-
It does seem that the bill is so bad that it will be very difficult to unentangle.
So the Dems should just offer to repeal it and simply add a list of covered drugs to Medicare (Part B, I think), and negotiate lower prices. This is what the Dems originally wanted, IIRC. It will sound very sensible and appealing, after the debacle of part D. The R's will try to say it is too expensive, but I'm willing to bet it isn't more expensive than the final figures for Part D. The R's will say they can't just repeal part D because of all the reliance so far. They will sound like obstructionists. They won't have an answer. But the Dems will. The problem will come in 2007, but by then someone will figure out how to do a transition, maybe as part of a move towards universal coverage.
The R's propose things all the time they know won't work--why can't the Dems propose something that will work if we can get to it?
Posted at January 27, 2006 3:41 PM in response to Save Ourselves!
-
And what are you proposing to do about those occupying Palestinian land (aka the settlers), Zionista? How do you propose to reconcile demographics (minority Jewish in Israel + Palestine) with democracy?
Posted at January 5, 2006 1:23 PM in response to Political Crisis in the Middle East
-
Assuming the House will have to come back and vote, the Dems and their allies in the blogosphere should publicize the add-ons that were stuffed into the budget reconciliation bill. One I have heard gives drug manufacturers liability. These measures are just one more thing to hang around the necks of those GOP pseudo moderates in the midterms. I think (unfortunately) that sometimes these add-ons arouse more public ire than the cuts to the poor. Besides, the Medicaid cuts include middle class seniors who give their assets to their children so that Medicaid will pay their nursing home bills.
Posted at December 21, 2005 2:22 PM in response to Still going...
-
Or do we forge new rules and new technologies in service of some improvement over the old ways?
It seems pretty clear to me that we are going to have to find a way to reverse the trend toward greater income inequality if we are to have a functioning economy (and democracy). I would not like to see the Dems adopt the R's strategies (since most are dishonest at the core), but rather come up with some better ideas. But I don't see why we can't shore up Social Security (it's not that bad) and have some real healthcare reform. Having everyone be at the mercy of the market in these areas is grossly unfair to people who didn't grow up privileged.Posted at December 9, 2005 10:36 AM in response to Do We Want a Fair Fight?
-
The loss of Congress would mean that the ability to control the agenda and add the earmarks that keep the campaign cash flowing would be lessened. An end to the conference committees that rewrite bills and give the body 1 day to vote on complex bills. Most of all, the investigation power would pass to the Dems. That would be crucial, because it would provide a way to shed light on the White House. Conversely, look at the mischief the GOP Congress made for Clinton. I think the focus on Bush is press habit and laziness, plus it gives a focus to the fight.
This makes it imperative to take at least one House of Congress next year. The existence of all these vote rigging and suppressing, gerrymandering, campaign funding extortion schemes etc shows that the GOP knows in its core that it can not win with a level playing field. Everyone who cares about the continuance of our democracy has to get involved in the fight to retake Congress.Posted at December 6, 2005 7:34 AM in response to What Matt Said...
-
And that is just the beginning. There is some evidence that Brent Wilkes (Conspirator # 1 in the Cunningham information) may have been getting lucrative defense contracts for shell companies and funneling the (taxpayer) money to GOP candidates. See the links at Laura Rozen's www.warandpiece.com. The San Diego papers are getting into the act as well. This could be as big as the Abramoff scandal, and probably has a common genius behind it--Rove and Norquist. Hopefully we can live to see the former frogmarched and the latter drowned in the bathtub.
Posted at December 5, 2005 3:56 PM in response to OFF CENTER...
-
We don't have to crack the Republican base to win. We need more swing votes, more Dems to actually come out and vote. There is no point in gratuitously alienating the GOP base, but it is not somethign the Dems are going to win or should try to win. Just win our own base and more swings, that would do it.
Posted at December 5, 2005 9:31 AM in response to OFF CENTER...
-
I haven't read your book, so don;t know if this has been discussed, but one factor seems to me to be the increasing passivity of the American people. In the '30s people fought back against economic unfairness and other things, same with the '60s and '70s. Then, somewhere along the line in the last 25 years (since Reagan), people seem to have become increasingly passive. They sit at home with TVs, Playstations or XBoxes and computers, and don't fight back. There is some use of computers for organizing, raising money and the like, but it seems to me that society is increasingly atomized and passive. That makes it easy for the GOP to get away with the kind of programs they pass, the residtribution of weaslth to the superrich, and all the rest of it. This is where the media complicity is kind of a double whammy to democracy.
I have no idea of the cure, but if we don;t break through this passivity, we won't take Congress in 2006/
Posted at December 5, 2005 8:24 AM in response to OFF CENTER...
-
This is the point. Wal-Mart undercuts employers who pay their people a living wage and offer good benefits. Wall Street is forever telling the head of Costco to pay his people less and make more profits, which advice he routinely resists. Wal-mart makes it harder to have an economy where profits stay in the community. Wal-Mart undercuts communities, compared to stores like Target, that sponsor many more community services.
I agree that the problem isn't that subsidies exist for workers that are underpaid by Wal-Mart. The problem is that the existence of these programs, which we support, allows Wal-Mart to undercut the less unscrupulous competition. Remember--that was why so many companies favored legislation to require a reasonable level of pollution control, because otherwise the companies that wanted to do the right thing were put at a competitive disadvantage. So we shouldn't get rid of the programs, just up the minimum wage and require employers to provide health insurance or pay higher taxes so the gov't can provide it.Posted at December 1, 2005 4:27 PM in response to More Wal-Mart
-
Don't forget Feingold. He came out for withdrawal first, and alone. But you are right, Murtha has a plan, and the Dems should get behind it and him. No gets my vote without acknowledging that the occupation needs to be brought to a conclusion next year, and promising more vigorous oversight by Congress for the remainder of the Bush/Cheney presidency. But taking at least one house of Congress is the most important task right now.
Posted at November 20, 2005 1:03 PM in response to Following the country, some distance behind
