A Major Difference Between a Liberal and a Current Day Republican

Dear Friends,

This morning both David Brooks (here) and Paul Krugman (here) wrote Op-ed pieces in the New York Times about the yesterday's healthcare summit.  David Brooks approaches life as a conservative, and Paul Krugman approaches life as a liberal.   Both men are intelligent and articulate, and we should be open to their views.

However, I must say that after reading their respective columns this morning, I was skeptical that they were discussing the same event. 

David Brooks concludes, "Health care reform probably will not get passed this year."  Paul Krugman conlcudes, "But Democrats can have the last laugh. All they have to do — and they have the power to do it — is finish the job, and enact health reform."

We all know that we tend to hear what we want to hear. 

The reason that it is impossible to bridge the gap between President Obama's health care goals and the Republicans is that liberals believe in social justice and the current brand of Republicans do not. 

The Republican plan would insure an additional 3 million people, and President Obama's plan would cover an additional 30 million people.  The United States is the only developed country in the world that does not cover all people.  The Republican response is that the United States has the best health care in the world.  That is just not true.  It may be true that those that can pay can get the best health care in the world.  But based on the health care that is actually available to all Americans we rank very poorly.

The Republican mantra these days is that we cannot afford it (with it being anything that provides benefits to the middle class and the poor).  Representative Cantor, the number two Republican in the House said, ''We have a very difficult gap to bridge here. We just can't afford this. That's the ultimate problem.''

We heard that same refrain today when the Senate failed once again to extend unemployment benefits.  Senator Bunning a Republican from Kentucky, singlehandedly stopped a one month extension of extended unemployment benefits because it would raise the deficit by $10 billion.  Here is the New York Times article.

In my home state of Minnesota, Governor Pawlenty, who has been rapidly moving to the right in an effort to win the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination recently veto a bill to continue funding of General Assistance Medical Care.  Here is an article describing the issue in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
The refrain is the same.  We cannot afford to do this or that.

The fact is we choose not to be able to afford.  We pass tax cuts, disproportionately benefiting the rich, because they are popular and please the money that runs campaigns, and then we claim we cannot afford to provide decent health care to all people, we can't afford to pay teachers a wage that attracts and retains great teachers, we can't afford to fix our roads and bridges so they fall down and kill people, etc.

We need to stand up and be clear.  Many things that our government refuses to pay for kill people every day.  45,000 of our fellow citizens die every year, one every 12 minutes from a lack of health care.  (here)
We can argue about what we can afford and what we cannot afford, but how can the richest country in the world kill 45,000 of its inhabitants every year by failing to provide them with adequate medical care?  We can also argue about the legal definition of killing, but if we knowingly permit a situation to exist that we can change and by not making that change 45,000 people will die, isn't that murder?

The richest country in the world that has perhaps the best medical care in the world available to it is not doing well today because our government says it cannot afford to provide that care to all its people.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Greenhouse Gases, Health, the EPA and Money

Dear Friends,

The Obama Administration EPA, unlike the Bush Administration EPA, is determined to take action to limit the harmful impact of greenhouse gases.  A good summary article entitled, "EPA Prepares to Take the Lead on Regulating CO2" by Bryan Walsh at Time.com (here).  Mr. Walsh gives the background:

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases like CO₂ could be considered pollutants and gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to regulate them under the Clean Air Act. Although that authority went unused in the waning days of former President George W. Bush's Administration, the Obama EPA has spent much of the past year preparing the groundwork for regulation. In the absence of a climate bill, the EPA has the power — and is legally mandated by the Supreme Court — to step in and address carbon emissions.

The Obama Administration is doing the right thing.  Greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment and the health of the planet and all its inhabitants.  But in Washington, the health of the planet and its people take a backseat to money and resistance to change.  As Mr. Walsh's article continues:

Problem solved, right? The trouble is that as controversial as cap-and-trade legislation has become, EPA regulation is an even bigger political minefield. Republicans are universally against it, claiming that clumsy top-down CO₂ regulation will kill American jobs by strangling power plants and other industry. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, introduced a bill late last year that would explicitly prevent the EPA from regulating carbon, and she already has 40 co-sponsors. Many Democrats also have their doubts — eight Democratic Senators from coal-heavy states sent a letter on Sunday, Feb. 21, to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson listing "serious economic and energy security concerns" with greenhouse-gas regulation.

For the record, the letter was drafted by Senator Rockefeller (West Virginia) and co-signed by Senator Begich (Alaska), Senator Byrd (West Virginia), Senator Brown (Ohio), Senator Casey (Pennsylvania), Senator McCaskill (Missouri), Senator Levin (Michigan) and Senator Baucus (Montana).  If one of those Senators is from your state, you might want to contact them to tell them that the health of the planet and the beings that live on it are more important than their campaign contributors.

 

The Obama Administration is standing its ground.  The article continues:

But the EPA's Jackson, at least, seems ready to fight. At the Senate hearing Tuesday morning, she tangled with Republican climate skeptics and emphasized that the Supreme Court required her agency to act. "The science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming," she said. "That conclusion is not a partisan one." That's true, but just about everything else in Washington still is.

Bravo to Ms. Jackson.  She is willing to speak the truth to the special interest power groups and their purchased legislators.  But now more Democrats are selling out to their campaign contributors.  Representative Colin Peterson from my home state (not my district) of Minnesota, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, and Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the Chair of the Armed Services Committee, have joined as co-sponsors of a Republican sponsored House Bill to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.  

When will our elected representatives understand that their duty is to the American people and not to their campaign contributors?

We can only hope that the Democrats in the Senate will remember the filibuster and use it to be sure this anti-science, anti-health, anti-life, pro-money bill does not pass.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Vermont Democrats Take a Stand Against Nuclear Power

Dear Friends,

I am happy to report that the Vermont Senate refused to extend the license to operate the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant after 2012 by a vote of 26 to 4.  There are 7 Republicans in the Vermont Senate so three of them must have voted for the closure.  The plant needed approval from both the Vermont House and Senate in order to continue to operate after 2012.  So unless the Vermont Senate reverses itself, the plant must be closed.

The reason for the vote is summarized in the following paragraph from Matthew Wald's article in The New York Times this morning entitled, "Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Power Plant".  The full article is here.

In a small, ornate chamber packed with plant opponents, the Vermont senators voiced frustration over recent leaks of radioactive tritium at the 38-year-old plant as well as the collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and inaccurate testimony by the plant’s owner, the Louisiana-based nuclear operator Entergy.

The plant is 38 years old.  The plant leaks tritium.  A cooling tower at the plant collapsed.  The plant's owner and operator lied to Vermont by saying there were no underground pipes that could leak tritium, but there were. 

I don't know how to make a better case against nuclear power.  Oh except the article continues:

Mr. Hébert [spokesperson for the plant's owner and operator] acknowledged in an interview that the leaks, the cooling tower collapse in 2007 and other problems had been “almost a perfect storm” for the plant.

It is lucky it was just "almost a perfect storm".  How many lives of people alive today and future generations would have been destroyed if it were a perfect storm?

Oh, I also almost forgot we still have no place to store the radioactive waste created by this plant and all the other nuclear power plants.

So today the Vermont Senate comprised primarily of Democrats is doing well.  It stood up and did the right thing. 

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

The Problem with the Democrats

Dear Friends,

There are 290 bills that have been passed by the House that are languishing in the Senate because of a threat of filibuster.  Most of these bills are not major and many of them passed the House with significant Republican support.  If you just have a minute watch the first part of this segment from Rachel Maddow's show yesterday, you should do so.  If you have more time, watch the whole segment.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So that is how the Republican Senators with the aid of the wimpy Democratic Senators deal with governing.  It is appalling that the Democrats would let the Republicans stop everything even things that pass the House of Representatives almost unanimously.

So here is how the Senate Democrats deal with a really important issue and something that the Republicans want to pass.

Senate votes to extend USA Patriot Act for 1 year

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER 

WASHINGTON – The Senate voted Wednesday to extend for a year key provisions of the nation's counterterrorism surveillance law that are scheduled to expire at the end of the month. In agreeing to pass the bill, Senate Democrats retreated from adding new privacy protections to the USA Patriot Act.
The Senate approved the bill on a voice vote with no debate. It now goes to the House.
Three important sections of the Patriot Act are to expire at the end of this month.
One authorizes court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. A second allows court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations. A third permits surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen suspected of engaging in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.
Supporters say extending the law enables authorities to keep important tools in the fight against terrorism. It would also give Democrats some cover from Republican criticism that the Obama administration is soft on terrorism. Republicans have criticized the administration for trying terrorist suspects in civilians courts, rather than military ones, and for trying to close the military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Some Democrats, however, had to forfeit new privacy protections they had sought for the law.
The Judiciary Committee bill would have restricted FBI information demands known as national security letters and made it easier to challenge gag orders imposed on Americans whose records are seized. Library records would have received extra protections. Congress would have closely scrutinized FBI use of the law to prevent abuses. Dissemination of surveillance results would have been restricted and after a time, unneeded records would have been destroyed.
"I would have preferred to add oversight and judicial review improvements to any extension of expiring provisions in the USA Patriot Act," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But I understand some Republican senators objected."
___
Associated Press writer Larry Margasak contributed to this report.

I just want to be sure that you saw the last quote from Senator Leahy:

"I would have preferred to add oversight and judicial review improvements to any extension of expiring provisions in the USA Patriot Act," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But I understand some Republican senators objected."

There are very legitimate concerns about many provisions of the Patriot Act and yet the Democrats are unwilling to use their majority status to protect the privacy and civil rights of Americans.  Not only do they not filibuster or threaten a filibuster or just not bring the issue to a vote, they completely give in to the Republicans, because "some Republican Senators objected."

What kind of leaders do we have in the Democratic Party?  Why won't they stand up for the most basic tenets of the Democratic Party?  Perhaps you would like to send an email to Senator Leahy (here) letting him know how disappointed you are.

We can only hope that the House of Representatives will add the protections necessary to protect our privacy and civil rights.  You might want to let your representative know how you feel and a note to Speaker Pelosi would help as well.  Here is the link.

We are not doing well today.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

The Public Option

Dear Friends,

There is a new poll out by Research 2000 that shows that the public option is far more popular than the Senate healthcare bill.   So why are Democratic Senators so reluctant to support the public option?  It is the right thing to do from a policy standpoint, and it is the popular thing to do from a political point of view.  In my home state of Minnesota only 35% support the Senate bill, but 62% support the public option.  Senator Al Franken was an early signer of the letter requesting that the public option be put back in the bill through reconciliation.  But why in the world is Senator Klobuchar refusing to support the public option?  You can ask her by going here.

Here is a better report on the poll:

The Plum LineGreg Sargent's blog

Polls: In Key States, Public Option Far More Popular Than Senate Plan

Okay, this should really give a boost to those arguing that Dems should pass the public option via reconciliation — for the specific reason that it will make the Senate health reform bill more popular.
A batch of state polls by the non-partisan Research 2000 shows that in multiple states represented by key Dem Senators who will have to decide whether to support reconciliation, the public option polls far better than the Senate bill does, often by lopsided margins.
Here’s a rundown, sent over by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which commissioned the polls:
* In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option.
* In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option.
* In Washington State, only 38% support the Senate bill, while 65% support the public option.
* In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option.
* In Virginia, only 36% support the Senate bill, while 61% support the public option.
* In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
*In Minnesota, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.
* In Colorado, only 32% support the Senate bill, while 58% support the public option.
When the White House unveiled its new proposal to take to the summit, it did not include a public option, as expected. Obviously, including one would have made it easier for Republicans to argue that Dems aren’t making a good-faith effort to compromise, since the public option is the centerpiece of the dreaded “government takeover” that Republicans have warned against.
But if the summit yields no compromises, and Dems decide to forge ahead on their own and pass reform via reconciliation, including the public option at that point might make some political sense, if the above polls are to be believed.
************************************
Update: I should have noted that the polls were commissioned by not just PCCC, but also Democracy for America and Credo. And the groups are also out with a petition urging lawmakers to understand that signatories want a good bill rather than bipartisanship for its own sake.
Update II: The full poll on all the states, with partisan breakdowns and other questions, is online right here.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

 Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

United States Mercenaries

Dear Friends,

Tonight Rachel Maddow interviewed Representative Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat representing the Ninth District in Illinois about two topics.  The first was about trying to use healthcare reform to deny abortions.  While that is an important issue, it is not the one that I want to talk about now.  The second is a bill that Representative Schakowsky introduced to phase out the use of private contractors in war zones to do things traditionally done by the military, especially security.  You can read Representative Schakowsky's summary of the bill here.  The bill addresses the use of unaccountable mercenaries instead of United States military personnel.  You can join me as a citizen cosponsor of the bill here.

Here is the applicable part of the interview.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So how are we doing today?  Why would it take an act of Congress to get President Obama to stop using mercenaries?  Why would the Obama Administration still consider using Xe (formerly Blackwater) for anything?  Xe has proven itself to be completely unreliable and a disgrace to the United States.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Torture and the Rule of Law

Dear Friends,

The Department of Justice will not permit disbarment or other sanctions against John Yoo, Jay Bybee and others in the Bush Administration Department of Justice even though the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility found that those lawyers engaged in professional misconduct.  The findings were overruled by David Margolis, the most senior nonpolitical attorney in the Justice Department.  He also served in the Bush Administration Department of Justice.  For a longer report see TPMMuckracker (here).

Today Keith Olbermann interviewed Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson who was Colin Powell's chief of staff when Colin Powell was the Secretary of State.  Keith leads into the interview by reporting how the recently released reports from the Department of Justice about the torture memos clearly show that former Vice President Cheney has been lying about many things including whether or not torture works.  Colonel Wilkerson makes a very clear and impassioned case for the fact that Former Vice President Cheney's enhanced interrogation techniques are torture, that torture does not work, that torture is bad for our troops and our national defense, that torture is wrong and that torture "damages our very soul".  You can listen to the interview here.



In that interview Colonel Wilkerson suggested that to hear a full debunking of former Vice President Cheney's positions on torture and on the Obama Administration's failings with respect to keeping us safe, we should listen to the interview of General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Face the Nation and interview of General Patraeus on Meet the Press next Sunday.  I plan to view those interviews.
 
So how are we doing today?  The Obama Administration is continuing to refuse to hold accountable those members of the prior administration that broke the law and did great damage to our country.  That is not change we can believe in and it certainly doesn't give me any hope.

In his interview with Keith Olbermann, Colonel Wilkerson said that in some polls 53% of Americans still believe that torture is warranted in some circumstances.  It is never warranted or acceptable or legal.  
Why isn't President Obama explaining that to the American people?  Why do we have to rely on Colonel Wilkerson or presumably General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell and General Patraeus?  These are people who know and should be listened to, but they are not the President of the United States.  I suspect that President Obama recognizes that if he were to publicly make the case against torture that he would come face to face with the question of why he refuses to even investigate torture by the prior Administration.  Torture was done in our name by the Bush Administration.  We should be outraged and demand that the criminals that ordered, condoned and carried out the torture be brought to justice.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal