Hey Obama, Make a Decision and Stick to It

I wrote in the Huffington Post a few weeks ago about the Democrats' uncanny ability to never, ever, be on the same page with each other. If some Democrats want single-payer health care, a loud and vocal minority will pledge to fight "Obamacare." But none of this is more embodied in one single man than President Obama, who today has announced that he will enact a seven year ban on drilling in the eastern Gulf and the Atlantic coastline.

I don't disagree with this move; in fact I think it's absolutely the right thing to do. It shouldn't even be a question, especially considering that he was against it during his 2008 campaign. What irks me is the completely equivocal way that Obama reached this decision. Back in March Obama announced that he would be opening up the eastern portion of the Gulf as well as a sizable chunk of the Atlantic coastline for offshore drilling. Now he's not going to do that, opening himself up to (legitimate) criticism of flip-flopping.

The administration is saying that the Deepwater Horizon disaster was the main factor in the decision, but then why did it take months after the spill was even "contained" to announce this? Did he think that is sufficient time passed that we would forget what he had said in March? Was it even a question after the Deepwater Horizon debacle to allow this kind of drilling?

But that's just Obama. His Guantanamo failure and his wavering on health care are just two more examples of his inability to make a decision and simply stick to it. Look at "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." He has Justice fight a DADT repeal all the while saying that he supports the repeal of it. The argument for this dichotomous stance was that it is tradition for Justice to fight for Congressional legislation even if they believe it to be unconstitutional or against the president's wishes. So using traditional and illogical tactics to repeal a traditional and illogical measure. Because that makes sense.

So when I saw Obama's tweet this morning about DADT, I about lost it. In it he says, "Send a message to the Senate that you support the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': http://OFA.BO/xm5osU." He is the president of the country and has had people under him fighting to keep DADT, yet he wants the American public to call their senators to let them know that they should repeal it. It's like planting land mines across a field and then wondering why people think it's so difficult to traverse it.

So, just to be clear, Obama was for an offshore drilling ban before he was against it and then for it again. He wants DADT repealed but will allow Justice to argue that it should not be repealed. George Bush was for Iraq and was never against it and that's why we're there. He is for waterboarding and was never against it and will probably never be prosecuted for it. In politics it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, as the previous administration made painfully obvious to this country. It matters who can get things done. So my advice to the president is this: when you make a decision, stick to it.

Photo - Do as I say, not as I do (Twitter)

Biden's F Bomb Not a Big Deal

As I was scrolling through Huffington Post yesterday (the political equivalent of US Weekly, in my opinion) I came across a headline about Joe Biden dropping an F bomb on live television. Naturally I was interested, as the latest drama in Kim Kardashian's life just wasn't grabbing my attention. I watched it a few times, heard the F bomb, had a small chuckle, and moved on. [Warning: The video's audio is LOUD]



So you can imagine my surprise when I picked up amNewYork and it's front page was a picture of Biden and his colorful language. It's also front-page fodder for the New York tabloids. It's just odd to me that the day after an historic health care bill is officially signed into law by the president the biggest news maker is the fact that a grown adult said "fuck" in what he thought was a private-enough manner. The fact that the mics picked up what he whispered into Obama's ear speaks more to microphone technology than anything else.

The fact of the matter is that adults use salty language. George W. Bush called a New York Times reporter a "major league asshole" during his 2000 presidential bid. Dick Cheney told Senator Patrick Leahy to "go fuck himself" when Leahy was probing the veep's ties with Halliburton during a Senate photo session (the nicety was returned to Cheney a few years later while touring Katrina devastation in the Gulf). As long as politicians aren't using it in open Congress, in any official capacity, or all the time, it's really not that big of a fucking deal.

Romney Lashes Out at Obama for Lack of Bipartisanship

I discussed the utter failure of partisanship in an earlier post, and what I said there still stands. I just wanted to add another loon to the mix. Mitt Romney today put out a statement from his PAC stating that,

"America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse of power. President Obama has betrayed his oath to the nation - rather than bringing us together, ushering in a new kind of politics, and rising above raw partisanship, he has succumbed to the lowest denominator of incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends."

I agree that Obama did not get this bill passed with broad, or even tangible, bipartisan support. But it certainly is not from a lack of trying. Obama was praising Chuck Grassley last summer, hoping to get the influential Iowa senator's support for a bipartisan healthcare bill. How did Grassley return the favor? He told his constituents that the healthcare bill would "pull the plug on Grandma." Other significant acts indicating that the Republicans did not want to play ball? They wouldn't shut up about Obama's birthplace and they interrupted the State of the Union to berate the president (incorrectly). Even RNC head Michael Steele described his role in the health debate this way: "Well, I'm the cow on the tracks, and you're going to have to stop that train to get this cow off the tracks and move forward." More recently, however, the Republicans have shown a disdain for working with Democrats on bills and have resorted to yelling like toddlers not getting their way in the halls of Congress (baby killer, really?).

I understand Romney's got books to sell. I understand he sees himself as the front-runner in 2012. I get that a lot of Republicans hate him because they think he's fake or his Morminism is foreign, and thus something to fear, to them. But there's no reason to grandstand like this on a non-issue. Obama tried (too long in my opinion) to play nice with the Republicans, knowing full well he could ram this much-needed legislation down the throats of the right if he wanted to. The Republican response was anything but productive, so Obama worked within his own party and got done what he needed to get done. It's not that Obama abused his power, it's that his opposition didn't show up to play the game.

Photo - The RNC's willingness to work in a bipartisan manner on display (GOP.com)

Politico's 'Unbiased' Coverage of Health Care

In case anyone still thought Politico was an unbiased journalistic publication, note that they put up an article last night titled "Some Dems walk the plank with 'yes' vote." Sure, it may turn out to be a politically risky move for many vulnerable Democrats who ultimately voted for the health reform bill, but Politico doesn't have the credentials in the realm of clairvoyance to be able to make that assessment just yet.

In fact, the conventional wisdom in many circles is that Democrats who don't vote for the bill will simply be lumped in with Obama in the nasty world of opponent rhetoric anyway, and will simply lose out on the opportunity to tout the fact that they just ended decades of irresponsible practices by health insurance companies and provided insurance to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. But I guess that's just as good as walking the plank.

Disaster in Massachusetts and a Supreme Court Decision that Disgraces Democracy

Two pieces of calamitous news in two days. Both pretty much impossible to swallow, but both realities moving forward.

The Massachusetts Senate Election

On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters elected the little-known Scott Brown to assume the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Kennedy spent decades fighting tooth and nail for health care reform, and now reform is severely threatened by Brown's impending inauguration. He has already vowed to obstruct the Democrats from passing a bill (nothing new for a Republican), and now Democrats are starting to back off any ambition they once had for making the bill strong and thorough. Massachusetts voters, who had been enamored of Ted Kennedy for decades, voted to betray his dying wish. I am not saying that the successor to his seat should have espoused his every view; I am saying that whatever values Ted Kennedy held that Massachusetts citizens ostensibly held in such high esteem for so long, they instantaneously turned their backs on.

There are innumerable factors that likely lifted Brown to victory, most of which have been discussed at length. Coakley ran an awful campaign. Voters were still disillusioned by the nation's employment and housing crises. The election was taken for granted by Democrats for too long. But whatever the reason for the shocking defeat, there are now 41 Republicans in the Senate, opening the possibility of interminable filibusters and continued obstruction until November, when Republicans will point out to Americans that Democrats have accomplished next to nothing, despite holding the Presidency and both Houses of Congress by sizable majorities.

The House climate bill can be completely scrapped. (Why do we even have a House, by the way? Sure, they're much more representative of our country than the Senate, but who needs representatives, when they don't seem to have a say in anything?) The relatively progressive House health care bill will likely give way entirely to the Senate health care bill so that at least something is passed (if there's no health care bill passed at all this year, Democrats can probably say goodbye to legislative chamber majorities come November). Who knows if there will be a jobs bill (even though that's what people are most concerned about right now). Financial regulations will pass, but likely in a weak bill that will maintain much of the status quo for the very sharks who helped push the world economy into a deep recession.

What exactly were Massachusetts voters voting for, then? Were they trying to send a message that they're mad? Because like it or not, Scott Brown will not get back at Wall Street. Scott Brown will not help create short-term jobs (his solution is to cut taxes). And by the way, when you're out of a job, Scott Brown certainly won't help you get health insurance. Oh, unless you're from Massachusetts, where progressive Democrats already passed legislation to ensure that for you. Ted Kennedy's dream, and life's work, which was so close to fruition, has been betrayed by his own loving constituents, solely because of his death. The irony is excruciating.

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision

In other horrible elections news, today the Supreme Court ruled that the government can't ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. I've talked at length about this issue before. While I have problems with the inherent idea of democracy (see: Massachusetts voters voting against their own interests and the interests of their country), I still acknowledge that it is the only form of government that reflects the ideals of human freedom, justice, and equality. It has its flaws, of course, and must be periodically improved so that these core tenets are not betrayed. Today, they were betrayed.

The four conservative ideologues on the Supreme Court and one alleged (but woefully misguided) moderate have further opened the election process to unprecedented levels of cash injections from big businesses, arguing that they are defending the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

Let me first say that money is not speech, and conflating those two concepts is nefariously deceptive. But we have to remember here that the Constitution has been bent, twisted, and adulterated incessantly over the past 200+ years, to behoove whomever was "interpreting" its words. In this case, conservative judges who maintain Republican allegiances and were all appointed by Republican presidents, ruled against a bipartisan law that was designed to make elections fair and unbiased, untainted by the influx of money from self-interested groups corporations.

What is democracy now? Does the prefix demo- not mean "people"? What the majority of the Court failed to acknowledge was the underlying foundation of our democratic republic: the right of the people to choose their leaders, and the right for any person to have a chance to become one of those leaders, assuming they can compel the electorate to afford them enough votes. Now corporations will hold undue influence in all federal elections, the wealthiest of them having the biggest say in which politicians will be elected (think: Walmarts who exploit employees, Exxon Mobils and Southern Companies who unabashedly contribute to climate change, Pfizers and Aetnas who exploit the sick for massive profits, and Citigroups who get away with inciting economic turmoil and run away with unfathomable bonuses).

Whatever politicians who are still around that you thought were truly serving the interests of their constituents--that average "Joe the Plummer" that Republicans just love evoking--will soon be a vestige of a previous era of American politics. Don't get me wrong: Democrats are often just as guilty as Republicans when it comes to being beholden to special interests. And elected progressive Democrats who want to reform our election system to make it fair and democratic will soon be few and far between. Unbridled capitalism has commandeered our democracy. Our election system, the basis of American idealism, is truly tarnished in an irrevocable way (unless today's atrocious ruling is one day revoked).

It's been a really bad week for America.

Images: Scott Brown (New York Times), spineless Democrats (photobucket.com), Supreme Court Justices (Zimbio.com), Guy with sign (scu.edu)

Goodbye Public Option, We Hardly Knew Ye

With Pelosi's backing down on the public option came the official death (something I've been saying for a bit now) of the measure for the health care "reform" bill currently being debated in Washington. Pelosi was one of the strongest backers of the measure since the inception of the clusterfuck that is the healthcare debate. That all changed yesterday when Pelosi began the first step in the "I know that's what I said, but it's not what I meant" process.

Pelosi has in the past stated unequivocally that the healthcare bill cannot pass the House without some sort of a public option. When reminded of her statements by a reporter in light of Senate negotiations that create a convoluted system that allows those between the ages of 50 and 64 to buy into Medicare, Pelosi stated that she would have to see the Senate bill and declined to repeat her ultimatum of a public option or no House bill.

What's sad is that Congress was willing to spend almost $1 trillion to bail out Wall Street and significantly add to this country's deficit, but when it comes to healthcare we're not supposed to be spending any extra money to make sure people have access to affordable, decent plans. President Obama has said, "I have pledged that I will not sign health insurance reform that adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade." Pelosi said, "But our standards are that we have affordability for the middle class, security for our seniors, closing the doughnut hole and sustaining the solvency of Medicare, responsibility to our children, so we're not one dime added to the deficit." I'll throw my hat into the ring here with absurd statements, "I would like a Manhattan townhouse, a house in the Hamptons, and a Maybach, all without adding one dime to my deficit." This is America, things cost money, including insuring millions of people.

Wall Street will reap massive bonuses - some in the form of stock with longer vestments (at least until the dust settles and people forget about how they screwed all of us) - and the fact remains: those employed in the bailed-out industries will be getting very large paychecks while those people laid off because of horribly misguided and, at times, downright deceitful tactics in our nation's financial industry will go through the end of this year without affordable healthcare. $700,000,000,000 to bail out Wall Street, $707,851,000,000 for the Iraq War, $0 for healthcare reform. Really?

Is the Medicare buy-in plan an improvement? Sure, for people between the ages of 50 and 64. Are you 25 and just getting off of your parents' plans (if they even have insurance plans provided they haven't seen their benefits cut back or been fired) and can't find a job in this miserable market? Good news! Only 25 more years and you'll be able to buy into Medicare! Until then, however, no Hoveround for you. Peace.

Photo - Pelosi (NPR)

What was that Lincoln Quote?

When Barack Obama was elected president we heard about his seeming obsession with our 16th president. He read books on Honest Abe, used his bible at his inauguration and even themed the January festivities after the top hat enthusiast's famous Gettysburg Address. Given all of this Obama must have come across one of Lincoln's most famous quotes, uttered in his famous speech named for the quote, that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Now Lincoln was alluding to the dispicable practice of slavery in the States, but if we twist the quote a little bit and make it "A party divided against itself cannot stand," we see trouble looming for Democrats.

Yes, I'm going back into the realm of the public option. That elusive Ross and Rachel portion of the health care bill (on-again, off-again: lame Friends reference, forgive me). President Obama said back in August it wasn't essential to the bill. In September House Speaker Pelosi said it was essential while at the same time House Majority Leader Hoyer said it wasn't. In other words, there was no Democratic leadership on the issue, and that lack of leadership continues today over the public option.

It was bad enough that Schumer said a few weeks ago that an embarrassing loss in the Senate Finance Committee was really a win for the public option, but now he is saying that he and other key Democratic senators convinced the White House that the public option was the way to go.

But if Schumer and company have convinced the Obama administration to really get behind a decent public option, why are reports coming out that Obama essentially told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he is on his own for getting votes. If the Obama administration were really behind the public option, if they were "convinced" of its validity, why would they make it clear that they would turn their back on Reid in a crucial vote-getting campaign to prevent a filibuster?

Here is why, if we get a public option, it will be watered down: the Democrats are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Are they really unable to sit down, say this is our plan, and just stick to it? It's funny that Obama will take a risk on the 2016 Olympics for Chicago (read: going to Copenhagen without knowing for sure that Chicago would win the bid) but when it comes to insuring millions of Americans he doesn't want in unless he is guaranteed a victory. Schumer is saying one thing, and reports come out indicating the opposite. Reid could emerge as a leader on this, and Obama undermines that.

I would love to be proven wrong. I would love to get a robust public option that really shakes up the insurance industry and gives a decent level of care to millions of uninsured Americans. The problem is that no clear leader is emerging in this fight and the very backroom politics that is supposed to be used to get votes and get things done is creating miscommunications within the party and leaves the public scratching their heads and opponents on the offensive. Like Lincoln (kind of) said: "A [party] divided against itself cannot stand [for anything]." The problem is they're falling on us.

Photo - Obama and Reid (Politico)

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize; Award Might Spur Action

All three of you who read this blog voluntarily know that during the presidential campaign last year, I was all about Obama. I stood in line for over an hour just to cast my vote in a blue state, I believed that he would be the change that Washington desperately needed, and I thought he could get the job done. I have been sorely disappointed. In recent conversations with friends of mine, I found out that the frustration I've been feeling is not unique among the progressive crowd.

So when I awoke this morning to a CNN News Alert on my phone saying Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, I thought to myself, "For what?" What, exactly, has Obama accomplished in his first 10 months in office? He has failed to lead his party in the fight for healthcare. Instead, he wants to work with Republicans and their respective crazies (Chuck Grassley, I'm looking at you, you crazy old man) and has thusly sacrificed the most important part of reform, the public option. He and his Democratic colleagues have equivocated, waffled, and downright fumbled healthcare reform and all other progressive initiatives (we'll close Guantanamo, oops, not when we said we would).

Obama has also stated that he personally would like to dismantle the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, the abysmal diktat regarding gays in the military that is the result of Obama's Democratic predecessor's own equivocating and bending to right-wing illogicality. But if you expected him to actually do something to overturn the discriminatory policy, well, you might as well expect Glenn Beck to stop crying.

The Nobel Peace Prize committee has cited his ability to strengthen international diplomacy and his striving towards a world free of nuclear weapons. In reality, Obama is on the verge of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and he oversees the second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. I understand that any Democrat would have a good chance of winning this award, as they would have ushered George W. Bush out of office, but this seems a bit preemptive (to borrow a term from the Wolfowitz doctrine embraced by Bush). It's like giving an actor an Oscar before filming starts.

Let's just take a step back for a moment. Obama has a pretty big mandate; we were sick of Bush and his 8 years of follies and we not only gave the country a Democratic president, but we gave the Democrats the House and 60 senators in the Senate. This is not a common occurrence, and what did the Democrats do? Pulled a classic Democrat move and blew it when it came to the most important issue of today: healthcare. But maybe we should have seen it coming, as this is the same party that lost the 2000 presidential election when it was a future (legitimate) Nobel prize winner versus George W. Bush.

The Democrats have everything in place and they are not using it. Instead of talking to and "working with" Republicans who want to spread death panel rumors and all of that, why not just push the legislation through Congress and sign it? The country gave you all those seats for a reason; they're not for decoration. Get on message, get Baucus and the other Blue Dogs in line and let them know they'll be facing tough primaries if they're going to pull the crap they've been pulling, and damnit Rahm, where is that badass everyone was talking about when Obama appointed you as his Chief of Staff? You let him go to Copenhagen without knowing Chicago was a sure thing? Seriously?

I've heard some say, "Wait until his second term, then he'll get his hands dirty." We didn't elect him in 2008 to get things done in 21013. He may not even have a second term if he continues to pussyfoot and not live up to his promises and what we put him in the White House for. Bipartisanship is dead, so as Ernie Anastos might say, stop fucking that chicken. Bush rammed a war based on outright lies we didn't need down our throats, and now Obama can't even get us healthcare reform when we desperately need it. I hope Obama changes his ways and gets serious on getting things done. He ran on hope, but we elected him to eradicate the need for it

Public Option: Fail

Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA),
ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee (Washington Independent)

Now that the Democrats have pulled a classic Democratic move by losing when they had all odds in their favor (for previous Democratic performances, see the 2000 presidential election), it is time to mourn to public option. That's right folks, the insurance system as it stands today has won the war on health reform, as their pockets will soon be lined by tax subsidies that the government will be giving out to Americans to shop around for their own insurance coverage. It's all right, though, because the insurance companies will play fair and follow the rules without strict government regulation, right Wall Street?

But we had to see this coming. It happened to Clinton in the 90s, and the powers that be (read: special interests and their lobbying arms) are just too entrenched to get anything done. Look at the massive amounts of money that they have donated to the folks responsible for the death of the public option. Chuck "Death Panel" Grassley has received $227,000 in the first half of 2009 alone from these interests. Max Baucus, the Democrat whose bill was supposed to garner wide bipartisan support but in reality was a bigger flop than a Vlade Divac offensive foul, has received $3.9 million since 1989 and is currently ranked fifth in terms of donations from the healthcare sector. It should be no surprise, then, that Baucus' plan had no public option.

But why do we need a public option so bad? Think about it: do you really think that the healthcare industry will police itself? No. Since that is a given, do you really think that the government will effectively ensure fairness in the insurance industry while making sure that those with horrible insurance or no insurance at all receive adequate coverage? If you do, then you're either a moron or have good enough insurance that you just don't care (this latter group, as indicated by the effort put forth by them, includes senators and congressmen).

A robust public option would have created what those in love with capitalism have wet dreams about: competition. How unfair would it be? The public option probably would not be that great to begin with, it would be a basic form of care. Those opposed to it on the principles (that great mass of people who refuse Medicare coverage because it is government-run) do not have to partake in it. To say that a public option would take down companies with a net income of more than $1.3 billion in 2008, or more than $1.2 billion sounds a little crazy.

But that's not even the point, as the popularity of a public option seems split according to public opinion polls. The point is that the Democrats have what has been deemed a "supermajority," a mandate if you will, that the country was sick of the way things were going and wanted to change things. Instead of ramming this legislation through Congress or making deals with their peers or doing whatever it took to fix this inherently flawed system, they held town halls, pandered to rumor mongers, and proved to the American people why bipartisanship simply does not work when you elect morons.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Democratic Super Majority
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

The death of the public option began (and in my opinion, ended) with the Senate Finance Committee. The committee shot down both public option amendments, and then in a twisted turn of events voted to restore $50 million for abstinence-only education. So how did Senate Finance Committee member Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a staunch public advocate for th public option, feel about the day's activities? "We're feeling good," and "We're pleasantly surprised." In an utterly embarrassing day for Finance Committee Democrats (who outnumber Committee Republicans 13-10), Chuck Schumer says that he feels good about what took place? Two public options proposals were shot down and $50 million was allocated to a horrible educational curriculum that simply does not work. That's like Omar Minaya saying that the Mets have had a good couple of years.


So who's to blame for all of this? Democrats? Republicans? Tea bag nutjobs who don't understand nearly anything? That's a good start, but as we continue to vote in incumbents who really do not have our best interests at heart (if this bill affected their healthcare it would have been done decades ago and we would be pitying Canada for having such backwards, universal healthcare) and continue to allow special interest groups to dictate what we talk about in the media and in the legislative halls, we're only screwing ourselves. Because while the Chucks live in their own worlds - Grassley saying the government will pull the plug on grandma, Schumer saying two vote-downs of the public option and an increase in failed abstinence-only education is, essentially, a victory - we live in ours, and right now our healthcare system sucks and will continue to suck with no public option.

Worst-Case Scenarios: Health Care

I touched on this subject a bit last week, and I have been thinking a lot about it recently. Regarding health care reform, what is the worst-case scenario for both sides of the debate?

What is the worst-case scenario for opponents of health care reform? Assuming reform legislation is ultimately executed irresponsibly and incompetently, health care costs could actually end up staying as high as they are now, or even increasing. There may not be enough savings accrued from cracking down on waste and fraud and investing in information technology, prevention, pay-for-performance systems, and other measures that President Obama and Congressional Democrats have proposed. The alternative is new taxes.

Such taxes could take a number of forms. Income tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance could be replaced with a tax deduction. The tax on cigarettes or alcohol or sugar-sweetened beverages could be increased. There could be a “play or pay” requirement on large employers, with a tax for not offering health insurance. Any way you look at it, the government would be taking more money from citizens in all of these cases. (Side note: I believe that disincentivizing unhealthy habits and behavior—possibly in the form of taxes—is a key solution to solving our nation’s high health care costs. Nutrition needs to be looked at more closely as an answer to health care problems, not just addressing the problems in an ad hoc manner.)

Now, you may be saying, “But taxes are not the worst case scenario! The government will pay people to have abortions! Illegal immigrants will get health care paid for by my tax dollars, and my grandma will be put to death by a government panel! You lie!” But don’t you have more important things to do than read my blog, Representative Wilson? Seriously though, none of those things are true.

So what’s the worst-case scenario for the other side of the debate? Well, 46 million Americans will still not have any health insurance. Health care costs will almost certainly continue to increase, which will cost Americans more money in the long run anyway. Key solutions like prevention measures will continue to go overlooked, and Americans will likely increase their susceptibility to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

And the bottom line in this entire debate, which no one seems to be talking about anymore: people will be left to fend for themselves when they are sick or injured, or will have to assume a financial burden with which they simply cannot cope. People will go without the treatment they need because they can’t afford it. People will remain injured or sick, and probably get worse. And people will die unnecessarily, simply because their government, whose role is supposed to be that of a guardian and helper, was not willing to protect or help them.

When worst-case scenarios are outlined honestly and juxtaposed like this, it becomes a no-brainer what the ultimate goal should be. Which is exactly why the talk of death panels, socialism, government takeovers, and Hitler have seized the public debate in our country. Because when thoughtful reason (not to mention compassion for one’s fellow citizens—isn’t that what patriotism is all about?) naturally incline voters in one direction, opponents have to combat it with sensationalism and lies.

Images: Obama and Kennedy (Change.org), Joe Wilson (Fox News), some asshole (CBS News)

Obama's Healthcare Speech

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

Listening to Obama's healthcare speech last night is akin to my first listen of the Blueprint 3: obviously it was good because of its author, but it lacked much-needed characteristics. Any speech Obama makes will be good, the man is just a talented orator. The problem with his speech last night is that it was a lot more of the same promises about the healthcare bill, with way too much flexibility on the public option.

I don't think there is a rational American today who would say that healthcare reform is not needed. If you were asked to design a healthcare system for a wealthy, developed nation and this was your model you would be laughed at and ridiculed. If it were a project for school you would receive an F (and rightly so). There is no doubt that healthcare reform is needed, it's just a matter of how we go about it.

It struck me that Obama worried about shaking things up too much. He said (at 14:00) that a single-payer system (or the ill-advised alternative of an entirely free-market system) would be too radical a change. Too radical a change? This is a man we elected to shake things up in Washington, to get things done. Now is not the time to worry about hurting the establishments' (read: healthcare industry's) feelings. If we allow these entrenched interests to dictate the options on the table, the American people lose.

One thing I did like is that Obama showed some passion and fire (albeit not often in the speech). At 16:30 when Obama talks about death panels and all that other nonsense, he sounds fiery and angry. Where has this Obama been? Where is the outrage over the deceptiveness, the malicious and purposeful confusing nature of the debate meant to derail true reform? It's time to get angry, because the bipartisanship vessel has sailed.

But in case you thought the USS Bipartisanship was still in port (let's see how long I can go with this metaphor), just skip ahead to around 27:00. When Obama discusses coverage of illegal immigrants under the current bill, you can hear some jeers coming from the Republican side of the room. But one special Representative waited until things had died down to make his mark on the speech. Representative Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) yelled quite loudly, "You lie!" during a quiet moment in the speech. Since then he has been eviscerated by both Democrats and Republicans for being a national embarrassment (much like his other South Carolina Republicans). And these are the people Obama is supposed to work with? His outburst was the final horn of the ship declaring "Bon Voyage!"

Finally, at 30:00 Obama begins to discuss a not-for-profit option (though not necessarily a "public" option). While I would argue that insuring peoples' health should focus on the peoples' health and not profit margins and bottom lines, this is a good idea. The problem is Obama needs to be more firm on this. We saw what happened with the banks and the bailout: without severe regulation these for-profit companies will do anything to make a buck, including going back to their old ways. Do you honestly think private insurers are any different? Without a legitimate public option, healthcare reform is next to impossible. It's not about the people with these large corporations; it's about money.

All in all, Obama needs to get firm on healthcare reform. Get the votes you need within your own party, forget about those spewing venom like "death panels" and shouting like spoiled brats during a presidential speech. It's clear that folks in Congress have no intention of looking at the other side, never mind reaching across the aisle to come to a legitimate consensus. I hope Obama keeps his promise about calling people out who try to distort the bill for political gain, and I hope he also takes a firm stance on a strong not-for-profit option for healthcare. Otherwise, what's the point? Peace.

Obama's Indoctrination Message: Work Hard

In a move that speaks to the disruptiveness of the right as of late, Obama's speech to schoolchildren set to take place today was highly debated as some Republicans stated it was a move by the president to "indoctrinate" the nation's youth. The mere fact that some people think that the president of this country, who cannot even stay on message about healthcare reform and the overwhelming need for a public option, is going to try to, essentially, brainwash our schoolchildren into embracing a liberal agenda is ludicrous. It not only insults our president, but it insults the students of this country to think that they are so vulnerable and susceptible that a 20 minute speech (one via broadcast, not even in-person) will have them throwing any self-created notions out the window and pledge allegiance to the liberal "agenda."

Take the chairman of the Florida GOP, for example. Jim Greer stated last week that he was "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology." He goes on to say that "The Democrats have clearly lost the battle to maintain control of the message this summer, so now that school is back in session, President Obama has turned to America's children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American's [sic] youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves."

Looking at Obama's speech, however, there is not one word about healthcare. In fact, Obama has the audacity to discuss things like working hard and not letting a less-than-stellar home life get in the way of your studies. It's the "liberal agenda" at its worst: do-for-self. The socialist ideology that Greer points to? Well, Obama does say you should do well in school so that you can help the country, because "you'll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy." Ahh, the main tenet of socialism: working within a capitalist framework.

Seriously though, do people really think that kindergartners are going to retain any of this? They are learning sharing, putting the square block in the square peg, and not pooping their pants. If Obama did delve into the public option or TARP funds do you think these kids would understand what he was talking about? That didn't stop one parent from calling into a radio show and announcing, "He [the caller's son] does not have to sit in on this, he does not have to go to school and he sure as hell does not have to listen to what he has to say."

But that's part of the problem. These parents who are willing to pull their kids out of school because the president wants to address them; what kind of message does that send to the kid? You don't agree with someone, you don't want to do something like listen to someone else talk? Just don't show up that day. Don't learn to listen to others when you disagree with them, don't learn to work with other people who you may not see eye-to-eye with, don't learn how to debate with someone civilly. Then you can go into politics.

The saddest part of this is the fact that now we're not talking about the war in Afghanistan, healthcare reform, or how Wall Street has one-upped themselves and returned to their old ways while at the same time betting on sick and old peoples' lives. Instead we are talking about a relatively routine speech done by both Reagan and Bush I with little to no controversy. It's embarrassing for the country, and it's embarrassing for the Republican party. I know there are smarter conservatives out there; I went to school with some, I'm related to some. They're capable of debate without mentioning death panels or brown shirts or any other knee-jerk reactionary language. But, alas, level-headedness and intelligence aren't what cranks newsmakers are made of.

Photos - Obama at an earlier indoctrination session (Current)

Fear: 1, Facts: 0

Fear is a very powerful emotion. In fact, as a primitive biological instinct, fear trumps reasoned reflection and logic. So it’s no wonder opponents of health care reform and climate change legislation have been employing fear as a tool to sway public opinion in their favor. In fact, these very tactics have been used for decades in politics, and it seems that the majority of Americans are incapable of wising up to them, if for no other reason than the fact that fear is potent and compelling.

Scare tactics to defeat health care reform were used in the early 1920s when opponents spread the message that public health insurance was a plot by the Nazis to take over the US. They were used again to defeat Harry Truman’s attempt at health overhaul in the late 40s with the notion that nationalized medicine would lead to nation-wide Communism. And now health care reform opponents are doing exactly what they did in the Clinton years: trying to convince Americans that such reform will harm them, not help them. They are focusing especially on senior citizens, whom they allege will lose their health care in the proposed plan (suddenly conservatives are champions of medicare, apparently), or worse: face a "death panel" that will determine their continued existence.

Unfortunately, it seems to be working. Many Americans are riled up, but many of those who are most ardent about their opposition speak only in vague terms about "socialism," "Communism," and "big government," but seem not to understand any details of the proposed health care legislation. In short, instilling fear into people has not only worked for conservatives; it has created an army of largely uninformed, loud, and well-publicized opponents (thanks for giving it such excellent coverage, media).

The Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world know exactly what they are doing. They know they are manipulating people and offering, at best, half-truths about topics on which they are thought by their listeners to be experts. They know a public option has nothing to do with Communism, and that seniors will not lose their insurance under any of the currently proposed bills. But they don't want to see health care reform, because they want to keep taxes and government spending low (regardless of potential benefits and projected savings), and want Democrats to fail. And their strategy is working all too beautifully.

Similarly, the big utilities, gas and oil companies, and manufacturers who would have to change their dirty ways (to some extent) if a climate change bill were passed are winning the messaging fight on that front. They are using all the resources at their disposal to scare Americans with talk of overwhelming hikes in gasoline and energy prices, all the while trying to play down the now well-understood science of anthropogenic climate change:

"The whole question of man-made climate change is really, really iffy," said limited-government activist Kelly Havens, speaking to a cheering, sign-waving crowd of about 200 at the recreational vehicle hall of fame. "I mean, what was man doing when Indiana's glaciers were melting? We weren't even here!"

Lawmakers know better. They know what is in the health bill, and they know the facts about climate change (well, maybe not Jim Inhofe). Those who were against reform from the start are beholden to special interests, and those who are swayed by uninformed and beguiled constituents are simply not concerned enough with the well being of Americans to want to help their constituents to resist fear and understand facts. It boggles my mind that changes that will serve to better Americans are often so hard to come by in this country.

Images: Red Army (Wikimedia), Rush Limbaugh (politicalquote.net), James Inhofe (newsok.com)

Bipartisanship: Fail

With all of the talk of the healthcare debate, "pulling the plug on grandma," and Kenyan birth certificates, it's a wonder that bipartisanship has not bloomed and flourished like the beautiful flower that it is. But when both sides (in this case the Democrats and the Republicans) are so entrenched and, despite ill-advised concessions (taking the public option off the table, really?), neither will stop hypberbolizing and feigning outrage, bipartisanship is as probable as a Mets playoff berth.

We'll start with the Republicans.

First there was Senator Chuck Grassley who was praised by Obama for his willingness to reach across the aisle and repaid the compliment by telling a crowd in his home state of Iowa that the government should not have a plan that decides when to pull the plug on grandma. Grassley later admonished those people bringing up the "end-of-life" issues because, as Grassley stated, they "are not the issues that we ought to be talking about." In other words, he pulled a Palin.

Then there's Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia), who wrote a letter disseminated by the American Conservative Union that stated, among other things, "When mama falls and breaks her hip, she'll just lie in her bed in pain until she dies with pneumonia because her needed surgery is not cost efficient." In terms of invoking fear and anger in people, telling them that their mothers will die slow, painful deaths because the government does not want to pay for their surgery seems like a successful strategy, facts be damned.

There's also the birthers, who go beyond Lou Dobbs and Tom DeLay to our elected officials. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Montana) stated that he would stop talking about the president's birthplace. But before you think it's because he thinks that Obama was born here, you better recognize that it's because the media could not "legitimately" discuss the issue. Of course! Don't forget Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-North Carolina, also the Irish version of the founding father?), who told a town hall attendee that he didn't have enough evidence one way or the other to determine whether Obama was a jus soli citizen.

The most over-the-top performance by a Republican during these town hall meetings, however, goes to Rep. Todd Akin, who joked that "Different people from Washington, D.C., have come back to their districts and held town hall meetings, and they almost got lynched." To follow this up, he pretended to choke himself as if being lynched. He and Michael Richards have an HBO special coming up. But seriously, this is 2009; joking about lynching is so far over the line it's incomprehensible. Especially given the way that some folks (like Rep. David Scott (D-Georgia), who got hate mail calling him a "nigga") have been treated by those who disagree with him.

With such rational, level-headed folks on the other side of the aisle to Obama, it's no wonder that people are blaming Obama for not being bipartisan enough. But having one rational side in a debate and one irrational side would be an improvement from what we're seeing, because the Republicans do not have a monopoly on idiocy.

Rep. Baron Hill (D-Indiana) refused to even hold town meetings because, as he told the Washington Post, he felt that the protesters were "political terrorists" and would try to "blow up" the meetings and not answer the questions in a forthright manner. Way to bridge the gap between the left and the right and try to work together to help your constituents. Listening to them would be Step 1.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-New York) pulled a Rush Limbaugh and compared town hall protesters to Nazis. He told the Huffington Post that protesters' means of protest "is fascist. It is a fascist tactic. That's exactly what they did in Weimar Germany. Let me put it this way. It is a fascist tactic not to disagree with you, or to say you are an idiot or whatever, but to try to shut you up. That's what I mean. That's a fascist tactic." Joining Nadler in comparing the town hall protesters to Nazis (for, apparently, comparing the healthcare plan to Nazis) is Rep. Brian Baird (D-Washington). He accused the town hall protesters of "Brown Shirt tactics." As I've said before, comparisons to Nazism (outside of people actually trying to exterminate a large group of people based on ethnicity/religion/etc.) is never appropriate and does nothing to add to intelligent discourse.

It's utterly ridiculous that these are the people that we have elected to guide and lead us. If they're incapable of having a civil discussion about healthcare and then bitch and moan when a bunch of fringe elements that no one takes seriously fulfill their tangential role in society as wanna-be cranks, should we really expect them to get anything worthwhile done? Let's not forget that at the end of the day, whether comprehensive healthcare reform is passed or not, our elected officials and their families are still covered under one of the best plans in the country. That would explain why they want to pander to special interests and small pockets of voters instead of pass legitimate healthcare reform at the expense of losing their seat in Congress (and their Rolls Royce of healthcare plans).

All quotes of the esteemed elected officials in this post come from Andie Coller and Daniel Libit's "Some lawmakers engage in made-for-YouTube crazy talk"

Photo - Healthcare protesters and supporters (Guardian)

Astroturf Strategy Spreads from Health Care to Climate

As the House and Senate have been on August recess, their "town hall meetings"—largely focused on health care legislation—have been met with vociferous, angry, and even violent opponents of any reform. These right-wing conservatives, feeding off each other's anger as well as that of inflammatory media pundits, are taking a stand against what they see as a "government takeover" of health insurance, which they associate with the worst of evils, many comparing it to Socialism, or even Nazism.

Unfortunately, much of this contrived anger and fear is a result of irresponsible media neglecting to provide facts on what the current health care bills would actually change (the government would, in fact, not be "taking over" any insurance options, and there was never anything close to a "death panel" proposed, as ex-governor Palin had insisted last week). And much of it is simply the conservative Republican effort to derail Obama and the Democrats' platform in order to blame them for a slew of failures come 2010, and pick up Congressional seats (even if it does mean leaving millions of Americans without health insurance—a minor hitch to an otherwise noble plan).

But now, finding that this public, "grassroots" (or "astroturf," as some are calling it) outcry strategy is actually working—despite its largely uninformed, and sometimes clandestinely confederate perpetrators—the oil industry is planning to apply it to its opposition to climate legislation in the Senate.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) has written to its member companies asking them to "move aggressively" to stage dozens of anti-climate bill gatherings across the country, mostly in states with swing voters in the Senate. Greenpeace acquired the letter that API distributed, which outlines many of the same false arguments that have been plaguing the climate debate for months. At one point, the letter reads:

After hearing that Waxman-Markey-like legislation could increase the costs of gasoline to around $4 and lead to significant job losses . . . audiences changed their opinions on the bill significantly. Opposition to the bill within the policy influentials cohort grew 23 points, from 40% to 63%; with a 19 point increase in those who now “strongly” oppose the legislation.

What this letter fails to mention is that the $4 figure above comes from research by the Heritage Foundation, which asserts that gasoline will reach that price in 2035. That's 26 years away. And we just had $4 per gallon gas last year, only there were few fuel-efficient cars that found themselves immune to the hikes. I can guarantee that with functional climate change regulations, and more responsible consumer behavior, there will be an abundance of alternatives that will render such a gasoline price increase insignificant. But API doesn't give credence to these trivial details.

So now these astroturf groups—meant to look like regular citizen groups, but actually groups funded by corporations, trade associations, and lobbying firms—will have their voices heard much more readily than those they are impersonating.

And the saddest part is that the targeted Senators, even though they will likely be mindful of these charades, will still be affected by them. Instead of taking a strong stance against artificially engineered rallies and pervasive lies, many Senators will ultimately bow to the pressure exerted upon them—and fueled by the media, who report not on facts, but on spectacles.

If the public were fairly informed about issues like health care and climate change, the debate would be completely lopsided in favor of a comprehensive overhaul of policy on both fronts. But well-endowed corporations, ratings-driven media, and Senators susceptible to being weakened with lies and bought with contributions, are playing no part in helping to accurately educate voters. And those frightening realities of our modern democracy could end up dismantling some of the most important legislative initiatives in our history.

Images: Violent town hall meeting (The National), API Presdient Jack Gerard (flickr), Senator Arlen Specter at a town hall meeting (Philly.com)

Are You a Sensible Person and Oppose Obama's Healthcare Plan? Sorry

Congressman Frank Kratovil (D-MD) hung in effigy (DailyKos)

Given all of the hullabaloo going on about the health care town hall debates (and the ensuing mainstream media soap boxes being handed to crazy healthcare protestors), I thought to myself, what do you do if you're a sensible person who opposes healthcare because of the facts contained in the bill and not because of some irrational, made-up fear of euthanizing people once they get their AARP brochures?

The behavior of some of the members of the Republican Party the past couple of days has been pretty discouraging. I discussed last week Rush Limbaugh comparing the Obama administration to Hitler's Germany, as well as Palin's thinly veiled eugenics comparison and your run-of-the-mill town hall protestors likening Obama to one of history's most evil villains. But these folks have gone beyond the Hitler comparisons (that was soooo last week) and have moved to straight up racism. While those looking to harass Rep. David Scott (D-Georgia) started out with the played-out swastika graffiti, they really stepped it up with their correspondence:

I think Claire McCaskill may have missed the boat on that one.

But mere words, unlike sticks and stones, do relatively little damage to a person. Some town hall protestors have taken to packing heat when getting emotional and angry about America's inevitable plunge into socialism, then communism, then making a roundabout to fascism and killing everyone over 55. Take William Kostric, who openly displayed his piece outside of Obama's town hall in Portsmouth, NH (and then subsequently got an interview on mass media outlets to talk about healthcare). Another protestor in Arizona dropped his gun at a town hall (did we learn nothing about sweatpants and firearms from Plaxico?).

But it's not just the protestors who are a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Clearly there's Sarah Palin, who (through her new medium - Facebook) called Obama's health plan something akin to eugenics with "death panels." There's the Investor's Business Daily editorial stating that British citizen and resident Stephen Hawking would not have a chance to flourish because of his ALS (despite the fact that Hawking has lived and flourished under Britain's socialized healthcare system). And then there is Senator Chuck Grassley, who after being praised by Obama, went back to his state of Iowa and told a crowd there that the government's plan can determine whether or not to "pull the plug on grandma."

So what do you do if you're a reasonable fellow who disagrees with Obama's plan to introduce a government option, but don't necessarily want to paint Hitler mustaches on our President's likeness, carry a loaded gun to town halls, ignore what's in the bill and argue on made-up death panels, or call black politicians "niggas"? You're certainly not going to be given airtime on one of the networks or cable news stations, because you're not incendiary or loud enough to draw in viewers. As soon as you tell someone you disagree with Obama's healthcare proposal one of the first things that comes to mind (if you follow the news) is swastikas and loaded guns. It's sad that the actions of a few have smeared the reputation of the many (like Islamic extremists casting a dark shadow over Islam), but unfortunately it seems like in this era of mass media ratings and toeing the line between controversial and pulling-all-of-our-advertising controversial, the most outrageous and ridiculous voices get heard while the reasonable or well-grounded are labeled boring and unworthy of debate. Maybe the Republicans can go with Nixon's silent majority scheme - internally.

Palin Jumps on the Nazi Comparison Bandwagon

On Friday I discussed Godwin's law and its applicability to politics. Now a "frontrunner" for the 2012 Republican nomination has compared Obama's administration to the Third Reich, albeit slightly more subtly than Rush Limbaugh did last week. Harking back to the pseudo-science of eugenics (a tenet synonomous with the Third Reich), Sarah Palin stated that she fears losing her parents and her son under Obama's healthcare plan that would supposedly weed out the less "productive" of society.

What she said was extreme, considering she essentially accused Obama of wanting to set up a "death panel" to decide who gets health coverage based on their perceived value and productivity to society. What Palin stated, in other words, is that Obama wants to re-establish the practice of state-supported eugenics in this country by denying those who this imaginary "death panel" deems unworthy of medical coverage. I like to think that this country has come a long way from Buck v. Bell; there is no evidence of a desire by the Obama administration to set up a death panel to withhold health coverage based on subjective predicted productivity in society.

But Palin struck a different tone in a later Facebook post, saying that

"we must stick to a discussion of the issues and not get sidetracked by tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment. Such tactics diminish our nation’s civil discourse which we need now more than ever because the fine print in this outrageous health care proposal must be understood clearly and not get lost in conscientious voters’ passion to want to make elected officials hear what we are saying. Let’s not give the proponents of nationalized health care any reason to criticize us."

So first Palin fans the flames of extremism by claiming that the Obama administration will practice Nazi-era eugenics through a death panel, then calls for civility in the health care debate? Hypocrisy at its finest. There were two contradictory posts on her Facebook, one original post and another, cover-your-ass kind of post. I wonder which one was sincere. Peace.

Photos - Sarah Palin (Examiner)

Comparisons to Nazism: Never Called For

Godwin's law states that as an internet discussion becomes longer, the likelihood of someone using Nazism or Hitler as an analogy increases. Unfortunately, this law also applies to political discussions that are supposed to be productive and informative (but are actually counter-productive and mind numbing). Take, for example, the healthcare debate.

Now I know very little when it comes to the nitty gritty of the healthcare argument, other than the following: Obama and a large number of Democrats are suggesting a public option for healthcare coverage that would compete with private sector healthcare and (hopefully) spurn price reductions in the spirit of capitalist competitiveness. Republicans and a small number of Democrats fear that this public option will eventually put the private options out of business and we will all be forced to seek health insurance from the government. That's what I proclaim to know; but this post is not about healthcare coverage.

It's more about the inanity being portrayed from certain people in the debate. It seems that some people think that Obama's charisma and ability to speak to the American people equate him with one of the world's worst people ever, namely Adolf Hitler. Rush Limbaugh, who just last week was praised by House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), said that "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate."

Additionally, people at these "town hall debates" about healthcare also seem to be jumping on the Nazi bandwagon. Take, for example, the following pictures from one of these debates in Denver:The young man with his arm up is a 16 year old wearing a shirt saying, "Hitler Gave Great Speeches Too." The lower picture is pretty self-explanatory. Of course, we saw this type of immature/hateful behavior with anti-Bush folks, too. I'm sure that people think Obama is doing horrible things, and it's pretty evident that Bush did some horrible things, but Nazism? Not even close. To invoke the Third Reich detracts from one's argument and shows one's inability/hesitancy to discuss the real issues and argue their merits rather than resort to name calling.

And the overall irony of this is stunning; why would Obama model his policies after someone who, had Obama lived in Germany during his reign, have sent him to the crematorium because of his race? Is Obama's plan to wipe out an entire race in America, take over Canada and Mexico, and eventually rule the world? Hardly. It is highly offensive to compare someone to Hitler; let's not forget what Hitler did. I'd like those who compare anyone to Hitler to sit through hours of archived video and photos and listen to the stories of Holocaust survivors. Then we'll see how quick they are to compare someone to such evil incarnate. Peace.

Photos - Rush Limbaugh (Salon), Protesters invoking hateful symbols of the Third Reich (Huffington Post)

The Problems with Democracy II

In my last post I focused on the problems with American democracy from the constituency angle, namely the long-term-vision shortcomings of the American voter and how the inherent necessity of representatives to represent these voters often precludes sound, sustainable public policy. But there’s another, arguably more important, facet of the problematic tendencies of our democracy. And that, ironically, is that the American voter doesn’t have enough say in the process. At least, relative to the sway that well-financed organizations and companies can hold.

It seems that politicians are much more interested in the concerns of special interest groups than with those of their own constituents. Why is it that the largest corporations and trade associations in this country have so much power over the way Congress votes? I completely appreciate that these companies are, in many ways, vital to the American economy. They provide large shares of our GDP and employ many of our citizens. But the Constitution—for good reason—charges elected representatives to represent the people, not the private sector. Often, the interests of profit-maximizing corporations directly oppose the public interest. But the voice of the public interest pales in comparison to those of special interests, or at least it falls upon all-too-deaf ears.

Ordinary Americans don’t have the time or resources to be able to share their concerns with their elected officials the way paid professionals do. And when there’s a sizable number of largely poor people who aren’t having basic needs met (e.g. health care), you can bet they won’t be paying a lobbyist to show up in the halls of Congress and ask for a public option in health care reform. In too many cases, people whose needs are not being met are forced to rely on nonprofit organizations that are funded by wealthy idealists, and the genuine morality and conscience of politicians (for those select few who still retain these rare attributes).

But that’s really not good enough. Corporations should have a voice in Congress, but only to the extent that their dealings help the national economy and help keep people working. Unfortunately, much more powerful factors are also at work that shouldn’t be. The whole concept of campaign contributions has completely reshaped our democracy. There have been many laws put forth, and several passed, by those "moral" politicians mentioned above, which seek to reform campaign financing, but they are few and far between, and do not address the some of most pressing of the problems.

Why is the corn industry so heavily subsidized when those subsidies serve to hurt small farms, impoverish farmers in other countries, and make our food substantially less healthful? Why is the health insurance industry making such huge profits while dozens of millions of people are without health insurance? Why are utilities still permitted to build coal power plants, pollute our atmosphere, and heat our planet?

Money from organizations and corporations given to political campaigns needs to be dramatically curbed if we want any hope of giving the people a true voice in this country. And in the meantime, let's see to it that there's a great deal more transparency with regard to special interest group visits to Congressional offices, and other aspects of the political process infiltrated by special interests. The political process should have absolutely nothing to do with money. It should be reserved for those who, rich or poor, feel a genuine desire to serve their country. And that means enacting laws that benefit the citizens of this country, not the wealthiest and loudest interest groups.

Images: health care rally (Nashville scene blog), special interests (LiveTheSolution.com), money barrow (NorCal blogs)