Q. What was the last major health entitlement to be enacted in the U.S.?

A. Medicare Part D, in 2005 by a Republican Congress and Republican President.

 

What's more, the original fears about the explosive costs of the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit have turned out to be unfounded. In fact, as this recent article notes, the ten-year cost for the benefit is now expected to be 40% less than the original CBO estimate. And this "government-run" program is working very well, and is extremely popular with those taking advantage of it.

 

Granted, Republicans would undoubtedly say that Part D is only working well and costing less because they created it, not Dems, but I still think it might be worth reminding them of a few of these inconvenient facts.

I have agreed with several posts on this site about how DC is still "hard-wired" to turn to Republicans and conservatives as experts and media guests, despite the fact that they keep getting their backsides handed to them in elections. This morning on CNN was a perfect example: the arrest of four bumbling idiots in Riverdale, NY for terrorism was spun wildly out of control as breathless "breaking news," and the guest politician commenting on the development was Rep. Peter King (R-NY), one of the leading and outstanding a**holes ever elected to public office. His few minutes were a tour-de-force, spinning this minor arest into a major "terrorism is back and gonna getcha" watershed. He even managed to use it to turn the debate back to closing Gitmo and slamming Obama. Say what you want about King - and I got plenty to say about this clown - he provided just what CNN wanted, an over-the-top and breathless political reaction to its "breaking news."

 

King is Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee and was duly noted as such in the interview, so there is some reasoning behind his appearance outside of just being from the NYC area. But Riverdale is actually represented by Eliot Engel, a Dem who also happens to be Jewish (the alleged target was the Riverdale Temple). I don't know if CNN extended an invite to Engel, much less to the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, but if not it's a symptom  of the "hard-wired" problem. It could also be that both were asked and declined, which would also be a problem. And who is the Chair of Homeland Security, you ask? Guy named Bennie Thompson, who I have never before seen on any TV program.

 

Bottom line, if Dems want to break through the cycle of the media asking clowns like King to be interviewed, they need to be available and need to make good TV so they'll get asked back.

Sounds dirty I know, but it's pretty tame - unless you think of Republicans as dirty. I know I do.

 

Anyway, here it is: assuming passage of a bill, even with a compromise, a substantial number of Republicans will still oppose the conference report. So my fantasy is that during debate over approving the report one House Democrat and one Senate Democrat take time on the floor to invite all Republicans opposed to the bill to come on down and state right then and there that they will do everything in their power to ensure that not a dime of stimulus funds is spent in his or her state/district. It's quite simple, just come down and state right there, in front of the U.S. Congress and American public, that you will not be a hypocrite and vote against the bill but utilize its funds. And let's start with you, Mssrs. Boehner and DeMint.

 

And if they won't, they're either chickens or liars. So which is it?  

It is a misery these days in the field of journalism that reporters seem unable to figure out a basic fact-- just because political hacks put out press releases that say things, that doesn't make it "news." Today's Washington Post article on a recent local election in Northern Virginia, in which the Democrat running for chair of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors barely edged out the Republican, is a textbook example. The headline says it all: "Close Loss Cheers Republicans."

Right - a local board election on a snowy day in January, which the Republican candidate still did not win, is proof that Republicans are going to come back strong in northern Virginia and turn that newly blue state back to red.  

I nominate the reporter for editor of the sports page--I would have loved to see Monday's headline, "Close Loss Cheers Cardinals."

So in the elusive quest among notable DC wankers for bipartisan cooperation on Capitol Hill, the Wash Post helpfully explores the nature of "bipartisanship" in a front-page article today. The verdict--both the House stimulus vote and the Senate vote on the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization (SCHIP) "broke along party lines," and represent partisan grandstanding on the part of Democrats.

 

If you didn't already know, nine Senate Republicans voted with all Democrats present to reauthorize SCHIP. Nine Republicans, out of forty-one, means nearly a quarter of the entire caucus voted for SCHIP. But that apparently isn't bipartisan enough for the Post. So I wonder, what is the magic threshold, 10? 20? All of 'em? I sure wish the Post would tell me, because otherwise I won't be able to decide for myself.

 

Why is this important? Becuase it's obvious that as long as one single Republican can get knicker-knotted over a vote, and run to the Post and cry about how the meany Dems aren't being "bipartisan," this newspaper (and its widely syndicated articles) is going to continue to spread the falsehood that congressional Democrats are ruthless, partisan hacks running roughshod over the poor oppressed minority. And that Obama is apparently powerless to stop them. If you have a moment, please contact the Post as I have and help them learn how to count.  

An article to today's Wash Post exploring the "just oppose" strategy of congressional Republicans to the stimulus notes they were emboldened to act by, quote, "dozens of emails and phone calls" opposing the stimulus.

 

That's right - "dozens." You know, I get a dozen emails at work before I even finish breakfast. But of course, I'm not an important member of the House of Representatives.

Hear me now, and hear me well--keep thinking that those dozens of contacts really represent the will of the American people. Keep thinking that Rush Limbaugh is an appropriate spokesperson for your party. And please, keep pissing off immigrants, pregnant women, and just about anyone who isn't currently sporting a penis, driving a truck and wearing a John Deere hat. You will make the task of creating a lasting progressive majority that much simpler.

The lunatic fringe on the right just can't get any more worked up about Al Franken's win in MN, and the increasingly unhinged Wall Street Journal is leading the charge. Today's contribution--an op-ed by constitutional lawyer Michael Stokes Paulsen of St. Thomas University in Minneapolis, arguing that the recount was "unconstitutional."

 

Paulsen says that, like the "fiasco in Florida," the MN recount was "chaos," and like Florida, its lack of standards is "rightly regarded as controversial." OK, I guess at least you're consistent, right? Slamming Bush v. Gore and the MN recount equally.

 

Of course, it always helps your argument if you bear the weighty authority of an established legal scholar like Paulsen, whose stunning article, "Capt. James T. Kirk and the Enterprise of Constitutional Interpretation" in the seminal work Star Trek Visions of Law and Justice, begins with, "But as a 'trekkie' and a law professor, I can find stunning and prophetic constitutional insights in Star Trek reruns if I want."

 

Ah, the doughy pantload geeks of strict constitutionalism. Bless their hearts.

So it's come to this. Anti-gay Prop 8 supporters in California have sued to keep donors who supported the initiative secret, in defiance of state campaign finance laws, because they "should [not] have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes."

 

For the record: the campaign of terror against this assortment of Mormons and homophobes includes a Prop 8 opponent who told a supporter he would gun her down for her support of the initiative "if I had a gun." Other features of the homosexual hate parade--a broken window, a flyer calling a supporter a "bigot," and the ever-popular envelope-filled-with-harmless-white-powder. Medgar Evers should have been so threatened.

 

I'm from the old school - I think when a bigoted majority oppresses a minority, you should burn the mother down. But in this case, if a few vague threats and some broken windows are enough to send Prop 8 supporters into a quivering fit of vapors, all the better. I'm heading to Cali next week and I intend to get that list of supporters off the CA Sec. of State's website, and personally TP all their yards. That'll teach 'em not to mess with my homies.

So, do any of you think the MSM has a bias in favor of Obama, the Democratic Party and progressive ideas in general?

 

I didn't think so, but Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell sure does. In fact, she has written two columns in a row arguing that the Post needs to address its pro-Obama "bias perception." Notice the use of "perception" in the headline, i.e., "a bunch of rightwing complainers think the Post is biased, ergo we must give credence to their perception."

 

I have a perception of my own - I perceive that this is nothing less than an orchestrated conservative campaign against the Post to convince its reporters and editors that they have a pro-Obama slant, and to stick it to the Obama Administration good to make up for it. And they know how to do it, too - just ask Dan Rather.

 

Even more disappointing, the Post doesn't seem to be hearing any outrage from non-ideologues decrying this brazen attempt to slant its coverage rightward. I hope anyone who reads this will help correct that situation - a Post cowed by the rightwing spin machine and terrified of doing or saying anything that could be PERCEIVED as "pro-Obama" is not something the new Administration needs to have in its own backyard.   

Is Ed Henry of CNN. My favorite part is this:

"But if McCain fails and Republicans lose more ground in Congress, there will be a lot of soul-searching. Palin could emerge as the woman who almost saved John McCain and become his heir apparent in 2012 -- and represent the future of the GOP. "

 

Um, isn't that sort of like calling the iceberg the thing that almost saved the Titanic?

Today's Wall Street Journal has an article about how Democrats are elitist, and how Barack Obama is the most elitist candidate since Adlai Stevenson. In addition to giving the columnist a chace to make reference to Adlai Stevenson,  the main point of the column is to warn Democrats that unless they get with the program and get their own version of reg'ler gal Sarah Palin, we are doomed to lose elections because of our elitist ways.

The column, by the way, is written by someone named Lynn Forester de Rothschild. She is identified as CEO of a "private investment firm."

Thanks for the advice, Your Grace, it is very much appreciated. And might I note that the irony factor is way exponential with the addition of the "de" to "Rothschild" in your last name. Maybe you can run for president on the Democratic ticket instead of Elitist Obama, who doesn't even have a winery in the family, much less any claim to relations with the most rich and powerful family since the Medicis - excuse me, the "de" Medicis.

And thank you, Wall Street Journal, for asking a Rothschild to denounce the Democrats as elitist. To me, that's kind of like having my table manners criticized by Hannibal Lector, but what the hell do I know - I'm an elitist.

A very interesting analysis of the recent tracking polls offers anyone hyperventilating over Obama's recent numbers and imagining a 2004 Kerry redux some comfort - Obama is doing better than Kerry with almost every demographic, and impressively so with up and coming demo groups like young and Latino voters. In fact,there is only one group in which Obama is currently lagging in support compared to four years ago - 65+ voters.

Last month I posted an item on how Obama voted to preserve adequate payments for Medicare providers while McCain a) didn't bother to show up to vote and b) issued a statement afterwards saying he would have opposed the bill (Republicans opposed measures to hit insurance companies to pay for the doc payments).

So, just in case there are any Obama campaign folks out there, let me say it one more time - hit McCain HARD on Medicare. Seniors are reliable voters and they like their Medicare - the ad writes itself, Obama stood up for Medicare while McCain sided with fat cat insurance companies. This one is easy.

We know Obama has the "youth vote" thing going, and I suspect many Democrats think that seniors (particularly white seniors) are more inclined to support McCain and have written them off. I think that's a mistake - in just the past day, McCain has famously dismissed Social Secrity as a "disgrace," and in what I think is a monumental blunder, McCain was the ONLY senator missing from yesterday's vote in the Senate to prevent a devastating cut in payments to physicians treating Medicare patients. Even Ted Kennedy took a break from cancer treatment to show up and vote, for the first time since his diagnosis. Where was McCain? Campaigning. 

So, the next time your elderly parents, friends, associates, or relatives express doubts about Obama and/or support for McCain, tell them that Obama took a break from the campaign trail to save Medicare but McCain couldn't be bothered. If they rely on Medicare as so many seniors do, they need to know this.  

Ah, the intellectual epicenter of the vast right-wing stupidity - I refer of course to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, whose lead editorial today (careful, it burns) castigates congressional Democrats for playing "games" with supplemental funding for the troops. At issue - the failure of the Democratically-led House to approve supplemental funding last night by a vote of 149-141. But wait, you say, there are 435 reps, how can this be? The answer: at the last minute, 131 conservative Republicans simply voted "present," ensuring that anti-war Democrats would garner enough votes to defeat the funding provision.

This is how the WSJ viewed it: "They [meaning Democrats] pulled the stunt of approving the domestic spending but voting down the war money." Of course, back here on the big blue marble, anyone with half a brain knows the only ones pulling a "stunt" on the supplemental were the Republicans. Heck, even those with less than half a brain know it - I give you Republican Minority Leader John Boehner speaking about the maneuver: "It was a political scheme."

Obviously, what the WSJ said today was an enormous, mendacious, deceitful, dishonest, untruthful, big, fat, LIE. But once you've all picked yourselves up off the floor at the very idea that the editorialists at the WSJ would ever be less than forthcoming, let's take a minute to examine this a bit more closely. Seems to me that these guys are depserately trying to send a signal here to their most conservative (and therefore otherwise uninformed) readers - don't blame the Republicans, please. Given all the great news the Republican Party has had this week, it makes sense. The last thing they need right now is to further alienate their base.

And yet, that's exactly what they did. This little stunt was cooked up by the same leaders who are telling House Republicans that they are losing because they aren't conservative enough--and I expect this "scheme" will work about as well as that advice has. But only if everyone knows about, and not just the inside-the-beltway types. So cue up those commercials and press releases, please - let's see all 131 Republicans listed with a tagline: "Refused to support funding for our troops." 

That's a millstone around the neck congressional Democrats recognize only too well, and it's high time it was returned to its rightful owner.  

And no, this has nothing to do with the Democratic primary, or even Amy Winehouse. A post on pacifism at James Wolcott's blog has me thinking - if Obama is our next president, where and when would American military intervention be used?

I think this will be one of the most difficult and gut-wrenching issues for a potential Obama administration, even more so than a potential withdrawal from Iraq. There is no question in my mind that Americans are increasingly turning away from considering the military response as the reaction of first choice in a crisis, particularly after Iraq. And it will also be true that Obama is going to have to dance with them what brung him, some of whom seem very vocally pacifist.

But will President Obama - or any future president for that matter - really reject all military responses unless the U.S. itself is attacked first? Or will future presidents also continue to define when and where a military response is appropriate? 

Another issue that brings this to mind is the terrible situation in Myanmar - like Afghanistan under the Taliban, Myanmar-Burma suffers under a brutal and wildly delusional authoritarian regime. The fact that the Myanmar military junta is unwilling or unable to help the victims of the recent cyclone is bad enough - that they also are preventing outside help from getting to the people that need it most is truly unconscionable. Is this a case where a military response - an overthrow of the junta accompanied by massive humaitarian aid - would be appropriate? I really don't know enough about Myanmar to say yes or no. As with any military intervention, it would complicate things tremendously in the area, and undoubtedly rile the very powerful Chinese, so it's not cut and dried for me.

Beyond the humanitarian scope, and certainly getting beyond the campaign tough talk, what about Iran? What if the Mahdi-blessed nutjob running that show does decide to attack any other nation under Obama's watch? Would his current supporters back a military response, or would they unleash pacifist fury even against Obama if he did pusue a military option?
 
Strict pacifism is a lovely thing, but I for one do not think it makes viable foreign policy. The only question I have is, after eight years of our own homegrown nutjobs bombing everything in sight, I'm afraid we will have a hard time in the next administration returning to a suitable balance between idealism and pragmatism when it comes to military power.