Politics Plus

Other than the Open Thread, already posted, this will be today’s only article here.  I’m sure you all know that the unthinkable has happened.  Scott Brown has defeated Martha Coakley for the Senate seat previously held by Teddy Kennedy and JFK before him.  The spread was five points, so it wasn’t even close.  I knew it was over when I heard the recriminations coming out of MA, even before the polls closed.

First, lets take a look at what happened.

The problem began during the primary, when the Massachusetts party and corporate Dems threw their weight behind Martha Coakley, when the more progressive Michael Capuano could have better represented the party’s progressive agenda.  Capuano had the support of Michael Dukakis and Nancy Pelosi.  As a candidate, Coakley was a disaster.  She actually went on vacation from 12/19 through 1/5.  That’s half the final month’s campaign time!  She displayed all the charisma of a wet dishrag.  Brown, like other accomplished con men, drips charisma.  She did not take take Brown seriously.  She allowed him to define himself and did not expose his record that proves that, when he says “the people’s seat”, the “people” are all rich, white, sexist, homophobic bigots.  She did not make herself available to voters and, when asked to define her views, she answered in political doublespeak.

We could not have put up a worse candidate, and the national party took the seat for granted as she did.  However, this election goes way beyond Coakley.  She was running against Scott Brown, for goodness sake!  If the Democrats put up a mentally retarded, flatulent chimpanzee, with halitosis and BO, who masturbates in public and throws feces at the crowd, any fool in their right mind would vote for that monkey over Scott Brown!  Why didn’t they?

The demographics of the election were clear.  There was a strong voter turnout among Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  The Democrats were heavily in favor of Coakley, and the Republicans goose-stepped behind Brown.  There’s nothing unexpected there.  With three times as many Democrats as Republicans, that was good for Coakley.  But the race turned on the independents, who comprise 51% of the electorate.  They voted heavily for Brown.  Why would they do that when these same people delivered Obama a huge spread just over a year ago?  They are angry, and that anger goes beyond the inept Martha Coakley.

When Barack Obama campaigned for President, he promised “bipartisanship” and “change we can believe in”.  Readers of the previous incarnation of this blog will remember that I repeatedly said that the two are mutually exclusive.  One cannot effect change while attempting bipartisanship with an entity that refuses to compromise on anything.  Obama had a choice.  He could choose bipartisanship or change, but he tried to have both.  The result was “business as usual”, not “change we can believe in”.  Now I’m not saying that Obama accomplished nothing.  He accomplished quite a lot.  But his attempts at bipartisanship foiled the major items on his agenda.

On health care, Obama promised a national plan that covered everyone and provided the choice of a public option, paid for by raising the income taxes on people making over $250,000 per year.  Instead of designing what he wanted and pushing it through Congress, he left it to Congress to craft, eventually turning it over first to Max Baucus.  Instead of Obama’s plan, Baucus delivered BARF (Baucus Against a Real Fix), which is now the basis of the Senate Bill.  From there the Nevada Leg Hound, Harry Reid, humped every GOP and DINO leg in the Senate, weakening the bill even further and loading it with special deals to buy votes.  The resulting bill is a monstrosity that voters cannot understand.  Therefore they were easily confused by the lies from big health care and the GOP, and over 50% now oppose it in its present form.  In Massachusetts, this was exacerbated by voter fear that they would have to pay more for others’ health care when they already have their own universal plan.

On the economy, Obama promised to side with Main Street against Wall Street.  Instead he associated himself with Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Ben Bernanke, the same corporatist conservatives who enabled the Wall Street banksters’ greed that caused this financial crisis.  He allowed Republicans and DINOs to reduce the amount of and water down the stimulus package.  He did these things in the spirit of bipartisanship, and bipartisanship defeated change.  Now the banksters are reaping huge bonuses from profits earned speculating with our money while refusing to lend that money to Main Street.  When voters see this, they feel justifiably angry that this is not the change they voted for in 2008.  It’s the business as usual they rejected.  In Massachusetts, the economy was the key issue.  Brown presented himself as the “change” candidate.  The voters, desperate for change and seeing business as usual, fell for the lie.

On foreign policy, Obama did promise to expand the war in Afghanistan, and at the time, the majority of Americans supported it.  In the spirit of bipartisanship, Obama has kept Gates at Defense and left the Bush/GOP ideologue generals, Petraeus and McChrystal in charge.  Since then, the corruption of the Bush/GOP puppet, Karzai has made that expansion untenable, and the majority of Americans have turned against the war.

On transparency, Obama promised it, but he has shielded the Bush administration from investigation and prosecution by continuing to cover-up their crimes in the spirit of bipartisanship.

Progressives, feeling abandoned, were not energized to work to convince Independents to vote for Coakley.  This may have been the principal difference in the race.

Now it may appear that I am blaming Coakley’s defeat on Obama.  I am not.  In my opinion, Obama has depended too heavily on the wrong advisors.  They have led him astray.  Obama needs to become the strong leader he promised to be.

Second, let’s look at where we go from here.

First, we need to start to enforce party unity.  We no longer need traitor Joe Lieberman to be the 60th vote.  Since he is the principal reason the health care bill became such a mess, the time to strip him of his Homeland Security Chair is now.  In addition, Senate Democrats need to be informed that siding with Republicans against Obama’s key priorities will cause them to be stripped of their leadership roles and cut off from party funding when they face reelection.

Second, we need to pass health care reform.  There are a couple ways we can go.  One is to pass BARF as is in the House, coupled with a deal to fix it using the Reconciliation process, including the addition of a strong public option.  The alternative is to start over using Reconciliation.  That has the disadvantage that certain reform elements, such as the ban on denial of coverage for preexisting coverage and rescission for illness, cannot be included.  They would have to be proposed separately, subject to GOP filibuster.

Third, we need to fire the corporatists in Treasury, regulate Wall Street seriously, impose a steep windfall profits tax on banksters, and increase the income tax on the very rich.  We can use the money to reduce the deficit and fund jobs programs.

Fourth, we need to start withdrawing our military from Afghanistan.

Fifth, we need to deliver on the transparency Obama promised.

Sixth, and perhaps most important of all, we need to abandon bipartisanship completely.

I’m sure there is much more that I have not covered, but to summarize briefly, unless the Democrats actually become the party of change promised in 2008, we will face severe losses in 2010, and in 2012 we will return to No Millionaire Left Behind, with a generous dose of Theocracy, as we goose step into the future at gunpoint.

Leg Hound Harry finally released his Amendment, and Bitch McConnell insisted that it be read on the Senate floor in it’s entirety.  That took all day, giving me time to do a little research.  Here’s a summary of the changes:

…

• Stronger medical loss ratios. Health insurers will be required to spend more of their premium revenues on clinical services and quality activities, with less going to administrative costs and profits – or else pay rebates to policyholders. These stricter limits will continue even after the Exchanges begin in 2011, and apply to all plans, including grandfathered plans. (Ed note: Reportedly, these require group insurance plans to pay 85% of premiums to health care, and individual plans to pay 80%. These would go into effect in 2011. In 2012, the ratios would be based on the average medical loss ratio in the Exchange.)
• Accountability for excessive rate increases. A health insurer’s participation in the Exchanges will depend on its performance. Insurers that jack up their premiums before the Exchanges begin will be excluded – a powerful incentive to keep premiums affordable.
• Immediate ban on pre-existing condition exclusions for children. Health insurers will be immediately prohibited from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children.
• Patient protections. Health insurers will have to abide by a set of patient protections that, for example, protect choice of doctors and ensure access to emergency care.
• Ensuring access to needed care. The use of annual limits on benefits will be tightly restricted to ensure access to needed care immediately, and will be prohibited completely beginning in 2014.
• Guaranteed opportunity to appeal coverage denials. All health insurers will be required to implement an internal appeals process for coverage denials, and states will ensure the availability of an external appeals process that is independent and holds insurance companies accountable.
• Multi-state option. Health insurance carriers will offer plans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees health plans for Members of Congress. At least one plan must be non-profit, and the plans will be available nationwide. This will promote competition and choice. (Ed note: At least two plans will have to be offered, one of which must be non-profit. OPM can negotiate medical loss ratio, profits, premiums and other terms.)
• Free choice vouchers. Workers who qualify for an affordability exemption to the individual responsibility policy but do not qualify for tax credits can take their employer contribution and join an exchange plan.
• Children’s health. Support will be extended for the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the adoption tax credit. Foster care children aging out of Medicaid will be able to retain its comprehensive coverage.
• Rural and underserved communities. Access will be expanded through funding for rural health care providers and training programs for physician and other types of health care providers.
• Revised abortion language, including state opt-out of abortion coverage…

Inserted from <Health Care For America Now>

Some of the provisions are not too bad.  Mandated medical loss ratios are a good thing, but the level is too low.  Companies should be required to pay out 90%-95%.  I like the idea that companies that jack up their rates will be excluded from the exchange, but I want to know how much is too much and who makes that decision.  I favor the immediate ban on pre-existing conditions, but for everyone, not just for children.  Until I know what patient protections are guaranteed, I can’t comment on that provision.  Annual limits should be prohibited immediately.  Nationwide plans have more bargaining power than state plans.  I also like the free choice vouchers.  I favor extending CHIP support.  Funding rural health care is a bribe.  I’ll cover that later.

The most controversial aspect of the Reid Amendment is the abortion sell-out.

…Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the insurance exchanges the bill would set up. The exchanges are designed to serve individuals who lack coverage through their jobs, with most receiving federal subsidies to buy insurance. Enrollees in plans that cover abortion procedures would pay with separate checks — one for abortion, one for any other health-care services… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

I find this provision inacceptable.  It amounts to a coat hanger mandate in Red States, and a violation of privacy everywhere, that is so extreme that I doubt it will pass  muster when it receives judicial scrutiny.  It’s shameful!

And ironically, it’s not strong enough for that C-Street DINO, Stupak.

An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D. Mich.) coordinated opposition to a Senate compromise on the place of abortion in health care legislation this morning with the Republican Senate leadership, the Conference Catholic Bishops, and other anti-abortion groups, according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO.

The emails show that Stupak – who has so far remained silent on language accepted by Senator Ben Nelson (D. Neb.) and faces intense pressure from the White House to accept it – is already working behind the scenes to oppose the compromise.

They also demonstrate a previously unseen degree of coordination between Stupak and the office of Republican leader Mitch McConnell… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

That’s right.  The rat is working with Bitch McConnell.

Needless to say, there is opposition from pro-choice Reps.

…But Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY)–co-chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucuse–say they’re not sold. They say the new compromise is possibly unconstitutional, and that they and other pro-choice House members could still reject it.

As the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, we have serious reservations about the abortion provision included in the U.S. Senate’s health care bill. This provision is not only offensive to people who believe in choice, but it is also possibly unconstitutional. As we have maintained throughout this process, health care reform should not be misused to take away access to health care. The more than 190-member Caucus will review this language carefully as we move forward on health care reform.

The Nelson compromise may ultimately allow health care reform to pass in the Senate–but with strong opposition from both pro-life and pro-choice members and constituent groups, the language still an open question in the House. Onward to conference!

Inserted from <TPM>

We can only hope that the Conference committee will return the bill to the Capps standard.

Several states are getting special deals under this amendment.

…Ben Nelson’s “Cornhusker Kickback,” as the GOP is calling it, got all the attention Saturday, but other senators lined up for deals as Majority Leader Harry Reid corralled the last few votes for a health reform package.

Nelson’s might be the most blatant – a deal carved out for a single state, a permanent exemption from the state share of Medicaid expansion for Nebraska, meaning federal taxpayers have to kick in an additional $45 million in the first decade.

But another Democratic holdout, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), took credit for $10 billion in new funding for community health centers, while denying it was a “sweetheart deal.” He was clearly more enthusiastic about a bill he said he couldn’t support just three days ago.

Nelson and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) carved out an exemption for non-profit insurers in their states from a hefty excise tax. Similar insurers in the other 48 states will pay the tax.

Vermont and Massachusetts were given additional Medicaid funding, another plus for Sanders and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Three states – Pennsylvania, New York and Florida – all won protections for their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries at a time when the program is facing cuts nationwide.

All of this came on top of a $300 million increase for Medicaid in Louisiana, designed to win the vote of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu…

Inserted from <Politico>

With one exception, all of this is grossly unfair.  Bernie Sanders deal for community health centers will benefit such programs nationwide, so it’s quite different from these other provisions that are nothing but bribes.

Here’s an excerpt from Joe Biden’s Op-Ed.

IF I were still a United States senator, I would not only vote yes on the current health care reform bill, I would do so with the sure knowledge that I was casting one of the most historic votes of my 36 years in the Senate. I would vote yes knowing that the bill represents the culmination of a struggle begun by Theodore Roosevelt nearly a century ago to make health care reform a reality. And while it does not contain every measure President Obama and I wanted, I would vote yes for this bill certain that it includes the fundamental, essential change that opponents of reform have resisted for generations.

We have been here before. In the past, as the moment of decision drew nearer, criticism from both the left and the right grew louder. Compromises were derided. The perfect became the enemy of the good.

Most recently, in 1993, Democrats had a chance to forge a compromise with Senator John Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, on a health care reform bill. Congress’s failure to pass health care reform that year led to 16 years of inaction — and 16 years of exploding health care costs and rising numbers of uninsured Americans.

We can’t let that happen again. While it is not perfect, the bill pending in the Senate today is not just good enough — it is very good. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or drop coverage when people get sick. Charging exorbitant premiums based on sex, age or health status will be outlawed. Annual and lifetime caps on benefits will be history. Those who already have insurance will be able to keep it, and will gain peace of mind knowing they won’t be priced out of the market by skyrocketing premiums. And more than 30 million uninsured Americans will gain access to affordable health care coverage.

That is not all. President Obama and I know we have to put our fiscal house in order. This is why those who claim they oppose reform because they fear for our country’s fiscal stability should finally acknowledge what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office makes crystal clear: not only is the Senate bill paid for, it is this country’s single largest deficit-reduction measure in a dozen years…

Inserted from <NY Times>

If you want my honest opinion, this bill stinks compared to what it could have been, had it been properly shepherded and had there protecting the giant corporations not been a priority.  Nevertheless it is not completely devoid of good qualities.

Whether we like it or not, barring some last minute grandstanding by Traitor Joe, this bill is going to pass the Senate.  Because the administration is so desperate to pass a bill and proclaim victory, they will exert intense pressure on the House to keep changes in conference to a minimum.  Nancy Pelosi will, after exacting some unknown future consideration from the White House, will play ball.  She will succeed in getting it through conference with few changes if any.  What we see now is essentially what we’re going to get.  I’m not saying we shouldn’t keep fighting to make it better.  We should.  But our voices will appear to be falling on deaf ears.  The party has too much political capital invested into passing a bill now.

We have two choices after we finish bitching and ranting about how lousy this is.  I’m sure I will do my share.  We say we don’t matter, abandon the Democrats, talk third parties and become completely ineffective politically, or we can work to build public support for passing more legislation next year to fix what’s wrong with this bill.  I’ll be making the latter choice, and I strongly hope you will too.

Last night President Barack Obama announced his decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000 troops.

President Obama announced Tuesday that he would speed 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in coming months, but he vowed to start bringing American forces home in the middle of 2011, saying the United States could not afford and should not have to shoulder an open-ended commitmentPromising that he could “bring this war to a successful conclusion,” Mr. Obama set out a strategy that would seek to reverse Taliban gains in large parts of Afghanistan, better protect the Afghan people, increase the pressure on Afghanistan to build its own military capacity and a more effective government and step up attacks on Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
“America, we are passing through a time of great trial,” Mr. Obama said. “And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering.”
The military escalation Mr. Obama described and defended in his speech to a national television audience and 4,000 cadets at the United States Military Academy here, the culmination of a review that lasted three months, could well prove to be the most consequential decision of Mr. Obama’s presidency.
In his 33-minute address, he sought to convince an increasingly skeptical nation that the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the continued existence of Al Qaeda across the border in Pakistan — what he called a “cancer” on the region — were direct threats to the United States, and that he could achieve the seemingly contradictory goals of expanding American involvement in the war even as he sought to bring it to a close.
The scene in the hall was striking and somber: row after row of cadets, in their blue-gray uniforms, listening intently to a strategy that could put many of them in harm’s way. “If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow,” Mr. Obama said. “So no, I do not make this decision lightly.” He called on foreign allies to step up their commitment, declaring, “This is not just America’s war.”
He delivered a pointed message to Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, saying, “The days of providing a blank check are over.”
Addressing critics who have likened Afghanistan to Vietnam, Mr. Obama called the comparison “a false reading of history.” And he spoke directly to the American people about the tough road ahead.
“Let me be clear: none of this will be easy,” Mr. Obama said. “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world.”
With the economy weak and the issue of jobs foremost on Americans’ minds, the president conceded that the new strategy would carry an expensive price tag, which he put at an additional $30 billion in the first year.
Yet with some Democrats talking of a war surtax, Mr. Obama offered no details of how he intended to pay for his new policy, saying only that he was “committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly.”
White House advisers said they expected the administration would do so in the coming weeks, as officials including Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testify on Capitol Hill starting Wednesday.
The approach laid out by Mr. Obama — not so much a new strategy as a doubling down on the one he embraced earlier this year — incorporated the basic goals and came close to the force levels proposed in the counterinsurgency plan that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan, put forward in September.
In that report, General McChrystal said, in stark language, that unless significantly more troops were sent, the war in Afghanistan was likely to be lost.
But by including an explicit timetable to begin a withdrawal, Mr. Obama highlighted the seemingly conflicting pressures defining the debate over how to proceed: to do what is necessary to ensure that the region is not a launching pad for attacks on the United States and its allies, and to disengage militarily as quickly as possible.
Senior administration officials suggested, however, that any initial withdrawal starting in mid-2011 could be very limited, depending on the military situation at that point.
“The pace, the nature and the duration of that transition are to be determined down the road by the president based on the conditions on the ground,” said Michèle A. Flournoy, under secretary of defense for policy.
The initial political reactions showed the crosscurrents facing the White House. Republicans applauded the buildup of troops but questioned the commitment to a timetable for bringing them home.
“Setting a draw-down date before this surge has even begun is a mistake, and it sends a mixed message to both our friends and our enemies regarding our long-term commitment to success,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas.
But among many Democrats, the response ranged from noncommittal to outright opposition.
“I see no good reason for us to send another 30,000 or more troops to Afghanistan when we have so many pressing issues — like our economy — to deal with in this country,” said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York.
Mr. Obama is calculating, administration officials said, that the explicit promise of a drawdown will impress upon the Afghan government that his commitment is not open-ended…

Inserted from <NY Times>
You have heard nothing on this subject from me, because I committed to withhold my decision until after I heard what Obama had to say.
I am already hearing cries from the left that Obama has betrayed his progressive base.  That is not true.  Obama campaigned on increasing the US troop level in Afghanistan.  I supported and voted for him knowing that, so I am not surprised and will not withdraw my support from him, because he is doing what he said he would do.  Up until very recently, I supported increased involvement in Afghanistan.  What changed my mind was the Bush-style election and the revelation of the depths of corruption in the government of the Bush/GOP puppet, Hamid Karzai.
Obama correctly disclosed that we got to where we are in Afghanistan through years of mismanagement of that war.  He has based his plan on three components.  First is to control the cities and large towns.  Second is to fight the corruption.  Third is to maintain a presence in the border area because of Pakistan.  I believe that he is honestly trying to do the right thing, but he’s depending on bad advice.  The USSR tried to control the cities and large towns with 500,000 troops.  I do not see how we can do so with 100,000.  He did not make a case for how he intends to control the corruption.  The Karzai regime is just as corrupt as the Bush/GOP regime.  The corruption pervades the nation.  Even Karzai’s brother is one of the world’s biggest drug lords.  He also did not tie in how operations in Afghanistan will stabilize Pakistan.  My guess is that he intends to backstop Pakistani forces at the border, as they go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in their own country.  If I’m correct, that is the one part of the strategy that does make sense, but that could be accomplished without increasing troop levels.  In my opinion, Obama has made the wrong decision.
Here are the problems, as I see them.  They are not in order of importance.  First, we are on one side of a tribal war that has been going on for hundreds of years.  For all intents and purposes the Taliban are the leaders of the Pashtun tribe.  That complicates the matter, because Pashtun territory extends to large areas of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Second, we do not have enough troops to do the job.  In my opinion, Afghanistan will be no better off in eighteen months than it is now.  Third, the Afghan people now see us as invaders.  Fourth, we cannot circumvent Karzai without leaving a power vacuum there.  Fifth our troops are exhausted.  Most of the 30,000 will already have served several tours in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. The suicide rate among our troops is the highest it has ever been.  They have spent so little time at home that their families are breaking down.  They need a rest.  Sixth, we will have no troops left to deal with whatever future threat could materialize.  Seventh, Obama has dumped financing the war on Congress with no suggestions about where to get the money.  Seventh and most important, we cannot afford this war.  Repuglicans are already calling to delay health care reform due to increased war expenses.  The $30 billion figure we keep hearing is only the cost of the increase.  The entire war will cost almost $100 billion per year.  We have 45 million people without health care.  We have crumbling infrastructure.  We have high unemployment.  Millions of  Americans are losing their homes.  Our education system has fallen behind most of the world.  Portland, Oregon, now sixty miles from the coast is about to become an oceanfront community.  Which of these priorities will we tank to pay for this war?
Here are the good points, as I see them.  First, Obama denied McChrystal the ten years he wanted, promising to start withdrawal in eighteen months.  I admit that I’m skeptical that he will follow through.  He also needs to reveal how long withdrawal will take.  Second, he is not financing the war off budget the way Bush did.  Third, he has rejected the no bid contracts so loved by Bush/GOP war profiteers.  Fourth, and most important, if McConJob and Mooseolini had won in 2008, we would be trying to conquer both Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably Iran as well.
Overall, I am disappointed in Obama’s decision, and I shall oppose it vigorously.  However, I want to make it clear that I reject the war without rejecting the man.  I remain thankful that Obama is President rather than a goose-stepping Republican.  I just wish he had listened to Keith Olbermann the night before last.