Obamacare landmark

Over 2 million people have now signed up for health insurance, either through the federal exchanges or the state exchanges.    This is short of the 3.3 million originally expected by this time.  

But it is equally good evidence of how the exchange is working now.   A month ago, only 150,000 had been able to signed up through HealthCare.gov.

Bashing Obamacare is rapidly losing its steam as a political weapon.   By the time the 2014 elections come around, it will be a dead issue.   Republicans will have to find something else to run on.

Ralph

A brief history of health care reform in the U.S.

1912 -- Former President Theodore Roosevelt campaigned on a national health insurance plan in his bid to be re-elected following Howard Taft's intervening term.  He lost.

1935 -- President Franklin Roosevelt favored creating national health insurance, but the Great Depression intervened.

1942 -- Wartime president Roosevelt instituted wage and price controls.   Since they couldn't offer higher wages, companies began offering health insurance to workers.

1945 -- President Harry Truman called on Congress to enact national health insurance.  It was denounced by the AMA as "socialized medicine" and went nowhere.

1960 -- President John Kennedy campaigned on health care reform but couldn't get it through Congress.

1965 -- President Lyndon Johnson was able to get Congress to pass Medicare and Medicaid.

1974 -- President Richard Nixon wanted to require employers to provide health insurance to workers backed by government subsidies.   Watergate intervened and nothing got passed.

1976 -- President Jimmy Carter pushed mandatory national health insurance;  but economic recession intervened. 

1986 -- President Ronald Reagen signed into law the COBRA plan, whereby employers let former workers stay on the company's health plan for 18 months. 

1988 -- Congress expanded Medicare to include prescription drug benefits.   But older Americans complained about the extra costs and Congress repealed the law.

1993 -- President Bill Clinton assigned Hillary Clinton to head up a task force to plan for universal health insurance.   It died in the senate, with opposition from business lobbyists and conservative Congress members from both parties.

1997 -- President Bill Clinton signed bipartisan legislation that created a state-federal program to provide children from low income families with coverage.

2003 -- President George W. Bush persuaded Congress to pass a prescription drug benefit program for older citizens.   It specifically forbid government pressure on drug companies for lower drug prices.

2010 -- With no Republican support, Congress passed President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act now known as Obamacare.

Nine presidents, six Democrats, three Republicans.   

Ralph

Some advantages to being old-fashioned

Until I joined the digital generation with a super-smart phone (HTC One) a few months ago, I was one of the old-fasioned, troglodytes who only had an ancient flip phone, kept in my car for emergencies only.

Recently a New York City resident was held up at gunpoint in Central Park.   The mugger demanded his cell phone.   When the man handed him old flip phone, the guy looked at it with an expression that said "What the f--k is this?"

The would-be thief gave it back and walked away.

Apparently stealing and re-selling smart phones has become a $30 billion a year business.   So, in addition to my monthly fee, I've also become more vulnerable to mugging.

There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Ralph

Lower Pope Francis' rating to A minus

I have been full of admiration for Pope Francis for his emphasis on pastoral service rather than doctrinal purity -- for taking care of the poor, the sick, and the needy -- and for his personal humility and his criticizing the global greed and inequality.

His prior statements about gay people ("Who am I to judge"?) showed a fresh attitude of real compassion toward fellow human beings.

But he has also said that some church doctrines will not change, and today we saw evidence of that in his negative reaction to laws passed in Malta that will allow gay civil unions and adoption by gay couples.    So it reminds us that there is still a long way to go despite his kinder and more humanitarian positions.

Some will say opposition to gay marriage is still opposition to gay rights.   Agreed.   But it goes down better coming from someone who doesn't also judge and condemn.

Ralph

No Al Qaeda link in Benghazi

After months of investigation by New York Times journalists, including "extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack" on the U. S. facility, they found "no evidence that Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups had any role in the assault."

Instead, it seems after all that it was carried out by local fighters and "fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."

This goes a long way to vindicate the Obama administration and, in particular, the initial statement made by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.

One more shibboleth that Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) has been using to clobber President Obama bites the dust.

Will he apologize?    Not likely.

Ralph

He never even thought about it

Rep. Jim Buchy (R-OH) who is pushing a bill to ban all abortions, with the only exception being to save the life of the mother, was asked a question by a woman reporter from Al Jazeera:

Al Jazeera:   "Why do you think a woman would want to have an abortion?"

Rep. Buchy:   (onviously taken aback):  "Well, er, there are probably a lot of reasons.   I'm not a woman. . . .  some of them probably have to do with economics.  . . .  It's a question I never even thought about."

Isn't that amazing.  By passing restrictive laws, this man has power over people's lives;  but he never even thought about the needs or the consequences of those whose lives are affected.

Ralph

Christmas Day

On this day when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus who became their Christ -- and when the spirit of giving is masked by the greed and commercialism that the day has come to represent -- let us remember what is common and good in all religions.

Most religions have some version of The Golden Rule, which asks that we treat others as we would like to be treated.

Pope Francis has captured the world's attention and was named Person of the Year by Time magazine for his message of humility and caring for the poor and the outcasts of society.

Another version from the Dalai Lama emphasizes secular ethics, which he bases on the simple principle of kindness to others, along with working to bring about peace among all people.

Let's do it.

Ralph

Losing trust in scientific reporting

From Huffington Post:

"How much faith do Americans have in scientists and science journalists? Not a whole lot, a new survey finds.

"In a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, only 36 percent of Americans reported having "a lot" of trust that information they get from scientists is accurate and reliable. Fifty-one percent said they trust that information only a little, and another 6 percent said they don't trust it at all.

"Science journalists fared even worse in the poll. Only 12 percent of respondents said they had a lot of trust in journalists to get the facts right in their stories about scientific studies. Fifty-seven percent said they have a little bit of trust

. . . . "What’s more, many Americans worry that the results of scientific studies are sometimes tainted by political ideology -- or by pressure from the studies’ corporate sponsors.

"A whopping 78 percent of Americans think that information reported in scientific studies is often (34 percent) or sometimes (44 percent) influenced by political ideology, compared to only 18 percent who said that happens rarely (15 percent) or never (3 percent).

"Similarly, 82 percent said that they think that scientific findings are often (43 percent) or sometimes (39 percent) influenced by the companies or organizations sponsoring them."

The survey was done with a group of 1,000 U. S. adults that matched the demographics of the U. S. population in each of 13 categories, so it should be reliable.   The results should not be surprising;  it is to the credit of the American people that they are suspicious.  

It is not surprising because of the alarming number of academic scientists -- whom we have historically accepted as the least biased -- who have been caught either falsifying their data or playing the statistics game to distort the true meaning of the data.

Behind much of this is the corrupting influence of corporate financing of academic research these days.    Often the corporate sponsor controls what can be published.  So, even honest scientists have to hand over their data to the corporation, which will refuse to publish results that are not favorable to their product.   One of the hall marks of science is that negative results are just as important as positive results.

The problem about political ideology is less with the scientists themselves than it is that political operatives have become very sophisticated in ferreting out "junk science" studies with little validity -- and trumpeting them loudly as "scientific studies," so that people lump such shoddy work with real science and then distrust both.

Now money and power are corrupting an institution -- scientific research -- that is vital to all kinds of progress in our society.  We cannot let this happen.

Ralph

"The Next State to Turn Blue?"

An article in Sunday's Wall Street Journal was discussed on the Huffington Post under the title, "The Next State to Turn Blue?"    And it was about Georgia.   How about that?

Citing Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter, respectively the daughter of former U. S. Senator Sam Nunn and the grandson of former President Jimmy Carter, it called them "bright fresh faces" with familiar names.   Nunn is running for the U. S. Senate;  Carter for Governor of Georgia.

It's not just the fresh faces -- and the highly regarded qualifications of both -- that is cause for optimism.  In fact, despite every current state-wide office holder being Republican, there has been a progressive shift leftward in the state in recent years.   A big factor is demographic changes due to growing Hispanic and African-American populations.   The percentage of voters who were white dropped from 71% in 2004 to 61% in 2012.  

Even though the Obama campaign largely ignored Georgia in 2012, of the states Obama lost to Romney, only North Carolina had a narrower margin of victory for Romney. 

And then there are the candidates.   Chairman of the Georgia Democratic Party DuBose Porter said:  “Everybody said it could happen by 2018, but because of these two candidates and the excitement they bring, we’re going to do it in 2014.”

Michelle Nunn is the founder and head of the nation's largest organization devoted to volunteer service.  She emphasizes her executive experience as a consensus-builder, and she positions herself as a centrist.   In many ways she seems cut from similar cloth as Kentucky's Alison Lundergan Grimes, who is a formidable threat to Mitch McConnell's re-election.

Jason Carter is a summa cum laude law school graduate and a three term state senator.  A former Peace Corps volunteer in South Africa, Carter wrote a book about his experience, Power Lines.   He positions himself somewhat to the right of his grandfather, differing on the death penalty and the NRA.

So both Nunn and Carter are bright, attractive young people who would be good solid Democrats in Washington;  but they are taking a slightly more centrist stance which is probably necessary to get elected.    Nunn will be helped by the muddle of multiple candidates for the Republican nomination, hopefully dividing the sane vote and delivering her the most far-right opponent and therefore the most easily defeated.

Carter has a harder road, running against an incumbent.  But Gov. Deal has an ethics cloud hanging over him with an ongoing FBI investigation.   He's also vulnerable for refusing to expand Medicaid and to set up a state health insurance exchange.    That might become a political liability by mid-2014 when good news is coming from the millions of enrollees in Obamacare and from the states that did expand Medicaid.

Consider this talking point for Nunn and Carter:   Georgians, through their IRS income taxes, are helping to pay for those Medicaid services in other states that opted in -- and Georgia is not getting any of it in return.   What about that, Gov. Deal?

Ralph

Minimum wage increase -- not a job-killer, as Republicans claim

As reported by the Huffington Post a few days ago: 

Raising the minimum wage would help the working poor and give the entire economy a boost, a new analysis finds.

If the minimum wage rose to $10.10 per hour, as Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama propose, 27.8 million workers would see their wages go up as a direct or indirect result of the boost, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.

These workers would take home about $35 billion in additional wages and they would probably spend it, as low-income people living with little financial cushion cushion tend to do. 

The result: During the initial phase-in period, the U.S. economy would grow by about $22 billion, EPI found. The growth in the U.S. economy would result in about 85,000 new jobs, according to EPI.

That counters arguments from conservative economists that raising the minimum wage could actually hurt the working poor by making employers hesitant to hire more workers. . . .

I read an article recently that offered scientific evidence that political ideology is partly influenced by genes.    I find that easy to believe, since otherwise intelligent people seem utterly immune cognitively to arguments that seem so logical and simple to me.    This is one of those.

Ralph

More about the Utah marriage decision

Listening to Rachel Maddow and her guest, an NYU law professor, I now understand why the Utah marriage decision is perhaps the most significant one thus far.

Until now, all the changes in the 17 states have been done either by state courts or state legislators or by voters.  The Utah decision was the first from a federal judge (District Court).

As Rachel explained, the 30 states with constitutional amendments on gay marriage are immune to being overturned by state courts.   And with 17 states now legalizing gay marriage, there were only three more that could by decided by state courts.  

Utah is one of those with a constitutional amendment   Thus the case was filed in federal court -- because the only recourse was to have a court say it violated the United States Constitution.

That is what happened in Utah and why it is so significant.    It is the first decision by a federal judge that says the state law violates the rights of equal protection in the 14th amendment.

Utah is also the first decision to come down of the several cases that have been filed in federal courts in those states with constitutional amendments.   One, or perhaps several, of them will undoubtedly be appealed and heard by the U. S. Supreme Court -- but probably not until there have been more decisions from other cases.

The argument will be much stronger if there have been some other decisions like this one in Utah.   Let's hope it doesn't reach SCOTUS too soon.   Another couple of years might be just about right when it will seem inevitable even to those opposing change.
 
Ralph

Wow !! # 18

Just two days after the court ruling that made marriage equality legal in New Mexico, a U. S. District judge has ruled that Utah's marriage law passed in 2004 is also unconstitutional under the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment.

Ralph

Gay rights

There was good news from New Mexico yesterday, where the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples must be granted marriage rights under the state constitution's protection of equal rights.

Even better news today, when I learned that the court's decision was unanimous.

But there was equally bad news coming from Uganda.    World activists have been working for several years now trying to prevent the Ugandan Parliament from passing the proposed anti-gay law that would include the death penalty for homosexual acts.

They did manage to get that clause struck out, but they did pass a strong anti-gay law that includes life imprisonment for "aggravated homosexuality."  Proponents of the law claimed that, even though homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda, the stronger penalty law was needed because homosexuals from the West threatened to destroy Ugandan families and are allegedly recruiting children into the gay lifestyle.

President Obama has previously called the law "odious," and it has been widely condemned by world leaders.

Back to the positive:   President Obama's choices for the official delegation to represent his administration at the Winter Olympics in Russia sends a powerful message.   No one of any high position is going, and the group includes three openly gay athletes.    Recently resigned Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is a former cabinet member, but no current cabinet member, no VP and no POTUS or FLOTUS.

We chose not to boycott the games in protest of Russia's repressive anti-gay laws.  Instead we are going and making a powerful statement.   I think that's the right decision.

Ralph

It's official: gay marriage now legal in New Mexico

The New Mexico state supreme court has ruled:   in a state whose constitution does not mention any limitations of the gender of people apply fo marriage licenses, it would be a violation of the state constitution to deprive same-sex couples of the right to a marriage license.

So that makes 17 states, plus the District of Columbia that have marriage equality.

If you look at the population of those states, 39% of the American people now live in one of those jurisdictions.

It has become legal in 9 of those 17 states in the year 2013:  Maryland, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Delaware, California, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, and New Mexico.

A full sweep ordered by SCOTUS shouldn't be too much longer in coming.   I'm predicting that it will involve the consequences of eliminating DADT in the military.  We now have service men and women stationed at bases in states that do not allow gay marriage -- which leads to unequal treatment of some of our military personnel.

The walls are crumbling.   It won't be long now.

Ralph

'Safe-guarding the ballot'

Freedom to vote and freedom to choose whom to vote for -- fundamental rights of American citizens.    So we don't want anybody cheating on this right, do we?

That's why 30 states have recently voted in some kind of "voter ID" laws that require a government-issued photo ID and/or other types of documents that prove a person's legal residence in the voting district.   Or, so they say.  All but one of these are states with Republican governors and Republican-controlled legislatures.

As we well know by now, (1) there is no voter fraud problem;   and (2) the real reason Republicans are pushing these laws is that they tend to inhibit, intimidate, or otherwise discourage voting by Democratic-leaning groups.  

In short, along with lying and obfuscating, Republicans can only win by cheating or suppressing the vote of the opposition.

Now one Republican has put his money into the question.   Iowa's Secretary of State Matt Schultz (R) authorized $150,000 for an investigation into voter fraud;  another $280,000 in federal funds were diverted to this investigation.

What did they find?   After 18 months of investigation, out of more than a million voters in Iowa, they found 10 cases that might come into the category voter fraud.    After further investigation, 5 of those were dismissed.     

Of the remaining five, three were convicted felons who had completed their prison terms and mistakenly thought their voting rights had been restored.   One was a mother who filled in an absentee ballot for her daughter who had recently moved to another state and thought she had missed the registration deadline there.   But the daughter was able to register and vote in the other state;   the mother then self-reported her error.   The last of the 10 was a man with a DUI conviction who had used his dead brother's ID to obtain a new driver's license;   this was discovered when he tried to vote, using the false driver's license for ID.

So there was not one single case of a person trying to vote when they knew they were not eligible to do so.

That is the 'voter fraud' situation in Iowa.   Hardly the most pressing issue.   And when you put this up against the hardship for some people to obtain these photo IDs, and against the actual loss of large numbers of voters at the ballot box . . . . 

. . . . the Republican's pushing these laws for their own political purpose is the scandal.

Ralph

Federal judge agrees with Snowden

Federal District Court judge Richard Leon today ruled that the NSA data-collecting program probably violates the U. S. Constitution's 4th amendment, which protects citizens from "unreasonable" searches or seizures.

I have been divided in my thinking about this ever since the data collecting was first revealed.   On the one hand, people I trust (Obama and his appointees) insist that it is a great help in protecting us against terrorist plots.   On the other hand, it feels like an invasion of privacy.

But so, too, does the fact that my computer is a veritable gold mine of data collecting for commercial purposes -- buy something on line, and suddenly you are flooded with ads for similar products.

The way I understand the NSA program:   No one is listening in on your phone calls.  They are merely collecting "meta data," i.e. who calls whom and when.   This is all stored in vast data banks.   If there is later some indication that someone with terrorist connections is under investigation, they can then -- with a warrant, except in rare emergencie4s -- look at the data and investigate further.

Honestly, that does not seem so bad to me.   But I also realize the potential for misuse that could lead to serious consequences in our individual rights to privacy.

So . . . we'll see how this plays out.   Undoubtedly it will be appealed and eventually wind up at SCOTUS.

By the way, Judge Leon was appointed by President George W. Bush.

Ralph

Strange to be on the same side with Newt

One thing I seem to be in agreement with Newt Gingrich on:   Nelson Mandela.   Last week, Newt had said some respectful and admiring things about Mandela.   In 1986, when President Reagen vetoed the anti-apartheid sanctions, Newt was among those in Congress who over-rode that veto.

So he was not being his usual inconsistent, flip-flopping self when he praised Mandela as "one of the greatest leaders of our lifetime."  The far right soon began slamming him for praising "a commie murderer."

Newt responded to those critics in an op-ed in the New York Times yesterday.

". . .  Mandela was faced with a vicious apartheid regime that eliminated rights for blacks and gave them no hope for the future. . . .  a regime that used secret police, prisons and military force to crush efforts seeking freedom for blacks.

"What would you have done, faced with that crushing government?

"Some of the people who are most opposed to oppression from Washington attack Mandela when he was opposed to oppression in his own country.

"After years of preaching non-violence, using the political system, making his case as a defendant in court, Mandela resorted to violence against a government that was ruthless and violent in its suppression of free speech.

"As Americans we celebrate the farmers at Lexington and Concord who used force to oppose British tyranny.  We praise George Washington for spending eight years in the field fighting the British Army's dictatorial assault on our freedom.

. . . "I would ask [Mandela's] critics: . . . if you had been imprisoned for 27 years, . . . how do you think you would have emerged?   Would you have been angry?

"Nelson Mandela emerged from 27 years in prison as an astonishingly wise, patient, and compassionate person.

"He called for reconciliation among the races.  He invited his prison guard to sit in the front row at his inauguration as president.   In effect he said to the entire country, "If I can forgive the man who imprisoned me, surely you can forgive your neighbors." . . . 

"Before you criticize him, ask yourself, what would you have done in his circumstances?"

Good for you, Newt.

Ralph

He got away with it . . . again

Announcement was made today that charges have been dismissed against George Zimmerman in the latest domestic violence dispute (see this blog "Will they revoke Zimmerman's gun permit NOW?" on Nov 18, 2013).

The answer to the question is No.   The girlfriend decided not to press charges, and the police authorities said there was not enough evidence of a crime to make a conviction likely.

So . . . the killer of Trayvon Martin walks free again . . . with his guns.

Ralph

A close call on security

Dozens of heads of state, including President Obama, were on the podium during the memorial celebration for Nelson Mandela.   You would imagine that security would be extraordinarily tight.   What a risk to have that much of the world's power so all vulnerable at the same time.   You would think it would be a terrorist's dream.

Fortunately, nothing happened.  But here's an obvious security gap that brings up the thought:   What if it had been someone bent on creating global chaos?

During the three hour ceremony, a man supposedly doing sign language interpretation was standing three feet from the speakers at the podium, including Obama.    It soon became obvious to the television audience that the man's gestures were not in sign language.   They seemed more random,  ritualistic even.   ASL readers began tweeting in that this was gibberish.

An investigation is being done into how he was hired and whether he was vetted.   So far no one seems able to find the company through which he was hired.    But the man himself has given an interview with the Associated Press.    He says that he suffers from schizophrenia, is on medication, and that during the ceremony he was hallucinating, thinking that angels were entering the stadium.   He also says that he has episodes of violence "a lot," although he declined to give details.    He has apologized.  After viewing a videotape of the event, he says he does not remember any of it.

Whew ! !    If vetting of people to be that close to world leaders was so lax, we now realize how vulnerable the world was during that ceremony.

Ralph

Remarkable look-alikes

Twice recently, I have seen a picture of judicial nominee Nina Pillard, Obama's nominee to the D. C. federal circuit court -- and thought it was a picture of Michelle Nunn, candidate for senator from Georgia.    See for yourself.

Nina Pillard
 

Michelle Nunn
 

Ralph

Finding the negative

President Obama gave a powerful 20 minute eulogy for Nelson Mandela at the memorial celebration in South Africa.

"It took a man like Madiba [Mandela's tribal name, used affectionately by his people] to free not just the prisoner, but the jailor as well;  to show that you must trust others so that they may trust you;  to teach that reconciliation is not a matter of ignoring a cruel past, but a means of confronting it with inclusion and generosity and truth.  He changed laws, but he also changed hearts."

But leave it to the angry right-wing, the anti-Obama fringe and their media megaphones to play up what they considered grave mistakes.    It only proves that they learned nothing from the life example of Nelson Mandela.

One was shaking hands with Cuban President Raul Castro.    Sen. John McCain seemed incredulous:  "Why would he do that?   Neville Chamberlain shook hands with Hitler."   FoxNews couldn't stop showing the clip and yapping about it.  Ted Cruz, who was attending as part of the congressional delegation, walked out during Castro's speech.

The other was the non-infamous "selfie" picture being snapped by the smiling trio of Obama and the Danish and British Prime Ministers.   Michelle Obama is seated next to them, looking off in the other direction with a serious expression on her face.   Much was made of their "inappropriate" conduct at so serious an event.   The Daily Mail even wrote:  "It seems that the frosty faced First Lady was so unimpressed with her husband's behavior that she eventually put an end to the fun."

Not true, says the photographer who snapped the picture of this light-hearted trio making the selfie.   First, he says that they were completely in synch with mood of the crowd, many of whom were laughing, dancing, and clapping.  It was a joyous celebration of the life of Nelson Mandela, not a "funeral" as the scolds would have it.

And then the photographer said Michelle's "stern" look was just a momentary thing [not even looking that way, perhaps at something else].   "A few seconds later she was joking with those around her, including her husband.

Why are we so fascinated with "catching" public figures "misbehaving" or making mistakes?  I understand why the media hype it -- it sells.   But why do we buy it so avidly?   That is the question.

The sad thing is that these two stories got more news time than the wonderful speech that Obama gave.

The even sadder thing is that these critics (McCain included) apparently have learned nothing from Nelson Mandela.   He would be the first to reach out to Castro (in fact there is a picture of him embracing Castro) to make peace;  to find ways for reconciliation after hostilities have ended.   In fact, Castro supported Mandela in his efforts to undo apartheid, while the U. S. opposed him in many ways.

Case rested.

Ralph

A fundamental difference

Berkeley professor and former Secretary of Labor in President Clinton's cabinet, Robert Reich, drew a succinct distinction between Republicans and Democrats with regard to government assistance in this jobless recovery.  This was on MSNBC's "All In With Chris Hayes" in a discussion about extending unemployment insurance:

Republicans believe that the way to create jobs is to give assistance to corporations, which will then invest in new equipment and hire new workers.

Democrats believe that the way to create jobs is to give assistance to people, both in the forms of tax cuts, subsidies, and unemployment benefits;  and through policies that stimulate job growth, such as infrastructure construction projects, subsidies to local governments for hiring teachers, first responders, etc.

Another way of putting it:   put money in the pockets of those who will spend it, thus creating demand, thus boosting production.   Everybody wins. 

Reich makes the point, as has Paul Krugman repeatedly, that we are not in an economic slowdown because of a lack of products to sell;  we're in a slowdown because of a lack of demand for products -- because people do not have money to buy things.

So simply prodding companies to hire new workers, when they have no customers, is not the solution.   But Republicans cling to the notion, despite the facts and the logic.   Rand Paul either does not understand this -- or else he is being willfully dishonest to push a political ideology.

Ralph

Is there no consequence for such misuse of taxpayer money?

Rachel Maddow has reported on an act by Rep. Darrell Issa and his Committee on Government Oversight that is so outrageous.    There should be some recompense for such political perfidy, but short of being voted out of office at the next election I don't know what it could be.  No chance for impeachment in a Republican majority House.

  We need an oversight committee for the Oversight Committee.   Regardless of your opinion about the ACA, no hearing should systematically eliminate one whole side of a controversy.

Here's the story.    Issa does not like the Affordable Care Act, and he is doing everything in his power to undermine it -- or to kill it, if he can.    His committee is holding what they call Field Hearings.   The whole committee goes on a field trip to various places around the country and holds hearings. 

So far, they've had them in North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona.   They invite people who have had a negative effect from Obamacare to come and testify.   People who might have some positive experience to report are excluded.    They only want to hear the bad stuff.

Now that word is getting around, people are showing up and protesting.   Issa has been forced to take note of the protests.   But instead of inviting some of them to testify at the hearings, he has suggested that they can send him an email.

This of course is all at the taxpayer's expense.    Ferrying a whole committee to distant parts of the country for the hearings -- which will produce a report that cannot have any objectivity.

What a waste of money, what a distortion of the truth.    And this is just one of the constant ways in which Darrell Issa tries to undermine the Obama administration. 

Ralph

More Republican incoherence

It is hard to get someone to look at facts when those facts contradict their faith beliefs or their political ideology.    Perhaps we Democrats do it too, and I'm just blinded by my own world view cum political ideology.   But I don't really think that.    Democrats may be resistant to changing their ideas;  but their ideas are more often, to begin with, based on evidence and common sense.

Studies have shown that extended unemployment benefits do not discourage people seeking work.  But that doesn't stop Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) from declaring otherwise.   Speaking against extending the unemployment insurance program on FoxNews Sunday, he argued that it would be a disservice to those very unemployed people.

"I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they're paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers. . . .  When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy."

That argument might make more sense if it came from someone who supports a vigorous job stimulus program to create sufficient job opportunity -- or if it came at a time of low unemployment.   But when you have 1.3 million long term unemployed people with little job opportunity available to them, what do you expect them to do?

Paul apparently doesn't care, or else he just denies that it is a problem.   His non-sequiter answer is:   "You get out of a recession by encouraging employment, not encouraging unemployment."

By "encouraging employment" I don't think he meant providing jobs and training;   I think he meant removing any help that would make unemployment easier to endure.   Paul apparently equates that with free-loading rather than subsistence support.

No, Sen. Paul.   You get out of a recession by government spending that stimulates job creation so that people can find jobs and earn enough money to buy the stuff and create more demand.

Fortunately, not even all of Sen. Paul's Republican colleagues agree with him, and there is some bipartisan support for extending the benefits.

Ralph

The arrogant, entitled Cheneys

Liz Cheney and her family made news a couple of weeks ago when she came out against gay marriage -- and her sister in law, who is legally married to Liz's lesbian sister Mary, responded with a Facebook tweet saying it was insulting to their family.   She also tweeted that it was puzzling, since Liz had been supportive of their relationship and family, including spending holidays with their children.   Mary got into it too, saying that she and Liz haven't spoken since last summer and that they wouldn't be getting together at Christmas this year.

Now Liz and Daddy Dick are upping the ante of arrogance, in addition to trying to paint Mary and her wife as the bad guys for making a fuss in the middle of Liz's political campaign.   In a tv interview, Dick regretted that "attacks have been made" against Liz;  and he said, with just the slightest curl of lip, that they had always tried to "deal with" this "within the family."

That family quarrel is but a sidelight, however, in this "arrogance" thing.    Howard Fineman, speaking on MSNBC Wednesday night said the arrogance is "breath-taking."

Here's the thing:  Liz grew up and has spent her entire adult life in the Washington, D.C. area, living in a Virginia suburb, and working in various capacities for the federal government.    She seems to think she's can just waltz in to Wyoming, buy a house and say she lives there, apply for a fishing license, travel around the state shaking hands, trade on the family name, and walk off with a victory prize that she feels entitled to. 

But Wyoming voters -- relatively few in number -- like their politicians to be folks they know and feel comfortable with. The current senator -- whom Liz is trying to unseat -- is Mike Enzi, a nice guy seeking his fourth term in the U. S. Senate.   He has one of the most conservative voting records and highest approval rating from his constituents -- but Liz is trying to out flank him on the right and portraying him as part of the Washington crowd (as if she and her Daddy are not).

But arrogance seeped over into ridiculous this week.   Seems this Liz-come-lately to the Wyoming political world has formed a SuperPac to raise money for her campaign, called . . .  guess what:  "Cowboy PAC."    But the Cowboy PAC fund-raiser is going to be held in one of the most posh Italian restaurants in Washington, D.C.  The invitation list is made up of wealthy donors to the ultimate insider Republicans -- essentially it's Daddy's money friends.

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that a major trait of Republican campaign strategy is incoherence.   Liz starts way behind in home-town appeal, trying to unseat a man of the people by pretending to be one of them too;  but really everybody knows she's not.  And she proves it by holding her fund-raiser in D. C. with establishment fat cats.    How's that going to play back home, guys?

And Dick Cheney had the unmittigated gall to go on tv and criticize Mike Enzi for getting too much of his campaign money from "Washington establishment donors."

Surely the Wyoming voters won't fall for this malarkey.  Even from someone named Cheney.

Ralph

The power of Obamacare

The intensity and persistence of Republicans' opposition to the Affordable Care Act is testament to how much they fear (and expect) its success.    Logic would suggest that, if you think it is going to be a failure, just stand back and let it happen.

Now comes this:   Georgia Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens told a group of Republicans in Floyd County:

“Let me tell you what we’re doing [about Obamacare]. . .  Everything in our power to be an obstructionist.”

There you have it from the horse's mouth.   This is the man elected to oversee all insurance programs in Georgia.   Shouldn't he evaluate them on merit and not ideology or political opportunism?

The end result is that most Georgians are going to get insurance -- but it will be a lot more difficult for anyone who gets it on his own (because Georgia refused to set up a state exchange) and impossible for a few people who would have been eligible for the Medicaid extension (which Georgia refused to accept).

Seems to me that's good cause for the governor, the insurance commissioner, and most of the legislature being voted out of office first chance we get.

Ralph

Is this a winning strategy?

Mitch McConnell faces a strong primary opponent in his re-election bid.   Then, if he survives that, he faces the formidable Alison Lundergan Grimes in the general election.   In a poll last month, they were pretty evenly matched, which is probably very bad news for an incumbent.

So what did McConnell do on the campaign trail this week?    He thundered against Obamacare, saying that it has been "a catastrophic failure" for people everywhere.

The Democratic governor of Kentucky had a comeback:   "The facts don't prove that out. . . .  "There is a tremendous pent-up demand in Kentucky for affordable health care.   People are hungry for it."

Gov. Steve Beshear (D) overcame Republican legislators' resistance and set up a state insurance exchange, which has become one of the most successful ones thus far.   Here are the facts for Kentucky alone -- contrary to McConnell's claim:

   550,000 have visited the web site
   180,000 have called the health care call center
     69,000 have actually signed up for insurance

That represents about 1,000 Kentuckians per day getting health insurance through Obamacare.   Gov. Beshear also predicted that over the next eight years, Kentucky will benefit as the Affordable Care Act adds $15 billion to the Kentucky economy and creates 17,000 new jobs.

Doesn't sound like a catastrophic failure, does it?

Better get a new strategy, Mitch.    Alison will be campaigng on the success of Obamacare and what a benefit it is to the voters of Kentucky -- and you might just find yourself looking for a new job.

Ralph

Something good happened

This will be a change of pace.   I'm going to say something good about one function of our state government.

This morning I went to renew my driver's license, equipped with reading materials and a free morning schedule for the anticipated three hours wait.

Instead, I was in and out in 30 minutes.     The staff were all pleasant, helpful, efficient.   To my great surprise, it was a good experience.   I don't know how much Gov. Nathan Deal had to do with the change, but when he took office, this was a major complaint.   People were having to wait 6 to 8 hours.   He promised to fix it.

So . . . to the governor and any others who helped:  Thank You.

Ralph

Mandela 1918-2013

I feel a profound privilege to have lived on the earth at the same time as Nelson Mandela.

Few individuals in the history of the world have done as much to improve the lives of fellow humans.    Combining a rare generosity of spirit with a practical politician's skills, he changed the fate of South Africa -- and of oppressed people everywhere.

Ralph

Wrong analogy for birth control in Obamacare

Noted evangelical pastor, writer, and friend of presidents, Rick Warren is generally considered reasonably moderate and balanced -- not a zealot or a bigot of the right-wing Christian fringe.

But he has always, in interviews and in his writings, struck me as being a bit fatuous and too verbally facile to be taken seriously as a deep thinker and moral philosopher.   Now he has tossed off an opinion about the wrongness of requiring employers to include contraception coverage in their health care plans for their employees.

As he put it:   "It's like making a Jewish deli sell pork."

No it's not.   You are not making companies sell birth control.   You are requiring that, if they furnish comprehensive health insurance to their employees, it must include contraception coverage because that is part of comprehensive health insurance.

It's more like telling a Jewish deli that, if they are going to sell something and call it chicken soup, it must contain chicken.   They can just choose to drop chicken soup from the menu if they have a religious objection to chicken.

And the Jewish deli can decide not to provide health insurance as an employee benefit.   If employees decide to go work for the other deli across the street that does provide health insurance, then so be it.  As conservatives are wont to say:  that's just the marketplace working.

Ralph

Why is this man smiling?

John Boehner, the leader of the House Republicans who are to a large degree responsible for the dysfunction of Congress, is smiling.    Why?    This Congress has the lowest approval rating in history -- in single digits.  And it ranks as the most unproductive congress in the history of the Republic, having passed about one-third the number of laws as the congress that Harry Truman dubbed "The Do-Nothing Congress."

So, why is John Boehner smiling?
 

Here's what he says:  "The House has continued to listen to the American people and to focus on their concerns. . . .  Whether it's the economy, whether it's jobs, whether it's protecting the American people from Obamacare -- we've done our work."

Seriously?   Then why, with immigration reform, farm bill, appropriations bill, and dozens of other necessary legislation still unpassed, have you scheduled the House to be in session only 7 more days between now and January 7th?   Why not bring up the immigration reform bill passed by the senate and favored by a majority of the House?   It would pass, if only you bring it up.  But you won't.   Is that listening to the American people?

In a sense, Boehner is right when he says "We've done our work."   That is, if he means the "work" mandated by the Tea Party, which is to obstruct everything and pass NO legislation.    So perhaps Boehner is admitting that he's working for the Tea Party, not for the American people.

Ralph

A great letter to the NYT

Sometimes my favorite readings in the newspaper are the letters to the editor.   There's one in today's New York Times that is perfect in its succinct, clarion-clear point.   It's from David Misch of Santa Monica, CA:

"So let me get this straight:  The Republicans' objection to Obamacare is that it's a horrible socialist policy that will destroy America and that it's taking too long to get going." 

Zing !!    Couldn't have said it better myself.

Ralph 

THAT much ?

An AJC front page blurb yesterday piqued my interest.   It was from a National Retail Federation report about the amount of shopping Americans did over the Thanksgiving weekend.

I read:  "Comsumers spent an estimated $1.7 billion" and I thought, Wow.  That's a lot.  Then I read the rest of the sentence:  ". . . less than they did a year ago."

Now that's some serious shopping.  Or, being an anti-shopper myself, I might say, "some reckless shopping."

The article went on:

"There are some economic challenges that many Americans still face.   So in general terms, many are intending to be a little bit more conservative with their budgets."

I'm astonished.  In these lingering hard times, we still spent an estimated $57.4 billion going shopping one weekend -- and that's considered 'being conservative.'

Ralph