De Magno Opere

Thank John Boccieri

2009-11-10T14:05:00.001-05:00

Ever wondered why the online activist set has abandoned Obama - or more specifically - Organizing For America?

Wonder no more (from an email sent on Sunday, which I just read today - long story):

Last night, your representative, Rep. John Boccieri, cast a courageous vote to help pass comprehensive health reform. After months of debate and decades of false starts, this was the biggest step yet on the path to making real health insurance reform a reality.

But before health reform can become law, it must pass one more time through the House of Representatives. The insurance companies will be throwing everything they can at changing Rep. Boccieri's vote for the final round, so it's crucial that we publicly show that the voters in your district support reform and are counting on Rep. Boccieri to stand firm. [emphasis included]

OFA is f*cking kidding, right? They do have access to the roll call, do they not?

Thank John Boccieri for not only voting against the health care bill, but for restricting a woman's right to choose what is right for her health in exchange for that "No" vote (the more heinous of the two votes by far)?

Again, OFA is f*cking kidding, right?!

If OFA can't keep the vote tally straight, it's no wonder they can't get people to jump through hoops, for a President and ~~permanent campaign~~ Administration who doesn't seem to get it.

Congratulations!

2009-11-10T10:45:00.001-05:00

Only one person could have shepherded through the worst assault on women's rights in a non-Sharia law country ever, but done so in order to pass a completely worthless bill.

Which doesn't even begin to address the provision that might take the "public" out of the public option.

Heckuva job Madam Speaker...

A Socialist Attempts to Save Capitalism

2009-11-10T05:40:00.001-05:00

If this what the Morons are afraid of when they speak of socialism, then I'm all for socialism:

Senator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation that would break up financial institutions that are too big to fail. "If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist," Sanders said. "We should break them up so they are no longer in a position to bring down the entire economy. We should end the concentration of ownership that has resulted in just four huge financial institutions holding half the mortgages in America, controlling two-thirds of the credit cards, and amassing 40 percent of all deposits." Sanders' legislation would give Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner 90 days to compile a list of commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds and insurance companies that he deems too big to fail. The affected financial institutions would include "any entity that has grown so large that its failure would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial Government assistance." Within one year after the legislation became law, the Treasury Department would be required to break up those banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions.

It's rather interesting that it took an Independent (Socialist) to propose some financial reform legislation that actually has something more than "financial reform" in the bill's title, rather than any number of slick-tongued lying piece-of-shit Democrats.

However I have my doubts about CitiGeithner being allowed to determine anything about any financial firm without significant safeguards in place.

Such as, firing Geithner and replacing him with someone like Elizabeth Warren - or just replacing him with Elizabeth Warren...

Are Democrats Prepared to Destroy Abortion Rights?

2009-11-09T18:35:00.000-05:00

I've said it before, I'll believe it when I see it, and as evidenced by the previous origami-act put on by the Congressional Progressive Caucus when it came to a worthwhile Public Option, I highly doubt anyone is going to vote against the already heinous health care bill for any reason.

And when this bill does indeed pass with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, it won't matter what else it does or does not contain. The Democratic Party (and anti-choice "Democrats" like John Boccieri) will finally get what it has long deserved because...

Democrats have finally found a way to accomplish what Republicans have been unable to do for nearly 40 years.

Democrats have put us on firmly on the path to restricting the right of women to make their own choices about their own bodies.

Democrats have just made it clear -
they're okay with destroying abortion rights.

Would Boccieri Have Voted Against Medicare Too?

2009-11-09T05:35:00.000-05:00

So-Called Democrat, and Representative of Ohio's 16th District, John "I get tax-payer supported health care, too bad for you!" Boccieri, explained his No vote on H.R. 3962:

While I fully support quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone, I am disappointed the House bill sadly does not go far enough to reduce the costs of getting there.

Considering most of the inefficiency in the American health care system is due to low Medicare reimbursement rates (resulting in overcharges for everyone else) and unnecessary procedures (under the same program) - both of which are addressed by this very bill (with increased payments to primary providers) - is Representative Boccieri saying he would have voted against Medicare?

Medicare only addressed cost-containment by setting pre-determined (and regionally nonsensical) reimbursement rates and negotiating drug prices.

If cost-containment was such a serious concern for the Representative, shouldn't he have offered an amendment to address these issues, or even joined in forcing the Medicare Plus 5 version of this bill - complete with negotiating provisions - onto the floor?

Another large proportion of the costs of medical care in this country is brought about by uncovered individuals, which (it is true) are rather inadequately addressed by this bill. Again, shouldn't Boccieri have offered or at least supported amendments to strengthen the coverages offered by H.R. 3962?

Medicare sees annual increases in expenditures of 8 percent on average. This bill may reduce those to 6 percent a year through 2019 without reducing any necessary benefits. Is that what Representative Boccieri means by waste and inefficiency?

Based on his rather sweeping comment about costs, I really have to wonder, would John Boccieri have voted against Medicare if it was being voted on during the 111th Congress?

I also have to wonder how all the over-65 voters in this district would feel about that kind of vote?

John Bocceri - Against Women's Health (and the People)

2009-11-07T23:52:00.000-05:00

The vote is in. It's not a perfect bill, it's not even close. I'm happy a Republican voted for it, because that's so very much more important than having a bill that solves significant problems.

I personally consider all of this significant portions of evidence of a coming Progressive Fold during conference, but what's even more galling to me is the Stupak Amendment (further evidence of the previously mentioned), and my Reprsentative's vote for this abominable anti-choice amendment that wasn't even necessary to secure passage.

Making matters worse, he subsequently vote against the entire health care bill.

Looks like someone from the 16th District has plans to be employed in another field next year, because starting right now, John Boccieri is my bitch...

It Takes A Villager (To Get It So Wrong)

2009-10-26T11:20:00.000-04:00

Wow. Even Bruce Bartlett - THE world-famous supply-sider - knows better than everyone's favourite "liberal" rich guy-cum-newspaper owner-cum-Villager Extraordinaire Mort Zuckerman to place the blame for our current federal deficit on Obama's spending policies.

To wit:

To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected, but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending.

And, if that wasn't enough to make you question whether we really are living in a mathematical construct created by our machine overlords, this should just about do the trick:

...I conclude that a lack of spending in the economy is the central problem and the only policies that will help are those that increase spending - consumer spending, investment spending, net exports or government spending.

...I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration's anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending - real spending on things like public works - has been grossly inadequate.

Which isn't to say that Obama's other policy positions are going to do anything to improve the deficit, since he's obviously disinclined to close overseas tax-loopholes (broken campaign promise #386), raise taxes on the wealthy, re-impose taxes on stock transactions, or spend money where it really needs to be spent to re-start the economy - and generate more revenue...

[Massive H/T to Barry Ritholz]

The Third Bush Term (Supporting Evidence)

2009-10-24T10:15:00.000-04:00

I included this as a drive-by link in the previous post, but here's something Matt Taibbi wrote that I believe deserves further consideration.

This explains more than everything that's wrong with this Presidency:

We’re coming up on the one- year anniversary of Barack Obama’s election. I think it’s maybe time that we asked ourselves how he’s doing.

He didn’t close Guantanamo Bay, and not only didn’t reject the idea of pre-emptive detention but added spice to his own new version of pre-crime prosecution, “prolonged detention.” He promised health care reform and campaigned on a public option, and we all know how that is going to turn out.

But most importantly, he came into office amidst sweeping crises in the financial sector and did not do what needed to be done, and what had been done the last time the U.S. was sent careening into a depression because of Wall Street: he failed to push for tough financial reforms. Barack Obama needed to be the FDR figure who remade the American capital markets and made them fair again, and he barely laid a finger on the whole scene.

Instead, he put the people who created the problem in charge of fixing the mess, and ended up bailing them out instead of the rest of the country, at huge current and (presumably) future cost.The total bill for the Bush-Obama bailout is certainly above ten trillion at this point — Inspector General Neil Barofsky thinks it might hit nearly $24 trillion ultimately — and this went through without much fanfare. Meanwhile, the congress is stuck in the mud, panicked at the thought of paying three or four trillion over a decade or so for a health care program.

None of this is new news. What is new is the question of what to do about it. I’m personally of the opinion that our main problem lay with the fact that the Democratic Party as currently constituted is more afraid of losing the financial support of Wall Street and the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry than it is of losing progressive voters. In fact, I think I’ve put that wrong, because it implies that the Democratic Party pushes the agenda of industry insiders out of fear. That is a misread of the situation, I think.

I think they prefer those people to their voters. I think they feel more comfortable with them. I heard a story recently from a Democratic Party operative who tells me that certain members of one of the president’s cabinet departments only got wind of how hard it is out there for ordinary people to pay their bills when they invited in a major corporation to give them a presentation about their financial outlook for the holiday season — and through that report found out that this company’s prospective customers were spending less because large numbers of them had been laid off, or had huge medical bills, or had maxed out their credit, and so on.

Letters from customers, survey answers and such, were read to the cabinet group. And they were shocked. This is how they find out about the economic reality of this country — accidentally, from a major campaign contributor! That’s how out of touch these people are.

I don't like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or the rest of the bat-shit crazies, but I have to admit I do agree with some of the language they use - that filters through the more sane providers I frequent - more often than not as time goes on.

Primarily, because I didn't realise I was voting for the Third Term of the Bush Administration. A mistake of action and support that I may never allow myself to live down.

I pray we all survive the next three years of this bullshit...

Disconnect We Can Believe In

2009-10-24T08:40:00.000-04:00

I really don't want to hear jack shit from Valerie Jarrett, who like others in this Administration (see: David Axelrod and Bob Gibbs), are hung out to dry with an alarming regularity.

I want to hear from the President himself, or whoever the hell actually holds the levers of leadership coming out of this blasted White House.

Seriously, they can do the semi-right thing by going after Faux News, but they can't pressure anyone in the Democratic Caucus who seems insistent on holding up more than just one reform this country desperately needs?! Oh fuck me...

This - this right here - is the most massive disconnect between a political reality (Republicans are in a very deep hole) and the complementary political effort (We MUST please a Republican!) I have ever seen.

A part of me just can't wait for 2012 now. Another, perhaps more significant, part of me is afraid of four additional years of what we have right now.

The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is...

2009-10-23T06:20:00.001-04:00

Not the Republicans, who despite their penchant for being outright insane, aren't actually in position to matter anymore.

No, it's our President we - and the Democratic Party - really have to fear.

I would normally consider this a form of wild conjecture on why the White House just can't bring itself to support ~~Medicare for Everybody~~ a limited public option, and that it might be somewhat too conspiratorial to be realistic.

But the weight of the evidence is becoming to clear to ignore with each passing day.

We have a man who, when it's convenient, is more than willing to say and act in a manner that will gain him the support he requires to accomplish something, but once he's reached a certain point in the progress towards that goal, is also more than willing to throw those supporters under the bus.

Even if those supporters include the majority of the American people who voted for him....

What You Get For Pushing Individual Mandates

2009-10-12T09:35:00.001-04:00

My main objection to voting for (or supporting) Hillary Clinton was not the Iraq war vote, the potential for four to eight years of Republican distractions, or any of the other usual reasons several other people had.

My main objection was her insistence on pursuing individual health insurance mandates as a road to universal coverage.

There was and is a good reason for that objection, now made painfully apparent.

Then again, it's not like anyone could have possibly seen that - in the absence of a strong public health insurance plan - the insurance industry would be drooling at the opportunity to ream everyone when given no other choice but to pay their outrageous overhead or face a stiff and immediately active tax penalty...

How To Really Save the Economy

2009-10-11T08:30:00.000-04:00

I like Robert Reich rather a lot, so it's somewhat hard for me to say he's also a victim of the political expediency disease that infects the national discussion of how to fix this severely broken economy.

But it's worthwhile to examine another manner of Keynesian stimulus.

Of all his suggestions in the referenced post, only the second makes any real sense in the short term. Number Four would except for the social problem that gets to the heart of the economic problem.

As an example, we have a severe deficit of skilled workers - such as the nurses and medical technicians - required to carry out several of these key jobs, as illustrated by recent reporting on the subject.

If it wasn't apparent in October of last year, it certainly is now that the solution to the economic melt-down wasn't a massive bail-out of the financial industry. I'm sure that at some point it will also become obvious that it isn't a massive infrastructure rebuilding that can't take place with the rapidity required (in the current political climate) any more than Hoover could have been re-elected in 1932.

The political courage required to waive regulatory and environmental requirements is non-existent - and would quite likely cause more harm than good.

The real solution should have been undertaken in the late-1980s and early-1990s, continuing until (and beyond) today. The fact that it wasn't except to the extent that it was paid the soon-to-be familiar theme of lip-service can be laid squarely at the feet of both parties, and the sad fact is only one is now qualified to carry it out. Whether they will is another matter entirely...

Unlike the last Depression, when the rest of the world found itself reeling as badly (if not worse) than the United States, we're in the unique position of being the victims of our own success.

Our success in transferring massive amounts of wealth to select segments of our population and economy, our success in destroying what opportunities for economic mobility remained, and our success in doing nothing to prepare for the inevitable result of those policies.

(Unless you couldn't vote until 2008, you - like I - have a 50% chance of being to blame for this, so don't start acting all smug around your Republican friends.)

The only solution is to engage in something that will cause howls from both Republicans and so-Called Democrats. It will increase the debt, which could be alleviated with the fortitude to call in several loans made to industries and interests that haven't shown any value. It will take at least a year to have a noticeable effect, and it should have been started on January 22nd of this year.

But President Obama is the last person who can be blamed for that.

Unlike the massive public works projects of the 30's, we need a massive public education project. Not just for current students of our fine (and not so fine) public school systems, but for the un- and under-employed.

A national program set up to provide the entire costs of occupational retraining from one to four years), made painlessly simple to join, and promoted heavily is/was the solution that should have been made several months ago.

I can't exactly say that I could see this particularly clearly at the time, having not been aware of just how much of a waste of time a national infrastructure project might be, but the desirability of such a program is pretty damn clear now.

Instead of continuing to direct the 60% or so of stimulus funds (and the remaining $250 billion or so of TARP) to projects that will likely do very little long-term good without the skilled workers necessary, it might be highly advisable to start on a program of retraining for millions of currently displaced workers, while also continuing to address one of the other three problems identified several years ago that are holding back the vast majority of Americans...

Obama: The Greatest Republican President We've Ever Had

2009-10-11T06:00:00.001-04:00

I love lip-service. It gives people like John Emerson (your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to read this) a chance to illustrate why people such as I understand the real game plan for the Democratic Party as illustrated by Obama.

Pay lip-service to as many constituencies as you can. Say what they want to hear. Do nothing as a follow-up on those promises.

What still confuses me is how someone like Obama could go from someone who engaged in positive action on several issues to doing nothing but giving nice little speeches contributing to no more than global warming in so short a time.

Perhaps a portion of the problem is a lack of interest in doing the right thing, to be found equally in another branch of this laughable government?

Obama Won What?

2009-10-09T08:20:00.000-04:00

I have three words to describe why President Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.

George W. Bush.

Two Things

2009-10-09T04:55:00.001-04:00

I have very little to say about the "opt-out" option, although you can warp your brain around two different views, and realise this rather interesting (but entirely unspecific) suggestion isn't likely to go anywhere anyway.

That out of the way, what's really bringing me out of my bubble of infinite action today is the opportunity to say something about the CBO scoring of the Baucus Insurance Industry Free Ride Bill.

While it appears to be the cheapest of the health reform bills (regardless of the significant opposition to a quarter of it's funding), it was scored - like the Senate HELP bill - rather incompletely. Which brings up an important point.

Under similar criteria, the HELP bill is about $250 billion cheaper.

It might also be interesting to note that the savings from a robust public option are nearly double the savings ($150 billion over 10 years) of the Baucus Bullshit Bill minus any choices.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's back to the great work of destroying the Senator from United Health's agenda...

A Democrat Who Should Really Apologize

2009-10-01T07:25:00.000-04:00

I'm usually glad to be wrong about such things, but in this case, it's sadly apparent Geithner and Rahm were waiting behind the door of the press room exit to jump Gibbs:

White House officials on Wednesday insisted that they are satisfied with congressional action on regulatory reform legislation and disputed a Huffington Post report on Tuesday that they had threatened to veto a bill if its consumer-protection provisions were too weak.

"The White House has been working closely with [House Financial Services Committee] Chairman [Barney] Frank and [Senate Banking Committee] Chairman [Chris] Dodd for months on creating a strong and balanced consumer financial protection agency and we are confident the bill will streamline government, protect consumers, and provide a level playing field for responsible service providers," said spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki.

It's become a certainty that anything even suggestive of strong action on the behalf of the American people is going to be buried so deeply by this Administration that it never sees the light of day again, but I honestly did expect more than 12 hours would pass before they'd dig this latest hole.

Of course, it's now agreed we should all be more concerned about the nasty (and entirely appropriate) words used by Democrats who do care about the plight of the people, so please ignore anything suggestive of being fucked over at the behest of the head honcho at your leisure.

And enjoy the show from Copenhagen today...

Nothing to Apologize For

2009-10-01T05:35:00.001-04:00

In the interest of not allowing the forest to be lost for the trees, this etymology lesson might be useful...

Holocaust - according to the Webster's English Dictionary - was not a word created in 1939. Or 1945.

Holocaust is a word that has often been used to properly describe the aftereffects of a thermonuclear weapon exchange between two or more countries by hundreds, if not millions of people.

Holocaust is a word from the Middle English form of a Old French word which in turn is from the Latin form of the 13th Century Greek word holokauston (give me a moment to catch my breath) meaning "to burn", or more often, "a thorough destruction".

An appropriate word in either case to be used not only for a war carried out with an unimaginable level of insanity, but a policy of genocide carried out during another war by an insane man lifted up to a level of power by a temporarily (or otherwise) insane group of people.

All that said, the word "holocaust" is not a proper noun reserved for one moment in history, nor is it reserved for a moment that will end history. It's overuse, I will admit, could - and likely does - cheapen the historical moment most often associated with it.

The following extremely minor usage is not one of those times:

In fact, I would agree that what the entire Republican (and a significant minority of the Democratic) Party seems hell-bent on protecting is beginning to look like a concerted and quite thorough destruction effort aimed squarely at a majority of Americans.

Without regards to religiosity, ethnicity, etymology - or historical parallel...

Too Bad Republicans Are Crazy

2009-09-30T14:30:00.000-04:00

I suspect it's rather common knowledge that in order for a representative democracy to work, you need to have two strong parties. Not one that feels no significant threat when they sell everyone else out, and another that is completely, utterly, bat-shit crazy.

I do hope the Republicans can at least manage to regain some semblance of sanity, because without a check to the kind of weak-kneed bullshit formerly known as the Democratic Party, nothing is ever going to get done in this country (notwithstanding true patriots like this wonderful Representative from Florida).

Here We Go Again (Iran Edition)

2009-09-30T10:50:00.000-04:00

Did Mr. Foreign Policy's Administration trump up the charges against Iran?

Can you say deja vu all over again?

Why The Public Option No Longer Matters

2009-09-30T05:05:00.001-04:00

Two interesting views of yesterday's disaster brought to us by Max Baucus, et. al. (D - Wholly Owned Subsidary of AHIP) are here and here. The first leads to the conclusion that we're likely to be saddled with a trigger-less (good) but non-negotiable (bad) public health insurance plan.

The second asks the pertinent question - what exactly is the benefit of this versus a co-op? Since the problem with a co-op is the lack of similar negotiating power to a 300-million-person federal program (that has the power to negotiate), there is little to no benefit to having a public option without negotiating power.

However, there are two potential minor benefits of note.

In conjunction with the rest of the health insurance reform provisions, a public option (minus all the overhead and profit-margin) has a small chance of being more affordable than private for-profit insurance, especially when you're forced to ~~give all your money to the health care industry~~ have coverage.

The more likely outcome is to buy time for certain Democrats who would be getting creamed, at least until the costs and lack of benefits in a toothless public insurance plan become all to painfully apparent.

Unhappily, I'm not sure there's enough time for Da People to express their dissatisfaction to their elected officials with this state of affairs through the usual medium of polling.

But we're eventually all going to realise just how useless the Democratic Party can really be... (and that makes three benefits of a powerless public option!)

Something He'll Fight For?

2009-09-29T17:00:00.001-04:00

There was no real surprise behind today's votes in the Finance Committee, especially considering what Robert Reich had to say just yesterday.

The most value that can be squeezed from these two votes is the very literal confirmation of who has been bought and paid for by the health care industry interests...

But this is surprising. There actually appears to be something Obama is either willing to fight for - or to let die - rather than allow half-assed reform give people a false sense of action from Congressional Democrats:

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that there were "big" concerns inside the administration over reports that Congress was scaling back a key pillar of the president's approach to reform: the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). And, in a warning shot to the legislative branch, he suggested that proposed legislation to create the CFPA might not pass the president's desk if it becomes too watered down in the process.

"The president would not sign any bill that he thought was too weak," said Gibbs. "I think we have seen what happens whether it is credit card companies, mortgage companies, we now see it more in stories covering the charges for bank overdrafts and the amount of money that costs the American people each year. The American people deserve an advocate on their behalf dealing with these entities. The president believes that strongly and believes that at the end of the day we will have a strong Consumer Finance Protection Agency working on behalf of the American people."

Granted, this Administration's history isn't exactly stellar when it comes to financial industry reforms (much less anything else that requires twisting Congressional arms), but it's difficult to find anything wrong with a veto threat in this case.

Then again, I suppose in a couple of days that Geithner and Rahm will quietly pull Gibbs aside, explain to him that the big contributors aren't going to be happy with this bill, and all talk of a veto will dissipate like so much dew on a summer morning.

But it's nice to see after 9 months of waffling some fortitude from this President. More please...

Approaching the Zenith of the Anti-Government Movement?

2009-09-24T08:10:00.000-04:00

I wouldn't normally comment on something such as a Census worker found quite probably murdered in southern Kentucky, but considering one of my first jobs was with the U.S. Census - and I seriously considered helping out again - this scared the living shit out of me.

Let's hope it just a isolated incident, rather than what I suspect it could be.

Welcome to the Team Of Rivals

2009-09-24T06:20:00.000-04:00

Mike Lux probably shouldn't have been so quick to apologize for this.

For, as others have noted by various means, it really depends on who is passing out the information in this Administration.

Who responded to this rather obvious revelation, the compromisers, or the Democrats? Most likely the latter, although some of the former are probably feeling some level of heat.

Regardless of rumours or pressure, when you consider the way things have worked so far, I'd bet on the compromisers coming out victorious any day of the week - and Lux being right after all.

And the Trap Is Sprung

2009-09-23T14:15:00.000-04:00

While the Administration is busy kissing President Snowe's ass, her compatriots have started the process of springing the trap they've laid so very, very well for the Democratic Party.

Thanks to all this waffling and compromising, we're likely faced with being forced to have insurance coverage (with very little in the way of protection against price gouging and a high penalty for non-compliance), or we're not, and all the remaining provisions of this so-called health care reform plan will create a private insurance market that prices a significantly higher percentage of the country (than currently face this problem) out of the health insurance market.

Either way, the Republicans can claim victory and paint this as another Democratic failure (no, this doesn't count for shit, as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act - like all regulatory efforts - was only as effective as the Administration's that enforced it).

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad...

More Afghanistan

2009-09-23T11:10:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure anyone should really pay attention to any of the people who screwed up the entire effort in Afghanistan, but I do recommend reviewing the very recent instructive consequences of the Bush/Cheney/Rice fuck-up du jour.

More troops without a plan to use them effectively does very little good, and given the probability of the Karzai government remaining in power, no planning - increased troop levels or not - may be able to recover the opportunity we lost after 2002.