The Rage Is Not About Health Care

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html

Some excerpts from Frank Rich:

No less curious is how disproportionate this red-hot anger is to its proximate cause. The historic Obama-Pelosi health care victory is a big deal, all right, so much so it doesn’t need Joe Biden’s adjective to hype it. But the bill does not erect a huge New Deal-Great Society-style government program. In lieu of a public option, it delivers 32 million newly insured Americans to private insurers. As no less a conservative authority than The Wall Street Journal editorial page observed last week, the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered Republican ideas.

That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot.

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, some responsible leaders in both parties spoke out to try to put a lid on the resistance and violence. The arch-segregationist Russell of Georgia, concerned about what might happen in his own backyard, declared flatly that the law is “now on the books.” Yet no Republican or conservative leader of stature has taken on Palin, Perry, Boehner or any of the others who have been stoking these fires for a good 17 months now. Last week McCain even endorsed Palin’s “reload” rhetoric.

Are these politicians so frightened of offending anyone in the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base that they would rather fall silent than call out its extremist elements and their enablers? Seemingly so, and if G.O.P. leaders of all stripes, from Romney to Mitch McConnell to Olympia Snowe to Lindsey Graham, are afraid of these forces, that’s the strongest possible indicator that the rest of us have reason to fear them too.

Why I Voted for Obama

In a very good article in today's New York Times, David Leonhardt lays out the economic impact of health care reform (link here):

"For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago".

This is the solid ground we stand on for the political battles ahead.

"Since 1980, median real household income has risen less than 15 percent. The only period of strong middle-class income growth during this time came in the mid- and late 1990s, which by coincidence was also the one time when taxes on the affluent were rising.

For most of the last three decades, tax rates for the wealthy have been falling, while their pretax pay has been rising rapidly. Real incomes at the 99.99th percentile have jumped more than 300 percent since 1980. At the 99th percentile — about $300,000 today — real pay has roughly doubled.

The laissez-faire revolution that Mr. Reagan started did not cause these trends. But its policies - tax cuts, light regulation, a patchwork safety net — have contributed to them.

Don't Shop at Shaw's

There are union pickets up at our local Shaw's supermarket.  

It is NOT an informational picket!  

Please do not cross the picket line.

Waterloo

It's not often that we give equal time on this blog to the Republican side, but here goes:

The full post by former G. W. Bush speechwriter David Frum is here.

Some excerpts:

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

------------------------------------

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

Read the whole thing. It's worth it.

At Least They're Consistent

"This is the largest tax bill in history," the Republican leader fumed. The reform "is unjust, unworkable, stupidly drafted and wastefully financed."

And that wasn't all. This "cruel hoax," he said, this "folly" of "bungling and waste," compared poorly to the "much less expensive" and "practical measures" favored by the Republicans.

"We must repeal," the GOP leader argued. "The Republican Party is pledged to do this."

That was Republican presidential nominee Alf Landon in a September
1936 campaign speech. He based his bid for the White House on repealing Social Security.

Thanks to Walter Clay for this one.

Tuesday March 23 7pm Organizing Meeting--Deval Patrick Re-election

EVENT: Tuesday March 23 7pm Organizing Meeting--Deval Patrick Re-election. Location: Starboard Galley, 55 Water Street Newburyport

Dear Friends,

Hailey Klein and Ed Cameron will be leading the re-election efforts for the Governor in Newburyport. We will be working closely with folks from Amesbury, Newbury, West Newbury and Salisbury once again and will need lots of help.

This will be our first organizing/strategy meeting for local volunteers. A regional field organizer for the campaign will be there to give us some updates, talking points, and information.

Learning lessons from recent campaigns, we need to get out early and work hard from the start. The Governor knows this will be a tough fight. Nothing is being taken for granted. You can see some recent campaign activities here.

If you can't be there but want to be on the list of supporters for 2010, please let us know so we can keep building the list and let you know about future events.

Thanks and hope to see you there,

Ed Cameron at edcameronNBPT@gmail.com
Hailey Klein at hailey.klein@gmail.com

How America's Demented Politics Let the GOP Off the Hook for Their Giant Mess

The link is here:
http://www.alternet.org/story/145249/bill_moyers_&_thomas_frank:_how_america%27s_demented_politics_let_the_gop_off_the_hook_for_their_giant_mess

Bill Moyers & Thomas Frank: How America's Demented Politics Let the GOP Off the Hook for Their Giant Mess

Bill Moyers interviews Thomas Frank on how our short attention span has allowed conservatives to escape blame for their role in the economic meltdown.

January 19, 2010 |

Editor's note: In the following interview Bill Moyers and Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter With Kansas" and "The Wrecking Crew," talk about why conservatives can get away with blaming Obama for the past decade of conservative failures.

Excerpts:

What conservatism in this country is about is government failure. Conservatives talk about government failure all the time, constantly. And conservatives, when they're in power deliver government failure.

-------

It's a cynical town, Washington, D.C. And the conservative movement tends to be deeply, deeply, deeply cynical about government. Now, it's also, I mean, deeply idealistic about the market. I mean, the market can do no wrong, almost by definition. But government they regard as a criminal gang. I mean, many, many conservatives have compared-- oh, they always do, compare government to criminals. All the time.

Taxation is a form of theft. It's as bad as a mugger in the street saying, "Give me your money." And America is pretty much unique among the nations in that our political system, half of our political system is basically dedicated to the destruction of the government from within. I don't know any other country where that's the case. But there's plenty of countries where government works really, really well. I mean, even, for God's sake, in India, you know, which we don't think of as being an advanced industrial society, their banks didn't all go bust in the latest downturn. Now, why is that?

Because their equivalent of the Federal Reserve was not, you know, deregulating, stopping enforcement. They weren't doing any of those things. They were keeping a very tight lid on it. Government can work. It works all the time.

Statement From Governor Deval Patrick Relative to Health Care Costs for Small Businesses

http://devalpatrick.com/entries/statement_from_governor_deval_patrick_relative_to_health_care_costs_for_small_businesses

Statement From Governor Deval Patrick Relative to Health Care Costs for Small Businesses

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

CONTACT:
Alex Goldstein
617-367-2010x241

"What we need are real solutions now. I have directed the Commissioner of Insurance to review rate increases by April 1 and deny excessive premium increases. We have also proposed a set of solutions before the Legislature that will cut health care premiums for small businesses and families now. The simple question is: will Charlie Baker and Tim Cahill join me in supporting these proposals? So far, neither will answer that question.

We are starting to recover from the global economic crisis, and small businesses in Massachusetts will drive that growth and create new jobs. They need help now. Neither Charlie Baker nor Tim Cahill have indicated that they will stand with me to help small businesses lower their health care costs.

Providing affordable and quality health care for Massachusetts families has been a hallmark of my administration, and our efforts are paying off. We lead the nation with over 97% of our residents covered, not by accident, but because we focused on expanding access while limiting costs. While private insurance companies have slammed small businesses and families with double digit increases in their premiums this year, Commonwealth Care has held its premiums at the same level as the previous year. Meanwhile, we continue to work with stakeholders across the health care industry to develop a long term solution to provide relief for countless businesses and families.

I agree with Charlie Baker about the value of transparency. But it means little to the regular person paying those whopping increases in health insurance premiums year after year who need action now. Charlie Baker spent 9 years calling the shots as CEO of a health insurance company, and all we have seen are skyrocketing health care coverage costs during that time."

###

Day 1: Get the facts out: A Message from Organizing for America

As the President has made clear, Americans deserve a final up-or-down vote on health reform. And the House is now expected to hold its final vote as soon as one week from today.

As we speak, insurance-industry lobbyists are gathering at the D.C. Ritz-Carlton to stage a last-minute blitz to block reform -- even as they jack up premiums by as much as 60% for small businesses and families across the country.

So starting today, we're launching an unprecedented week-long campaign sprint -- our "Final March for Reform." Each day until the vote, we'll feature a powerful new way for OFA supporters to speak out in our communities and weigh in directly with Congress.

Today, we'll start by spreading the facts about reform in our communities. Smears and falsehoods have clouded this debate -- Congress must understand that if they pass reform, their constituents will know the truth about what we've finally achieved. Click here to begin.

We've put together a simple summary of the President's proposal, a fact sheet to show friends and co-workers how the plan will specifically help them, posters to display, Facebook notes to post, and much more.

We're on the verge of solving a crisis that has vexed our nation for generations -- and eluded the best efforts of seven previous Presidents.

But our opponents will stop at nothing to distort the President's proposal and derail our progress. It may all come down to what we do together this week.

Today, it's time to show the insurance lobbyists that no smear campaign cooked up at a posh hotel can match the power of millions of regular citizens who are ready for change and committed to the truth.

Please join our truth squad -- and start spreading the facts today:

http://my.barackobama.com/DayOne

Thanks for making it possible,

David Plouffe

Patrick gets unions huffing and puffing - The Boston Globe

Patrick gets unions huffing and puffing - The Boston Globe

Posted using ShareThis

The Republicans' big lie about reconciliation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030303097.html



The Republicans' big lie about reconciliation

By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Thursday, March 4, 2010; A21

For those who feared that Barack Obama did not have any Lyndon Johnson in him, the president's determination to press ahead and get health-care reform done in the face of Republican intransigence came as something of a relief.

Obama's critics have regularly accused him of not being as tough or wily or forceful as LBJ was in pushing through civil rights and the social programs of his Great Society. Obama seemed willing to let Congress go its own way and was so anxious to look bipartisan that he wouldn't even take his own side in arguments with Republicans.

Those days are over. On Wednesday, the president made clear what he wants in a health-care bill, and he urged Congress to pass it by the most expeditious means available.

He was also clear on what bipartisanship should mean -- and what it can't mean. Democrats, who happen to be in the majority, have already added Republican ideas to their proposals. Obama said he was open to four more that came up during the health-care summit. What he's (rightly) unwilling to do is give the minority veto power over a bill that has deliberately and painfully worked its way through the regular legislative process.

Republicans, however, don't want to talk much about the substance of health care. They want to discuss process, turn "reconciliation" into a four-letter word and maintain that Democrats are "ramming through" a health bill.

It is all, I am sorry to say, one big lie -- or, if you're sensitive, an astonishing exercise in hypocrisy.

In an op-ed in Tuesday's Post, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) offered an excellent example of this hypocrisy. Right off, the piece was wrong on a core fact. Hatch accused the Democrats of trying to, yes, "ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill."

No. The health-care bill passed the Senate in December with 60 votes under the normal process. The only thing that would pass under a simple majority vote would be a series of amendments that fit comfortably under the "reconciliation" rules established to deal with money issues. Near the end of his column, Hatch conceded that reconciliation would be used for "only parts" of the bill. But why didn't he say that in the first place?

Hatch grandly cited "America's Founders" as wanting the Senate to be about "deliberation." But the Founders said nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, let alone "reconciliation." Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.

Hatch quoted Sens. Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad, both Democrats, as opposing the use of reconciliation on health care. What he didn't say is that Byrd's comment from a year ago was about passing the entire bill under reconciliation, which no one is proposing. As for Conrad, he made clear to The Post's Ezra Klein this week that it's perfectly appropriate to use reconciliation "to improve or perfect the package," which is the only thing that Democrats have proposed doing through reconciliation.

Hatch said that reconciliation should not be used for "substantive legislation" unless the legislation has "significant bipartisan support." But surely the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were passed under reconciliation and increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion during his presidency, were "substantive legislation." The 2003 dividends tax cut could muster only 50 votes. Vice President Dick Cheney had to break the tie. Talk about "ramming through."

The underlying "principle" here seems to be that it's fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance.

I'm disappointed in Hatch, co-sponsor of two of my favorite bills in recent years. One created the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The other, signed last year by Obama, broadly expanded service opportunities. Hatch worked on both with his dear friend, the late Edward M. Kennedy, after whom the service bill was named.

It was Kennedy, you'll recall, who insisted that health care was "a fundamental right and not a privilege." That's why it's not just legitimate to use reconciliation to complete the work on health reform. It would be immoral to do otherwise and thereby let a phony argument about process get in the way of health coverage for 30 million Americans.

ejdionne@washpost.com

Send A Message

Blanche Lincoln has a viable, progressive opponent in the Louisiana democratic primary: current Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter.  Donate through Act Blue to help defeat this blue dog.