<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/atom10full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0">
    <title>FREEDOMPOST, a lawyer's commentary</title>
    
    <link rel="hub" href="http://hubbub.api.typepad.com/" />
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/" />
    <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:weblog-179330</id>
    <updated>2009-08-30T17:53:31-07:00</updated>
    
    <generator uri="http://www.typepad.com/">TypePad</generator>
    <atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/typepad/QvZT" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" /><entry>
        <title>OBAMA MUST GET PASSIONATE AND LEAD THE DEMOCRATS TO HEALTHCARE, AND GET OUT OF WAR.</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/QvZT/~3/ns4rXb6ybu0/obama-must-get-passionate-and-lead-the-democrats-to-healthcare-and-get-out-of-war.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/obama-must-get-passionate-and-lead-the-democrats-to-healthcare-and-get-out-of-war.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834238b4453ef0120a58c2192970c</id>
        <published>2009-08-30T17:53:31-07:00</published>
        <updated>2009-08-30T17:53:31-07:00</updated>
        <summary>When David Brooks likes Obama, Obama is in trouble. I think he is in trouble. JFK was in trouble until he stopped listening to the centrists, the CIA, the FBI, and came out in favor of Civil Rights, which LBJ...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>msf31538</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="REFORMATION OF AMERICA" />
        
        
<content type="html" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/">
&lt;div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;&lt;p class="MsoPlainText" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;font face="Consolas" size="3"&gt;When David Brooks likes Obama, Obama is in trouble. I think he is in trouble. JFK was in trouble until he stopped listening to the centrists, the CIA, the FBI, and came out in favor of Civil Rights, which LBJ ran with losing the Southern bigots. Obama must show he is a man of principles even if he goes down in defeat on healthcare. If he takes the moral high ground and provides affordable healthcare to everyone and loses, he will campaign against a &amp;quot;do nothing Congress&amp;quot; as Truman did in 1948, and won. Then in 2010 he can pick and choose which Democrats to support and which ones go into a primary. He has to go to every Blue Dog and tell them &amp;quot;all or nothing at all.&amp;quot; When he did not select Howard Dean as Secretary of Health, I knew that he betrayed the cause. Sibelius is not worth shit. Geitner is not worth shit. Summers is not worth shit. He should have asked Paul Volker or Paul Krugman to be his secretary of the Treasury, and the other to be his chief economic advisor. Wall Street and the Banks would have been furious. Fuck then as they fucked the country and the little guy. The Republicans are being the populists instead of the democrats. That is one fucking stupid mistake. There are no Wall St. Republicans, only Wall St. democrats. He turned over populism to the rural bigots. The Dems should be the tea baggers. The Dems should be the revolutionaries. He must put the torturers on trial and pillory Bush and his cronies.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoPlainText" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;font face="Consolas" size="3"&gt;&amp;#0160;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoPlainText" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;font face="Consolas" size="3"&gt;Obama has the skill set and brains to do it. He must act like Teddy Roosevelt not FDR. So far he has been a disappointment to me. He still has plenty of time to get it right. JFK survived the Bay of Pigs by getting rid of Allen Dulles and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We got to get out of war that he did not start. If Gates doesn&amp;#39;t do it for him, then get someone else. Pull a Lincoln until he gets a Grant. We are at war, internally and externally, and reaching out across the aisle is BS when all the Republicans want to do his bring him to his &amp;quot;Waterloo&amp;quot;. He has got to be a &amp;quot;passionate&amp;quot; killer. He won the election, now he has to govern the country and his party, after he wins the domestic war.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoPlainText" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;font face="Consolas" size="3"&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&amp;#0160;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoPlainText" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;font face="Consolas" size="3"&gt;Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoPlainText" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;font face="Consolas" size="3"&gt;&amp;#0160;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
</content>


    <feedburner:origLink>http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/obama-must-get-passionate-and-lead-the-democrats-to-healthcare-and-get-out-of-war.html</feedburner:origLink></entry>
    <entry>
        <title>GRASSLEY SCREWED YOU IN 2005 AND HE IS SCREWING YOU IN 2009.</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/QvZT/~3/bfNuB2bHbBo/grassley-screwed-you-in-2005-and-he-is-screwing-you-in-2009.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/grassley-screwed-you-in-2005-and-he-is-screwing-you-in-2009.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834238b4453ef0120a5757b10970c</id>
        <published>2009-08-25T21:24:28-07:00</published>
        <updated>2009-08-25T21:24:28-07:00</updated>
        <summary>Opening Statement of Sen. Chuck Grassley at the Bankruptcy Reform Hearing Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased the bankruptcy bill is on the Judiciary Committee agenda and that we are scheduled to mark up this bill next week. The bipartisan legislation I...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>msf31538</name>
        </author>
        
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="bankruptcy" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="grassley" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="healthcare" />
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div style="text-align: center; FONT-SIZE: medium"><strong>Opening Statement of Sen. Chuck Grassley at the Bankruptcy Reform Hearing</strong></div><br />
<div style="text-align: left">
<p>Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased the bankruptcy bill is on the Judiciary Committee agenda and that we are scheduled to mark up this bill next week. The bipartisan legislation I just introduced as S. 256 is nearly identical to the 107th Congress H.R. 333 Conference Report signed by Senator Leahy, but voted down in the other body. The only difference is that I've removed the poison pill abortion amendment. All of the other compromises made at the request of our Democratic colleagues have been preserved intact in this bill.</p>
<p>As many of you know, we've been working on the issue of bankruptcy reform for a number of years now-since the mid 1990's. When I started working on this issue, it was considered a scandal that bankruptcies might reach 1.4 million. Guess what? In 2004, there were 1.6 million. Congress has wasted time and we still have a bankruptcy crisis on our hands. </p>
<p>By way of background, both Houses demonstrated overwhelming margins in favor of this bipartisan bill in 2000, but President Clinton pocket-vetoed the legislation and we simply ran out of time in the session to override the veto. In the 107th Congress, I re-introduced the bankruptcy bill and it passed the Senate overwhelmingly, with numerous changes to satisfy Democrats. We then went to conference with the House, and further concessions were made. The conference committee report language was the result of a long process of bipartisan negotiations that culminated in agreement on over four hundred pages of legislative text. Ultimately, we had a signed conference report supported by our Ranking Member.</p>
<p />
<p>Given that the language we are considering is the same as the 107th Congress conference report signed off on by our Democratic friends - minus the poison pill - I'm hopeful that we can all stand by the compromises we reached in good faith. We all cooperated and compromised on this legislation. It provides new consumer protections, helps children in need of child support, and makes other necessary reforms to a system that is open to abuse. There is no need to re-open this bill.</p>
<p>As we hear from witnesses today, I recall the broad public support for reforming our bankruptcy system. The vast majority of people believe that individuals who file for bankruptcy should be required to pay back some of their debts if they have the means to do so. </p>
<p />
<p>This is precisely what the bankruptcy reform legislation does. </p>
<p />
<p>Most people think it should be more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy. Americans have had enough; they are tired of paying for high rollers who game the current system and its loopholes to get out of paying their fair share. </p>
<p />
<p>This legislation eliminates some of the opportunities for abuse that exist under the current system. Our current system allows wealthy people to continue to abuse the system at the expense of everyone else. People with good incomes can run up massive debts and then use bankruptcy to get out of honoring them. </p>
<p />
<p>All of us end up paying for the unscrupulous who abuse the system. In fact, it has been estimated that every American family pays as much as $550 a year in a hidden tax as a result of the actions from these abuses. My bankruptcy reform legislation will help eliminate this hidden tax by implementing a means test to make wealthy people who can repay their debts actually honor them. I suppose we can call this a tax cut for the responsible people in America. </p>
<p />
<p>Bankruptcy abuse hurts our nation's small businesses. We will hear today about how small businesses have been hurt by losses due to bankruptcy. When businesses absorb these losses, they have to make up for the loss somehow through higher prices, or by laying off employees or going out of business. </p>
<p>The bankruptcy crisis is a jobs crisis. Making American's businesses stronger helps all of us - especially those in need of a job.</p>
<p>Make no mistake, misrepresentations about this legislation have been running rampant by those who oppose any meaningful bankruptcy reform. I've been in politics a long time, and I know that political criticism is never inhibited by ignorance. For instance, the statistical analysis in the U.S. Trustee's office examined over 5000 bankruptcy cases and found that under one-half listed medical debts of any sort. And those filers who did list medical debts, on average, listed under $5000 in medical debts. </p>
<p />
<p>So much for the myth that most bankruptcies are driven medical costs. The fact is there are abusers out there. The fact is S. 256 doesn't harm bankrupts with large medical debts. </p>
<p />
<p>Let's stop the abuse. Let's return to common sense. Let's enact bankruptcy reform now, before the abuse gets worse.</p>
<p />
<p>The reality is that the bankruptcy reform bill does not deny anyone access to bankruptcy relief; it just requires those who have the means to repay debts based on their income to do so. It's that simple. I look forward to quick Committee action and quick floor action on this bill.</p>
<p>COMMENT by Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.</p>
<p>He is one pious son of a bitch. Listen to his BS about pulling the plug on Grandma. The Democrats should pull the plug on Grassley since most bankruptcies are caused by uninsured sick people. He favors bringing guns to Washington before violence erupts.</p>
<p>Give him the "heave ho".</p>
<p>Martin S Friedlander, Esq.</p>
<br />
<p />
<br /></div></div>
</content>


    <feedburner:origLink>http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/grassley-screwed-you-in-2005-and-he-is-screwing-you-in-2009.html</feedburner:origLink></entry>
    <entry>
        <title>OBAMA HAS A TRUST PROBLEM WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED HIM</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/QvZT/~3/KPpc2oGmcy4/obama-has-a-trust-problem-with-the-people-who-elected-him.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/obama-has-a-trust-problem-with-the-people-who-elected-him.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834238b4453ef0120a563fb89970c</id>
        <published>2009-08-21T10:20:02-07:00</published>
        <updated>2009-08-21T10:22:59-07:00</updated>
        <summary>THIS IS A POSITION I AGREE WITH. Paul Krugman expresses my thoughts better than I, so here they are: Obama’s Trust Problem ShareClose Linkedin Digg Facebook Mixx MySpace Yahoo! Buzz Permalink By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: August 20, 2009 According to...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>msf31538</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="REFORMATION OF AMERICA" />
        
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="CONSERVATIVES" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="DEATH PANELS" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="GRASSLEY" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="HEALTHPLAN" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="OBAMA" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="PELOSI" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="PROGRESSIVES" />
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><h1>THIS IS A POSITION I AGREE WITH.</h1>
<h1>Paul Krugman expresses my thoughts better than I, so here they are:<nyt_headline type=" " version="1.0" /></h1>
<h1>Obama’s Trust Problem</h1>
<div id="toolsRight">
<div class="articleTools">
<div class="toolsContainer">
<ul class="toolsList" id="toolsList">
<li class="closed" id="shareMenu" style="WIDTH: 168px"><a class="shareButton" href="http://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00d834238b4453ef00d834238b4b53ef/post/#"><font color="#333333">Share</font></a><a class="hidden" href="http://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00d834238b4453ef00d834238b4b53ef/post/#" style="opacity: 0"><font color="#333333">Close</font></a> 
<ul class="hidden" id="shareList" style="opacity: 0">
<li class="linkedin"><a href="http://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00d834238b4453ef00d834238b4b53ef/post/#" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/linkedin.gif)"><font color="#333333">Linkedin</font></a> 
<li class="digg"><font color="#333333">Digg</font> 
<li class="facebook"><font color="#333333">Facebook</font> 
<li class="mixx"><a href="http://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00d834238b4453ef00d834238b4b53ef/post/#" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/mixx.gif)"><font color="#333333">Mixx</font></a> 
<li class="myspace"><a href="http://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00d834238b4453ef00d834238b4b53ef/post/#" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/myspace.gif)"><font color="#333333">MySpace</font></a> 
<li class="yahoobuzz"><a href="http://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00d834238b4453ef00d834238b4b53ef/post/#" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/yahoobuzz.gif)"><font color="#333333">Yahoo! Buzz</font></a> 
<li class="permalink"><a href="http://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00d834238b4453ef00d834238b4b53ef/post/#" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/article/functions/permalink.gif)"><font color="#333333">Permalink</font></a> 
<li id="shareMenuAd"><font color="#333333">
<script src="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_remote.html?type=fastscript&amp;page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/&amp;posall=Frame6A&amp;query=qstring&amp;keywords=?" /></font></li>
</li></li></li></li></li></li></li></ul>
</li>
</ul>
<div id="adxToolSponsor"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&amp;opzn&amp;page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/opinion&amp;pos=Frame4A&amp;sn2=f8475720/9aad5d74&amp;sn1=980e2af8/ed56661a&amp;camp=foxsearch2009_emailtools_1011076c_nyt5&amp;ad=amelia_c_120x60&amp;goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/amelia" target="_blank"><font color="#333333"><img alt="Article Tools Sponsored By" border="0" class="label " height="20" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/article-sponsor.gif" width="62" /><img alt="" border="0" height="60" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/adx/images/ADS/20/81/ad.208197/ami_120x60.gif" width="120" /></font></a>By <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More Articles by Paul Krugman"><font color="#004276">PAUL KRUGMAN</font></a></div></div></div></div>
<div class="timestamp">Published: August 20, 2009 </div>
<div id="articleBody"><nyt_text>
<p>According to news reports, the Obama administration — which seemed, over the weekend, to be backing away from the “public option” for health insurance — is shocked and surprised at the furious reaction from progressives.</p>
<div class="inlineLeft" id="articleInline">
<div id="inlineBox"><a class="jumpLink" href="http://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00d834238b4453ef00d834238b4b53ef/post/#secondParagraph"><font color="#004276">Skip to next paragraph</font></a> 
<div class="image"><img alt="" border="0" height="201" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/02/opinion/ts-krugman-190.jpg" width="190" /> 
<div class="credit">Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times</div>
<p class="caption">Paul Krugman </p></div>
<div id="sectionPromo">
<div class="story"><a class="more" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html"><font color="#004276" size="2">Go to Columnist Page »</font></a> <a class="more" href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/"><font color="#004276" size="2">Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal</font></a> </div>
<div class="singleRule" /></div></div></div><a name="secondParagraph" />
<div class="inlineLeft" id="readerscomment">
<h3>Readers' Comments</h3>
<div class="content">
<blockquote>
<p>Readers shared their thoughts on this article.</p></blockquote>
<ul class="more">
<li><a href="http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/opinion/21krugman.html" rel="3v"><font color="#004276">Read All Comments (288) »</font></a> </li>
</ul>
</div></div>
<p>Well, I’m shocked and surprised at their shock and surprise. </p>
<p>A backlash in the progressive base — which pushed President Obama over the top in the Democratic primary and played a major role in his general election victory — has been building for months. The fight over the public option involves real policy substance, but it’s also a proxy for broader questions about the president’s priorities and overall approach. </p>
<p>The idea of letting individuals buy insurance from a government-run plan was introduced in 2007 by Jacob Hacker of Yale, was picked up by John Edwards during the Democratic primary, and became part of the original Obama health care plan.</p>
<p>One purpose of the public option is to save money. Experience with Medicare suggests that a government-run plan would have lower costs than private insurers; in addition, it would introduce more competition and keep premiums down.</p>
<p>And let’s be clear: the supposed alternative, nonprofit co-ops, is a sham. That’s not just my opinion; it’s what the market says: stocks of health insurance companies soared on news that the Gang of Six senators trying to negotiate a bipartisan approach to health reform were dropping the public plan. Clearly, investors believe that co-ops would offer little real competition to private insurers.</p>
<p>Also, and importantly, the public option offered a way to reconcile differing views among Democrats. Until the idea of the public option came along, a significant faction within the party rejected anything short of true single-payer, Medicare-for-all reform, viewing anything less as perpetuating the flaws of our current system. The public option, which would force insurance companies to prove their usefulness or fade away, settled some of those qualms.</p>
<p>That said, it’s possible to have universal coverage without a public option — several European nations do it — and some who want a public option might be willing to forgo it if they had confidence in the overall health care strategy. Unfortunately, the president’s behavior in office has undermined that confidence.</p>
<p>On the issue of health care itself, the inspiring figure progressives thought they had elected comes across, far too often, as a dry technocrat who talks of “bending the curve” but has only recently begun to make the moral case for reform. Mr. Obama’s explanations of his plan have gotten clearer, but he still seems unable to settle on a simple, pithy formula; his speeches and op-eds still read as if they were written by a committee. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, on such fraught questions as torture and indefinite detention, the president has dismayed progressives with his reluctance to challenge or change Bush administration policy.</p>
<p>And then there’s the matter of the banks. </p>
<p>I don’t know if administration officials realize just how much damage they’ve done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry, just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying giant bonuses is playing. But I’ve had many conversations with people who voted for Mr. Obama, yet dismiss the stimulus as a total waste of money. When I press them, it turns out that they’re really angry about the bailouts rather than the stimulus — but that’s a distinction lost on most voters.</p>
<p>So there’s a growing sense among progressives that they have, as my colleague Frank Rich suggests, been punked. And that’s why the mixed signals on the public option created such an uproar.</p>
<p>Now, politics is the art of the possible. Mr. Obama was never going to get everything his supporters wanted. </p>
<p>But there’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line. It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death panel smear, warning that reform will “pull the plug on grandma,” and two days later the White House declares that it’s still committed to working with him.</p>
<p>It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled. </p>
<p>Indeed, no sooner were there reports that the administration might accept co-ops as an alternative to the public option than G.O.P. leaders announced that co-ops, too, were unacceptable. </p>
<p>So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.</p>
<p>EDITED AND APPROVED BY</p>
<p>MARTIN S FRIEDLANDER, ESQ.</p><nyt_author_id /></nyt_text></div></div>
</content>


    <feedburner:origLink>http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/obama-has-a-trust-problem-with-the-people-who-elected-him.html</feedburner:origLink></entry>
    <entry>
        <title>OSCAR WILDE ON SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE FROM THE NEW YORKER</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/QvZT/~3/btrSRjLGXR0/oscar-wilde-on-single-payer-health-care-from-the-new-yorker.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/oscar-wilde-on-single-payer-health-care-from-the-new-yorker.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834238b4453ef01157160e31c970c</id>
        <published>2009-08-02T22:41:41-07:00</published>
        <updated>2009-08-02T22:41:41-07:00</updated>
        <summary>Second Opinions by Hendrik Hertzberg August 3, 2009 LADY BRACKNELL: May I ask if it is in this house that your invalid friend Mr. Bunbury resides? ALGERNON (stammering): Oh! No! Bunbury doesn’t live here. Bunbury is somewhere else at present....</summary>
        <author>
            <name>msf31538</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="HEALTH" />
        
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="DEMINT" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="HEALTHCARE" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="OBAMA" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="SINGLE PAYER" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="WATERLOO" />
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div id="printoptions">
<h5 id="printthis"><font color="#0066cc" /> </h5></div>
<div id="header">
<div id="logo"><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/" title="Go to The New Yorker homepage"><font color="#0066cc"><img alt="The New Yorker" src="http://www.newyorker.com/images/elements/print/newyorker_printlogo.gif" /></font></a></div>
<h5 class="alt">Second Opinions</h5></div>
<div id="printbody">
<div id="articleheads">
<h4 id="articleauthor"><span class="c cs"><span>by </span><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/hendrik_hertzberg/search?contributorName=hendrik%20hertzberg"><font color="#0066cc">Hendrik Hertzberg</font></a> </span><span class="dd dds">August 3, 2009 </span></h4>
<div class="utils">
<dl class="size">
<dt><img alt="" src="http://www.newyorker.com/images/2009/08/03/p233/090803_talkcmmtillu_p233.jpg" /></dt></dl></div></div>
<div id="articleRail">
<div class="articleRailLinks">
<div id="keywords">
<dl>
<dt><span class="pullout"><span class="break two"><br /></span><span class="line"><span class="smallcaps">LADY BRACKNELL:</span> May I ask if it is in this house that your invalid friend Mr. Bunbury resides?<span class="break"> <br /></span></span><span class="line"><span class="smallcaps">ALGERNON</span> (<em>stammering</em>): Oh! No! Bunbury doesn’t live here. Bunbury is somewhere else at present. In fact, Bunbury is dead.<span class="break"> <br /></span></span><span class="line"><span class="smallcaps">LADY BRACKNELL</span>: Dead! . . . What did he die of?<span class="break"> <br /></span></span><span class="line"><span class="smallcaps">ALGERNON:</span> Bunbury? Oh, he was quite exploded. <span class="break"><br /></span></span><span class="line"><span class="smallcaps">LADY BRACKNELL</span>: Exploded! Was he the victim of a revolutionary outrage? I was not aware that Mr. Bunbury was interested in social legislation. If so, he is well punished for his morbidity.<span class="break"> <br /></span></span><span class="line">—“<em>The Importance of Being Earnest</em>.”<span class="break"> <br /></span></span><span class="break three"><br /></span></span></dt></dl></div></div></div>
<div id="articlebody">
<div id="articletext">
<p class="descender">Oscar Wilde was obviously fond of Lady Bracknell—he gave her some of his best lines. But his affectionate satire had a serious point: like many in the class for which she was a stand-in, the haughty dowager saw little difference between subversive radicalism and ameliorative reform. Observers of the current brawl over health care will have noticed that some leaders of today’s Republican Party labor under a similar confusion. But a certain resonance between “social legislation,” on the one hand, and all sorts of figurative outrage and explosions, on the other, is metaphorically apt—particularly in Washington.</p>
<p>In other free countries, legislation, social and otherwise, gets made in a fairly straightforward manner. There is an election, in which the voters, having paid attention to the issues for six weeks or so, choose a government. The governing party or coalition then enacts its program, and the voters get a chance to render a verdict on it the next time they go to the polls. Through one or another variation of this process, the people of every other wealthy democracy on earth have obtained for themselves some form of guaranteed health insurance or universal health care.</p>
<p>The way we do it is, shall we say, more exciting. For us, an election is only the opening broadside in a series of protracted political battles of heavy artillery and hand-to-hand fighting. A President may fancy that he has a mandate (and, morally, he may well have one), but the two separately elected, differently constituted, independent legislatures whose acquiescence he needs are under no compulsion to agree. Within those legislatures, a system of overlapping committees dominated by powerful chairmen creates a plethora of veto points where well-organized special interests can smother or distort a bill meant to benefit a large but amorphous public. In the smaller of the two legislatures—which is even more heavily weighted toward conservative rural interests than is the larger one, and where one member may represent as little as one-seventieth as many people as the member in the next seat—an arcane and patently unconstitutional rule, the filibuster, allows a minority of members to block almost any action. The process that results is less like the Roman Senate than like the Roman Games: a sanguinary legislative Colosseum where at any moment some two-bit emperor is apt to signal the thumbs-down. </p>
<p>These perverse (if time-honored) institutional arrangements (and the above accounting only scratches the surface of their perversity) are the principal cause of America’s sad health-care exceptionalism. Americans, polling shows, have long been as receptive as Europeans to the principle of universal health care. Six times since 1948, we have elected Presidents committed, at least on paper, to that principle. There have been gains, small (under Clinton, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or <span class="smallcaps">SCHIP</span>) and not so small (under Johnson, Medicare, for the aged, and Medicaid, for the very poor). Yet forty-six million of us—a number roughly equal to the population of half the states of the Union—have no health insurance at all, and, as President Obama noted during his prime-time press conference last week, fourteen thousand more are losing theirs every day. Many millions of us have coverage that is inadequate, and almost all of us live with the well-founded fear that unemployment, a change of job, or striking out on one’s own to freelance or start a business could cost us our coverage and leave us open to medical and financial catastrophe.</p>
<p>Pretty much everybody who believes that health care should be a human right, not a commercial commodity, and who makes a serious study of the abstract substance of the matter, concludes that the best solution would be (to borrow Obama’s words at the press conference) “what’s called a single-payer system, in which everybody is automatically covered.” But, by the same token, pretty much everybody who believes the same thing, and who makes a serious study of the concrete politics of the matter, concludes that a change so sudden and so wrenching—and so threatening to so many powerful interests—is beyond the capacities of our ramshackle political mechanisms. The American health-care system is bloated, wasteful, and cruel. Under the health-insurance-reform package now being bludgeoned into misshapen shape on Capitol Hill, it will still be bloated, wasteful, and cruel—but markedly less so. The House bill, for example, would make basic coverage available to tens of millions who now have none. It would curb the practice of denying insurance to persons with “preëxisting conditions.” (We’re all born with a preëxisting condition: mortality.) It would make insurance coverage portable, which would be a boon for both individual careers and the wider economy. Even one of these things would be a colossal improvement on the status quo.</p>
<p>The most consequential opposition to the reforms now under consideration is coming from a small group of Blue Dog Democrats, who protest that the plan does too little to control costs. To the extent that their concern is genuine, and not just a reflexive deference to wealth (they vociferously oppose a modest surtax on the top one per cent, whose effective tax rates have dropped by fifteen per cent since 1979, while their after-tax incomes have more than tripled), they have a point. But it’s a minor point. The prospective reform has more cost-containment provisions than past attempts, and, thanks in part to those same Blue Dogs, it is acquiring more such elements by the day—for example, the proposal for an independent commission able to set Medicare payment rates, which Obama has also embraced.</p>
<p>But the Blue Dogs are playing a dangerous game of chicken. Even if they’re right that reform would do too little about costs, the alternative—which, as the President has repeatedly pointed out, is the status quo—would do nothing. Ultimately, real cost control will require a strong push away from fee-for-service medicine. In Massachusetts, which three years ago enacted its own version of near-universal health insurance, the cost of expanded coverage has created pressure for just such a push. That state’s experience suggests that the cost problem, too, will be easier to solve under a reformed system, with all its other benefits, than under the one we have now. </p>
<p>As for the Republican opposition to reform, most of it has been, in a word, nihilistic. William Kristol, the editor of the <em>Weekly Standard</em>, last week offered the same advice he did sixteen years ago, when he masterminded the death of the Clinton reform effort: “Go for the kill.” Senator Jim DeMint, of South Carolina, elaborated on the theme. “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo,” DeMint said. “It will break him.” Obama’s Presidency would survive the murder of health-care reform. But he would be greatly weakened, with dire consequences for his ability to meet many other urgent challenges. Whoever needs to be punished for morbidity, it’s not him. And not the rest of us, either. <span class="dingbat">♦</span></p>
<p><span class="dingbat">This Editor concludes that DeMint and the rest of his "C" Street crowd should do the Hitler thing--Put a bullet in their heads.</span></p>
<p><span class="dingbat">Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.</span></p></div></div>
<div class="social-yahoo-buzz"> </div></div></div>
</content>


    <feedburner:origLink>http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/oscar-wilde-on-single-payer-health-care-from-the-new-yorker.html</feedburner:origLink></entry>
    <entry>
        <title>PACKING THE SUPREME COURT</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/QvZT/~3/aJVofrbpPDE/packing-the-supreme-court.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/2009/07/packing-the-supreme-court.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834238b4453ef01157238f9cc970b</id>
        <published>2009-07-26T17:53:09-07:00</published>
        <updated>2009-07-26T17:56:54-07:00</updated>
        <summary>Next week the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on whether or not to send Sonia Santomayor's nomination to the floor of the Senate for confirmation. Historian James MacGregor Burns has published a new book entitled "PACKING THE COURT". This title...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>msf31538</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="LAW" />
        
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="BUSH V GORE" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="MADISON V MARBURY" />
        <category scheme="http://sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" term="SUPREME COURT" />
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>
<script src="http://pix04.revsci.net/H07707/b3/0/3/0806180/312925082.js?D=DM_LOC%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.nytimes.com%252F2009%252F07%252F26%252Fbooks%252Freview%252FLiptak-t.html%253Fref%253Dbooks%2526pagewanted%253Dprint%26DM_CAT%3DNYTimesglobal%26DM_REF%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.nytimes.com%252F2009%252F07%252F26%252Fbooks%252Freview%252FLiptak-t.html%253Fref%253Dbooks%26DM_EOM%3D1&amp;C=H07707" type="text/javascript" /></p>
<div class="header">
<div class="left">Next week the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on whether or not to send Sonia Santomayor's nomination to the floor of the Senate for confirmation.</div>
<div class="left"> </div>
<div class="left">Historian James MacGregor Burns has published a new book entitled "PACKING THE COURT". This title raises again the main issue decided by the Supreme Court in <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Marbury v. Madison, </span>i.e., judicial review. </div>
<div class="left"> </div>
<div class="left">Has the power of Judicial Review negated the original intent of the "Framers" by permitting the 3rd branch of government to overrule the other two branches? I believe that to some extent it has. In 2000 the Supreme Court stopped the recount of the Florida presidential vote by "wrongfully" applying the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment  stating that Bush v. Gore cannot be used as precedent. This was clearly, to this 71 year old lawyer, a political decision, not a judicial one, and should have been rejected by Al Gore. The Constitution spelled out the process by which Presidents should be elected, but the Supreme Court illegally usurped that power to themselves.</div>
<div class="left"> </div>
<div class="left"><strong>That Constitutional War should have been fought then and there. But Al Gore deferred by conceeding. An unacceptable result to this writer.</strong><nyt_text /></div></div>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>Two big ideas animate “Packing the Court.” One is that the court has for more than 200 years illegitimately claimed a power not granted to it by the Constitution. The other is that it has on the whole used this power to protect the powerful and to thwart progress.</p>
<p>James MacGregor Burns is a distinguished historian best known for his work on <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/franklin_delano_roosevelt/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Franklin Delano Roosevelt."><font color="#000066">Franklin Delano Roosevelt</font></a>, and the book’s title is, of course, a reference to Roosevelt’s failed attempt to increase the number of justices after the court repeatedly struck down New Deal legislation. That episode, presented in lively detail, accounts for only two of the book’s 12 chapters, but it informs Burns’s view of the court from start to finish. </p>
<p>Burns is deeply hostile to Chief Justice John Marshall’s claim, in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, that the <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about the U.S. Supreme Court."><font color="#000066">Supreme Court</font></a> has the last word on whether the actions of the other two branches are constitutional. “The court’s vetoes of acts of Congress are founded in a ploy by John Marshall that was exploited and expanded by later conservatives until the court today stands supreme and unaccountable,” Burns writes. </p>
<p>He proposes a counterattack. If the court repeatedly strikes down “vital progressive legislation,” he says, the president should “announce flatly that he or she would not accept the Supreme Court’s verdicts.” The case against judicial review has been made more fully and rigorously elsewhere, but whatever its merits, it is hard to take very seriously as a practical matter this late in the life of the Republic. </p>
<p>Burns is more persuasive when he writes that the court “has far more often been a tool for reaction, not progress.” The justices are, after all, often a sort of lagging indicator, legacies of the presidents who appointed them decades earlier. There is a random element, too. President William H. Taft appointed six justices in three years. The last Democratic president, <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Bill Clinton."><font color="#000066">Bill Clinton</font></a>, appointed two justices over eight years; the one before him, <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/jimmy_carter/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Jimmy Carter."><font color="#000066">Jimmy Carter</font></a>, had no appointments in his single term. This amounts, Burns writes, to a “judicial roulette wheel.” </p>
<p>The court’s history as recounted by Burns certainly does not lack low points. In its first use of the power of judicial review established by the Marbury decision, the court declared in the Dred Scott case in 1857 that black people could be property but not citizens. During Reconstruction, Burns writes, the court extended the liberty of entrepreneurs and corporations even as it frustrated Congressional efforts to protect freed black slaves from Southern racism and violence. </p>
<p>In later years, he continues, the court sided with capital against labor, struck down more than a dozen New Deal-era laws in a single 18-month stretch, tolerated the suppression of dissent and endorsed the internment of more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II.</p>
<p>But the court-packing controversy at the heart of the book is more instructive than Burns lets on. Roosevelt lost the battle, but he won the larger war when Justice Owen Roberts changed positions in a case about the minimum wage — “the switch in time that saved nine.” The resolution of the court-packing fight suggests that the court tends toward a kind of political equilibrium, and this may undercut some of Burns’s grander claims.</p>
<p>Burns is, unsurprisingly if at some level inconsistently, a great admirer of Chief Justice Earl Warren, who “would forge a luminous exception to the court’s historic role as the bulwark of antidemocratic, anti-egalitarian conservatism.” He is less satisfied with the Rehnquist and Roberts courts, which he says have been “quietly laying the groundwork for confrontation with a president and Congress elected on a platform of change.” Well, maybe. Or perhaps, as in the Roosevelt era, the Obama administration and the court, through changes of personnel, attention to the shifting political winds, and an aversion to the kind of conflict that diminishes the authority of both branches, will learn to live with each other. </p>
<p>Reviewed and edited by Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.</p><nyt_author_id>
<div id="authorId"><br /></div></nyt_author_id></div>
<p><img border="0" height="1" src="http://up.nytimes.com/?d=0/20/8&amp;t=&amp;s=1&amp;ui=5579854&amp;r=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2enytimes%2ecom%2f2009%2f07%2f26%2fbooks%2freview%2fLiptak%2dt%2ehtml%3fref%3dbooks&amp;u=www%2enytimes%2ecom%2f2009%2f07%2f26%2fbooks%2freview%2fLiptak%2dt%2ehtml%3fref%3dbooks%26pagewanted%3dprint" width="3" /> </p>
<p>
<script>&lt;!--
   var dcsvid="5579854";
   var regstatus="registered";
  //--&gt;</script>
<script src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/app/analytics/trackingTags_v1.1.js" type="text/javascript" /></p><noscript />
<p><img height="1" src="http://www.typepad.com/adx/bin/clientside/8cec1a4Q2FFQ5CeQ2FSiFT)Q2FiU,)Q26Q5DQ5CTi9hQ5DrKbqeZS9SQ5ESuZCeruq" width="3" /> </p></div>
</content>


    <feedburner:origLink>http://freedompost.typepad.com/weblog/2009/07/packing-the-supreme-court.html</feedburner:origLink></entry>
 
</feed><!-- ph=1 --><!-- nhm:dynamic-ssi -->
