Harold Ford, late of the confederate state of Tennessee, recently citizen of Wall Street, New York, is dipping his toe in the Empire State's senatorial waters.
Mr. Ford said he had been emboldened by the response he had received from the public in recent days. Everyone — from the cabdrivers who shuttle him around the city to the executives with whom he rubs elbows on Wall Street — has urged him to run, he said.
During a trip from New York to Palm Beach on Thursday, flight attendants and passengers stopped in the aisle to cheer him on, he said. “I didn’t hear anyone say, you better not run against that Kirsten Gillibrand,” he said.
Amazingly, the Wall Street folks he's been hobnobbing with--and working for--for the past year are all thump-up on the idea, too. And the cab drivers. They're almost like real people. Who knew?
What about the issues? Ah, I'm glad you asked.
[Ford] blasted [Gillibrand's] support for the proposed health care overhaul, which is expected to cost New York an extra $1 billion a year, and for opposing the taxpayer bailout of the financial industry.
“It was a mistake,” he said, noting that most Wall Street firms had already paid back the money. “How can you be against ensuring that the lifeblood of your city and of your state survives?”
But look what else we learn:
Mr. Ford declined to discuss what he is paid by the bank, but publicly available data suggests that he earns at least $1 million a year. Asked what role outsize pay packages played in fueling the financial crisis, Mr. Ford said he objected to capping executive compensation on Wall Street. “I am a capitalist,” he said. “I believe that people take risk, and there are rewards if they do well; they should lose if they don’t.”
He's a what? He's a "capitalist". A capitalist who believes capitalists who take risks should be rewarded--and if they fail the gubmit should bail them out.
What else?
Mr. Ford twice voted for legislation in the House that would make same-sex marriage illegal. In 2006, when Tennessee voters considered a ballot initiative to outlaw the practice, he vowed to support it. “I oppose gay marriage,” he said at the time.
But in the interview, he said he had changed his mind. He said that he had endorsed civil unions since entering Congress, and that, after watching the debate about marriage unfold in state legislatures and courtrooms, his position had evolved.
And:
He supported Congressional legislation in 2006 to allow local police officers to investigate and arrest illegal immigrants, despite the objections of many advocates and lawmakers, like Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who said it would discourage people from cooperating with the police. He says his views on the subject have changed.
“I have come to better understand the issue,” he said. “Empowering local enforcement to do what federal law enforcement was not doing seemed to make sense in my state,” he said, referring to Tennessee. Mr. Ford, a member of the National Rifle Association, also voted for legislation to limit lawsuits against gun makers, and he cast one of the few Democratic votes for a bill to repeal the District of Columbia’s restrictions on guns.
When asked about the tough restrictions that mayors in New York and Newark have put in place, however, he said, “All of Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor Booker’s efforts in the region, I support.”
OK. But fear not. Ford's no softy. He likes to shoot small, harmless animals that can't shoot back. Really.
Asked about his own experience with guns, he said he was an occasional bird hunter. “I shoot at things that can’t shoot back,” he said with a smile, “and will continue to do that."
Or until his next limo driver objects.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Monday, January 04, 2010
The True Face of Evangelical Christianity
Whether it's the smiley face on the TV screen or the well-dressed young men knocking on your door, or that shiny brochure you got in the mail, this is what lies not far below the surface of fundamentalist Christian doctrine. They might give to the poor, they might provide a temporarily accepting refuge for the lonely and down-trodden. But this is ultimately the kind of society conservative Christianity is seeking, or would result in, if its claims about needing to create "Bible-based society" were implemented.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Redskins behaving badly
In a season of bizzareness, this is really weird and generally sucky. Does any other team behave this way? Not surprising the team has mailed it in the past two weeks. What a mess the next coach will have to clean up. And it doesn't say much for the ownership and management the new coach will be agreeing to team up with.
Monday, December 28, 2009
17-0
So, how do you feel about Coach Zorn's decision to pull his starters just so the team could be healthy for the playoffs?
At least our long national Vinny Cerato nightmare is about over and a rebuilding job can soon begin.
At least our long national Vinny Cerato nightmare is about over and a rebuilding job can soon begin.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Only so much sympathy for Zorn
I'm not sure I completely follow what Mike Wise is getting at here, regarding the nonsensicle fake field goal the Redskins tried at the end of the first half of last night's beatdown at the hands of the New York football Giants. Maybe that with his play-calling duties stripped, special teams remains one area the coach could exercise his authoritay? I don't know.
As much as Zorn has weathered this season with something approaching dignity and calm, and as much as the catastrophe that has become this season is not all Zorn's fault, I'm only willing to cut Zorn so much slack.
In terms of his (shabby) treatment by management, the fact remains that Zorn interviewed and accepted the offer to become the team's offensive coordinator before a head coach was in place, giving him some indication of what he was walking into. Then of course he agreed to interview for and ultimately accept the head coaching offer knowing that his defensive coordinator and much of the remaining staff had already been assembled for him. So, he willingly entered into a working environment that was, at best, unconventional, and at worst, dysfunctional.
At least with Bruce Allen now at the GM helm, the next coach should feel better about the conditions at Redskins Park.
As much as Zorn has weathered this season with something approaching dignity and calm, and as much as the catastrophe that has become this season is not all Zorn's fault, I'm only willing to cut Zorn so much slack.
In terms of his (shabby) treatment by management, the fact remains that Zorn interviewed and accepted the offer to become the team's offensive coordinator before a head coach was in place, giving him some indication of what he was walking into. Then of course he agreed to interview for and ultimately accept the head coaching offer knowing that his defensive coordinator and much of the remaining staff had already been assembled for him. So, he willingly entered into a working environment that was, at best, unconventional, and at worst, dysfunctional.
At least with Bruce Allen now at the GM helm, the next coach should feel better about the conditions at Redskins Park.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
On the Eighth Day, God Said Let There Be No Health Care
The Republican Party's Prophets of Baal (Family Research Council branch) try to call fire down from heaven to prevent an expansion of health insurance coverage for the poor.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Sports Break - Good for Brian Kelly, and Wow, what happened to the Steelers?
I've enjoyed watching the before unheard of Cincinnati Bearcats go full throttle in college football these last couple of years and am glad Brian Kelly was able to leaverage that resurrection performance into the Notre Dame head coaching job. His players at Cincy seemed upset, for now, but I hope they'll eventually be happy for him.
I watched the entire Steelers-Browns game on the NFL Network last night. I usually check out of these Sunday night, Monday night games because they end too late, but stuck around for this one. Partly because I couldn't believe what I was watching. The Browns actually looked like a real football team. Have been hearing about how good this Josh Cribbs is returning kicks. And the Browns, recognizing what a weapon he is, have put him in the offense running the Wild Cat, mostly successfully. Not sure what has happened to the Steelers. The Browns D got to Rothlisberger for 8 sacks. Incredible. But for the Steelers to only put up 6 points on a 1-11 team, particularly a division rival they had beat 12 straight times, is pretty remarkable. Can't be a good day in Steelers country.
I watched the entire Steelers-Browns game on the NFL Network last night. I usually check out of these Sunday night, Monday night games because they end too late, but stuck around for this one. Partly because I couldn't believe what I was watching. The Browns actually looked like a real football team. Have been hearing about how good this Josh Cribbs is returning kicks. And the Browns, recognizing what a weapon he is, have put him in the offense running the Wild Cat, mostly successfully. Not sure what has happened to the Steelers. The Browns D got to Rothlisberger for 8 sacks. Incredible. But for the Steelers to only put up 6 points on a 1-11 team, particularly a division rival they had beat 12 straight times, is pretty remarkable. Can't be a good day in Steelers country.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Deal or No Deal
Forgive me for not getting all into the latest "deal" being talked about in the Senate regarding health care reform and the public option, Medicare, etc. Seems like we've had a number of deals over the past several months--it reminds me of the multiple number of occasions in which it was announced that we had killed the #2 leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq a few years ago. Just get the thing done and voted on, please. Thank you.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Christianist Double Speak
Andrew Sullivan flags this interesting post from a graduate of the Christianist Patrick Henry College, but I most appreciated this particular quote from it:
The first argument the letter-writers are likely to hurl back at me will insist that this is about America, about its future as a moral nation. This is politics, not our personal lives. Yes it is, and that’s the problem. It is why, on my darker days, I hardly want anything to do with the American church: as a national political force, it is about a highly politicized view of the United States, and not about God, people, or love. It assumes that the church can be a political force apart from the very principles it supposedly exists to defend—that it can preach institutional hate in the political arena and expect individuals to believe it really wants to love them. (This double-mindedness is apparent throughout the PHC letter, which one moment assures that Christians just want to be left alone to “remain faithful,” then pooh-poohs “small, behind-the-scenes actions” in favor of combative politics the next.)
I'm glad someone else is picking up on this Christianist dishonest gobbledygook. That it comes from a graduate of one of Christianism's "warrior" training bastions is especially reassuring.
The first argument the letter-writers are likely to hurl back at me will insist that this is about America, about its future as a moral nation. This is politics, not our personal lives. Yes it is, and that’s the problem. It is why, on my darker days, I hardly want anything to do with the American church: as a national political force, it is about a highly politicized view of the United States, and not about God, people, or love. It assumes that the church can be a political force apart from the very principles it supposedly exists to defend—that it can preach institutional hate in the political arena and expect individuals to believe it really wants to love them. (This double-mindedness is apparent throughout the PHC letter, which one moment assures that Christians just want to be left alone to “remain faithful,” then pooh-poohs “small, behind-the-scenes actions” in favor of combative politics the next.)
I'm glad someone else is picking up on this Christianist dishonest gobbledygook. That it comes from a graduate of one of Christianism's "warrior" training bastions is especially reassuring.
Friday, December 04, 2009
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."
"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
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".
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".
Friday, November 20, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
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.
[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.
Friday, November 13, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, November 09, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, November 06, 2009
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)
"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)
Thursday, November 05, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)