Catholic church: The less fortunate are less important than stopping gay rights

I don't like the fact that this is now my second post in a row directed at the Catholic church. As I have stated before, I am a Catholic and, despite disagreeing with the church as an institution, I believe to have constructed my moral foundation in the pews and religious education classrooms of Catholic parishes, and further supported it for 4 years in an active role in a Catholic youth group.

But that is why I find myself so enraged with the Catholic institution as it declares itself today. I was apparently wrong about everything I (thought I) learned about the teachings of Christ. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops signaled last week that the nation's sick and suffering (those people we bless every Sunday) will always come second to the unborn; and now the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. has informed me that their hatred toward gay rights will always be prioritized above helping the poor (those people Jesus told us to help).

The Washington Post reported last week that the archdiocese told the City Council that if a gay-marriage bill passes as expected, the church would kill all their contracts with the city. Though this bill does not require any church to recognize same-sex marriage or accommodate same-sex marriage ceremonies, the church says if the bill passes they would be forced to give employee benefits to same-sex couples -- as if any homosexuals would feel welcome in a Catholic church, let alone working for one.

Ending the agreement between the city and the archdiocese would mean ending services such as health care and adoption services to tens of thousands of people, and shuddering shelters that service a third of Washington's homeless.

It just reinforces to me my premonitions about the church: we don't care about America's poor or sick if gays are given equal legal rights. Notice the italicized word: legal -- governmental and secular -- not religious.

What is most shocking in this case is not only that they are willing to leave a third of Washington's homeless on the street and end healthcare services, but they are also willing to end adoption services. You read that right. The church would rather inhibit adoption, commonly accepted as the most humane substitute to abortion, than do business with a town that allows a two gay men the equal rights of a married heterosexual.

This aspect of the church's attitudes continues with the church's comments on an amendment to the marriage bill. The amendment would have given individuals the rights to decline services for same-sex weddings. The amendment was rejected by a council committee and Susan Gibbs, the archdiocese spokeswoman said the following (paraphrased by the Washington Post):

Gibbs said Wednesday that without Alexander's amendment and other proposed changes, the measure has too narrow an exemption. She said religious groups that receive city funds would be required to give same-sex couples medical benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples and rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples.

Again, the church is not only ignoring the fact that lesbian couples are not likely to feel welcome in a church hall, but they reject the idea that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt a child. It seems as if "Adoption, not abortion" bumper stickers need to be supplemented with adjacent stickers proclaiming "as long as applicants are not gay, do not support gays, and don't support government-run healthcare."

Women and Catholics are in need of true representation

Though they won both gubernatorial races a week ago, the GOP doesn't appear to be in any better a place than before the "sweep." Muddled polls have shown little animosity toward a president sworn by Republicans to be unpopular; and while Republicans Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell won New Jersey and Virginia (respectively), both congressional special elections were won by Democrats, including the NY-23 race. Portions of that district haven't been represented by a Democrat in more than a century.

I think that race in particular gives us a peek to the future of the Republican party. After being unhappy with Dede Scozzafava, the moderate candidate who won the Republican primary, the 23rd district's conservatives (who apparently didn't vote for a more conservative candidate in that primary) endorsed an independent Conservative party candidate, Doug Hoffman, along with national GOP figure heads like Sarah Palin. After losing the support of Republicans in her district, Scozzafava dropped out of the race, endorsing the Democrat. In Florida, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite has already been threatened by a primary contender for showing support for her fellow Republican. Said Brown-Waite of the attacks on Scozzafava:

"I don't want to see females in the Republican Party saying, 'Wait a minute,they're going to destroy me, they're going to distort every vote I've ever taken,' and that's really why I felt so strongly about going up there."

Is this the future for the Republican party? Are pro-choice candidates (like Tom Ridge) unwelcome regardless of their stances on big government? Are gay-friendly candidates shooed from the party, regardless of their pushes for populist tax-cuts? Most importantly, are women even welcome in the GOP anymore?

Fact: Out of the 217 Republicans in the House and Senate, only 20 are women -- 9 percent. The Democratic party has 346 members in the legislative branch, 63 of which are women -- 18 percent.

The health care debate really proved to me that a woman's legal rights are no more than a device for advancing the Republican agenda and riling up their base. The Pitts-Stupak amendment, though sponsored by a Democrat from Michigan's conservative upper peninsula, was used by Republicans solely to get the religious right involved in their efforts to kill health care reform. The amendment to the Democratic health care bill (H.R. 3962) was meant to restrict women who purchase health coverage from the government or in the public exchange from ever receiving an abortion, even if paid for with 100% of the woman's private funds. This makes an abortion the only legal medical procedure that would not be allowed, even if the procedure is paid for without the assistance of the federal government or a private insurer.

As far as Republicans are concerned, it seems, abortion is the only way to make people of religion care about an issue that should otherwise be supported by my fellow Catholics. The involvement of lobbyists representing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in the wording of the Stupak amendment is the only aspect of this ploy more disturbing than the destruction of a woman's rights for political gain. Not only does it bother me that the Catholic church pays lobbyists, but the violation of a constitutional separation between church and state could not be more apparent when you literally have representatives of the Catholic Church in talks with the Speaker of the House.

The following are wishes from the Catholic Bishops' website, regarding health care:

• a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity
• access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of immigrants
• pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism including freedom of conscience and variety of options
• restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers

Note the surprisingly "socialist" language italicized above, before noting that all 4 of these wishes closely resemble what Democrats have proposed, and until the Stupak amendment was involved, not one Catholic could have cared about this bill. So my question is this: now that the Stupak amendment has been approved, will the Catholic church work as hard to pass this bill for the benefit of the living as it did for the benefit of the unborn?

See full video of the 14 hour debate on health care at this link.

Big Buff always says it best

As the second richest American, Warren Buffett (sorry to mislead Blackhawks fans with my headline) usually makes the best arguments on the side of regulation and greed-capping. An article in today's Chicago Sun-Times (via Bloomberg) reported that Buffett, CEO of investment company Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said failure should be punished on Wall Street, rather than being shrugged off.

"You have to put in something where there is downside to people who really mess up large institutions," Buffett said in an interview conducted by Business Wire, the Berkshire subsidiary that posts corporate press releases. "Too many people have walked away from the troubles they have created for society, not just for their own institution, and they have walked away rich."

Buffett goes on to invite regulation for Wall Street, a sector of America's economy which will likely see a 40% increase in bonuses, according to Johnson Associates Inc., consultants in compensation. Though the bonuses have not yet reached pre-meltdown levels, Buffett says there is little incentive for executives to earn their bonuses.

"What you have to change in Wall Street, is you have to make sure that in addition to carrots, there are sticks," he said. "And it can't be a one-way street where they are making ungodly amounts of money when things are good and then they move on to someplace else for a while when things are bad."

Buffett clarifies that he does not think Wall Street is inherently "evil" but rather that it is "given to huge excess sometimes."

I honestly believe Warren Buffett is the only billionaire whose economic views I respect. Or he is at least the most vocal proponent of social justice in a market that has essentially been built by a government. President Obama summarized Buffett's approach in The Audacity of Hope, describing a conversation he had with Buffett in his modest Omaha office. Said Buffett:

"(The wealthy) have this idea that it's 'their money' and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don't factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do. Take me as an example. I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I'd been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can't run very fast. I am not particularly strong. I'd probably end up as some wild animal's dinner.

But I was lucky enough to be born in a time and place where society values my talent, and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing -- and make a lot of money doing it. The least I can do is pay for it."

Buffett has even walked the walk, agreeing to accept no more than $100,000-a-year for his work as CEO of Berkshire. Not only does he pay a higher percent of taxes this way, but he leaves more for the company, its employees and its stockholders.

Imagine that, folks. A billionaire taking a 99% pay cut so that he can "spread the wealth." My favorite aspect of this is Buffett's innoculation from being called a "socialist," being that he has essentially been the poster child of the successes of capitalism for decades.

**Excerpt from The Audacity of Hope courtesy of Crown Publishing, copyright 2006**

Roskam misleads on Honduras

In an op-ed in today's Chicago Tribune, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL-6) explained his reasoning for why the Obama administration should support the upcoming elections in Honduras. Roskam's point of view is from one that appears to be centrist, but in reality is in agreement with his far-right Republicans like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who claimed there is more chaos in "the Obama administration's policy toward our poor and loyal allies in Honduras," than in the nation itself. Honduras was overturned when a sitting president was ousted by the army over which he was to oversee.

This is what Roskam fails to disclose honestly, when he describes the situation as a "leftist" president, Manuel Zelaya, being removed from office by the Honduran Supreme Court for seeking an abolishment to term limits. He was replaced with the president of the Honduran congress, Roberto Micheletti. Roskam not only fails to mention that Zelaya did not achieve the abolishment, but leaves out the details of Zelaya's "crimes." According to Reuters, Zelaya merely requested an unofficial vote to gauge support for his proposed reelection. Zelaya is right to question whether democracy is really in action in a region with a history of dictatorships and corruption:

"If holding a poll provokes a coup, the abduction of the president and expulsion from his country, then what kind of democracy are we living in?" Zelaya said in Costa Rica.

Roskam, and a few other Republican congressmen, have visited Honduras' interim government, rejecting the stance of the State Dept. and of the European Union, which has also condemned the coup, by meeting with the newly appointed Honduran government, which has not been formally recognized by the United States.

Roskam vails his pride in the fact that an ally of Hugo Chavez was forcefully exiled from his home country by claiming it is integral to support Honduras' upcoming elections.

"There remains a solution that will satisfy American interests, provide stability to a region in short supply of it and, most important, give Hondurans what they deserve -- fair elections. Even if the State Department will not recognize Micheletti's interim government, it should support election monitors to observe the upcoming Honduran elections.

Neither Zelaya nor Micheletti are on the ballot, nor should they be. Micheletti lost his presidential primary and has made no efforts to alter his situation. Zelaya is term-limited and his time as president has come and gone.

The silver lining will be the election of a new, legitimate leader in Honduras who will provide a counterbalance to Chavez's dictatorial regime."

It's hard to argue with Roskam about elections having great power. However, if democracy is to be a solution, what justifies a military coup to overthrow a democratically elected president? If democracy is the true answer to Honduras' problems, why was a referendum considered by Roskam to threaten that democracy?

What is most aggravating in this situation is that we watched right-wing pundits complain when Sean Penn, an actor, visited Hugo Chavez, because Chavez was a dictator and an enemy of America. And yet, Republican legislators visit a government not recognized by the U.S., and publically offer their support, and there is no wrongdoing.

Battle is only starting for health care reform, Maine Republicans

After the Baucus bill passed by a vote of 14-9 out of the Senate Finance Committee, health care reform looks more alive today than it has at any other time in decades. However, the battle is nowhere near over, as the bill will be open for full Senate debate in coming months. And it will be months, with modest predictions saying the bill will pass by Christmas.

The committee vote was basically along party lines, with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) voting with the Democrats in support of the Baucus bill, which is free of a public option but rather instituting a cooperative non-profit health care insurance provider, to be run by its members.

Snowe has caught a great deal of grief since the election of Barack Obama, from conservatives and even her party's chairman, Michael Steele, who told Fox News he was "disappointed" with the bill's advancement and Snowe's vote. Yesterday, however, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also announced she would be willing to support Democratic health care reform.

What I find ironic about the Snowe-and-Collins shaming from the GOP is that it is coming from the same people who claim blue-dog opposition to progressive health care reform is just "congressmen representing their districts by opposing big government." These same people, however, ignore the fact that both Snowe and Collins are from Maine, and the polls showing that Mainers are in favor of a public option, and heavily in favor of regulating insurance providers. They're representing their constituents, and Republicans won't have it.

Steele has a history of hating on Snowe and Collins, though. He claimed he would run primary challengers against the senators, and Sen. Arlen Specter, after the three of them voted in favor of the stimulus bill. Specter essentially told Steele to "stick it up his trunk," and defected to the Democratic party.

Like I said in a post last week, Obama and the Democrats have done too much to reach across the aisle in the health care battle, in turn watering down the bill to a point that, without a public option, it looks more like a gift to insurance companies than "health care reform." However, the president's unyielding effort to make Congress work for all Americans (or at least look like it does) seem to have made him more favorable as Republicans reject his outreached hand.

I maintain faith as the bill enters the Senate. At this point, the bill has passed the most conservative vote it needed to pass and come Christmas the Baucus bill will, at worst, pass as it is written today, or at best, be merged with House bills to include a public option. The least we can say is that it will provide for a very entertaining holiday season. Hopefully, we can count on Snowe this Christmas.

Olbermann: Health care is a human right

Say what you will about Keith Olbermann, but his point was clear last night in his hour-long "special comment": health care should be a universal human right.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Jindal: "ideas" but poor "ideals"

The governor of Louisiana is challenging President Obama again, claiming Republicans have the upper hand on health care in an op-ed in the Washington Post.

Gov. Piyush "Bobby" Jindal starts the article by claiming that health care reform is opposed by America, a statement which is proven wrong by polls he requests that we to read, despite the fact it appears he did not. He then goes on to a pinnacle of hypocrisy.

"First, Democrats have to give up on their grand experiment and get serious about bipartisan solutions. Second, Republicans have to join the battle of ideas."

Funny you should mention bipartisanship, governor. Because for the last 4 months, the president has done, in my opinion, far too much to reach across the aisle for Republican support for a bill that has been proclaimed by GOP senators as the best moment to destroy the Obama presidency. Jindal seems lost on this point, apparently ignoring the lack of health care legislation in the 6 years of Republican rule during the Bush presidency, and the lack of an alternative bill today, which House GOP leader John Boehner claimed just needed "finishing touches" back in July.

More importantly, Jindal ignores the way American independents perceives Republicans. Observe a Pew Research conclusion, as it appeared in the Christian Science Monitor's editorial page.

"The obstructionist label is blazoned on the elephant hide. Forty-two percent of independents blame the GOP for not reaching across the aisle, while only 26 blame President Obama, Pew reports.

Perhaps the GOP calculates that by bucking Mr. Obama's initiatives, it can recapture the House in 2010, just as it did in 1994, during President Clinton's first term. But back then, Republican Newt Gingrich at least presented a "do something" alternative – the "contract with America."

If Republicans keep the "party of no" label, they won't inspire enough of today's independents. The GOP may gain House seats, but not regain control. The better strategy is to look for common ground on popular issues."

In defense of Jindal, he claims the American people "do not want Republicans to offer their own thousand-page plan to overhaul health care, and that is not what the nation needs." At least he's honest there. But Jindal continues to defend his former colleagues in the House for their opposition to health care, saying they've "done the right thing for America." Tell that to anyone who can not afford coverage and need lifesaving surgery, or even antibiotics for a simple virus like bronchitis. Tell them to their face (between their coughs and wheezing) that its better for America if they are not offered affordable, publicly funded insurance.

Jindal then goes on to list ideas that Republicans should embrace. Out of the ten of them, many are repeated from Obama's ideas.

"Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs."

This sounds a lot like the "health care exchanges" that the president pitched. Obama's wording from his speech to congress last month:

"For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need."

The tax credit mention in Obama's speech is reiterated in Jindal's article as well, which says insurance companies shouldn't turn down customers with pre-existing conditions and requests medical records to be made electronic. Again, both are centerpieces of Obama's plan.

The governor also says health care reform should reward healthy lifestyles, by giving "premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health." Oddly enough, this idea probably involves insurance companies asking for daily diets and activity levels. If the government did these things, it would be "big government gone crazy," but when it's private companies, its all good to Jindal.

What readers can conclude from Jindal's article lies in his list of "ideas" is simple: Republicans agree on a majority of the ideas proposed in Democratic health care reform. So why are they trying so hard to kill it entirely?

Easy conclusions say its about ideals. The lobbies that seek well being for citizens (and the doctor-patient relationship!) such as the American Association for Retired People, the American Medical Association, and the American Hospital Association support the bill; the lobbies that seek to increase the profits of business, particularly insurance providers, oppose it. It just seems as if Republicans would rather protect business than insure the well being of Americans.

Lobbying hasn't helped the cause much, either. Blue Cross and the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors have increasingly started to donate to Democrats in an effort to sway congressmen from reforming healthcare. Pharmaceutical companies such as Phizer inc. and GlaxoSmithKline have done the same.

**Editors note: The day following this post, the AP released a poll showing another drop in pubic opposition toward health care reform and Fox News interviewed him about "his" plan for health care in which he echoed a lot of what he wrote in the Post**

America's greedy culture must change before progress can happen

In recent discussions with conservatives, I have been told that liberals (and myself in particular) are asking that America's financial sector be regulated by a government resembling that of the ever-scary "socialism." I not only tell them that they are wrong, but lead into my undying love song for capitalism. However, my definition of "capitalism" is often what separates me from conservatives.

I hate the excesses of unregulated, super-free-market capitalism. Most liberals (and humans) hate the excesses of an entirely free market, despite liking the innovative, motivating factors that accompany every American's strive for financial well-being. However, "strive for financial well-being" has changed in recent years to "strive for more money than anyone can ever need."

Today, CEO's like Robert Nardelli of Home Depot destruction fame, are somehow able to run from one burning building to a house of cards like Chrysler, receiving paychecks exceeding $200 million. And not once does anyone ask "what did Nardelli do to deserve $200 million for leaving the company (Home Depot) he destroyed?" or "what could any one person do to deserve such money even if they increased a company's profit or kept it stable?"

As David Brooks writes in the New York Times, our modern leaders have not only gotten more decadent, but they have fed this decadence to consumers. And we, as the numb society we have become, don't question it.

"Executives and hedge fund managers began bragging about compensation packages that would have been considered shameful a few decades before. Chain restaurants went into supersize mode, offering gigantic portions that would have been considered socially unacceptable to an earlier generation."

Brooks goes on to show more broad examples of America's overflow of personal irresponsibility.

"In 1960, Americans’ personal debt amounted to about 55 percent of national income. By 2007, Americans’ personal debt had surged to 133 percent of national income."

Simply put, American households have spent themselves into oblivion striving for material possessions, but spending money they didn't really have, leaving a false sense of security. And this is what needs to change to prevent deep recession again.

Many historians attribute the decadence of the roarin' 20's for causing the Great Depression, and I think today's deep recession can be traced to similar roots. Actually, greed seems to be the root of almost every economic problem with our society. Observe:

Unemployment? According to the Institute for Policy Studies, today's CEO makes 319 times what an average U.S. worker makes, compared to the 1970's when CEO's rarely made 30-40 times the average worker's salary. Mathematically speaking, this means that in the last 3 decades, for every CEO, nearly 290 workers have been put out of work because their salary is being given to the president of a company. Does this CEO need the extra couple million dollars to support a family? Not unless you count his car collection.

The recession? As the IPS concludes:

"America's executive pay bubble remains un-popped," says Sarah Anderson, lead author on the Institute study. "And these outrageous rewards give executives an incentive to behave outrageously, putting the rest of us at risk."

And that risk ultimately hung us a year ago when the financial sector collapsed as a result of high-risk practices no longer yielding a high reward.

Federal budget deficit? Everyone, especially Democrats in debates over government spending, remembers President Clinton handing George W. Bush a budget surplus in 2001. Rather than leaving taxes alone and helping to fix the national debt, as conservatives promise, he cut taxes for the top tax bracket, therefore making the wealthy super-wealthy and leaving our government in need of revenue.

Did I forget any others? Let me know in comments.

Do Dems face a turning tide in 2010?

Forget about 2012, it's looking scary for Democrats in 2010. As Michael Barone writes in the Washington Examiner, polls are turning around fast after a summer bogged down by oppositionism and obstructionism from the GOP on healthcare. Barone mentions that the situation is very similar to 1994 and that minority parties often under-perform in early polls.

Unmentioned by Barone, however, are the only two governors races in the nation, in New Jersey and Virginia. In New Jersey, unpopular incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine is trailing in polls against Republican Chris Christie, partially due to the recent organ-trafficking scandal that stretched from mayors to rabbis(!) to state legislators. In Virginia, Democratic state senator Creigh Deeds is lagging behind Republican Bob McDonnell.

While President Obama's approval ratings are on the positive side according to realclearpolitics poll averages, congressional approval is no higher than when Bush left office and wrong track/right direction polls are in the red.

However, I am still optimistic that Americans will be able to straighten this out. After all, it hasn't even been a year since Democrats swept elections for the second time in as many elections. Democrats will likely stump about the Republicans' lack of substantive alternatives to the problems that face voters, let alone alternatives to the problems that got us into a recession caused by Republican policies.

Paraphrasing Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball, if Republicans really had ideas for healthcare reform (or anything) why didn't they do it when they had both houses and the White House?

This is essentially the root of why Republicans have lost so much favor since 2000. The Bush years saw deregulation that eventually led to the collapse of the financial sector, tax cuts that favored the rich who benefitted from said deregulation, and defense policy that led 4,000+ Americans to die in a war in which our nation had no real benefit. While they had the power Democrats now enjoy, Republicans did nothing to address the growing costs of healthcare or college. They didn't even keep their own promises regarding fiscal responsibility. Instead they inflated spending while slashing taxes to the wealthiest Americans, cutting a huge portion of government revenue.

Will American voters remember these things in November 2010? I hope the Democrats will make sure of it.

Wilson incident reminds us why Republicans lost badly

After shouting "you lie!" at President Obama a week ago during the president's healthcare speech to a joint session of congress, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) is facing a Resolution of Disapproval against him for threatening what Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) called the "civility and decorum of the House."

Wilson apologized to Obama immediately after the president's speech saying the outburst was "spontaneous." Obama accepted the apology, but House Democrats didn't. Particularly offended were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who saw the outburst as a racial issue.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), a leading member of the Black Caucus and the House majority whip, said the outburst was part of a bigger problem with Wilson, saying it was "indicative of the combativeness he displays all the time when it comes to politics."

Clyburn has encountered such "combativeness" with Wilson in the past, most recently noting that Wilson hosted a town hall outside his own district and rather in Clyburn's district, in a school where Clyburn's children attend -- without informing Clyburn.

Wilson has also been identified as a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group that has defended actions of the Ku Klux Klan and fought to keep the confederate flag flying over South Carolina's capitol building.

This whole incident has taught us many things but has mostly shown that the Republican party has been minimized to the very thing it claims it is not: a party of a bunch of white guys from the south who will do anything in their own power to destroy the progress of our democratically elected president (who happens to be black) and therefore, destroy the progress of our nation.

Facts speak for themselves

Fact: The GOP does not hold a single House seat in all of New England.

Fact: 75 of the 178 Republicans in the House are from former confederate states. About 2 in 5 Republican congressmen are from former slave-holding states.

Fact: Of the 22 senators in former confederate states, only 7 are Democrats. None of them are black. There have only been 3 black senators in the last 20 years, all of them from Illinois (Carol Moseley Braun, Barack Obama and Roland Burris). In that same period of time, 57 black representatives have been elected to the House, only 2 of them Republicans.

Fact: Out of all the 178 Republicans in the House, none of them are black. Of all the 40 Republicans in the Senate, none of them are black.

With numbers like these, its a miracle the RNC elected Michael Steele to be their first black chairman. Looking at his statements, though, it isn't surprising.

"In another stunning example of hypocrisy, congressional Democrats are wasting taxpayers' time and resources on a legislative measure to censure Congressman Joe Wilson so they don't have to talk about their exceedingly unpopular health care plan," Steele said.

Hypocrisy, Chairman Steele? You want to talk about hypocrisy? Your party's leader led us to war in Iraq, based on lies that he called "facts," all of which were based on "intelligence." Did Joe Wilson call George W. Bush a liar then? No. Did any Democrat call him a liar? Not in the chamber.

Mr. Steele, it seems your Republican party would rather call Obama a liar for trying to pass badly needed healthcare reform than acknowledge your own failures that have resulted in your diminishing support and complete excommunication in a community of which you are a part. If you want to defend the actions of a man who called the president a liar for defending his own efforts to make America a better place to live, you have apparently become blind to the 4000+ soldiers your party's president led to their deaths. That, Mr. Steele, is hypocrisy. And it makes me sick.

Obama to give healthcare speech for congress

Adding to the number of Clinton's health-failure similarities, President Obama is scheduled to give a speech to a joint session of congress next Wednesday, Sept. 9. Proponents hope to see Obama revert to his campaign successes of clearly addressing the nation and not being knocked off message, as he was with the infamous Skip Gates question at his late July press-conference which was intended to clarify his health care intentions.

Having worked in minimal measures for the Obama campaign, I trust the president who was once so disciplined in message that even the media seemed to agree with him. My hope is simple. I hope the president's speech concludes one way, and only one way. Says President Obama:

"I once sat in the chambers of the Senate, first in Illinois, and then in Washington D.C. I know first-hand the privileges of being a federal legislator. Would anyone in this room who receives health insurance at the dime of American taxpayers please stand?"

Upon the unified rise of the entire congress, Democrats and Republicans, he can merely conclude by saying "If you're happy with you're medical coverage, I would like you to explain to your constituents why they should not receive the same privilege."

Cue applause.

Free-Market Death Panels exist

Froma Harrop of the Providence Journal writes about her husband who suffered from liver cancer and how his last years were spent fighting the bureaucracy of private insurance just so he could fight the cancer that was taking his life. She describes the fight to have his chemo treatments paid for and the run-around he was given. Harrop ultimately concludes that a private insurance company is much more likely to let patients die because ultimately they'd rather save money; therefore, a public option, which is not looking to profit, would be more likely to efficiently service people like her husband.

"What we wouldn't have done to have traded [United Healthcare's] minions for a government bureaucrat," Harrop writes. "The bureaucrat would have given a simple 'yes' or 'no' based on official guidelines. He or she would have had no personal stake in denying you care."

Read the whole article here

The religious right is lost in healthcare debate

Come summer of 2010, it is basically set in stone that debates will center on moral issues like abortion or the death penalty. While most discussion will likely involve abortion more than the death penalty (all by people claiming to be pro-"life" while keeping their pro-capital punishment beliefs to themselves) we can rest assured health care will not be considered a "moral issue."

I know I have sung this song before, but it just blows my mind how many members of the religious right, Nixon's "moral majority," have been the leaders in a fight to destroy healthcare reform. In the video below, you'll see a man who shouted (essentially about the mere fact that he wanted to "speak his mind") at Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) that "God will judge" Specter and his "damn cronies on the Hill."


Watch CBS Videos Online

And as democraticunderground.com (which is surely an unbiased website) mentions, conservative christian groups are urging their followers to attend town halls hosted by their representatives and "read them the riot act" on healthcare. A Minnesota Christian group says that President Obama's healthcare reform is putting "trust in Government not in God."

The Christian Coalition of America is reading Republican talking points in an effort to turn senior citizens (who receive sweet socialized Medicare) against immigrants saying that Democratic plans will provide endless care to illegal aliens while rationing care for the elderly. Of course, this is untrue, as well is ignorant, seeing as we already pay in the form of higher healthcare premiums for any illegal immigrant who lands in an emergency room.

But the big point looks beyond such lies and looks at the future. As the man in Pennsylvania said, one day God will judge us (if you believe so, anyway -- and I do) and judge us. I hope this is true, just so the mobs of shouters at town halls can see that the following conversation does not take place at St. Peter's gate.

God: You've got a pretty clean record, so I'll just get this gate opened and...wait...what's this? It appears that in 2009 you supported legislation to provide low cost healthcare to millions of my children. That is unacceptable! You've not done my will!

Specter (or any Democrat): But all I was really trying to do was keep people alive, healthy and prosperous. I thought that was your will. Isn't it?

God: Trust me, buddy, I'm no socialist.

Specter: But didn't Jesus take that fish and that bread and multiply it so others could eat? That is almost the epitome of socialism.

God: He did that with skill though. He didn't make the bread with hours of his own labor, it just happened because he's my Son and I made it happen. If everyone had the skill of Jesus, which they don't, healthcare would be glorious. Everyone would have access to healthcare. Doctors would be cheap and efficient and...

Specter: Like they are in Europe? That's what I mean!

God: Insurance companies aren't as efficient as me, okay? So they have to charge people tons of money and deny coverage to the people who slow them down and cut into their profits.

Specter: So you want insurance giants to be rich?

God: Now you're getting it! That way, the insurance employees can go to their local churches and throw cash in the donation plate, which in turn gets sent to charities that help clothe and shelter homeless people or donated to private Christian hospitals. Government intervention just gets in the way of that, and therefore betrays my will.

Roskam blames criminals for high healthcare costs

In an op-ed published in the Chicago Sun-Times, my congressman Peter Roskam (Republican - IL Dist. 6) claimed that government-run healthcare would not work if it were modeled after Medicare. He starts by telling the story of a rare and extravagant example of a man who scammed $56 million from taxpayers by defrauding Medicare, and continues to blame waste, fraud and abuse for the woes of liberal plans.

"Waste and fraud occur frequently throughout the federal bureaucracy. Medicare and medicaid, however, are exploited at breathtaking levels," writes Roskam. "Some estimates say 10 percent of all health-care costs are fraudulent --no small potatoes considering Medicare alone will cost $486 billion this year. Fraud permeates our entire country including towns I represent in the western suburbs [of Chicago.] Sometimes law enforcement officials catch these criminals, but they often flee the U.S. or the fraud is simply never discovered."

Roskam then plays the Republican card of showing how the private sector beats the government when it comes to cutting fraud, while not mentioning that the goal of private sector is to profit, not provide quality service. Roskam does not, however, mention that often times the latter can be sacrificed for the former, as is the case with healthcare.

What I find so frustrating about my congressman is his addiction to maintaining the status quo when it comes to healthcare. Below, in italics, is his list of the "5 principles for healthcare reform" which can also be found on his website.

Enhance the Doctor-Patient Relationship

Preserving and strengthening the doctor-patient relationship is critical to healthcare reform. Patients should always have their choice of doctor, hospital and procedure. No bureaucrat – in Washington or at an insurance company – should be able to delay or choose who, where and what patients receive

The next time you meet a veteran, congressman or even medicare patient who gets rejected from a doctor, record their story and slap me in the face with it. Literally. Slap me. The likelihood that you'll find a congressman who was told he couldn't get his annual prostate exam is incredibly low. It would be much easier to find one of the millions of Americans who can't afford such procedures because health insurance premiums are too expensive for their meager income. Which brings us to his next (non-)point

Reduce Skyrocketing Costs

Healthcare costs have ballooned in recent years and are crippling family and small business’ budgets . We must find ways to lower healthcare costs. Substantive ways forward include clamping down on the rampant waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare, enacting meaningful tort reform and promoting health information technology.

Waste, fraud and abuse: the thing that Republicans only care about when they're not in power or not at war (both of which seemingly go hand-in-hand). As for health information technology, I don't think President Obama could be more clear about his desire to see electronic health records.

Preserve Medical Innovation

Government takeovers of healthcare necessarily mean bureaucrats deciding what procedures are allowed and how many are allowed each year. Without our medical ingenuity, Americans will suffer restricted access to innovative and technology intensive procedures like hip-replacements, heart valve replacements and brain surgery.

I love how he says the government will decide what procedures are allowed and how many are allowed each year, as if private insurance doesn't already tell you that. And I'd like to know how the Democrats' plan will rob American doctors of their ingenuity.

Ensure Every American Can Receive Health Insurance

We need to deconstruct the “bumper sticker” number of 47 million uninsured and identify the real number of Americans who do not qualify for health insurance to ensure their access to coverage and care. For those millions of Americans who want and need health coverage yet can’t afford it or aren’t accepted because of pre-existing conditions, our healthcare system is broken. The status-quo is unacceptable, and any plans moving forward must ensure a path to coverage for those Americans.

I heard no substance in this "principle." Roskam essentially states that he doesn't believe there are 47 million uninsured Americans, by saying we need to "deconstruct" the number. He stated one fact though: "our healthcare system is broken."

Allow “Patients’ Rights to Know”

Americans deserve greater transparency from their providers. Patients should be able to make informed decisions for the good of their own health and the accountability of their provider. Transparency will provide an incentive for hospitals to perform better.

Roskam apparently needed to make his 5:30 departure on the "transparency" train to Clichéville. It seems as if Roskam really believed in creating transparency from healthcare providers, he would clarify what needs to be transparent and how he intends to do so.

Your talking point sucks! America's healthcare is the best in the world

In a new series titled "Your talking point sucks!" Ian takes talking points, dissects them and explains why the talking point is (or at least should be) ineffective.

Today's talking point: America's healthcare is the best in the world. Even people in socialist countries come here for surgeries.

This has surfaced a few times in the recent talks about healthcare. Rush Limbaugh harped the day after President Obama's most recent press conference saying that Obama never once mentioned the greatness of America's doctors or medical schools. When the president visited the Cleveland Clinic last week, Republicans were quick to point out that the Prime Minister of Italy came to the clinic for heart surgery in 2006, rather than using Italy's socialized healthcare.

What strikes me about this talking point is its skin-deep definition of the word "healthcare." No one is attacking doctors or their effectiveness.

I will agree with Republicans and even Limbaugh in saying that our doctors are the best in the world. The care to our health is the best in the world. The problem is many people can not afford quality healthcare without jumping through hoops and/or paying a fortune for it. The problem is that a wealthy American's health gets great care, while the rest of us are left to bankrupt ourselves should we become ill or hurt ourselves.

If everyone were as rich as the Prime Minister of Italy, we could all visit the best doctors in the best clinics and live long. As it is, I would bet the best doctors and surgeons in Italy end up coming here to become specialists because they can get paid huge amounts of money practicing one fractioned field of medicine in America.

The problem Democrats want to tackle is merely how to pay for these great doctors (or any doctor really) without going bankrupt.

Today's laws could leave you uncovered if your employer changed coverage and the new provider said your diabetes is a "pre-existing condition." So the Democrats want to create laws to prevent insurance giants from rejecting customers for having pre-existing conditions. They want to limit premiums. They want to create a government alternative that would be cheaper than private insurers to create the competition that Republicans always claim drives our economy.

Obama and the Democrats want only to change how patients pay for doctors, not whether we should visit them.

Palin should have learned from McCain

Sarah Palin is often blamed, and rightfully so, for destroying any chance John McCain had at winning the presidency, but McCain made his own mistakes as well.

On Sept. 24 2008, in the midst of a heated campaign and economic catastrophe, Sen. McCain suspended his campaign, saying he wanted to focus on fixing the economy and he immediately flew to Washington, where he sat silently at meetings with then-President Bush. McCain even claimed he would not show up to an upcoming debate, saying it wasn't as important as the economy.

But America saw that for what it was -- a stunt. More importantly, it showed voters that McCain thought that if something bad happened in America, that nothing else was important. As his opponent said, "it's going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once." Obama was proven right by voters, and his quote lives to silence Sarah Palin.

Palin has resigned from being Governor of Alaska, effective July 26, saying she seeks a "higher calling." Unless Palin is quitting to become a missionary, we can assume she wants to focus on running for the presidency. Palin, however, had already opted not to run for re-election in the 2010 gubernatorial race. So, why does she need the extra year to prepare for 2012? It seems as if she merely doesn't want to be a lame duck, so instead she's passing that title to her Lt. Governor.

I think America will see this as a stunt similar to McCain's. While a Gallup Poll shows Palin still has support, it shows she has equally as much opposition, with 41% of voters saying they are not at all likely to vote for Palin. Another 13% say they are not very likely to vote for her.

Not only will her Republican opponents try to project her as a quitter, but the vague reasoning behind her resignation may cause people to fill in their own blanks as to why she truly wants to leave office.

Another fact Palin should have researched before making this decision: in the last 40 years, only two presidents have been elected while not actively serving a smaller office. They were Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. Carter was Governor of Georgia, George Bush was V.P., Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, George W. Bush was Governor of Texas and Obama was the Junior Senator of Illinois.

SC Gov. added to the lovers list

Merely over a week following a confession from Sen. Robert Ensign (R-NV) that he was having an extra-marital affair with a former campaign staffer, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has also caught the Republican love bug. Sanford, 49, admitted today that he has had an extra-marital affair with a "dear, dear friend" in Argentina. The affair came to light after the two-term governor went missing, his whereabouts unknown to his leutenant governor, his staff and even his wife.

"I've been unfaithful to my wife," Sanford said, bluntly.

Like Ensign, Sanford is (was) considered a possible candidate to run for president in 2012. But also like Ensign, it seems Sanford has narrowed the field yet again. The Sanford/Ensign saga comes in a 3-year-long wave of Republicans being found in extra-marital affairs.

In September 2006, Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) was found to be sending sexually explicit text messages and internet messages to teenage office pages. He admitted to being gay after the story broke, and later checked into rehab, saying he was intoxicated at the time of the indecencies. Oddly enough

In June 2007, Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) was arrested for his famous "wide-stance" proposal to an undercover cop in a Minnesota airport. Despite demanding he is not gay, Craig is believed to have been seeking sex in the male bathroom.

In May 2008, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY) admitted to fathering a child in an extra-marital affair with a retired Air Force leutenant colonel. The scandal was discovered after Fossella was arrested for a DUI on his way to pick up his sick child, and his mistress was his first call and picked him up from custody.

While I don't personally believe personal matters to be reason for a politician to be removed from office, it seems hypocritical for the same party that curses Bill Clinton for escaping his impeachment trial to turn the other cheek when its own philandering flagbearers seem to be unable to resist sexual encounters. It seems especially hypocritical in the cases of Foley and Craig, who voted consistently against gay rights.

However, hypocrisy isn't limited in this story to sexual affairs. Gov. Sanford's first alibi was that he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail. The trail was recently awarded a grant for renovation thanks to stimulus money Sanford swore he would never accept.

Populism will doom us all: Part 2

Ultimately, my least favorite embodiment of populism involves taxes. Every executive candidate lives by the principle of lowering taxes, whether it be for the rich (Republicans like Bush) or for the lower and middle class (Democrats like Obama), and dies by the principle of raising taxes, even if it is slightly. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn will likely learn this come 2010, and then-vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was scathed by Republicans during the 2008 election for claiming that paying taxes was patriotic, despite the fact that these same Republicans would be the first to say that avoiding taxes is unpatriotic.

Republicans consistently promise lower taxes for all, whether they really mean “for all” or not. While it appeals to many voters, a promise of lower taxes never really reveals the real Republican intent –which is to shrink the government – a conservative’s dream.

And while conservatives promise to shrink government, they never reveal just what they’ll cut. This is because they know that shrinking the government is not really desired by most voters.
Does anyone really want to give up federal funding for highways? Probably not; especially people who work in construction or drive to work.

Do farmers want to vote for a candidate who would likely to cut farm subsidies? Not if they want to put food on their table, and the table of their fellow citizens.

Do voters want to stop federally funding public schools? I doubt it; especially those who have seen family members lose their jobs in economic downturns, like those in my school district, Elgin Unit District 46.

Does anyone want to see a cut in Republican-inflated military spending? I would love to see military spending cut by at least 20 percent, but most conservative voters would likely oppose such cuts.

This is because the Republican mantra of cutting taxes and shrinking government is skin deep. They promise to shrink government, but are extremely vague in how to do so, because they don’t want to upset voters when they promise cuts to the very programs that employ voters and provide them assistance.

The “gas-tax holiday” was a prime example of conservatives restricting access to the consequences of their plans. The idea was to suspend the twenty-something cent tax on gasoline for the summer. A grand idea, with the exception of the fact that these tax dollars ($0.20 multiplied by gallons purchased = lots of money) is used to fund highway and bridge repair. If you were to read any recent report on bridge deficiency, you’d probably conclude that suspending funding for bridge repair is simply idiotic.

Republicans’ desire for tax cuts ultimately boils down to the concept that they want all the rights of big government, such as schools, highways, and national defense, without any of the responsibilities, in this case paying taxes. An example is George W. Bush’s tax cut for the rich, which coincided with a massive increase in military spending on the war on terror. Looking at any tax history, you will see that war usually drives taxes up, especially for the rich. It must in order to keep a nation from bankrupting itself. And yet, Republicans claim that liberal Democrats want to expand America’s national deficit, despite the fact that Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all grew the national debt by cutting taxes, while the Clinton administration left the White House with a surplus.

On the other end of anti-big-government hypocrisy is the religious right’s involvement with the Republican party. It would seem that while they claim to stand true to the Goldwater concept that “a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have,” and similar creeds that ask government to keep its nose out of everyone’s business, they are more than willing to barge into the home of a gay couple to tell them they can not marry. They claim to desire less government intervention in personal issues, but demand that abortion be made illegal.

But what causes most voters to over look the hypocrisy of these stances? Populist rhetoric, in the form of promised tax cuts. Not just any tax cuts, but tax cuts for the rich -- the same rich Americans whose collective greed has enraged the rest of us while we watch them collect massive severance packages upon departure from companies they ran into the ground: i.e. Rick Wagoner, who will receive $20 million for leaving General Motors, and Robert Nardelli, who received $210 million for leaving Home Depot, only to get a job as the CEO of Chrysler, which is now getting government bailout money.

Do you think an average Home Depot could work below standards, which wouldn’t run the whole corporation into the ground as it does with a CEO, and still receive five years pay for leaving the company, as Nardelli did?

No, because the world of corporate board rooms has become an incestuous place where the CEO of one company can sit on the boards of 4 other corporations, and feed his fellow CEO’s giant bonuses and premier severance packages, regardless of performance.

But this isn’t addressed by Republicans who desire to further aid capitalist greed with deregulation and corporate handouts. No, just tax cuts. Old, reliable tax cuts.

Populism will doom us all: Part 1

In the age of poorly planned bailouts and an economy that appears to be at it’s lowest point of a recession, populism is…well, popular. The AIG bonuses enraged the nation, leaving every federal (and New York) politician demanding that the insurance giant give the bonus money back to the very government that kept the firm from folding. It makes sense. It is unfair that people who would be unemployed without the government’s help would get exorbitant amounts of money (some people got in excess of $4 million, and that’s probably less than their annual salary) just for staying with the company they helped to destroy. And we’re fucking angry!
It feels good, doesn’t it? In the words of Jon Stewart, populist outrage is “oddly arousing.” However, populism has, at times, lead us to disaster at the expense of feeling good in the short run.

The best example of this type of disaster is the government’s actions in the months and years following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Americans were angry. We were looking for the people who dared attack us, out of revenge for our global policing, and we wanted to respond…with revenge. If getting that revenge were made easier by giving the government the authority to wiretap international phone calls, so be it. And hell, if it means they can look through library and bookstore records of suspected terrorists, fine. This is basically the logic that was used by Bush and Cheney when they pushed the Patriot Act through Congress at a rate that was essentially too fast for legislators to read the bill entirely.

Today, most of those who signed the bill would tell you it was the single biggest mistake they ever made, aside from possibly going to war in Iraq, another then-populist mistake. Iraq was a matter of life and death, said Bush. Saddam Hussein conspired with Osama Bin Laden to attack America, and he would do it again, according to Bush. Patience would kill us according to Bush.

“We cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” Bush told a Cincinnati crowd in 2002.

And so began the single biggest blunder of post-9/11 America. In the name of anger and revenge, we sold out our nations ideals. We shredded the constitution with warrantless wiretaps, unnecessary imprisonment and torture at Guantanamo and a war which to this day still has no declaration of war.

Quigley in position to replace Rahm Emanuel

In yesterday's primary election, Illinois district 5 essentially elected it's new representative. The heavily Democratic district, previously represented by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, elected Cook County comm. Mike Quigley to be the Democratic nominee in the special general election on April 7.

Quigley carried 22% of the vote, followed by state Rep. John Fritchey with 18%, and state Rep. Sara Feigenholtz with 17%. Another 9 candidates all followed with 12% or less. Quigley is likely to win the seat, being that it hasn't voted Democrat in *** years. Emanuel called Quigley to advise him on his next steps.

"Rahm told me, 'A lot of people come to Congress, and they want to save the world,'" Quigley told the Sun-Times. "He told me to focus on serving the constituents. That’s what I’m going to do. I learned that a long time ago."

The Republican nominee for the April 7 election is hispanic-yet-illegal-immigration-condemner Rosanna Pulido, who's chance of winning the seat is as slim as Bobby Jindal's chances of becoming a speech teacher. If Pulido sounds familiar to KTN readers (all 2 of you), its because she was mentioned in a June 2008 post about John McCain flip-flopping on immigration reform. Being the head of the Illinois Minutemen, she was being interviewed by Lou Dobbs and expressing anger at McCain for his lack of consistency on immigration. She said he was one person in public and another behind closed doors. Her quote?

"He offended me," Pulido said. "As a conservative, a Republican, I wish he would pander to me."