Politics Plus

If ever there there was an issue made for the mid terms, tax cuts is it.  Democrats want tax cuts for the people, and Republicans want tax cuts for the rich.  Republicans are holding the people’s tax cut hostage to get what they want.  Enter the Nevada Leg Hound, Harry Reid, so named for his love of humping GOP legs for bipartisanship that is never there.  Asked why he turned tail and ran, Reid is rumored to have said, “Bwaaaack-buk-buk-buk-buk”!

Senate Democrats said Thursday that they would postpone a highly contentious floor fight over what to do about the expiring Bush-era tax cuts until after the November elections, a decision that spares some politically vulnerable incumbents from casting a potentially difficult vote to let taxes rise for the rich.

Democrats said they would still fight to end the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans when they return for a lame-duck session. But the delay increases the likelihood of a compromise with Republicans who have insisted that the lower rates continue for everyone, at least temporarily, given the weak economy.

It also raised a political risk for Democrats that they would be seen as wavering on one of President Obama’s signature campaign promises and abandoning a fight that could have mobilized the party’s base ahead of the elections… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

ARGH!!  The House joined the chicken charge, afraid to hang themselves out only to be cut off by the Senate, as has happened so many times before.

Keith Olbermann dedicated two segments to the issue.  In the first he reports it and discusses it with Howard Fineman.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In the second, he continues the discussion with Chris Hayes.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Frankly, I’m surprised that he seemed so calm about it.  Personally, I feel positively livid!  I have been saying that the way to deal with Republicans is the chicken method.  What works is the squirrel method.  Grab the nuts and run with them.  Ed Schultz knows what I’m talking about and provisdes us with an example of how Democrats need to present ourselves.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I only wish Grayson was running for the Senate.

I’m feeling frustrated, because there is no way Republicans even deserve to have a chance in these races, except perhaps, in the most inbred red states.  Furthermore, Republicans are actually running on a return to the policies of Crawford Caligula.  That’s a losing proposition.  Even more advantageous, Republicans are fielding a cast a nut-jobs and miscreants.  Even with all those advantages, Democrats are forming a circular firing squad that threatens to give it all away.

As for Reid, he is such an ineffective leader, it’s a miracle that he will probably hold onto his Senate seat.  Were he running against a mere loon, Sue “Chickens for Checkups” Lowden, he would lose.  Only the blessing of running against Sharon “Obtuse” Angle is saving his worthless hide.  He should be put out to pasture.  There’s no need to send him to the vet first.  His were obviously cut off long ago.  If Democrats should retain the Senate, as I think they will, I will be mounting a campaign to contact our Democratic Senators to replace him with a real Democrat as Majority Leader, and asking you to repost it on your blogs and spread it.

Whom do you recommend for that?

Today, the Republicans plan to unveil their latest document that they claim reveals the principles upon which they will govern.  I found an advance copy of it here. [PDF]  Most of the document is high sounding verbiage that adds nothing, but there are four statements that begin “We pledge…” that contain the significant part.  Lets examine them one-by-one.

We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Republicans have a track record for waving the Constitution about, while ignoring its content.  The “original intent” means whatever they want it to mean, and they refuse to be swayed in their interpretation, no matter now much original documentation is available to the contrary.  The reference to the Tenth Amendment indicates an intent to undo health care reform, but they ignore the commerce clause.

We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity. We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.

Greater liberty, wider opportunity and and national economic prosperity  are for the rich and corporations to suck wealth from the poor and middle classes.  Are you enjoying the prosperity they brought us during the Bush regime?  A robust defense refers to more aggressive wars.  The rest means ban all abortions, criminalize the LGBT community, and ignore the establishment clause, that separates church and state.

We pledge to make government more transparent in its actions, careful in its stewardship, and honest in its dealings.

Given that Republican administrations, especially the most recent, have been the most secretive, most wasteful, and most criminal, this is a bold lie indeed.

We pledge to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of mankind.

This is empty rhetoric.

What surprises me is that there is no mention of tax cuts for the rich or dismantling the safety net for the rest of us.  Those are their biggest goals, as Rachel Maddow demonstrates.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The bottom line again is that Republicans will govern only for the benefit of greedy corporations and the richest 1%.

Today is the beginning of several of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.  That’s a good thing for America, but sadly, greedy insurance companies are spoiling the celebration.  Here is what’s happening, and what needs to be done.

First the new provisions:

Yesterday, Nancy-Ann DeParle of the Office of Health Reform joined bloggers for a conference call to highlight the provisions of the Affordable Care Act that go into effect tomorrow, six months after enactment of the law. Those changes:

• Ban on discriminating against children with preexisting conditions: as of tomorrow, insurance companies can’t deny coverage to children under age 19 for a pre-existing condition. The ban will go into effect for adults in 2014.
• Ban on rescission: insurers will be prohibited from dropping a customer when they get sick or to search for errors in customers’ applications to use as a basis for rescinding coverage or denying payment for services.
• Ban on limiting coverage, lifetime caps: Insurers will no longer be able to impose lifetime dollar limits on benefits–particularly hospital stays or expensive treatments for chronic diseases, cancer, etc. By 2014, they will phase out annual caps.
• Ban on limiting doctor choice in new plans: insurers will have to allow primary care physician status for OB/GYNs and pediatricians so that patients don’t have to get pre-authorization or referrals to see these providers.
• Ban on restrictions on emergency services: insurers will have to cover all emergency care, in or out of network.
• Guaranteed right to appeal insurer decisions to independent third party in new plans;
• Young adults can stay on their parents’ plans til 26 unless they have access to coverage in their workplace;
• New plans will cover preventive care with no customer costs–well-baby, mammograms, colonoscopies, etc. will be covered with no co-pays or deductibles.

… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

All of these reforms are good for America, but note that some of the provisions apply to new plans only.

Sadly, greedy pigs that they are, insurance companies have found a loophole in one of the most important provisions.

Major health insurance companies in California and other states have decided to stop selling policies for children rather than comply with a new federal healthcare law that bars them from rejecting youngsters with preexisting medical conditions.

Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna Inc. and others will halt new child-only policies in California, Illinois, Florida, Connecticut and elsewhere as early as Thursday when provisions of the nation’s new healthcare law take effect, including a requirement that insurers cover children under age 19 regardless of their health histories.

The action will apply only to new coverage sought for children and not to existing child-only plans, family policies or insurance provided to youngsters through their parents’ employers. An estimated 80,000 California children currently without insurance and as many as 500,000 nationwide would be affected, according to experts… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <LA Times>

I warned that insurance companies would look for and find loopholes in this law.  State legislatures can pass laws requiring insurance companies to honor this provision as a precondition for selling new policies in that state, but Republican legislatures won’t pass it and Republican governors won’t sign it, leaving those children at risk.  And that does nothing for the next loophole.

Consider this:

You come home and find a burglar stealing your valuables.  You call 9-1-1 and the dispatcher says, “Your police insurance does not cover preexisting conditions, and you have valuables in your home.  We can’t help you.”   Ridiculous?  Aren’t you glad you have universal single-payer police protection?

You come home and find your home starting to burn.  You call 9-1-1 and the dispatcher says, “Your firefighter insurance does not cover preexisting conditions.  Your home has a wood frame.  We can’t help you.”  Absurd?  Aren’t you glad you have universal single-payer firefighter protection?

Health care is a need as universal and the need for police and firefighters.  It is a need far too important to leave to greedy insurance, who care everything about profit and nothing about health.  America needs universal single payer health protection.

If we did, we would have ample justification.  How many of you remember all the times that Republican Representatives and Senators falsely claimed that Democrats hate the troops, when we held out for such things as demanding an end to Republican torture policy.  So even though I don’t think it’s true, I can’t really blame anyone for saying it, just to rub their noses in it.  The truth is that Republicans don’t really care about the troops.  They love to proclaim support when they want to use our troops as cannon fodder for their aggressive wars of conquest or spend money to transfer wealth from the poor and middle classes to the rich, but that isn’t support.  When it comes to making sure they have the equipment they need, giving them raises, giving them health care, increasing veterans’ benefits and caring for their families, Democrats have provided it over Republican opposition.  That’s support.   Republican obstruction of the Defense Authorization Bill has nothing to do with the troops, except for the gay and Latino ones.

Republicans and two Democrats on Tuesday blocked a defense bill in the Senate that would have paved the way for the repeal of the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy for gay service members.

The Senate came up three shy of the 60 votes needed to begin debating a $725 billion defense authorization bill that included a provision lifting the ban. Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, both Arkansas Democrats, voted against the measure, as did Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both moderate Republicans who the Democratic leadership had hoped would back the bill.

The legislation’s defeat also dashed the hopes of some immigration reform proponents because the bill was to serve as a vehicle for an amendment providing a path to citizenship for children living in the United States illegally… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <San Francisco Examiner>

First, I think that, if Lincoln and Pryor won’t even support bring this to the floor for debate, our DNC and DSCC money should be invested elsewhere.

Frankly, I think the establishment Republicans hate the idea of depriving military contractors of the rich rewards this budget offers, even for a short time, but they have a problem.  The Theocons and InsaniTEA wings, who make up nearly all of the Republican base, hate gay and Latino Americans so very much  that the establishment types are afraid to cross to cross them, even though they love corporate greed more than they hate gays and Latinos.  They had lots of excuses to explain why.  All of them were lies, which Rachel Maddow completely debunked.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Then Rachel and Lawrence O’Donnell discussed how Republicans are trampling the traditions of the Senate.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If Democrats retain the majority in the Senate, that had better end the filibuster and private hold rules.  Believe it that Republicans will, if they get control.

Finally, it’s apparent that the Obama administration made a deal with Senate Republicans, and as usual, the Republicans lied.  At this point, Obama should issue a ban on enforcement, pending the report due in December.  He could resolve this issue now.