On That Racial Dialogue
You know that Douglas Wilder, the first black elected governor of a state, must be serious about the remarks of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid when he compared them to the White Citizens' Council, a sort of kinder, gentler Ku Klux Klan from the 1960s-1970s American south. In a guest commentary in The Washington Times, the former Virginia Democratic governor argued
Whether those words and the sentiment they represent were spoken in the U.S. Senate to praise Mr. Obama or used to sanitize deep-seated hatred at a White Citizens' Council meeting in the 1950s, they are reprehensible and indefensible. No ifs ands or buts about it. Our leaders need to acknowledge that fact.
Declining, fortunately, to call for the resignation of the Nevada Senator, Wilder concluded
But that doesn't mean that we as a nation don't need to have a discussion about how far we have come and how far we have left to go. Let's talk rationally about race in this country - and catch up with the nation's young people, who are light-years ahead of certain folks with big offices on Capitol Hill.
Fair enough. The nation's young people (with many exceptions) "are light-years ahead of certain folks with big offices on Capitol Hill" and of many, if not most, individuals who grew up in an earlier time. And we do "need to have a discussion about how far we have come and how far we have left to go"- and about all facets of race in American society.
Nevertheless, it's not wise to borrow the legendary approach to prostitution of "Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price" by implying "we already know you're a racist, now we're just going to determine how to educate you." And the next time we on the left call for a dialogue on race, let's not start it by comparing those with a different perspective with a now-defunct organization remembered almost exclusively for trafficking in bigotry and hatred. It might be a little more productive that way.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Limbaugh's Take On The Health Care Tax
It can't be! A tax that Rush Limbaugh supports.
No, it's not the progressive income tax. Or the estate tax, dubbed the "death tax" bypropagandistsRepublicans who, Digby notes, long for an aristocracy in which any individual owning property over $3.5 million dollars can pass it on unencumbered.
No, it's the regressive excise tax in the Senate health care bill. Limbaugh on January 13 crowed
This is just out now from the National Journal's Congress Daily: "Unions tentatively struck a deal Tuesday to exempt collectively bargained healthcare plans from a tax on high-cost plans expected to be used to help raise revenue for the healthcare overhaul." I knew this was going to happen! The only people... Ahem! The only people who are going to be exempted from paying the Cadillac tax are people who make Cadillacs, the union workers who make them and make other things -- and a little piece of Nebraska as well. I knew this was going to happen.
(For what it's worth, the AFL-CIO has denied that a deal has been struck.)
Many unions have negotiated favorable health care plans for their members, most of them middle class, hardly the kind of American Rush speaks for. Often, these benefits are in lieu of higher wages. Still (or maybe because), Limbaugh is aghast- after all, they are "union workers who make them and make other things!" In Rush's world, CEOs and CFOs should never be discouraged from making as much money as possible, including million dollar bonuses with taxpayer money- but for the middle class, their health care must be taxed.
As Firedoglake's Jon Walker has noted, the burden of the tax may fall not only only on the middle class but also on the elderly because
The excise tax in the Senate bill is not structured to tax generous health care plans — just expensive ones. The problem is that relatively generous health care plans are not necessarily expensive and expensive plans are not necessarily generous. Age, region, and health status of the employee pool are primary determinants of the cost of a group insurance plan.
For example, a snowboard company with all young athletic employees could have an extremely generous insurance policy that costs relatively little, while a bakery with many older employees with health problems could have a very bare bones policy that still costs a lot. The limit should be based on the cost of the insurance if applied to the average demographic makeup of a group plan in the area. This will prevent the excise tax from simply being a tax on older Americans.
The excise tax is a flat tax assessed at 40% on all employer-provided benefit plans above a set dollar amount. This is a very regressive way to cap the tax-exempt status of health insurance.
One can imagine Limbaugh's reaction if President Obama had discouraged, rather than apparently encouraged, such a tax. Candidate Obama wisely- in both a policy and a strategic sense- criticized Senator McCain for proposing such a levy. Accusations of hypocrisy and worse would have flowed from the mouths of the right-wing talkosphere if the Administration had actively backed the wiser, more progressive surtax on the wealthy included in the House bill.
But give Rush credit! If consistency is the hobglobin of little minds, Limbaugh has a big mind- one that supports a tax if, and only if, it harms the middle class rather than asking the wealthy to bear its fair share. On that point, though, Rush Limbaugh is consistent- if it widens the gap between the wealthy and the middle class, he's all for it.
It can't be! A tax that Rush Limbaugh supports.
No, it's not the progressive income tax. Or the estate tax, dubbed the "death tax" by
No, it's the regressive excise tax in the Senate health care bill. Limbaugh on January 13 crowed
This is just out now from the National Journal's Congress Daily: "Unions tentatively struck a deal Tuesday to exempt collectively bargained healthcare plans from a tax on high-cost plans expected to be used to help raise revenue for the healthcare overhaul." I knew this was going to happen! The only people... Ahem! The only people who are going to be exempted from paying the Cadillac tax are people who make Cadillacs, the union workers who make them and make other things -- and a little piece of Nebraska as well. I knew this was going to happen.
(For what it's worth, the AFL-CIO has denied that a deal has been struck.)
Many unions have negotiated favorable health care plans for their members, most of them middle class, hardly the kind of American Rush speaks for. Often, these benefits are in lieu of higher wages. Still (or maybe because), Limbaugh is aghast- after all, they are "union workers who make them and make other things!" In Rush's world, CEOs and CFOs should never be discouraged from making as much money as possible, including million dollar bonuses with taxpayer money- but for the middle class, their health care must be taxed.
As Firedoglake's Jon Walker has noted, the burden of the tax may fall not only only on the middle class but also on the elderly because
The excise tax in the Senate bill is not structured to tax generous health care plans — just expensive ones. The problem is that relatively generous health care plans are not necessarily expensive and expensive plans are not necessarily generous. Age, region, and health status of the employee pool are primary determinants of the cost of a group insurance plan.
For example, a snowboard company with all young athletic employees could have an extremely generous insurance policy that costs relatively little, while a bakery with many older employees with health problems could have a very bare bones policy that still costs a lot. The limit should be based on the cost of the insurance if applied to the average demographic makeup of a group plan in the area. This will prevent the excise tax from simply being a tax on older Americans.
The excise tax is a flat tax assessed at 40% on all employer-provided benefit plans above a set dollar amount. This is a very regressive way to cap the tax-exempt status of health insurance.
One can imagine Limbaugh's reaction if President Obama had discouraged, rather than apparently encouraged, such a tax. Candidate Obama wisely- in both a policy and a strategic sense- criticized Senator McCain for proposing such a levy. Accusations of hypocrisy and worse would have flowed from the mouths of the right-wing talkosphere if the Administration had actively backed the wiser, more progressive surtax on the wealthy included in the House bill.
But give Rush credit! If consistency is the hobglobin of little minds, Limbaugh has a big mind- one that supports a tax if, and only if, it harms the middle class rather than asking the wealthy to bear its fair share. On that point, though, Rush Limbaugh is consistent- if it widens the gap between the wealthy and the middle class, he's all for it.
Harry Reid, Negro
The Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site reports that in the 1930s, its magazine
urged members to organize to support "the outlawing of the Poll Tax, the development of a Public Health Program, an Anti-lynching Bill, the end of discrimination in the Armed Forces, Defense Plants, Government Housing Plans and finally that Negro History be taught in the Public Schools."
At the time, the organization “joined with other major civil rights organizations to address racial and gender discrimination in New Deal and wartime policies and press for the establishment of the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC).” By 1960, it had “shifted its primary focus to housing” and now, according to its own website, it is active in a variety of causes, including teaming with the National Institutes of Health to fight obesity in the African-American community.
What is this organization? It’s the National Council of Negro Women, not to be confused with the National Association of Colored People. It’s something to remember, given that in “Game Change,” Mark Halperin and John Heilemann write that during the 2008 presidential primary season, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s
encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.
Back when Harry Reid was a young man, “Negro” (pronounced differently)- “black” in Spanish- was an improvement upon “colored.” At one time, worshippers on Sunday joyfully sang hymns of praise to God. Reportedly
Because slaves were often banned from using musical instruments, they created complex voice harmonies. The words of the songs were often taken from stories in the Bible that told about freedom and hope for a better future.
Alas, these were called not “African-American spirituals,” but instead “Negro spirituals,” such as this one (video below).
Of course, Reid did not refer to “Negroes” but to a “Negro dialect.” The media could have probed this issue of a distinct “Negro dialect,” but that would have required thoughtful consideration of an issue the Majority Leader raised, rather than recourse to characterizing Reid as a racist, or defending him from such charges. It would not have been nearly as much fun, only more informative and enlightening.
The Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site reports that in the 1930s, its magazine
urged members to organize to support "the outlawing of the Poll Tax, the development of a Public Health Program, an Anti-lynching Bill, the end of discrimination in the Armed Forces, Defense Plants, Government Housing Plans and finally that Negro History be taught in the Public Schools."
At the time, the organization “joined with other major civil rights organizations to address racial and gender discrimination in New Deal and wartime policies and press for the establishment of the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC).” By 1960, it had “shifted its primary focus to housing” and now, according to its own website, it is active in a variety of causes, including teaming with the National Institutes of Health to fight obesity in the African-American community.
What is this organization? It’s the National Council of Negro Women, not to be confused with the National Association of Colored People. It’s something to remember, given that in “Game Change,” Mark Halperin and John Heilemann write that during the 2008 presidential primary season, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s
encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.
Back when Harry Reid was a young man, “Negro” (pronounced differently)- “black” in Spanish- was an improvement upon “colored.” At one time, worshippers on Sunday joyfully sang hymns of praise to God. Reportedly
Because slaves were often banned from using musical instruments, they created complex voice harmonies. The words of the songs were often taken from stories in the Bible that told about freedom and hope for a better future.
Alas, these were called not “African-American spirituals,” but instead “Negro spirituals,” such as this one (video below).
Of course, Reid did not refer to “Negroes” but to a “Negro dialect.” The media could have probed this issue of a distinct “Negro dialect,” but that would have required thoughtful consideration of an issue the Majority Leader raised, rather than recourse to characterizing Reid as a racist, or defending him from such charges. It would not have been nearly as much fun, only more informative and enlightening.
Climate Change And Skepticism Of Scientists
George Marshall is the founder and director of projects at the Climate Outreach and Information Network and founder in England of what he refers to as a climate change charity. His "blog explores the topic of the psychology of climate change denial." Back in July, he analyzed the inability of scientists to convince the British public that changes in climate are due primarily to greenhouse emissions, commenting 'polls over the past five years have shown that 40% of people in Britain resolutely refuse to accept that our emissions are changing the climate. In the US it is over 50%. He observed
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done a particularly poor job of promoting itself as an authoritative and trustworthy institution. It should be telling the story of how it achieves consensus on an unprecedented scale, and enabling its most presentable participants to speak directly to the world.. At present, under sustained skeptic attack, it can’t even provide a list of the people involved in the process. It has no human face at all – the only images on its website are the covers of reports or the beach resort where it will hold its next meeting.
The single greatest quality of the people we trust and believe is that they appear to be like us and understand our needs and values. We badly need to widen the range of voices speaking on climate change and, inevitably, this means that climate experts relinquish some of their dominance and become more concerned with enabling others to speak.
That was more than three months before the servers at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were hacked. Discovered were millions of e-mail messages, which climate change skeptics claimed (largely unjustifiably) showed a conspiracy among scientists to suppress evidence contradicting the evidence of the human origin of global warming. In November, Marshall recognized it as "an organized smear campaign" but lamented
climate scientists have always misunderstood the dynamic of public belief and trust. They assume that belief will be built on their data and that public trust is merited by their authority. With the exception of a few outstanding communicators, they often make no attempt to speak to deeper values or make an emotional connection with the public – indeed they see that as contrary to their professional independence.
Climate change deniers have always understood this. They use language that is designed to appeal to deeper values (such as freedom, independence, progress). The narrative they tell of being determined (and even persecuted) free-thinkers, standing against the tide of oppressive and self-interested conformity is designed to create an aura of integrity and trustworthiness.
It may, however, not be only climate scientists who (unfortunately) lack legitimacy with, at least, the American public. It may seem odd- and probably is- to cite the writings of George F. Will as a voice bolstering the credibility of scientists, given his ham-handed attack on climate science early last year. But back in 1982, when there existed a more sensible Will, the long-time syndicated columnist set out to do just that in a column "Well, I Don't Love You, E.T." Identifying the bias of the popular movie about the lovable extra-terrestial, Will noted
Throughout the movie they have been hunting the little critter, electronically eavesdropping on the house and generally acting like Watergate understudies. They pounce upon E.T. with all the whirring, pulsing, blinking parapernalia of modern medicine. He dies anyway, then is inexplicably resurrected. He is rescued from the fell clutches of the scientists by a posse of kid bicyclists and board a spaceship for home. This variant of the boy-sundered-from-dog theme leaves few eyes dry. But what is bothersome is the animus against science, which is seen as a morbid calling for callous vivisectionists and other unfeeling technocrats.
A childish (and Rousseau-ist) view of children as noble savages often is part of a belief that nature is a sweet garden and science and technology are spoilsome intrusions. But nature is, among other , things, plagues and pestilences, cholera and locusts, floods and droughts. Earlier ages thought of nature in terms of such afflictions. As Robert Nisbet says, this age can take a sentimental view of nature because science has done so much to ameliorate it.
Disdain for science usually ends when the disdainer gets a toothache, or his child needs an operation. But hostility to science is the anti-intellectualism of the semi-intellectual.
There are those, such as this freelance science journalist, who would doubt that denial of global warming is encouraged by a general disdain for science. Further, much of the resistance to the extremely strong case presented by scientists is attributed to the strongly religious/Christian nature of the American populace- but how then to account for the skepticism of residents of Great Britain, a highly secular society? Hostility toward scientific inquiry and intellectualism, even among individuals who steer clear of all churches on every day but December 25, clearly does play a role in skepticism about the predominately human nature of climate change. It's something we ought to remember as progressives/liberals go about criticizing charges of the deniers while the mainstream media attribute to the latter equal credibility as of scientists.
George Marshall is the founder and director of projects at the Climate Outreach and Information Network and founder in England of what he refers to as a climate change charity. His "blog explores the topic of the psychology of climate change denial." Back in July, he analyzed the inability of scientists to convince the British public that changes in climate are due primarily to greenhouse emissions, commenting 'polls over the past five years have shown that 40% of people in Britain resolutely refuse to accept that our emissions are changing the climate. In the US it is over 50%. He observed
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done a particularly poor job of promoting itself as an authoritative and trustworthy institution. It should be telling the story of how it achieves consensus on an unprecedented scale, and enabling its most presentable participants to speak directly to the world.. At present, under sustained skeptic attack, it can’t even provide a list of the people involved in the process. It has no human face at all – the only images on its website are the covers of reports or the beach resort where it will hold its next meeting.
The single greatest quality of the people we trust and believe is that they appear to be like us and understand our needs and values. We badly need to widen the range of voices speaking on climate change and, inevitably, this means that climate experts relinquish some of their dominance and become more concerned with enabling others to speak.
That was more than three months before the servers at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were hacked. Discovered were millions of e-mail messages, which climate change skeptics claimed (largely unjustifiably) showed a conspiracy among scientists to suppress evidence contradicting the evidence of the human origin of global warming. In November, Marshall recognized it as "an organized smear campaign" but lamented
climate scientists have always misunderstood the dynamic of public belief and trust. They assume that belief will be built on their data and that public trust is merited by their authority. With the exception of a few outstanding communicators, they often make no attempt to speak to deeper values or make an emotional connection with the public – indeed they see that as contrary to their professional independence.
Climate change deniers have always understood this. They use language that is designed to appeal to deeper values (such as freedom, independence, progress). The narrative they tell of being determined (and even persecuted) free-thinkers, standing against the tide of oppressive and self-interested conformity is designed to create an aura of integrity and trustworthiness.
It may, however, not be only climate scientists who (unfortunately) lack legitimacy with, at least, the American public. It may seem odd- and probably is- to cite the writings of George F. Will as a voice bolstering the credibility of scientists, given his ham-handed attack on climate science early last year. But back in 1982, when there existed a more sensible Will, the long-time syndicated columnist set out to do just that in a column "Well, I Don't Love You, E.T." Identifying the bias of the popular movie about the lovable extra-terrestial, Will noted
Throughout the movie they have been hunting the little critter, electronically eavesdropping on the house and generally acting like Watergate understudies. They pounce upon E.T. with all the whirring, pulsing, blinking parapernalia of modern medicine. He dies anyway, then is inexplicably resurrected. He is rescued from the fell clutches of the scientists by a posse of kid bicyclists and board a spaceship for home. This variant of the boy-sundered-from-dog theme leaves few eyes dry. But what is bothersome is the animus against science, which is seen as a morbid calling for callous vivisectionists and other unfeeling technocrats.
A childish (and Rousseau-ist) view of children as noble savages often is part of a belief that nature is a sweet garden and science and technology are spoilsome intrusions. But nature is, among other , things, plagues and pestilences, cholera and locusts, floods and droughts. Earlier ages thought of nature in terms of such afflictions. As Robert Nisbet says, this age can take a sentimental view of nature because science has done so much to ameliorate it.
Disdain for science usually ends when the disdainer gets a toothache, or his child needs an operation. But hostility to science is the anti-intellectualism of the semi-intellectual.
There are those, such as this freelance science journalist, who would doubt that denial of global warming is encouraged by a general disdain for science. Further, much of the resistance to the extremely strong case presented by scientists is attributed to the strongly religious/Christian nature of the American populace- but how then to account for the skepticism of residents of Great Britain, a highly secular society? Hostility toward scientific inquiry and intellectualism, even among individuals who steer clear of all churches on every day but December 25, clearly does play a role in skepticism about the predominately human nature of climate change. It's something we ought to remember as progressives/liberals go about criticizing charges of the deniers while the mainstream media attribute to the latter equal credibility as of scientists.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Making It Up
On January 7, MSNBC anchormen/women/persons David Shuster and Tamryn Hall were discussing Rush Limbaugh's recent treatment for chest pains in Queens Hospital in Hawaii. After playing a tape of Limbaugh saying "Real reform of the health care system would involve nothing like we have done in the House and Senate: Cost control, increasing access to health care," Hall commented "Is Rush kind of changing his tune? At first it was nothing was wrong with our system, and now he is bringing up what the Democrats have said all along: It's a cost issue."
This really got Rush's dander up and he claimed
Now, the real funny thing in this sound bite was that they quote me as saying, "There's nothing wrong with the US health care system," but what I was talking about in Honolulu was private health care. I got private health care.
As the video (below, but choppy) indicates, Limbaugh at the press conference upon his discharge stated
The treatment I received here is the best that the world has to offer. Based on what happened here, I don't think there is one thing wrong with the American health care system. It is working just fine, just dandy and..... I got no special treatment.
Nothing in there about his care having specifically been "private health care." Nothing about the private sector, the public sector, fee for service, insurance companies; only "the best that the world has to offer," a system "working just fine, just dandy" and not just for him ("no special treatment.")
Perhaps Rush Limbaugh, inexperienced at speaking into a microphone, singularly inarticulate, and unfamiliar with health care issues (well, that part may be true), really had intended to talk solely about "private health care," as he claimed.
Or maybe he was lying. This is not so extraordinary in GOP-land. On November 24, former Bush 43 press secretary Dana Perino told Sean Hannity "we did not have a terrorist attack on our cuntry during President Bush's term" (video way below). On the December 27 edition of CNN's State of the Union, veteran GOP operative Mary Matalin imagined "I was there, we inherited a recession from President Clinton, and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history." On Matalin's calendar, September 11, 2001 preceeded January 20, 2001.
Now along comes former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who on ABC's Good Morning America on January 8 asserted "We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama."
As tristero notes January 8 on Digby's Hullabaloo blog, there are the complicating matters of the anthrax terrorism, Richard Reid, the July 4, 2002 on El Al at LAX, and attacks on abortion clinics in 2001, 2005, 2006, and 2007. And those do not include the attack on the World Trade Center and related effort to hit Congress with a plane, which thankfully ended in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Presumably, Giuliani did not consider the 9/11/01 incident a "domestic attack" or forgot about it. He was only mayor of New York City at the time.
There is a point to the sarcasm. Rudy Giuliani did not forget, nor is his definition of a "domestic attack" idiosyncratic. He is not stupid, crazy, or being ironic. He was l-y-i-n-g.
And as if to confirm that impression: minutes earlier, at 3:33 p.m., CNN's Rick Sanchez read a release he received at that moment from a spokesman for Mr. Giuliani, who claimed the latter had been "clearly talking post-9/11 about Islamic attacks on our soil." Post 9/11? Clearly?
It's not just Rush, or about health care, anymore.
On January 7, MSNBC anchormen/women/persons David Shuster and Tamryn Hall were discussing Rush Limbaugh's recent treatment for chest pains in Queens Hospital in Hawaii. After playing a tape of Limbaugh saying "Real reform of the health care system would involve nothing like we have done in the House and Senate: Cost control, increasing access to health care," Hall commented "Is Rush kind of changing his tune? At first it was nothing was wrong with our system, and now he is bringing up what the Democrats have said all along: It's a cost issue."
This really got Rush's dander up and he claimed
Now, the real funny thing in this sound bite was that they quote me as saying, "There's nothing wrong with the US health care system," but what I was talking about in Honolulu was private health care. I got private health care.
As the video (below, but choppy) indicates, Limbaugh at the press conference upon his discharge stated
The treatment I received here is the best that the world has to offer. Based on what happened here, I don't think there is one thing wrong with the American health care system. It is working just fine, just dandy and..... I got no special treatment.
Nothing in there about his care having specifically been "private health care." Nothing about the private sector, the public sector, fee for service, insurance companies; only "the best that the world has to offer," a system "working just fine, just dandy" and not just for him ("no special treatment.")
Perhaps Rush Limbaugh, inexperienced at speaking into a microphone, singularly inarticulate, and unfamiliar with health care issues (well, that part may be true), really had intended to talk solely about "private health care," as he claimed.
Or maybe he was lying. This is not so extraordinary in GOP-land. On November 24, former Bush 43 press secretary Dana Perino told Sean Hannity "we did not have a terrorist attack on our cuntry during President Bush's term" (video way below). On the December 27 edition of CNN's State of the Union, veteran GOP operative Mary Matalin imagined "I was there, we inherited a recession from President Clinton, and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history." On Matalin's calendar, September 11, 2001 preceeded January 20, 2001.
Now along comes former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who on ABC's Good Morning America on January 8 asserted "We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama."
As tristero notes January 8 on Digby's Hullabaloo blog, there are the complicating matters of the anthrax terrorism, Richard Reid, the July 4, 2002 on El Al at LAX, and attacks on abortion clinics in 2001, 2005, 2006, and 2007. And those do not include the attack on the World Trade Center and related effort to hit Congress with a plane, which thankfully ended in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Presumably, Giuliani did not consider the 9/11/01 incident a "domestic attack" or forgot about it. He was only mayor of New York City at the time.
There is a point to the sarcasm. Rudy Giuliani did not forget, nor is his definition of a "domestic attack" idiosyncratic. He is not stupid, crazy, or being ironic. He was l-y-i-n-g.
And as if to confirm that impression: minutes earlier, at 3:33 p.m., CNN's Rick Sanchez read a release he received at that moment from a spokesman for Mr. Giuliani, who claimed the latter had been "clearly talking post-9/11 about Islamic attacks on our soil." Post 9/11? Clearly?
It's not just Rush, or about health care, anymore.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Intimidating Terminology
The Republican Party generally seems to be exorcised about President Obama's terminology when he addresses the issue of terrorism.
On the Today show on January 5, RNC Chairman Michael Steele criticized the President:
If you can't call a thing what it is, then there's a question about what do you think it is? You, you can't look at this as, as a, as an intervention. You can't look at this as dealing with criminals as you would the guy who robbed the 7-11, you know, where you're trying to hijack a plane or bomb a plane or something like that....
I think the American people know full well what it is, they view it as a war against terrorism.
And Steele argued that the former
Vice President has, has made it very clear and I think he's been very consistent and correct in saying that the inconsistency in, in the Obama administration's approach to foreign policy, particularly with respect to terrorism is a concern. If you can't, if you can't call a thing what-
After the President's statement on January 6, New York's Peter King, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, told the New York Daily News
He seems to be genuinely angry and I would think that's paving the way for someone to go (but) "He still refuses to use the word 'terrorism.'"
President Obama does seem to prefer the appellation "extremist" but does not ignore the term "terrorist" or "terrorism."In his remarks, Mr. Obama had referred to "suspected terrorist" and "individuals with terrorist ir suspected terrorist connections" and to the "list of state sponsors of terrorism" and the "terrorist watch list system" (twice).
The tendency of some conservative Republicans periodically to make things up is curious. But of particular interest as applied to terrorism is their tendency to use the word "war"- against terrorism, against Islamic extremists, or just plain "war."
Because it's not. George W. Bush consciously decided not only not to declare war against Iraq (securing an authorization to use force instead) or against Afghanistan (fought with one hand tied behind our back) but also against Al Qaeda. President Obama has followed suit.
And it's not as if we are precluded by morality or legality from declaring war against terrorists or, specifically, Al Qaeda. Three days after the attack on the World Trade Center 8-9 years ago, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick wrote:
If Osama Bin Laden's group al-Qaida proves to be responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, can the United States declare war on him and his organization?
Yes....
Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is constitutionally empowered to declare war on terrorists and is not obligated to name a host country. Article I authorizes Congress to "define and punish Piracies, Felonies committed on the High Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.
Lithwick might have been right when she contended declaring a "war" on terrorism sounds as toothless and vague as declaring "war" on drugs." But it is not as toothless, vague, and evasive as dishonestly claiming the President does not use the word "terrorist" or that he wants to treat terrorists as common thiefs. Or that we are in a war. If Obama's opponents believe that the President is insincerely claiming that he is appalled by terrorists and terrorism, they can call his bluff and introduce a resolution to declare war, or call upon Congress to do so.
The Republican Party generally seems to be exorcised about President Obama's terminology when he addresses the issue of terrorism.
On the Today show on January 5, RNC Chairman Michael Steele criticized the President:
If you can't call a thing what it is, then there's a question about what do you think it is? You, you can't look at this as, as a, as an intervention. You can't look at this as dealing with criminals as you would the guy who robbed the 7-11, you know, where you're trying to hijack a plane or bomb a plane or something like that....
I think the American people know full well what it is, they view it as a war against terrorism.
And Steele argued that the former
Vice President has, has made it very clear and I think he's been very consistent and correct in saying that the inconsistency in, in the Obama administration's approach to foreign policy, particularly with respect to terrorism is a concern. If you can't, if you can't call a thing what-
After the President's statement on January 6, New York's Peter King, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, told the New York Daily News
He seems to be genuinely angry and I would think that's paving the way for someone to go (but) "He still refuses to use the word 'terrorism.'"
President Obama does seem to prefer the appellation "extremist" but does not ignore the term "terrorist" or "terrorism."In his remarks, Mr. Obama had referred to "suspected terrorist" and "individuals with terrorist ir suspected terrorist connections" and to the "list of state sponsors of terrorism" and the "terrorist watch list system" (twice).
The tendency of some conservative Republicans periodically to make things up is curious. But of particular interest as applied to terrorism is their tendency to use the word "war"- against terrorism, against Islamic extremists, or just plain "war."
Because it's not. George W. Bush consciously decided not only not to declare war against Iraq (securing an authorization to use force instead) or against Afghanistan (fought with one hand tied behind our back) but also against Al Qaeda. President Obama has followed suit.
And it's not as if we are precluded by morality or legality from declaring war against terrorists or, specifically, Al Qaeda. Three days after the attack on the World Trade Center 8-9 years ago, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick wrote:
If Osama Bin Laden's group al-Qaida proves to be responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, can the United States declare war on him and his organization?
Yes....
Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is constitutionally empowered to declare war on terrorists and is not obligated to name a host country. Article I authorizes Congress to "define and punish Piracies, Felonies committed on the High Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.
Lithwick might have been right when she contended declaring a "war" on terrorism sounds as toothless and vague as declaring "war" on drugs." But it is not as toothless, vague, and evasive as dishonestly claiming the President does not use the word "terrorist" or that he wants to treat terrorists as common thiefs. Or that we are in a war. If Obama's opponents believe that the President is insincerely claiming that he is appalled by terrorists and terrorism, they can call his bluff and introduce a resolution to declare war, or call upon Congress to do so.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Blaming The Senate
Ezra Klein of The Washington Post usually is a sane and sober analyst of health care reform. And in "After health care, we need Senate reform," he notes
The Democrats ended up focusing on health-care reform's low-hanging fruit: the bill the Senate ultimately passed does much more to increase coverage than it does to address the considerably harder problem of cost control, it strengthens the existing private insurance system and it does not include a public insurance option. And Democrats still could not find a single Republican vote, which meant they had to give Nebraska a coupon entitling it to a free Medicaid expansion and hand Joe Lieberman a voucher that's good for anything he wants. If the Senate cannot govern effectively even when history conspires to free its hand, then it cannot govern.
The Senate bill does: increase coverage more than it addresses the more complex problem of cost control; strengthen the existing private insurance system; and lack a public option. Moreover, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson have intimidated Democrats, ultimately controlling the process and, apparently, the eventual outcome.
But who are these "Democrats?" It was not Harry Reid's decision (video below) to endorse single-payer health care in 2003 (whether in June or December). Nor was it Harry Reid's decision to cede ground to the right. As in football, field position is critical. Kick the ball into the end zone and require the opposition to go 80 yards to score. Or deliberately kick the ball out-of-bounds, allowing the opposition to start its drive at the 40-yard-line. The Democratic Party could have proposed a single-payer system initially, forcing the GOP to push back and accept a robust public option Or it could have started by proposing a relatively weak public option, eventually taking solace in the hope that sometime, somehow, the bill could be improved. President Obama and his chief of staff chose the latter path and it has led to this.
Some elements of health care reform could not be approved without a sixty-vote majority. However, with only 50 votes (plus Vice-President Biden) necessary under reconciliation, expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, sufficiently increased revenue, and a government option could have been secured. Medicare would not need have been threatened, taxation of generous health insurance programs (many of them gained by collective bargaining) could have been averted, and there might have emerged real competition for the health insurance industry. But Rahm Emanuel, the power behind the throne, would not have been pleased.
The Byrd Rule prevents the Senate from passing non-budget items without at least 60 votes. Klein identifies "a coming budget crisis, catastrophic climate change and an archaic and inefficient tax system" as among "a few" other problems which won't "be solved until we fix the dysfunctions of the Senate."
Here is one other "problem," as the wealthy and well-connected see it: the rising cost of entitlement programs. "Fix" the Senate, get a 51-vote Republican majority in the Senate (or 50 plus a GOP president), and watch them go to work against programs which help the elderly. Means-test Medicare? No problem. Privatize Social Security, enriching Wall Street at the expense of older Americans? No problem.
As Drew Westen implies, President Obama's strategy has been to "Let Congress work it out, and whatever comes out, call it a victory." And then, evidently, sit back and watch the pundits blame Congress for the failure to secure effective health care reform.
Ezra Klein of The Washington Post usually is a sane and sober analyst of health care reform. And in "After health care, we need Senate reform," he notes
The Democrats ended up focusing on health-care reform's low-hanging fruit: the bill the Senate ultimately passed does much more to increase coverage than it does to address the considerably harder problem of cost control, it strengthens the existing private insurance system and it does not include a public insurance option. And Democrats still could not find a single Republican vote, which meant they had to give Nebraska a coupon entitling it to a free Medicaid expansion and hand Joe Lieberman a voucher that's good for anything he wants. If the Senate cannot govern effectively even when history conspires to free its hand, then it cannot govern.
The Senate bill does: increase coverage more than it addresses the more complex problem of cost control; strengthen the existing private insurance system; and lack a public option. Moreover, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson have intimidated Democrats, ultimately controlling the process and, apparently, the eventual outcome.
But who are these "Democrats?" It was not Harry Reid's decision (video below) to endorse single-payer health care in 2003 (whether in June or December). Nor was it Harry Reid's decision to cede ground to the right. As in football, field position is critical. Kick the ball into the end zone and require the opposition to go 80 yards to score. Or deliberately kick the ball out-of-bounds, allowing the opposition to start its drive at the 40-yard-line. The Democratic Party could have proposed a single-payer system initially, forcing the GOP to push back and accept a robust public option Or it could have started by proposing a relatively weak public option, eventually taking solace in the hope that sometime, somehow, the bill could be improved. President Obama and his chief of staff chose the latter path and it has led to this.
Some elements of health care reform could not be approved without a sixty-vote majority. However, with only 50 votes (plus Vice-President Biden) necessary under reconciliation, expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, sufficiently increased revenue, and a government option could have been secured. Medicare would not need have been threatened, taxation of generous health insurance programs (many of them gained by collective bargaining) could have been averted, and there might have emerged real competition for the health insurance industry. But Rahm Emanuel, the power behind the throne, would not have been pleased.
The Byrd Rule prevents the Senate from passing non-budget items without at least 60 votes. Klein identifies "a coming budget crisis, catastrophic climate change and an archaic and inefficient tax system" as among "a few" other problems which won't "be solved until we fix the dysfunctions of the Senate."
Here is one other "problem," as the wealthy and well-connected see it: the rising cost of entitlement programs. "Fix" the Senate, get a 51-vote Republican majority in the Senate (or 50 plus a GOP president), and watch them go to work against programs which help the elderly. Means-test Medicare? No problem. Privatize Social Security, enriching Wall Street at the expense of older Americans? No problem.
As Drew Westen implies, President Obama's strategy has been to "Let Congress work it out, and whatever comes out, call it a victory." And then, evidently, sit back and watch the pundits blame Congress for the failure to secure effective health care reform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Party Of Deception The Huffington Post, gushing about the Kennedy memorial service in Boston last night, exclaimed that Senator Orrin Hatch...
-
In April, President Donald Trump asked French President Emanuel Macron "why don't you leave the EU?" The same month,...
-
Since the Obama Administration, a few voices on the right lamented the apparent erosion of the concept of the USA as a nation of laws a...
