Is It Finally Time For More Than 2 Parties?

With the passage of a health reform bill over the weekend which was hardly reform, American voters have become starkly aware of the lack of choice we face from those who represent us.

The Democrats, who we trusted for “change” in 2008 are as bad or worse than the Republicans.  The health care bill the Dems passed last Saturday night is hugely expensive, will be bad for business, will raise taxes, and, worst of all, will  penalize good Americans who can’t afford a high-priced private insurance policy.  The legislation passed by Pelosi & Company goes to the extent of punishing average Americans by sending them to prison if they don’t comply with the will of the private health insurance industry!

The Republicans haven’t done any better!  They had 6 of the last 8 years to do something about the health care crisis so their criticism has, for the most part, an air of hypocrisy.

Two things are glaringly obvious about both the Democrats and the Republicans.  (1).  They both agree to disagree with each other to divide the American people into two halves; and (2).  Both parties have leaders and influential powerhouses who are in the pocket of Wall Street and big-money.

The Republicans did nothing about health care during their tenure to please the health insurance industry.  And the bill the Democrats pushed through the House is a gift to that same industry!

While it’s certain that something be done about health care, neither side has the solution.  There are good ideas coming out of both sides, but they are usually promptly shot down by the leadership of both parties.

The House will completely be up for election next year and every member will have to face voters in his or her home district.  2010 may finally see Independents and other alternative parties filling those seats!

 

CNN Tells It Like It Is About Elections

This time, all politics was local – CNN.com.

CNN published an article focusing on yesterday’s seemingly surprising election results which they summed up in four words:  ”All politics is local” – a phrase which CNN credited originally to former Speaker Tip O’Neill.

If you didn’t catch any news last night, incumbent  Governor Corzine lost his re-election in New Jersey to the Republican in spite of the fact that Obama campaigned for Democrat Corzine.  In New York’s 23rd District which is conservative, the Conservative candidate lost to the Democrat.  You will recall the controversy of the Republican candidate being forced out of that race and also out-of-state big-mouths like Sarah Palin campaigning for the Conservative, yet their guy still lost last night.

These results seem surprising only to those who don’t understand the unique character of the American People.  And to those who think that they can bring out political and/or media heavyweights to sell us on a candidate.

The CNN article is well written and makes a very important point.  But will those in Washington be listening?  If those now in Washington hope to stay in power after 2010 and 2012, they might want to carefully consider yesterday’s results and Speaker O’Neill’s insightful words.

It’s time that ALL the politicians in Washington, including Obama, realize that the results in NY’s 23rd District and New Jersey are  NOT unique.  If Washington politicos think that they can roll out big wheels on either side – be it Palin, Thompson, or even Obama himself – they may be sadly surprised by the election results.

Americans are not all the same, and we resent anyone thinking that we are!  We reject being boxed into “right or left” or “liberal or conservative” corners.  The American people are reasonable and can share a mixture of views.  Yesterday’s elections results demonstrate this.  And they also demonstrate something else too:  that the American People are waking up to machinations of big-power politics!  Those who would want to continue controlling Washington may discover that they are voted out or power in 2010 and 2012.

Americans can’t be “sold” on a politician using marketing tactics like famous celebrity endorsements and glitzy ads.  Our votes are not for sale.  Commercials, endorsements, media hype tends to turn us off.  We’ve been disappointed too many times in the past by glossy, glitzy candidates who fizzle out once elected.  We want to know what a candidate is truly for or against, who they are as people, and how strong their character is.  These are traits that can’t be boxed into a glossy PR campaign!

 

 

Afghan Leader’s Brother Is On Payroll Of CIA

No wonder President Obama is taking his time making a decision regarding Afghanistan.  The New York Times has just revealed that the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) and is in also a major player in the illegal opium drug trade.

According to the New York Times:

‘More broadly, some American officials argue that the reliance on Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful figure in a large swath of southern Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, undermines the American push to develop an effective central

government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the United States to withdraw.”

To read more, here’s the link:  Brother of Afghan Leader Is Said to Be on C.I.A. Payroll – NYTimes.com

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan,government,Obama,NY Times,opium trade,CIA,war,Karzai

 

Single Payer System Works Everywhere Else: Why Not In America?

One of the elements of “change” that many Americans voted for was real reform for our health care system.  We voted for lawmakers who would move this country away from health insurance lobbyists and toward a health care system that is open and fair to everyone.

Some of us were hopeful that America would join the rest of the industrialized world by creating a single payer system – or a Medicare system for everyone. Sadly, it doesn’t look like real “change” we can believe in will happen.   Once again, the lobbyists in Washington, from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries as well as Wall Street, are exerting their power and control over the people we have elected.

Instead of representing us, as they are supposed to, these lawmakers choose to take funding for their ever-continuing political campaigns from corporate lobbyists who have sold their souls to keep the health insurance industry in control of the American people.  It’s no surprise that health insurers are the only private companies allowed to create and maintain monopolies (which would violate Federal anti-trust laws for any other businesses).  The health insurance industry has bought the votes of politicians – both in Washington and at the local level – to keep them unregulated and above the rules that apply to everyone else!

Congress is moving ever closer to passing a health care bill.  There is no doubt that a bill will be passed.  But, unless the American People speak up soon, and in one loud voice, the bill that finally reaches the President’s desk will only benefit the health insurance cartel.

Once the melding of the House and Senate bills takes place – most likely behind closed doors – we’ll feel and see the influence of insurance industry lobbyists:

1. Any hope for a public insurance plan or Medicare for all will be watered down or a very limited afterthought;
2. Everyone will be forced – via Federal law – to purchase a private insurance policy;
3. The insurance industry itself will be allowed to continue gouging Americans because lawmakers, who are largely funded by them, are unwilling to regulate them;
4. If there is a public plan, states will be allow to opt out of it which will be a boon to the insurance companies.  In many states, only one insurance company controls most of the market without competition.  These insurance companies, who fund local lawmakers, will influence them to opt their state out of the public plan.

Why not Medicare for all?  Why not a single payer system?  Why can’t the United States develop a viable and fair health care system for its citizens like every other major country?

There is one reason – the influence of the health insurers who will do anything to maintain their power and control.  These health insurers will buy votes to water down legislation or completely block it.  They will purchase minions who will become their mouthpieces to confuse issues, turn lies into truth, and cripple reform through propaganda.

“Public option” has become a dirty word because of propaganda.  ”Single payer” is equated to “socialism” and “communism” because of lies.

The truth is that most other developed and industrial countries have a single payer plan which is funded either publicly or privately, or a combination of both.  Nations who enjoy single payer include:

• Japan
• Israel
• Almost all of Europe
• The U.K.
• Canada
• Mexico
• See the complete list here

Another truth is that some Americans already enjoy the benefits of a single payer plan.  If you are on Medicare, you are in a single payer plan.

Ironically, some of those on Medicare, we saw this summer, were the loudest voices defending Medicare but yet shouting down the “public option” which would essentially be Medicare for all.  It’s not that these people shouting down the public plan at town hall meetings were greedy to deny others the same benefits they already enjoy.  No, not greed on their parts.  But it was a demonstration of the greed and power of influence of industry lobbyists to twist the truth and confuse the issue.

It’s time for all of us to become informed about health care and to discern the truth from the myths.  Here is a good place to start to begin debunking the lies:  healthactionnow.org.

Here are some other links:

• To learn about universal health care, single payer systems, and a list of nations currently providing single payer (including Medicare, SCHIP, & TRICARE in the U.S.):    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#United_States
• Two letters to the editor from Americans with interesting information about health care: 

 http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20090925/VIEWPOINTS03/909250301/1129/Single-payer+system+best;

and,

 http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_6967f5e2-bd40-11de-8076-001cc4c03286.html.

 

Bloggers Furious At White House For Anonymous Ridicule

From Sam Stein at The Huffington Post:

“Progressive bloggers were in an uproar Sunday night after a White House ‘adviser,’ speaking on condition of anonymity, urged them to ‘take off their pajamas’ and get serious about politics.”...Read more…

Bloggers Furious At White House For Anonymous Ridicule.

 

Insurance Company Greed Responsible For Soaring U. S. Health Care Costs

“The high cost of health care in the U. S. is the direct result of greedy insurance companies, with their high overhead and over-the-top salaries and bonuses for their executives,” says Joe Lombardo in letter to the editor of New York’s timesunion.com.

Mr. Lombardo clearly points out the problem of why the current attempts for health care reform will not work to reduce costs for the American people:  the insurance companies, who will profit from the current proposed legislation, will continue to sap Americans.

The letter cites a recent study comparing America’s health care to other nations who have a single payer system which is not even under consideration in the current legislation.

“Health care costs more in this country than any other place else on the planet,” Mr. Lombardo points out in his letter to the editor of timesunion.com, “because we put the profits of the corporations above the needs of the people.  The only way to remove the insurance companies –the Number One enemy of meaningful health care reform in this country — from the equation is to adopt a single payer system.”

Read more:  Health plan may benefit wealthy — Page 1 — Times Union – Albany NY:1260:.

 

Kucinich Reminds Us of Consequences in Rush to Judgment

I received this email from Representative Dennis Kucinich (D – Ohio).  The contents of Kucinich’s message (below) spell out clearly why a rush to judgment – when it comes to whether or not we go to war, or stay in one – can have dire consequences.  The Bush Administration used whatever tactics were necessary to rush this country into war on two fronts.  They had no plan, no strategy, and, in the case of Afghanistan, did not finish the job there before getting us involved with Iraq.  Now, nearly a decade later, we are still trying to resolve the mess created by those reckless decisions of the previous Administration.

Rather than repeating the same mistakes, Obama is taking time to make an informed decision regarding Afghanistan by discussing possible solutions with everyone involved including the commanders in the field.  He will, after hearing from all sides, make a decision, and probably a tough one; this is the President’s job – to make the hard choices.

Obama’s approach is more intelligent than Bush’s hectic utilization of troops and treasure.  But those with vested interests in continuing this war, at the expense of the lives of American soldiers and of our economy, want to steer public opinion away from a President who thinks things through.

Let’s give President Obama a chance to get this country out of this mess.  For the sake of our soldiers, and all future soldiers, let’s all practice some patience and give Obama this time to make, God willing, the right choices.

OCTOBER 2002 – IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION REVISITED

COMING TOMORROW…
"The Condition of
Health Care."

Download, print and circulate the petition among friends and neighbors.

Dear Friends,
Seven years ago this week the House of Representatives debated the Iraq War Resolution which was presented by President Bush. I made the case for NOT going to war. I analyzed the Bush war resolution, paragraph by paragraph, and pointed out "Key Issues" which argued against Congress voting to go to war. I distributed the attached analysis, personally, to over 200 members of Congress from October 2, 2002 until October 10, 2002 when the vote occurred.
When you hear people say: "If only we had known then what we know now," remember, some did know of the false case for war against Iraq. And since so many know now that we should not have gone to war against Iraq, then why are we still there?
Please read this analysis and let me know what you think.
Thank you.

P.S. – The "Whereas" clauses were verbatim from the 2003 Bush Iraq War Resolution. The "Key Issue" represented my commentary.

---

Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq
by Dennis J. Kucinich
October 2, 2002
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
KEY ISSUE: In the Persian Gulf War there was an international coalition. World support was for protecting Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq.
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
KEY ISSUE: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a published report in the Washington Post, the Central Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on Iraq’s WMD capabilities.
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
KEY ISSUE: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the United States then launched a cruise missile attack against Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a military strike, the US continues to thwart (the Administration’s word) weapons inspections.
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
KEY ISSUE: There is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A "continuing" threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. The Administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11.
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
KEY ISSUE: This language is so broad that it would allow the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there is no material threat to the United States. Since this resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since the resolution cites Iraq’s imprisonment of non-Iraqi prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with all requests to destroy any weapons of mass destruction. Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and Kuwait agreed to bilateral negotiations to work out all claims relating to stolen property and prisoners of war. This use-of-force resolution enables the President to commit US troops to recover Kuwaiti property.
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
KEY ISSUE: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it have the capability to attack the United States. The "no fly" zone was not the result of a UN Security Council directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States, Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
KEY ISSUE: There is no credible intelligence that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those events by assisting Al Qaida.
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
KEY ISSUE: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist groups in the Middle East, is an argument for focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the US to launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
KEY ISSUE: There is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11.
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
KEY ISSUE: There is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the willingness to use them against the United States Armed Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible information, which proves that Iraq has provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions.
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions with military force.
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
KEY ISSUE: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology of the international process, and contrasts the current march to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN resolutions.
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
KEY ISSUE: This "Sense of Congress" resolution was not binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it endorse assassination as a policy.

Technorati Tags: Kucinich,Afghanistan

 

Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to President Obama

President Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, according to the Huffington  Post.  He is now the third sitting President to receive the award.  Reasons cited include his efforts to reduce nuclear arms and his work to improve relationships between the United States and the rest of the World.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize.

 

Snowe’s Sway Over Baucus Committee A Good Thing

It’s no secret that Republican Olympia Snowe holds a lot of power in the Senate.  Her power comes from her willingness to reach across the aisle and work with the Democrats who are in the majority.

Snowe is reasonable.  She works with others, she’s willing to listen and then offer her own input and ideas on issues.  She does not name call nor does she practice obstructionism.  These are differences for the Maine Senator which set her apart from most of her fellow Republicans who are becoming, it seems more so every day, increasingly fanatic and unreasonable.

No more has Snowe’s power through reasonableness been felt recently than on the Senate Finance Committee headed by Montana Democrat Senator Max Baucus.

Snowe, working with New York Senator Charles Schumer, successfully amended the Committee’s health care reform bill which has been sharply criticized by both sides for its harsh penalties, including jail time for those without insurance, to force every American to purchase private insurance without applying any cost restrictions to the insurers.

Snowe’s efforts on the panel, with this new amendment, will now soften the impact of the personal mandate requiring people to purchase private insurance.

The Snowe / Schumer Amendment, which passed the Committee 22 to 1, would reduce the penalty for a family not having insurance down to $200 starting in 2014 and go up to $800 in 2017.  It would also exempt millions who would suffer financial hardship by purchasing insurance.

This amendment also overturns criminal penalties, including jail time, for not purchasing insurance.

“The obligation should be first and foremost on the United States government to ensure that these plans will be affordable in the marketplace.  It surprises me that we would have these high-level penalties on the average American when we have have no certainty about whether or not these plans will be affordable.  I just don’t understand why there’s this impetus to punish people,” Snowe said according to the NY Times.

Read this:  Panel Finishes Work on Health Bill Amendments – NYTimes.com.

 

New Progressive Memo Sent Around Hill Warns Against Finance Committee Health Care

Let’s hope that this memo gets through to those Senators on the Finance Committee. We need healthcare reform in this country but a giveaway to private insurance companies, requiring everyone to purchase their product, with no other choice, is not the way to go!
Most Americans – left, right, or somewhere in between, realize this, that the greed and abuses of private insurance companies are why we need reform now. But enriching these insurance – through a private mandate – WITHOUT AN ALTERNATIVE (like a public option) will do absolutely nothing to force these companies to change. That’s why we need the public option to compete against them.
Lawmakers need to get their acts together and work through the problems regarding the public option.
One of the major sticking points against the public option is its potential cost to the taxpayers. That’s a real concern, and it should not be on the back of the taxpayers.
The public option shouldn’t be taxpayer funded…it should be self-supporting, meaning that an individual choosing it would have to pay a premium for it just like with a private plan.
If lawmakers can put together a self-supporting public option – which will require people to purchase it and pay premiums, the same as they would do with a private insurance policy – this plan would probably be acceptable across the board.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost