A politician who is unafraid to tell the truth.

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Congressman Alan Grayson (D Fla.) took the floor in Congress to read the death toll of those who lacked health insurance in the districts of Republican Representatives.  “Is it really asking too much of us that we keep people alive?” he asked.  Of course, the Republicans tried to cut him off and asked the clerk to take down his words.  But Congressman Grayson did not waiver.  When the session reconvened, he continued to read the list. 

Grayson is somewhat unique in Washington political circles.  For one thing, he is a Democrat with a spine.  For another, he seems to tell the truth no matter how embarrassing or discomforting the truth is.  For example, he famously (and correctly) summarized the Republican health care plan by saying “The Republican health care plan is this: ‘Don’t get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.’”   

Grayson is one of the few Representatives who have embraced and discussed the real tragedy of our broken health care system – that approximately 45,000 people die each year because they do not have or cannot afford access to health care.  That’s like having 15 9/11s each year!  Yet rather than try to fix the system, Republicans are doing everything in their power to kill health reform.   Senator Jim DeMint publicly stated “If we can stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo.”  More recently, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann called for protestors to “scare” lawmakers into killing health care reform.  She may as well be calling for them to kill the uninsured. 

If Republicans are successful, they will be responsible for another 45,000 deaths next year and each year until we have universal health care coverage for American citizens.   

Obama’s Third War

Posted on by

Recently, the Obama administration declared a new war – a war on Fox News.  Although I don’t entirely agree with the Obama administration’s action, I certainly understand it.  News organizations have a responsibility to present facts in an unbiased manner and to clearly distinguish opinion from news.  Fox News does neither.

Indeed, the network itself claims that only a few hours a day are news.  It refers to the rest of its programming as “conversations.”  During these “conversations,” Fox News allows Hannity, Beck, O’Reilly, et al and their guests to make unsubstantiated claims or wild allegations against the administration and other Democrats.  Then it “reports” those claims and allegations during its “newscasts” and on its “news” crawls.  The network has even sponsored and promoted one-sided political events such as “tea parties” and “9-12” demonstrations.  These are not the actions of a legitimate news organization.

Moreover, compared to assaults on the press by some of its predecessors, the administration’s response to Fox News is actually quite mild.  For example, President George W. Bush not only refused access to reporters and organizations deemed antagonistic to his agenda, the Bush administration produced propaganda disguised as “news” stories and provided them to local TV and radio stations.  It paid journalists to present White House talking points.  It even tried to limit funding for public radio and TV unless their reporting became friendlier to the Bush White House.

Unlike some of the Bush administration’s actions, the snub of Fox News does not raise any constitutional issues.  It is not censorship.  The Obama administration is not telling Fox News what it can say or report.  The administration simply limited press invitations to representatives of actual news organizations.   Although it may be unwise to antagonize any media outlet, it is not unconstitutional.

Liberal media bias?

Posted on by

Since the days of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, conservatives have been fond of blaming MSM (mainstream media) for interfering with their agenda.   They contend that most news outlets are run by liberals and therefore biased against conservatives. 

Really? 

The vast majority of media outlets are owned by just five conglomerates (CBS, Disney, General Electric, News Corp, and TimeWarner).  Who do we have to thank for the ever-shrinking number of media owners?  Well, conservatives of course. 

For example, during the Reagan administration, Congress passed the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 which deregulated cable TV rates.  As a result, cable rates skyrocketed 25-30 percent through 1986-1988.  Then, following the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Revolution, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Conservatives sold the bill as a way to increase competition and lower consumer costs (Does that sound familiar?).  But like most Republican legislation, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did the exact opposite.   Following its passage, cable TV rates have jumped more than 40 percent and the number of cable system owners dropped dramatically. 

Prior to deregulation, there were thousands of cable systems.  Today, five corporations (Comcast, TimeWarner, Cox, Charter and Cablevision control the lion’s share of the market – more than 50 million households.   In addition, two companies (DirecTV and Dish) control satellite TV serving than 31 million households, three media giants own all of the cable news networks, five corporations dominate Internet news, and one corporation (Clear Channel) owns 900 radio stations. 

Such large media conglomerates can hardly be accused of liberal bias.  Indeed, the exact opposite is more likely to be true.  Certainly many of the News Corp–owned media promote conservative points of view.   And combined with the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, it has become increasingly easy for these behemoths to control public opinion (and therefore legislation). 

Could that be the real reason behind deregulation?

Dealing with Revolting Joe.

Posted on by

Recently, Joe Lieberman said he would not be one of the 60 votes necessary to bring the Senate health care reform bill to the floor. What a shock! After all, this is a man who ran against his party’s nominated candidate as a so-called independent. He campaigned and voted for his pal, John McCain, for President. He spoke at the Republican National Convention.
Then, following the election, he came back to the Democratic caucus so he could retain the chair of a powerful Senate committee.

Now, he claims that he’ll refuse to vote for cloture on the health care reform bill out of “principle.” His concern is that the bill contains a public option. So he’s willing to help Republicans filibuster in order to kill the bill. This from a man who worked to eliminate filibusters as a freshman Senator in 1994.

So what changed?

Likely he’s more concerned about the insurance companies that are headquartered in Connecticut than he is about the citizens of his state. And perhaps he feels he owes big insurance for campaign donations toward his re-election. That would make his stance more about principal than principle.

So what are Democrats to do about Revolting Joe? If he kills health care reform by siding with Republicans, they could take away his chairmanship. But that would likely drive him to the Republican caucus which would mean that the Democrats would no longer be able to block any Republican filibuster.

On the other hand, if Democrats do nothing to punish him, Revolting Joe would continue to caucus with Democrats, but his vote would be unreliable and he would be free to use his position to kill Democratic legislation or to extract concessions.

I propose that Democrats call his bluff. Let him help Republicans filibuster health care reform. Let Joe and his conservative buddies prattle away on the Senate floor for days on end. Turn the whole affair into an exhibition of stupidity. Let Americans see the “Party of No” at work. I believe that would make it virtually impossible for Republicans to gain many seats in the House or Senate in 2010. It would make Revolting Joe a pariah among his constituents, save for the insurance companies. And although big insurance can fund his campaign, they can’t re-elect him.

If Sarah Palin is “Going Rogue”, what the heck is Michelle Bachmann doing?

Posted on by

The Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota doesn’t claim to see Russia from her doorstep.  But she does claim to see conspiracies throughout the Obama administration.  For example, she believes that the Census is a liberal plot to identify Republicans so they can be rounded up and placed in internment camps – a concept that was even too crazy for Glenn Beck.  That’s right, that Glenn Beck.  The one who fills an hour a day on Fox Noise crying crocodile tears for his so-called lost America; an America where everyone is white, Christian, heterosexual and Republican. 

Since it’s not easy to out-crazy Glenn Beck, this Congresswoman certainly has earned closer examination – preferably by people in white coats.

Bachman’s official website states that “In only her first term, Congresswoman Bachmann developed a reputation as a ‘principled reformer’ who stays true to her conservative beliefs while pushing for real reform of the broken ways of Washington.”  Well, if that’s true, in her second term she’s developed a reputation as a loon. 

As evidenced by her stand on the Census, Bachmann has supported every wacky idea put forward by right wing media hosts, and a few that are even too wacky for them.  Further, she seems to see liberal conspiracies around every corner.  On Hardball with Chris Matthews she said that “I am very concerned that he [Barack Obama] may have anti-American views.”  She went on to say, “I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out – are they pro-America or anti-America?”

She claims that “evolution is a theory that has never been proven” (except by 99.9 percent of all scientists).  Of global climate change, she says “Carbon dioxide is “natural; it is not harmful…”  She finds it unnecessary to “create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the Earth.”  Therefore, she believes the Cap and Trade Bill is unnecessary.   Of health care reform, she said “What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing.  We have to do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass.”  Finally, in regard to Iran, Bachmann says that a nuclear strike “shouldn’t be taken off the table.”

It appears that Bachmann sees herself as the Minnesota version of Sarah Palin.  And like Sarah, she needs to put together a book of her exploits.  I’d like to suggest a title:  Instead of “Going Rogue”, it could be “Going Insane”.   

The cost of war.

Posted on by

Our war in Afghanistan has now dragged on longer than the failed Soviet Union occupation.  And President Obama is faced with a decision to expand the war by adding up to 40 thousand new troops, engineering a withdrawal, or committing to something between those extremes. 

By all accounts, this was a war that could have ended several years ago if we hadn’t become preoccupied with Iraq.  But as the Iraq “liberation” dragged on, our real enemies in Afghanistan regrouped and gained in strength.  Now it seems that no option in Afghanistan is a “good” option – especially given our economic woes at home.

It was recently reported that the Afghan war has already cost nearly $230 billion.  It was also estimated that the war costs $500,000 (Pentagon estimate) to $1 million (Congressional estimate) to maintain one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year.  That cost includes transportation, equipment, support facilities and all incidentals.  If those figures are correct, adding 40 thousand more troops to the conflict will cost the U.S. an additional $20-40 billion over the next year.   And given that we still have combat troops stationed in Germany and Japan more than 60 years after the end of WW II, the cost will likely continue for many years to come. 

Not included in that estimate is the cost of VA to treat lasting injuries and psychological damage.  There are also the sums paid to veterans for disabilities.   And, of course, it’s impossible to place a price on the lives lost in action.   

Add to these costs the price of the war in Iraq which some estimate to total more than $2 trillion.

All of this is background to the debate over health care reform and economic stimulus.  The economic stimulus package that was signed by President Obama included $787 billion to create or save jobs by rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure.  And the cost of health care reform bills being considered are estimated to  cost more than $800 billion over 10 years.  Of course, the conservatives are horrified by these numbers.

So they must be apoplectic over the cost of Bush’s wars?  Not exactly.   The conservatives can’t wait to send more troops to Afghanistan and spend more money (and more lives) on open-ended, no-bid contracts for the likes of Halliburton and Xe.  They even trotted out the dark one (former V.P., and former Halliburton CEO, Dick Cheney) to attack Obama for “dithering” over the decision to commit more troops. 

Conservative logic goes something like this:  It’s un-American and un-patriotic to spend our own money on our own citizens for jobs and health care.  But it’s absolutely necessary to spend trillions to kill a few knuckleheads on the other side of the globe. 

Does this make any sense?  I think you know the answer.

Conservative nonsense, cont’d.

Posted on by

As I’ve stated before, I used to be an independent.  But I quit voting for Republicans when they decided to raid mental hospitals for candidates.  Never has the mental illness of conservatives been more apparent than since President Obama’s election. 

Consider the charges which have been leveled at the President by Conservatives:

President Obama is a Muslim who is not even a U.S. citizen.  He’s a Kenyan.  No, he’s Indonesian.  Obama is a racist.  He’s an elitist.  He’s a socialist.  No, he’s a communist.  He’s a Nazi.  Obama is overseeing the take-over of private corporations.  Obama is increasing our national debt in order to bankrupt the U.S. so it can be taken over by socialists and communists.  Obama is going to take away our guns.  Obama’s televised speech to schools is an attempt to indoctrinate children.  His call for volunteerism is an attempt to put young people in camps where they can be indoctrinated.  His health care reform will lead to a government take-over of health care.  His health care reform is designed to kill the elderly.  It’s designed to kill Republicans.  H1N1 is a plot by the Obama administration to kill Republicans.  The delay in H1N1 vaccine is a plot to kill the elderly.  The H1N1 vaccine is designed to indoctrinate citizens.   Obama’s challenge to Fox Noise is a blatant attempt at censorship.  The President is “dithering” on the Afghan war.  He’s emboldening our enemies.  Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is an international plot to indoctrinate US citizens.   

These charges have gone well beyond politics.  They’re evidence of paranoia – certifiable lunacy which begins in the tortured minds of people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.

At first, I took a perverse sort of amusement in listening to the charges.  Then I realized there are people who actually believe this stuff.  It’s time for the institutions to reclaim their patients.  If they can find enough straight jackets. 

A simple plan for taking back our economy.

Posted on by

It has been more than a year since Wall Street’s risky investments collapsed our economy.  Unfortunately, Congress still has not passed legislation to prevent such calamities in the future.  Instead of trying to craft new legislation, I suggest that Congress look to the past.  To wit:

1 – Reinstate, in its entirety, the Glass-Steagall Act.  The act created firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies following the Great Depression.  It was the unraveling of this act in 1994 that undoubtedly led to our current recession.

2 – Re-regulate derivatives to prevent highly risky investments resulting from the so-called “Enron exception.”  The “Enron exception” protected the company’s on-line commodity trading from federal regulation ultimately leading to Enron’s failure.  So, of course, Republicans couldn’t wait to expand the legislation which resulted in runaway crude oil prices and the housing-fueled financial collapse of 2008.

3 – Re-regulate banks by instituting a national usury law that would cap interest rates at 12 percent.   Prior to the Reagan-era deregulation, today’s interest rates would have resulted in prison sentences for loan sharking. 

4 – Restore the maximum income tax rates to pre-Bush levels.  Better yet, restore the maximum rates to pre-Reagan levels.  This could provide additional income to rebuild our infrastructure and/or reduce the national debt.

5 – Close tax code loopholes which encourage U.S. corporations to establish off-shore “headquarters” in order to avoid taxes.  At the very least, prevent such corporations from receiving government contracts.

6 – Use our anti-trust laws to break up any corporations deemed “too large to fail.”  If a company is so large that its failure would damage the nation’s economy, it automatically qualifies as a monopoly.

There is nothing new or Earth-shattering about any of these measures.  And that’s the point.  They have all been proven.  In fact, they kept our government and our businesses operating effectively for decades until Republicans undermined our nation’s economic security in order to deliver greater profits to their greedy corporate masters.

The Bill of Rights that was never enacted.

Posted on by

Michael Moore’s latest movie Capitalism, A Love Story includes film from President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union address.   As part of his address, FDR stated, “It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known.  We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.”  He continued, “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.  ‘Necessitous men are not free men.’  People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”  

President Roosevelt proposed what he called a second Bill of Rights “under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.”  This 2nd Bill of Rights included:  The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. 

Roosevelt concluded that “America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.”  Unfortunately, FDR did not live long enough to see his 2nd Bill of Rights enacted.  The question now becomes, will we? 

Let the investigations begin.

Posted on by

It was recently announced that a former member of the Bush cabinet, Gail Norton, is the subject of a corruption probe. As Secretary of State, Ms. Norton awarded some lucrative oil shale leases to a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the company that hired her a few months later.

The focus of the investigation is whether Norton violated a law that prohibits federal employees from discussing employment with a company if they are involved in dealings that could benefit the firm. It’s also possible that she broke the federal “denial of honest services” law, which permits a government official to be prosecuted for violating the public trust.

I have no idea if Ms. Norton is guilty. Her actions certainly give the appearance of guilt. But she’s certainly not the only former member of the Bush administration who appeared guilty of some impropriety. 

How about former EPA chief Stephen Johnson who found ways to avoid regulating greenhouse gases? How about former Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson who authorized billions to former colleagues in financial institutions without restrictions? How about former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who fired US attorneys for what appeared to be political purposes? Or how about John Yoo who found questionable justification to approve torture? Scooter Libby was convicted of outing a covert CIA operative, but what about those above him who likely encouraged him to release the information?

How about Don Rumsfeld who was responsible for awarding “no bid” military contracts to the corporation that was previously headed by former Vice-President Cheney? Finally, how about the former president who usurped power from Congress and seemingly ginned up information to justify an unwarranted invasion of Iraq?

As long as there are reasonable suspicions that these people committed illegal or unethical actions, there is a great likelihood that this kind of unethical behavior will continue.

And why limit the investigations to former government officials? The Bush administration was especially egregious. But the problems with our government go much deeper.

While we’re at it, let’s investigate the links between all elected officials and lobbyists. After all, when a political candidate receives tens of thousands of dollars from an industry, corporation, lobbyist or individual expecting special access or treatment, is that not as unethical as what Gail Norton is accused of?