Home Blog Page 3281

President Obama: Republicans Made “Political Decision” to Oppose Health Care Reform

13


…when you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas. I mean a lot of commentators have said, you know, this is sort of similar to the bill that Mitt Romney, the Republican governor and now presidential candidate, passed in Massachusetts. A lot of the ideas in terms of the exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market. That originated from the Heritage Foundation and…

Nailed it.

10,000 Virginians Stand up to Cuccinelli, Demand Answers on Lawsuit

0

From the Democratic Party of Virginia:

RICHMOND – In less than a week, more than 10,000 Virginians have signed a petition calling on Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to “stop wasting our tax dollars on his personal political agenda.”

The petition, which the Democratic Party of Virginia launched on Wednesday, already has 11,267 signatures from Virginians who want Cuccinelli to focus his time and state resources on pressing issues such as rising utility rates, predatory lending and combating foreclosures.

“Every minute you spend on this frivolous, politically motivated lawsuit is time spent away from battling the real legal issues we expect our Attorney General to work on,” wrote Diane Perkins of Burke, Virginia, in signing the petition.

more after the “flip”

“How are you prioritizing the issues your office is working on – down to the project level?” asked Daniel Taylor of Fairfax County. “This accounting is the only way the people will know if you are working for us or your own ambitions. We demand this information now.”

Cuccinelli’s office has until Wednesday to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request filed last Wednesday by the Democratic Party of Virginia, asking for detailed accounting of the amount of state-funded staff time put into the health care lawsuit. Under state FOIA regulations, Cuccinelli has five working days to respond – a period that would end on Wednesday.

“The Attorney General is acting like taxpayer funds are just a piggy bank for his personal political agenda,” said David Mills, Executive Director of the Democratic Party of Virginia. “More than 10,000 Virginians have demanded that Ken Cuccinelli come clean about his use of taxpayer-funded state resources. This week, we’ll find out if Ken Cuccinelli still believes he’s accountable to the taxpayers of Virginia. We’re looking forward to his response.”

In the FOIA request, the Democratic Party of Virginia formally requested records of:

hours spent by Cuccinelli and Office of the Attorney General staff preparing Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius; cost to taxpayers of staff work on the suit; a list of conference calls or written correspondence that the Office of the Attorney General had with other states’ attorneys general or national conservative groups in planning the lawsuit; any outside firms contracted to assist on the lawsuit; and, the Attorney General’s full schedule since taking office, including any scheduled television interviews in the Washington, D.C., metro area.

Myths about the State Budget

1

Here we go again. Gov. Bob McDonnell wants to walk in the footsteps of George Allen and shrink the big, bad, state government. When Allen tried that, it was simply a smokescreen for his radical conservative agenda. He was more interested in  vouchers for private schools and privatizing mental health and child support services than in ending unnecessary state spending.

Conservatives in the GOP always throw around this budget figure: “State spending over the past decade has grown 73 percent in the past 10 years.” NOT TRUE.

The figure bandied about by those who begrudge any state revenue going to anyone except themselves includes directed funds, such as money that gives tuition help to state colleges. According to the latest JLARC report, the actual increase in state spending for the General Fund  in the last 10 years is 46 percent.

If one is honest and corrects that figure for inflation and state population growth (10 percent), the state budget has grown only 8 percent over 10 years, or less than 1 percent per year. That is hardly profligate state spending.

However, here we go again…

Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw (D-Fairfax) told the Washington Post, “I’ve heard it all before. If it makes sense, we’ll do it. If it doesn’t make sense, we won’t.”

One “plan” of McDonnell’s is a sub-committee of his new Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring that will look into selling off the state ABC stores. The people on the sub-committee represent liquor retailers, wholesalers and distributors.

Well, isn’t that coincidental? The very people who would benefit the most from the General Fund losing $100 million per year in revenue by the sell-off of state liquor stores will make the recommendation to the governor about whether to sell the stores or not….

The Washington Post has looked back at some of the recommendations made by the group George Allen set up when he was governor from 1994-1998. Back then, they wanted to eliminate 16,000 state jobs. Allen actually eliminated about 10,000 jobs. At least it was fairly easy for the state employees who found themselves out of a job to find a new one since the Clinton economic boom was in full force.

This time, the people who lose state jobs will simply join the ranks of those unemployed during the “Wall Street Greed Great Recession.” Besides, it will be mighty hard for McDonnell to find other jobs to slash after the adoption of a budget that will result in anywhere from 25,000 to 35,000 fewer state and local jobs.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that periodic looks at how tax money is spent isn’t laudable. It actually would make good business sense for such a review to be done regularly, as long as it is done by some group that doesn’t come to their mission with a preconceived viewpoint driven by ideology. (Actually, we already have JLARC that does a fine job analyzing the budget.)

That is my main objection to McDonnell’s commission. Like the earlier one set up by George Allen, it will approach its job with biases firmly in place: no new taxes and lower tax rates for those already in place, with most cuts occurring in services to the poorest and the weakest members of our society.

That’s not how effective businesses seek greater efficiency. That’s simply a recipe for making Virginia a meaner, crueler place.

Ex-Gov. Doug Wilder, who has always been a budget hawk himself, has suggested a couple of ways to cut the state budget. He suggests McDonnell engage in video conferencing when possible instead of traveling and that the state budget cycle be changed to an annual one.

I might add to that list a look at whether Virginia should remain the only state in the U.S. that retains independent cities, which means that cities duplicate the governance of counties. The practical result is separate police departments, fire departments, court systems, etc. There should be savings possible if that situation is somehow modified.

I will give McDonnell credit for one thing, if he actually means it. He says that any savings identified by his commission will be put back into the General Fund to mitigate some of the draconian cuts to state services in the upcoming biennial budget.

Bob McDonnell: You Go Cooch!

12



“[Cuccinelli] is a very good lawyer, I think he’s doing a good job as Attorney General.”

“It’s not unusual for an Attorney General to file suit.”

In other words, Bob McDonnell and Ken Kookinelli are BFF – best friends forever.  Sweet, ain’t it?

“We’re working together very well.”

“The Attorney General’s a strong conservative, as am I.”

“…people that would say things to the contrary about there being some strife between our offices simply isn’t true.”

“…if you agree with people most of the time, then you’ve got a good relationship, and that’s what we have with the Attorney General’s office.”

UPDATE: Also, see George Allen’s letter about his “friend” Ken Cuccinelli. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised to see a guy who voted 96% with George W. Bush now embracing the most extreme wing of his party and the craziest views thereof. Sadly, it’s not surprising that any of this is coming from “Felix Macacawitz.” Still, it’s going to be fun letting everyone know how little Allen’s changed if he decides to take on Jim Webb for Senate in 2012.

Threats of Violence Against Eric Cantor, Or Anyone Else, Are Not Acceptable

9

This should go without saying, but I strongly condemn threats of violence, let alone actual violence, against Eric Cantor, Tom Perriello, Tom Perriello’s brother, or anyone else.  It simply has no legitimate place in American politics and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Period.

In this case, it appears the guy threatening Eric Cantor and his family is a madman who also has threatened many other political figures, including Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. In other cases, like with Tom Perriello and his brother, the threats were made by right-wing activists and bloggers (ostensibly) angered by the passage of health care reform legislation.  And, I’d note, the threats against Tom and his family came after 1 1/2 years of vicious invective, dehumanization, and demagoguery by leading Republicans – including the GOP’s 2008 presidential and vice presidential nominees, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, etc. – against Democrats, against Barack Obama, etc. Do Republicans and right-wingers really believe that using the kind of language and imagery they’ve been using will have no impact at all?  If not, they clearly haven’t studied the history of the 20th century.  

Speaking of the type of language that should never be used in our Democracy, I was very troubled to read this. I’ve known Bearing Drift’s Jim Hoeft for several years now, and although  he’s a staunch conservative and we disagree on most issues, I’ve never thought of him as advocating or condoning political violence in the least bit. Which is why I was surprised to see him using phrases like “before we start taking any sort of violent action against anyone else” and “let’s let the judicial process play itself out before we do anything violent.” Excuse me? “Before?”  How about “never?”

I emailed Jim Hoeft to ask him if he wanted to clarify his remarks, as I found them highly troubling. We went back and forth a few times, but in the end Hoeft agreed that violence or threats thereof are “unacceptable,” although Hoeft added the phrase “in our current political climate.” I’m not sure if we differ here nor not, but just to be clear, the correct answer is: in our Democracy, violence or threats of violence are never acceptable, in the current political climate or any other climate. Sure, if some day our Democracy is overthrown by a tyranny, that could be a different story. But that’s totally hypothetical, pretty much science fiction, so why even talk about it?  Not only do I see no need to do so, I also see the potential danger to more…uh, “excitable” individuals in discussing such things as even within the realm of possibility.

By the way, I strongly approve of the comments by conservative activist and blogger Brian W. Schoeneman, who writes, “The angry rhetoric needs to stop, as does the idea or belief that a violent overthrow of our government is even a possible course of action in response to these issues.”  Schoeneman adds, “it would be helpful if Republican elected officials would stop letting our activists get away with that kind of talk.”  I couldn’t agree more, but I’m not holding my breath on this one.

UPDATE: Jim Hoeft comments further at Bearing Drift.

So – do I advocate violence if health care is upheld as the law of the land by the judiciary?

No. No. Hell, no.

My point is that violence is never appropriate in our current Republic to make political points.

[…]

The public has no appetite for violence. It is unacceptable and worthy of condemnation. It shouldn’t even be considered as a course of action given our political climate.

Scott Robinson Concedes, Krystal Ball the 1st CD Democratic Nominee!

1



Congratulations to Krystal Ball!  With the withdrawal today of Scott Robinson from the 1st CD Democratic nomination race, Krystal is the de facto nominee. If you want to support Krystal’s campaign, you can contribute to “Bloggers for Ball” on ActBlue. Thanks, and go Krystal!

P.S. To learn more about our Congressional nominee in Virginia’s 1st district, see my extensive interview with Krystal.

UPDATE: Scott Robinson’s statements is here.

When we started this campaign seven months ago, I had just retired from a 25-year career in the United States Army and was attempting to catch up to my would be opponents by building a political operation from scratch.  The factors surrounding that short amount of time proved to be a daunting task. That is why I will be changing directions and am putting aside my aspirations to serve in Congress for now…

The “Family Values” and “Fiscal Conservative” People Strike Again!

2

It’s nice to see at least somebody living it up in the middle of this nasty recession we’re in right now. I’m sure the Republican National Committee’s donors will be overjoyed to see where their money’s going. 😉

The Washington Post article goes on to talk about the RNC spending “more than $17,000 on private jet travel in February as well as nearly $13,000 for limousines and car services, and also ran up tabs at luxe hotels including the Beverly Hills Hotel ($9,000); the Beverly Wilshire Four Seasons ($6,600) and the W Hotel in Washington ($15,000).” Again, somebody remind me, why would we listen to these hypocrites on anything?  

April 9th, Stand on the Side of Love (Again, and Always)

0

Cross-posted from Blue Commonwalth.

April inches ever closer to the dreaded anniversary.  The regional paper for our area began its opine this way: “As if Blacksburg and Virginia Tech have not endured enough in recent years…” Yes, as if… We relive that day every time the emergency alert system is tested.  We relive it nearly every day our loved ones go to work or class.  They relive it every time they walk past Norris Hall, or the Drill Field Memorial.  They relive it when nut-cases send them hate mail, or when, recently, an internet psychopath threatened the campus once again.  (It turned out to be sourced in a distant land, but not without stirring up much anxiety.) They relived it when right-wing pols tried to use these events for political opportunism to turn their sites on the academy, teachers who work long hours year after year so that their students may learn.  Some (such as Phylis Schlafly and Lynn Cheney’s anti-faculty organization) did that following the original April 16th horror.  They blamed the victims.  So did talk show hosts and television “evangelists,” whom I will not name here.  Their names get far too much play already.

No, we need no annual reminder because it never goes completely away. For the families of the victims, life is forever changed. In such matters it would be appropriate to extend sympathy and support toward the victims. That’s what most people do.  But not the psychopathic fringe minority.  Each year, for all the wealth of positive support and good will, comes a reminder of the kind of hate that brought us to this point, the kind of hate that caused all of this in the first place. Now we have learned that one of the primary national architects of hate will be here this April:  The infamous, so-called Rev. Fred Phelps and his shrieking Westboro “Baptist Church” accomplices.

(It is bad enough he threatened to disrupt all the funerals of victims back then.) This is how they choose to spend their lives: Harassing, taunting, psychologically torturing those who have suffered enough.

The so-called minister pretends to speak for God, this man,who would harangue us about the supposed reasons for the events reaching their anniversary.  We deserved it, he says, because God’s children, including all LGBT people, were born the way they were.  Of course, he doesn’t understand that being LGBT is not a “lifestyle choice.”  Ignorance abounds…

It is this man, who will lecture us on how to be.  His April 9th planned harassment of our town illustrates better than anyone else could just what this man’s “legacy” is.  He plans (has notified, and apparently applied for permits) to harass with anti-Semitic invective outside a synagogue, and with anti-gay vitriol in downtown Blacksburg, and even at the collapsed Blacksburg High School gym and now-vacant school.  

Some suggest everyone should stay away.  Others argue that because of the seriousness of the climate of hate, we should make clear where we stand–on the side of love.  

Efforts are underway for such positive, peaceful events.  

Here is what I urge:

• Do not give him more attention where he goes.

• Do not let him try to manipulate confrontation.  

• If you wish to speak out, organize or attend another rally somewhere else in town away from this hateful man and his hateful followers.

• Build your own media event, which does not cross paths with his.  

• Do it on FB (where Hokies Against Hate has already formed and are organizing.)

• Do it on Twitter.  

• Build peace.  Support each other.  

Meanwhile, we can support the groups whom this hateful man will try to injure.  We can donate to Equality Virginia, PFLAG, or the Human Rights Campaign.   We can donate to groups such as the NAACP.  We can donate to groups such as Planned Parenthood, Population Connection, and NARAL.  We can assure that there is an outpouring of support for all the groups which this man rails against.

There are plenty of good people on this earth.  Given all the hate-filled rhetoric it is hard to believe that sometimes.  But they are there.  They are everywhere, except, it seems at Westboro “Baptist Church,” and among the haters at the top echelons of the Republican  Party and their media accomplices, who whip up hatred of their hysterical fringe. For them, it’s time to take a step back, to try to undo what they have unleashed.  For the rest, we must counter the message.  Let there be no mistake, most Americans stand on the side of love.  It’s time to make that clear once and for all.

President John Adams’ Socialist Medicare

3

UPDATE: Oops! Of course, it was President George Washington who signed the 1798 law. That is even better, since of all the Founding Fathers, he would be the most prominent (the Founders’ Founder so to speak), and could not be deemed a wild-eyed socialist by even the most dedicated Right-winger)

To hear the obstructionists on the Right tell it, the recently passed Health Care law is rampant socialism, a government takeover, the destruction of America as we know it, and, as 14 states’ Attorneys General (13 of them Republicans) put it, very unconstitutional. Have you noticed how these obstructionists pivot so quickly from being enamored with Alexander Hamilton (pro-big central bank) or the 18th century Federalists (pro-strong federal government) to being interpreters of Thomas Jefferson (pro-periodic revolution) or the slave-owners who at the Philadelphia Convention demanded a limited federal government—- all depending on whether a Republican was in the White House (first case) or a Democrat (second case)?

One wonders how these naysayers will deal with the fact that an 18th century US Congress passed in 1798, and a prominent Founding Father, President John Adams, signed into law a federally mandated socialized health care system, including the collection of a federal tax to pay fot it?    

Paul J. O’Rourke, a self-confessed free marketeer, brought this law to our attention.  The law required the owner or captain of every ship entering a US port to account for the number of seamen employed thereon, and to deduct from every seamen’s wages twenty cents per month, to be paid into an account which would provide hospitalization as well as private medical care for injured or ill seamen.  

Remember, twenty cents was a considerable sum in those days, and it was enough to set up a system of hospitals which worked so well that in 1799 it was extended to members of the US Navy, who used it until the Navy established its own system years later. Except in wartime, Merchant seamen in the US have been considered to be employed by the private sector, yet this setup, basically a form of socialized medical care, continued. Ships’ owners or captains were fined 100 dollars if they failed to account accurately or collect and pay the federally mandated tax (fee?)?

The rationale behind such a law was that a strong and healthy workforce was essential to build an economy which would compete successfully in the world economy. This would certainly fit today as well. Indeed, the system was expanded as America grew, and eventually turned into the federal Public Health Service.

Mr. O’Rourke admitted:

“I’m a fan of the free market, and especially that forgotten 3rd word — competition.  If we continue with this fairly well established, out of balance system, we are resisting, not enabling competition…. However, a private market solution is always the preferred default. But sometimes it just doesn’t work.”

In discussing this 1798 law, Lauren Monica at Daily Kos offers a direct quote from the record.

CHAP. LXXVII – An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled – That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen, that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States,-and shall pay to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen

http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/1StatL605.pdf

INTERESTING SIDE-NOTE: Gautham Rao, writing in the History Cooperative Journal http://www.historycooperative…. helps to explain such governmental concern for sailors and public health (note: my emphasis on Virginia):

The United States’ approach to health care for maritime laborers built upon British and colonial antecedents. Since Elizabethan times, Great Britain supported hospitals-the “Chatham Chest” and Greenwich Hospital-by taxing naval and merchant mariners’ monthly wages. In 1710, Virginia imposed a small tax on tobacco exports to England to fund a hospital for mariners at Hampton, Virginia.

Why did Anglo-American society lavish such attention on health care for the merchant marine? First, mercantilist economic theory emphasized the importance of a healthy maritime labor force. In mercantilism, economic dominion was the extension of war by commercial means. Countries vied with one another for control of the most markets, over the broadest expanse of land. Mariners were the foot soldiers in this race for global power. But governments also regulated maritime health for moral reasons. In Anglo-American society, mariners were partially free and partially unfree laborers. It was believed that the mariner had volition enough to choose his course and negotiate for wages. But it was also believed that the mariner lacked sufficient sense to care for his own wellbeing. From this sentiment arose the infamous stereotype of “Jack Tar” as a coarse, hard-drinking character who purposefully exposed his own body to great harm. If Jack Tar failed to care for himself and if commerce and society so depended on Jack Tar, was it not society’s responsibility-and was it not in society’s best interest-to preserve and protect the mariner for his own good and for the public good? As Maine Senator F. O. J. Smith put it in 1838, “both the Government and the merchant” had “almost the same abiding interest with the sailor himself, in a matter upon which so much depends for a requisite supply of healthy and able-bodied seamen.”