He was tried on eight counts of drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering in April 1992. His trial was held in Miami, Florida, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In 1992 he was convicted under federal charges of cocaine trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering in Miami, Florida. Sentenced to 40 years in prison (later reduced to 30 years), Noriega is held at the Federal Correctional Institution, Miami, Florida (FCI Miami).[22]

The prosecution presented a case that has been criticized by numerous observers.[citation needed] The prosecution's case was completely reworked several times because problems developed with the witnesses, whose stories contradicted one another. The United States Attorney negotiated deals with 26 different drug felons, including Carlos Lehder, who were given leniency, cash payments, and allowed to keep their drug earnings in return for testimony against Noriega. Several of these witnesses had been arrested by Noriega for drug trafficking in Panama.

Some witnesses later recanted their testimony, and agents of the CIA, Drug Enforcement Administration, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Israeli Mossad, who were knowledgeable about Central American drug trafficking, have publicly charged that accusations were embellished.[citation needed] Noriega was found guilty and sentenced on September 16, 1992, to 40 years in prison for drug and racketeering violations. His sentence was reduced to 30 years in 1999.

Oh well. I guess this was very manly and legitimate of us back then.

Moving the goal posts

I haven't been getting the Washington Post for a couple of weeks now. My subscription ran out. I have sent them several emails about possibly getting the paper only delivered during the week and not on weekends when I don't read it, but I haven't heard back from them. Very strange business model these folks employ. Anyway. I did pay 75 cents for the paper today, mostly to see what college football games would be on the teevee this weekend.

Unfortunately I also turned to ye old editorial section to see what was being offered there. I saw the by-lines for Michael Gerson, former W speechwriter, and Charles Krauthammer, former I don't know what but serious right wing hack, so I didn't read either of those pieces. I also skipped over Broder's column, which, based on its headline, appeared to be a complaint that the health care reform bill passed by the House last week might spend a few dollars. But once I got into work and turned on the inter-tubes I saw one of the Balloon-Juicers had linked to it, so I forced myself to give it a glance.

Broder does indeed go on to whine about the terrible financial implications of passing the current health care reform bill. This was a bit confusing to me as I had understood that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is somewhat of a big playa in this town, had scored the House bill as reducing the budget deficit over ten years.

Oh well. Apparently the media Villagers have decided that CBO has been taken over by aliens from the planet V and that therefore, their estimates are hooey. Because The Villagers "just know" that the health care reform bill will spill all kinds of red ink cuz it's like 2000 pages long and stuff. Seriously, Broder coughs up that red herring about the bill's length. Really. Is the GOP paying him for this? To support his Teh Health Care Bill Will Bankrupt Our Children!!! claim Broder trots out former head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) David Walker who says this:

"First, the reform should pay for itself over 10 years. Second, it should not add to deficits beyond 10 years. Third, it should significantly reduce the tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded health promises that we already have. Fourth, it should bend down -- not up -- the total health-care cost curve as a percentage of" gross domestic product. "

Based on my reading of the CBO estimate, the HCR bill meets the first two of these, but Broder prefers an analysis of another House Bill by something called the Lewin Group, which claims that the HCR bill blows all four of these sacrosanct "tests". Well.

Back to the sacred four tests. I'm not sure what the business about the "trillions of dollars" of unfunded health promises (test #3) has to do with the price of tea in China. I forget but was this a requirement preceding the passage of the (Republican sponsored) prescription drug bill? Or the tax cuts, which would make paying for the "trillions of dollars" of unfunded health promises much more difficult?

In any event, what sort of provisions would reduce the "trillions of dollars" in unfunded health promises? Maybe a government plan that would negotiate lower prices with insurance companies. Ah, but the Village doesn't want this because it would constitute big gubmit taking over the sacred private health insurance companies. Sigh. I'm not clear about how we should address test #4, but it would seem as if some kind of similar public option would help.

In any event, the presence of these four "tests" or demands seemed designed to ensure that no HCR bill passes, because trying to satisfy these conditions would only create more opposition--the current House bill passed with only 220 votes out of 218 needed. Does Broder realize this?

It seems that no matter what kind of bill the House or Senate would pass or that Obama would sign, would not be enough for the Villagers, who will keep moving the goal posts, pissing on whatever passes for not accomplishing this or that "goal" that the Villagers have NOW decided is very important and insoluable to accomplishing "real" HCR.

And the Villagers should make up their mind. Do they want only an incremental type reform bill to pass, that doesn't do too much? This has always been my impression of Villager media complaints about Obama's health care reform agenda. Or do they want something super-duper comprehensive based on the four "tests", that would stand very little chance of getting enacted, largely because to accomplish those goals would require a public option, which the Villagers don't want.

Of course, none of the four "tests" say anything about covering the uninsured. The Villagers apparently don't think that's a major concern.

Abortion Amendment (updated below - Update II - Update III)

I'm probably having a senior moment, but can someone explain to me how the abortion amendment to the health care reform (HCR) bill works?

What I think I'm not understanding is, if you are a conservative Dem or a GOP member and you don't really want HCR to pass, but if it does pass you want an abortion restriction included in the bill, doesn't that mean that in voting for the amendment you are actually voting for the bill? What application does the amendment, separated from the HCR bill itself, have? The HCR bill and the amendment would seem to go hand in hand. I'm not getting how the Repubs/conserv Dems could have their anti-choice amendment attached to a HCR bill they didn't vote for.

Thanks for your patience.

Update: I think I get this now. Once upon a time I think understood that this is how it worked, that amendment votes were separate from final passage votes, but it just didn't compute for me today. It's pretty effed up that a gang of misanthrops aided and abetted by the majority party, can muck up a bill and then walk away from it without facing any accountability for the final product.

Update II: An Andrew Sullivan reader highlights the abortion-restriction procedures already included in the bill before the amendment was passed, and what added restrictions the amendment demands. It's becoming more and more clear what a poison pill this amendment was.

Update III: Via Digby, Americablog asks an intriguing question of anti-choice congresscritters who receive insurance lobby money.

Bill Kristol says Obama is doing fine

"Like [name of big-state governor], the president has taken on a string of big issues--[Afghanistan], a drastic foreign-policy overhaul, judges, plus [health care]--with predictable results. These are issues that generate political conflict. They upset settled practice, rile various institutions, stir strong opposition, and keep poll ratings low. For an activist president, lack of popularity is part of the package. "

"Crossing the finish line of his presidency with record low popularity may turn out to be a sign of substantive achievement and lasting reform."

(H/t Sullivan)

CONGRESS PASSES WIDE-RANGING BILL EASING BANK LAWS

Ten years ago this very day.

Mob rule

A mob of angry African-American men have descended on Capitol Hill and have set seige to the offices of good, upstanding members of Congress, trying to scare them into passing a new massive health care entitlement.

Oh wait.

Seriously. I'm not sure TPM is really being helpful by giving the mob this kind of attention.

I am trying to imagine, though, what the Village reaction would be to a crowd of 2,000 or so African-American men descending on Capitol Hill to try to "scare" members of Congress.

"Laws are only temporary for gays"

John Cole aptly captures the disappointment and frustration stemming from the loss in Maine:

I honestly don’t know where the gay rights movement goes from here. There have been some recent successes- there seems to be some movement on DADT, an openly gay mayor was elected in North Carolina, Washington state passed a gay rights bill, Obama signed the Shephard legislation, the HIV ban was lifted, and some other victories in other states in recent years. At the same time, I understand (as much as I can) the anger and the frustration. They did the right things- they had bills passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, followed the legitimate political process, and unlike any other civil rights issue, laws are only temporary for gays and a year later it gets overturned in referendums. It has to be maddening, and I have no answers...at this point I can’t think anything other than that they have every right to be pissed. I don’t know if it will work, but maybe the only recourse left for the gay rights movement is legitimate anger. Nothing else seems to be working.

The Hoover Recovery

A Dow Jones of 10,000 (Dow 36,000!!!) has apparently inspired a new conservative meme.

What about all that out of control government spending? I thought the stimulus bill was supposed to kill the economy?

More good news for John McCain

The Senate Finance Committee health reform vote seems to have convinced some conservatives it's time to accept the idea that some type of reform bill will pass but that it will be a spectacular FAIL:

Megan McArdle: I think it is more likely is that [healthcare] passes, and fails spectacularly. There are too many moving parts, and if any of them breaks, the whole thing rapidly starts to spin out of control and eat a gigantic hole in the deficit. If it does break, I think that Democrats keep control of Congress just long enough to explain why they keep having to enact whopping new tax increases every few years. Republicans don't need to improve their message. They just have to wait for Democrats to recover their reputation as tax and spend politicians who woefully underpredict the cost of everything they propose.

So McArdle argues that health reform, if it passed, would likely fail on the basis of its....increasing the deficit? Am I understanding that right? Even if higher than anticipated deficits were to result after the reform, from the reform or other causes, and even if a majority of the American public were to notice and care about that, what exactly would the Republican Party propose to do about it? More tax cuts--in 2013 at the soonest? End the reform--in 2013 at the soonest--and throw more people back onto the uninsured rolls?

November 2009

That's when my Washington Post subscription expires. I was already thinking of not renewing it. More offensive and irrational tripe like this will make that an easier decision to make.

Seriously, I have been a big newspaper reader for two decades, sometimes reading as many as three papers a day, though most often, two major dailies. Currently I get both the Washington Post and the New York Times delivered. But I'm getting burned out or fed up or both with all the shit in them. The Times is by far the better paper in my estimation. And sometimes the Post manages to put something informative in its main section. But all the political back and forth between the parties, the various partisan ideologues and spin-meisters each employs to provide "balance" is just getting aggravating.

The Will piece in particular just has no meaning whatsoever. It's just garbage. Why am I paying for this and allowing it to fill up my house for recycling?

Reconsidering newspapers

We already know about the wit and wisdom of the Washington Post's inglorious editorial page. And while this guy has never bothered me all that much, I am getting pretty effin sick of crap like this. Basically, we had a summer full of the inmates from the insane asylum running wild with guns and threats, trying to shut down the process of reasonable political discourse in this country, but somehow the president's going on the media's array of Sunday blab shows constitutes overexposure? WTF?

Maybe in the future we can just subscribe to the Sports section. Or maybe not.

Numbers

On page A10 of its paper Thursday, the Wash Post has a table entitled "The Bills Compared". I was unable to find the same table on-line, so it may only be available in hard copy. But the table's notes say its information was compiled by its staff and taken from information provided by the CBO, the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate HELP Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the latter three Committees having produced legislation.

Anyway, one feature of the table was to show how many persons are projected to still be uninsured in 2019. The House bill, with a price-tag of $1.3 trillion over ten years would reduce the number of projected insured from 54 million in 2019 to 17 million. And the House bill includes a public option. The Baucus bill, which costs almost half that of the House bill ($774 bill), and notably does not include a public option, would leave 25 million uninsured in 2019, eight million more than the House bill. The Senate HELP Committee's bill, which also includes a public option, would leave the most uninsured, 36 million, in 2019, although its costs over ten years would be only $645 bill, almost $100 bill less than the Baucus bill.

So, each of these bills would improve the number of insured persons, which is expected to increase from the 44 or 45 million or so persons uninsured today. But these bills would cost quite a bit and still leave millions uninsured. More specifically, compared to the House bill, these figures indicate it would require legislation nearly twice as expensive as the Baucus bill to get 8 million more persons insured in 2019. Granted, eight million people is still a lot, but it doesn't seem to me that another $600+ billion provides much bang for the buck.

It's possible I'm missing something here; that the long term effects of these proposals compared to doing nothing would continually decrease the numbers of uninsured, and that this longer term effect isn't reflected in these tables. But that would suggest that the substantive impact of these bills in improving access would be much delayed. If so, that point hasn't been made abundantly clear.

But for all the political flack health reform has stirred up, none of these bills really "wow" me. And I'm still waiting for the opponents of Reform to get really pissed off at the idea of individual mandates. But that would of course imply that opponents are interested in substantive issues.

If it's Thursday

It must be anti-Chavez day at the Washington Post.

Also, how can the juvenile delinquents in the back of the room simultaneously wave placards with the words "What Plan?" or "What Bill" written on them while also, in regards to the much trumpeted death panels, yell at the President to "read the bill"?

Signs of Optimism

Because unlike 1993-1994 when no real health care legislation was working its way through congress, this year health care legislation has already cleared several committees and is about to clear its final one.

In addition, current health care reform polling deserves some important qualifying, namely that, the important thing is that voters approve of a final reform bill's goals, not an imaginery one.

No Mandate without a Public Option

There have a couple of posts to this regard at the Great Orange Satan in recent days but it bears repeating that forcing people to buy insurance (the Mandate)--which was the Hilary position in the campaign and which Obama at the time opposed and which I'm not crazy about for a variety of reasons--without providing a low-cost public option is illogical, blatantly unfair, and maybe even unconstitutional.

That there today (a) exists a private market for individual insurance and that (b) few people go for this private sector, free-market "option", should give policymakers pause about requiring people to buy into it without a low-cost, regulated public option.

The Rationing We Have

Steven Pearlstein rips Michael Steele's face off:

Indeed, Republicans seem determined to preserve the uniquely American system under which health care is rationed today -- on the basis of employment status and ability to pay. According to the respected Institute of Medicine, this market-based approach to rationing has held the number of untimely deaths each year to a mere 18,000 uninsured souls. Thanks to Medicare, all of those victims are younger than 65, but apparently that is the kind of age-based rationing that real Republicans can embrace.

After reading his broadside, one is left wondering exactly what health reform plan Steele thought he was attacking. At one point, Steele claims that Democrats would prevent Americans from keeping their doctors or an insurance plan they like. Later, he warns that government will soon be setting caps on how many heart surgeries could be performed in the United States each year. Where is he getting this stuff? Has the chairman of the Republican Party somehow gotten hold of a top-secret plan for a government takeover of the health-care system that GOP operatives snatched during a break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters?

If all that sounds spurious and unsubstantiated, it is. And like many of the overstated claims in this column, its purpose is to highlight the lies, distortions and political scare tactics that Steele and other Republicans have used to poison the national debate over health reform.

Have you no shame, sir? Have you no shame?