Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
The "thumping" taken by the Republican Congress on election day was not just a rejection of K Street corruption and the catastrophe in Iraq. It was a call to action on issues that are more immediately relevant to people's lives. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will begin to answer that call by pushing a "100 Hours" agenda--including common-sense legislation to increase the minimum wage, cut interest on student loans and open the way for Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices.
That's a good beginning, but it's only a down payment on a broader agenda. As Bill Moyers writes in this issue, progressives now have the opportunity to develop a new vision that returns power to the American people for the first time in generations. Moyers is right that to-do lists don't add up to a vision. But Democrats must show they are serious by passing bold measures that define a new "people's agenda." With that in mind, here are ten existing pieces of legislation that deserve to be passed by our new Congress. Some of these bills are eminently passable, a few are related to the "100 Hours" agenda and others can be seen as long-term goals. But all would help return our nation to the path to a more perfect union (note: Bill numbers may change in the new Congress).
1. Healthcare for All
More than 47 million Americans are now living without health coverage. Representative John Conyers's United States National Health Insurance Act (HR 676) would create a single-payer healthcare system by expanding Medicare to every resident. All necessary medical care would be covered--from prescription drugs to hospital services to long-term care. There would be no deductibles or co-payments. Funding would come from sources including savings from negotiated bulk procurement of medications; a tax on the top 5 percent of income earners; and a phased-in payroll tax that is lower than what employers currently pay for less comprehensive employee health coverage. With seventy-eight Congressional co-sponsors, and the endorsement of more than 200 labor organizations as well as healthcare groups, there is muscle and momentum behind this bill. To get involved, check out www.Healthcare-Now.org.
2. Counting Every Vote
Representative Rush Holt has introduced the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (HR 550) requiring all voting systems to provide a voter-verified paper trail to serve as the official ballot for recounts and audits. It would also insure accessibility for voters with disabilities. The bill, which was introduced in February 2005 and which currently has 222 bipartisan co-sponsors, was tied up in committee by the Republican Congress. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones introduced the Count Every Vote Act (S 450 and HR 939), which also calls for a voter-verified paper trail and would improve access for language minority voters, illiterate voters and voters with disabilities. Co-sponsors of that legislation include Senators John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy and Barbara Mikulski, and seventy-nine House members.
3. Healthy Families Act
According to Washington Post columnist Amy Joyce, "nearly half of all private-sector workers in the United States do not have a single day of paid sick leave. And more do not have a paid day off that can be used to care for a sick child." Seventy-five percent of low-wage workers lack paid sick leave--the very people who can least afford to take a day off and still be able to pay the bills. In 2005 Senator Edward Kennedy and Representative Rosa DeLauro introduced the Healthy Families Act (S 932 and HR 1902)--a bill that would require employers with fifteen or more workers to provide one week of paid sick leave for those who work thirty or more hours a week. Employees who work less than that would receive prorated leave. The leave could be used to care for family as well. The new Democratic Congress is expected to hold hearings on the legislation, which has fifteen original co-sponsors in the Senate and seventy-one in the House, in early 2007.
4. The Right to Organize
The Employee Free Choice Act (S 842 and HR 1696) would strengthen workers' freedom to organize by requiring employers to recognize a union after a majority of workers sign cards authorizing representation. It also would create stronger penalties for management violations of the right to organize when workers seek to form a union. Currently there are 214 co-sponsors of Representative George Miller's House bill (including fourteen Republicans) and forty-four co-sponsors of Kennedy's legislation in the Senate (including Republican Senator Arlen Specter). This legislation would go a long way toward helping the 57 million nonunion workers in the United States who, according to polls, would form a union tomorrow if given the opportunity.
5. No Permanent Bases in Iraq
Representative Barbara Lee, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has proposed House Conference Resolution 197, which declares that it is "the policy of the United States not to enter into any base agreement with the Government of Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence in Iraq." By passing this bill, Congress can send a clear and immediate signal to the Iraqi people and the international community that the United States has no intention of staying in Iraq indefinitely. There were eighty-six co-sponsors of Lee's legislation, including three Republicans.
6. Stop Outsourcing Torture
Representative Ed Markey's Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act (HR 952) directs the Secretary of State to submit to Congress an annual list of countries where there are substantial grounds for believing that torture or cruel and degrading treatment is commonly used in detention or interrogation. The bill prohibits the direct or indirect transfer or return of people by the United States for the purpose of detention, interrogation, trial or other purposes to a listed country. Given the recent history of black sites, torture flights, innocent victims and suspension of habeas corpus, this legislation should be an immediate priority. It is one modest step in the right direction. It currently has seventy-seven co-sponsors.
7. Access to Higher Education
Senator Richard Durbin and Representative George Miller's Reverse the Raid on Student Aid Act (S 2573 and HR 5150) would cut interest rates on college loans for student and parent borrowers. The legislation would save $5,600 for the typical student borrower, who currently graduates with $17,500 in student-loan debt. The Durbin-Miller legislation cuts interest rates in half, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, for students with subsidized loans, and from 8.5 percent to 4.25 percent for parents. Earlier this year, the GOP Congress cut $12 billion out of federal student aid programs to help finance tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. The average tuition and fees at four-year public colleges have risen 40 percent when adjusted for inflation, since 2001, according to the College Board's Annual Survey of Colleges. And the average student debt has increased by more than 50 percent over the past decade, according to the Project on Student Debt. With economic inequality and the concentration of wealth reaching unprecedented levels, improving access to higher education is essential. It also is critical if we are to reverse the trend of the US workforce lagging behind other nations in education.
8. Free and Independent Media
Representative Maurice Hinchey sponsored the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA--HR 3302), which seeks to restore a diverse media by significantly lowering the number of media outlets one company is permitted to own in a single market. Since 1996 the Federal Communications Commission has promoted massive media consolidation by increasing that number, allowing telecommunications corporations to buy up a larger share of television and radio stations, newspapers and other media outlets, and forcing independent and local media owners out of business. There are sixteen co-sponsors of MORA in the House.
9. Public Financing of Campaigns
Representative John Tierney introduced the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act (HR 3099) last year with thirty-nine Democrats and one Independent as co-sponsors. The bill establishes a voluntary system that offers candidates an option for public financing and reduced rates on broadcast advertising in exchange for self-imposed limits on campaign financing and spending. Participating candidates get a dollar-for-dollar match, up to a set limit, if a nonparticipating opponent spends more than the basic public-financing grant. This system would free candidates from the burden of continuous fundraising; allow those who obtain a prescribed number of contributions to run regardless of their economic status or access to large funders; and, perhaps most important, eliminate the skewed priorities caused by the financing of campaigns by special-interest contributors.
10. Clean Energy
Last May Senator Maria Cantwell introduced the Clean EDGE Act (S 2829) with twenty-four Democratic co-sponsors. The bill sets a goal of reducing US petroleum consumption by 6 million barrels a day by 2020--or 40 percent of America's projected imports. It mandates that 25 percent of new vehicles sold in the United States by 2010 be flex-fuel capable (able to run on higher blends of biofuels, which help to displace petroleum), rising to 50 percent by 2020. It also sets a national goal of installing alternative fuels at 10 percent of US gas stations by 2015. The bill also makes gas price-gouging a federal crime. It ends subsidies for major oil companies and extends incentives for renewable energy and efficiency technologies. To shrink US dependence on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the bill requires that 10 percent of all US electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. A report by the Apollo Alliance and the Economic Policy Institute estimates that the Clean EDGE Act would create more than 500,000 jobs, including tens of thousands in states hit hardest by the loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs.
This list is by no means all-inclusive. But these are good and important initiatives that address longstanding and formidable challenges.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
ok...prepare for the contoll assault! light the torches! form a line! dont fire till you see the whites of their eyes!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/05/2007 @ 1:20pm
contRoll that is...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/05/2007 @ 1:21pm
1. Healthcare for All ---Single payer plan? Not likely (atleast not until a Dem Presidency...even then). Hillary-care atleast PARTIALLY responsible for what happened to Dems in 1994...not likely they'll take it on again first time back in power since then.
2. Counting Every Vote -- Probably pass, but frought with boobytraps for Dems later on.
3. Healthy Families Act -- 50/50 chance. Again, back to 1993 and the Family & Medical Leave Act. Opponents then said "Watch out, when Dems come back in 5 years (turned out to be longer) they'll want it to become PAID leave...another un-funded mandate for business"...and would be proved right.
4. The Right to Organize -- Sure to pass. After twelve years, Dems HAVE to pay off their home-boys...the unions.
5. No Permanent Bases in Iraq -- Tough to argue, since we have permanent bases in Germany, Japan, South Korea. Likely "put on a shelf", until the Dems can figure out if they're for WITHDRAWAL of ANY troops first.
6. Stop Outsourcing Torture -- Interesting to see how US Senator Sherrod Brown would vote in the Senate on this....since he voted FOR the "Military Commissions Act" when he was in the House last year!
7. Access to Higher Education --- Will pass, should pass, and Bush will likely sign. But not a "Sam Graham-Felsen 'free college for everybody'" package...not even after 2008 and a Democratic White House.
8. Free and Independent Media -- Not likely, Dems won't go after "Big Media"....especially with a measly 16 co-sponsers.
9. Public Financing of Campaigns -- Not likely, now that Dems have power, not likely to cut their own throats as far as campaign financing goes.
10. Clean Energy -- Lot of "goals" and demands on industry, but not much "meat". Plus watch Michigan/Detroit Democrats to "fine tune" the requirements against the auto makers.
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 1:23pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/05/2007 @ 1:17pm
By the way, IBBLE...that would be Alvy Moore, who played Hank Kimball on "Green Acres"...who also PRODUCED "A Boy & His Dog" and co-wrote the script with LQ Jones.
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 1:30pm
6. Stop Outsourcing Torture
this is obviously a job that Americans could be doing right here in the USA.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2007 @ 1:30pm
Thanks for keeping these important proposed measures up on our "radar" (RAdio Detecting And Ranging) screens, Katrina.
Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2007 @ 1:32pm
Posted by ZERO 01/05/2007 @ 2:00pm
Anybody SERIOUSLY think ZERO could maintain any audience if he ran a blog, magazine, radio show, etc.?
Somehow he expects "The Nation" to do stories ONLY on Iraq, Israel and Iran ad nauseum, totally ignoring anything else happening in the world. They do a TON of stories on it (Check Tom Engelhardt's latest)...and when they delve into domestic policy, ZERO takes them to task and says Ms vanden Heuval is "trying to distract liberal voters".
He's almost as irritating as RESE or PLUNGER!
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 2:19pm
In fact, she's basically at one with the motives of the 9/11 terrorists,
why don't you come right out and call Pelosi a terrorist, Frei? one of your worst, muddled posts. just throw everything in your paranoid cuisinart, abortion, global warming, Israel, it's all grist in your mill. no nuance here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2007 @ 2:40pm
"if Bush's plans in Iraq ended up successful in the minds of voters..."
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/05/2007 @ 2:32pm
Two questions
1. WHEN is that supposed to happen?
2. WHAT IS "the plan" exactly?
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 2:49pm
"if Bush's plans in Iraq ended up successful in the minds of voters..."
Voters with minds? Now that's assuming a lot, especially imagining that what they have in their noodles actually means anything to their overlords.
Posted by chimichenga at 01/05/2007 @ 2:54pm
Posted by ZERO 01/05/2007 @ 2:00pm
Good post, ZERO. Pelosi's "first 100 hours" looks more like a distraction from the fundamental issues than anything else. We already have Carl Levin saying there's no strict distinction between "surge" and "non-surge". Then there's this:
A WAR against Iran could be launched within the next two years, a senior adviser to George Bush warned last night. CIA specialist on Iran Reuel Marc Gerecht said there had been a "tidal shift" of opinion towards military action, especially in Israel. (that cinches it)
He added: "I think it has now become highly likely the Israelis will launch a strike before the end of George Bush's presidency." It is likely to be backed up by American and possibly British air support from Iraq.
http://tinyurl.com/y4wyjr
(Gerecht, who served as the director of the Middle East Initiative of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), argued that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would stir a democratic revolution in Iran. According to Gerecht, "If President Bush follows his own logic and compels his administration to follow him against Iraq and Iran, then he will sow the seeds for a new, safer, more liberal order in the Middle East."
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1191 )
Follow the link if you want to see what a nincompoop Reuel Marc Gerecht is. His recommendations and analyses are so wide of the reality that it's entirely reasonable to ask if he's serving the interests of some country other than America. I think it's highly likely that the Democrats will go along with an attack against Iraq. The israel lobby will get what it wants from the Democrats. That's why so many of them voted to invade Iraq.
Posted by fromredbird at 01/05/2007 @ 3:00pm
I'll have to see the Democrats do something before I'll believe it.
As far as Ellison, he appears to be very much in tune with the Democratic Party elite's litmus test of being "right" on israel. The only people he makes anxious are the ones who harbor a visceral hatred of any and every Muslim. There are quite a few here but they won't admit it openly.
Posted by fromredbird at 01/05/2007 @ 3:15pm
The one thing that TRULY makes me hopeful about the Democratic Party ....
is the fact that guys like ZERO and FROMRED are suspicious, cynical, even distrustful of it.
If the Fringeys aren't happy....I feel a lot safer!
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 3:25pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 3:52pm
I wouldn't fret it LL. I have faith in the American people and when they see extremism, they soundly reject it.
Take for example...South Dakota and its abortion law!
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 4:07pm
You know, I'm almost ready to support government sponsored universal health care. Not because thats' the answer, but because the slow strangulating, semi socialist medical system we've had for 25 years now is so totally fucked up, & no politician will ever advocate the REAL answer, which is to get business out of the business of Health Care plans and turn it back over to consumers.
As for "HEALTHDAYS", sometimes I think Katrina won't be satisfied till we're all off for something every day of the year. 'Course, when the money dries up, she'll probably blame that on business too.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/05/2007 @ 4:12pm
LVL,
not MANY.
MOST American's support a womans choice to abort her pregnancy.
Since it's MOST it by definition isn't EXTREME.
Marbles going LVL?
Posted by freedomplease at 01/05/2007 @ 4:36pm
murdering innocent children is an extremist viewpoint.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 4:40pm |
"Unless it's China...then it's an internal matter and none of our concern!"----Rev. Pat Robertson.
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 4:49pm
LVL,
rewrites the definition of a word and brings God wrath into a NON RELIGIOUS thread all in one quick posting.
Good work whako....I suggest you up the meds!
Posted by freedomplease at 01/05/2007 @ 5:02pm
Posted by MASK 01/05/2007 @ 1:30pm
really? i love that scene where robards, moore and the woman were explaining "the deal" to don...
"well you first, sister!" robards & compny laugh, woman blushes, cut to scene of don strapped into a "sperm sucking" machine...
or the early scene with the boss guy pushing around, berating, and beating upon his ubderlings and don says to the dog something like "i wonder why they hang out with that guy?"
so many good lines...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/05/2007 @ 5:42pm
Posted by MASK 01/05/2007 @ 1:30p
on topic...
well, you cant say the dems dont have a plan...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/05/2007 @ 5:44pm
Wow. If Nancy Pelosi is quoted accurately then I'm as surprised and disappointed as anyone here.
Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2007 @ 6:47pm
Whether that judgment is in this life or when they face God in judgment is up to Him. But it will happen.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 4:40pm
The instrument of God has spoken. Convince me this nut isn't capable of blowing up family planning clinics someday.
Posted by MASK 01/05/2007 @ 4:49pm
You used to write with some clarity of thought but I think I'm through with you unless you regain at least the ability to accurately reflect someone elses views . . .
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 5:22pm
Someone else being LVLIBERTY1. Or else.
Don't be such an ass about trying to twist words like FRB does.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 5:22pm
What a damning indictment from an impeccable source. One example from the last 24 hours: "almost all the troops support Bush" (not even remotely close, I posted an Army Times poll that utterly refutes this one) There are so many more.
Posted by fromredbird at 01/05/2007 @ 6:56pm
9. Public Financing of Campaigns
There is plenty of money already raised for elections, the problem is distributing it fairly. Instead of using tax dollars to fund campaigns, come up with a way of taking a portion of the money from those who raise the most and giving it to those who raise the least.
Posted by Snarfangel at 01/05/2007 @ 6:56pm
I think it's highly likely that the Democrats will go along with an attack against Iraq. The israel lobby will get what it wants from the Democrats. That's why so many of them voted to invade Iraq.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/05/2007 @ 3:00pm
Iran, not Iraq. They already did Iraq.
Posted by fromredbird at 01/05/2007 @ 6:58pm
come up with a way of taking a portion of the money from those who raise the most and giving it to those who raise the least.
Posted by SNARFANGEL 01/05/2007 @ 6:56pm | ignore this person
never gonna happen, neverrr
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2007 @ 7:03pm
think this through for a moment Snarfy. do you think I as millionaire X am going to give money to say Hillary, knowing that some of it will be taken away and given to Obama? of course not.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/05/2007 @ 7:11pm
Hey Katrina,
What weren't you at least honest enough to title this for what it is,,, Top 10 for a Socialist Amerika
I mean when are the socialists going to become honest brokers in our national debate? Perhaps because they know that if they put forth these agendas honestly as part of their socialist agenda, the American people would soundly reject them.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/05/2007 @ 3:52pm
1. Healthcare for All 2. Counting Every Vote 3. Healthy Families Act 4. The Right to Organize 5. No Permanent Bases in Iraq 6. Stop Outsourcing Torture 7. Access to Higher Education 8. Free and Independent Media 9. Public Financing of Campaigns 10. Clean Energy
LVLIBERTY1, you are a not-yet-certified nut. Enjoy your status while it lasts.
Are you really so out of it that you think most Americans wouldn't support all these issues? Jesus, what a sap. The governor of California is, right now, working on a plan to provide healthcare to all Californians which about 75% of Californians support. You are a social, poltical, and religious extremist. You have issued both explicit and implicit threats of violence in just the last 24 hours. In short, you are the core constituency of the Republican Party, the party that should never again be allowed to govern.
Posted by fromredbird at 01/05/2007 @ 7:17pm
taking a portion of the money from those who raise the most and giving it to those who raise the least.
Posted by SNARFANGEL 01/05/2007 @ 6:56pm
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"??
although first used by Louis Blanc, most often credited to...
Karl Marx!
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2007 @ 9:59pm
How about...
1. UNIVERSAL DENTAL CARE for ALL CITIZENS. If this could be made to work smoothly and efficiently it would pave the way for Universal Health Care. And it's certainly a worthy issue.
2. WAGE A WAR ON WEIGHT. 65% of Americans are over weight. This condition impacts every aspect of the economy from health issues to fuel consumption. Airlines should charge by the pound and they would not all be going out of business. Cars are too big for most common needs. People should have the right to choose, but the government should promote and reward healthy, smart choices.
3. GLOBAL WARMING. A Manhattan-style project beginning immediately.
4. IRAQ. Leave.
5. EDUCATION. Make any and all levels of education TAX DEDUCTIBLE.
6. ELECTION REFORM. Paper ballots and 2 day, weekend voting. There's no reason and elections have to happen in one day and the results can't wait.
7. DECRIMINALIZE NON-VIOLENT DRUG RELATED OFFENSES.
8. MAKE THE PRESIDENCY ONE SIX-YEAR TERM. Take the politics, at least electoral politics, out of the executive branch.
9. TAX CHURCHES and RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. Keep or increase their charitable deduction limits.
10. GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF WOMENS PERSONAL HEALTH CHOICES and DON'T TRY TO LEGISLATE LIFE STYLES.
Posted by tomm9050 at 01/05/2007 @ 11:40pm
Posted by ZERO 01/05/2007 @ 2:00pm
maybe i'm way off here but i think somethting profound has occured in american politics...i dare not classify it in terms of left/right liberal/conservative, but rather simply in
a) a loss of confidence in the status quo, which is..."conservative republicania"...
and
b) a desire for truly responsible government that is a good investment for our yax dollar
and
c) more fairness
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/06/2007 @ 03:19am
yak's dollar? oops - tax dollar...yeah, thats it...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/06/2007 @ 03:20am
Good grief!
Seriously, folks, it's a bad idea. These bills that impose new regulations and mandate that we spend our money in certain ways is just wrong-headed. Sure it's warm and loving and shows a sense of empathy for the less fortunate, but it's also creepy, pin-headed and elitist.
I honestly don't understand why anyone would want to surrender their dignity to a nanny state like this. We are not children! It is nothing short of irresponsible and reckless to live in this fantasy world. We are adults. We are leaders and survivors and we, as citizens of this country, are selling ourselves pitifully short to nestle under the wings of socialism.
It is so upsetting and disappointing to see these fanciful ideas gaining any footing. They are a disgraceful waste of one of our most precious resources: Individual self reliance and strength. And to that end they work to corrode our confidence as a people in the most powerful force divinity has created: Ourselves.
Posted by Person at 01/06/2007 @ 08:09am
The first 100 hours will take 100 days, the Senate will strip most of the socialism out of it and Bush will veto what survives and there are not enough votes for over ride...recsultoing in nothing...
conclusion....The socialists in the House will have 15 min of fame will be over, especially if anyone actually READS what is in the bills, and will be accused of not exiting Iraq fast enough while not passing anything...and with any luck, conservatives, real ones will emerge from the ashes of Bush Republicans to clean out the circus that will be the next 2 years in the House..if not, grab you wallets and head to the post office for health care (unionized of course) should President Hillary sign the bill...and we sink into the masses...
or
America wakes up and realizes the answers are not in Washington and not in more taxes, which takes away from all who earn...
I love goal that has free health care for all(illegals, too?)...yup, Dems want to buy their votes too by giving away another chunk of the treasury..
I am looking into overseas banking...
Posted by john maasch at 01/06/2007 @ 10:43am
Person,
Thats a good post but it is also where you miss the boat here....the fact you, I and millions like us are the ENEMY,since most here do not have the drive and will sell their freedoms away for a unionized promise to be taken care of...trouble is the people all end up equal...equal and traped in an hourly wage, the govt traps the taxes , there is no pressure to improve and life will be easy...and stale...free meedical, free food, free day care, free sick days, free toilet paper, free housing, free vacations, and free bicycles...gas will be taxed out of existance as will oil companies, and they, along with any enterprise that doesn't allow itself to be taxed to death will disappear...we will all work for the People...The Peoples Country...sounds kinda grey...
I won't go along and will not be here...those who feel as I do will have taken to the ballot box, the streets or the road..and gone...the Dems will not clean out K street, since it existed before the Dems lost power 12 years ago...they need it to stay in power, as the list they want to push will hopefully also push them out of office..America needs a true conservative and a conservative approach...it wins everytime it is tried...Bush killed off the Reagan conservatives...and Bush 2 killed off the conservative revolution in the Congress....and they did what the Dems couldn't do on their own with a plan or policy appeal to the voters, The Bushes put the dems in power by default as they became incompetent and were justifiably fired...It is now up to those who give a shit to clean out this nest of clowns in 2 years...or hide your assets and find a sanctuary, because the spending increase will only have begun...
Posted by john maasch at 01/06/2007 @ 10:57am
After reading the article and the list of goals I have come to the conclusion that I am the enemy.
Posted by john maasch at 01/06/2007 @ 10:58am
Maasch, this so phony. the Bush spends your and my kid's money on war, bankrupts the country, blowing it all in Iraq, but as soon as anyone wants to spend our resources here to help ALL americans, we are treated to this whining.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/06/2007 @ 11:05am
1. Healthcare for All
2. Counting Every Vote
3. Healthy Families Act
4. The Right to Organize
5. No Permanent Bases in Iraq
6. Stop Outsourcing Torture
7. Access to Higher Education
d Independent Media
9. Public Financing of Campaigns
10. Clean Energy
as a public service I have created this template so that posters may be able to comment on each individual item. bring 'em on.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/06/2007 @ 11:34am
The list you site are titles that sound good...read the fine print....and this wil cost more than any war...health care alone, part of medicare? check the history of cost on that program alone.....The war in Iraq is a separate issue and to think that to quit Iraq tomorrow and by Wednesday we can have the "list" is naive at best. We can't afford the list...vote records, sure.
The spending and mandates are the danger..The Dems will not cut 1 cent, and in fact the shopping list is a HUGE increase in spending for more programs THAT WILL NOT DELIVER WHAT WAS SOLD AND PROMISED that will take more than stealing taxes from the rich or any one else..and will caost a hell of a lot more than the "War"...the truth is that the war is all these bloggers have..they are all war, anti war, at any time all the time. It is their monster under the bed. They do not want the US to have a vital intetest anywhere but here, but that is not reality.
Jr, look at the details...thats where Satan lives.....
Posted by john maasch at 01/06/2007 @ 11:54am
Jr, look at the details...thats where Satan lives.....
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/06/2007 @ 11:54am | ignore this person
why don't you give some details of your objections. and the cost of the war, the financial ones, are huge, getting larger all the time. now do the cost benefit analysis. at least with healthcare, americans are the ones to benefit, which can hardly be said of the war.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/06/2007 @ 11:57am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/06/2007 @ 10:43am
Pelosi won't take much of a hit from the "First 100 hour" stuff scoring MAYBE a 25% success rate.
the conservative Dems and Repubs in the House will "take the blame" from the MS Media for what doesn't get out of the House and Reid will get a pass for not passing much of it (or watering it down) as he "has a very slim margin".
The Media won't let anything BAD get linked to "Wonder Woman" though.
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2007 @ 12:04pm
Your John Wayne-esque individualistic dogma, Person, was run over by 24-karat gold encrusted blood diamond karma before you were even probably born.
Posted by lewwelge at 01/06/2007 @ 1:00pm
And yet somehow mine was spared. One of these days I might give up hope, too, but not yet.
Posted by Person at 01/06/2007 @ 1:25pm
Here's a good rule of thumb...
Whenever somebody on the Right is discussing an agenda and uses the term "national security" or "moral fiber of the nation"...
or somebody on the Left is discussing an agenda and uses the term "the people" or "our community"...
substitute those terms with "the State".
If it sounds authoritarian or even totalitarian...it probably is or will become.
(Yep, Leftys, that can apply to Bush (NSA spying, postal spying, stem cell research)...but it can also apply to YOUR favorite pet projects!)
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2007 @ 3:17pm
Your Horatio Alger ideology of independent effort, Person, which I infer you accept, paints you as more cynically hopeless than this inveterate skeptic yours truly, IMHO.
Posted by lewwelge at 01/06/2007 @ 7:19pm
Katrina Vanden Heuvel,
TIME TO HOLD YOU AND THE NATION MAGAZINE ACCOUNTABLE FOR LYING TO YOUR READERS AND SUPPORTERS:
How did I know you and the Nation Magazine would sell out, Katrina? Of course I knew you would, because the only thing you truly cared about was for the Democrats to take control of Congress. How do I know this? Because not only is ENDING THE IRAQ WAR not listed first on your top ten to do list, it is not even on the list. Do you really think that your Alice in Wonderland agenda has a snowball's chance in Hell of passing without ending the money-pit called Iraq? It seems as if the Kevin Zeeses, the Dennis Kucinichs, the Ralph Naders of the world, (a man you blamed for the Sore-Loserman ticket losing in 2000) and their allies/supporters are the only people with microphones and/or platforms left who still possess any common sense in this country.
Normally I would find it hard to believe,(but in this country having a college degree does not equate to having a true intellect), that you can't make the connection between the endless spending in Iraq and the contstraints that it WILL PUT ON DOMESTIC SPENDING at home. College for all, public financing of campaigns, healthcare for all, those cost big bucks which the treasury does not and will not have so long as Iraq is being footed by the American taxpayer.
I always had you pegged right, Katrina, you are one of those INSIDE THE BELTWAY(NEW YOUR BELTWAY) TYPES that is simply out for your own gratification, whatever that entails. You can't be on the side of the American people without calling for an end to the Iraq War. I don't know why you made that pledge in your magazine before the November 2006 elections when you knew the entire time that you had no intention of following through with it.................I hope you sleep well at night because NOW ALONG WITH BUSH AND HIS ALLIES IN CONGRESS I AM HOLDING YOU PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH AND EVERY DEATH THAT HAPPENS TO EVERY AMERICAN SOLDIER/THEIR ALLIES AND EVERY IRAQI TILL THIS WAR ENDS.............
Time is not on your side, our side, or anyone else's side. Time is of the essence and the world has no time to lose. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will buy Bush's war by not cutting off funding. And when they do that, they will FALL in November 2008.
KATRINA, TIME FOR YOU TO TURN UP THE HEAT ON THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS AND IF THEY REFUSE TO HEED THE CALL FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ, THEN PULL THE PLUG ON THEIR MAJORITY IN NOVEMBER 2008.
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/06/2007 @ 7:44pm
It is so upsetting and disappointing to see these fanciful ideas gaining any footing. They are a disgraceful waste of one of our most precious resources: Individual self reliance and strength. And to that end they work to corrode our confidence as a people in the most powerful force divinity has created: Ourselves.
Posted by PERSON 01/06/2007 @ 08:09am
You're right. It all went bad when some idiot suggested we could save time and energy by working together and building roads. We would feel so much more powerful if we would just slog through the mud every day the way nature intended.
Posted by fromredbird at 01/06/2007 @ 8:26pm
Posted by POSEIDON 01/06/2007 @ 7:44pm | ignore this person
FROMREDBIRD,
This is why I say that people have to learn to think for themselves and not wait on anyone in any media of any kind to do it for them. Katrina Vanden Huevel and The Nation magazine made a pledge prior to the November 2006 elections to not support any candidate for public office who does not make bringing a speedy end to the Iraq War part of his/her platform. Now Katrina Vanden Huevel puts out a top ten to do list to make America better and not only is ending the war in Iraq not first on the list, heck, it is not even on the list. Either Katrina Vanden Huevel and The Nation magazine have lost their nerve, or they support the war and they lied to their readers and supporters by making such a pledge. Media or no Media it's high time for Americans to start thinking for ourselves and not wait on others to do it for us.
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/06/2007 @ 8:36pm
the endless spending in Iraq and the contstraints that it WILL PUT ON DOMESTIC SPENDING at home.
Posted by POSEIDON 01/06/2007 @ 7:44pm
The unlock code. Prosperity at home requires peace in the world. It's in our power to choose peace. We can have peace in all the world. We can have peace without the world becoming more dangerous. It first requires an America with the will to make the effort to accomplish it. Americans are fools if they don't soon demand it.
A dollar spent to make America a better place to live is an investment in prosperity. A dollar spent for violence becomes a dead sunk cost that will never produce more prosperity. It is economically devolutionary.
Posted by fromredbird at 01/06/2007 @ 8:36pm
Katrina Vanden Heuvel,
TIME TO HOLD YOU AND THE NATION MAGAZINE ACCOUNTABLE FOR LYING TO YOUR READERS AND SUPPORTERS:
How did I know you and the Nation Magazine would sell out, Katrina? Of course I knew you would, because the only thing you truly cared about was for the Democrats to take control of Congress (for all the good it will do America). How do I know this? Because not only is ENDING THE IRAQ WAR not listed first on your top ten to do list, it is not even on the list. Do you really think that your Alice in Wonderland agenda has a snowball's chance in Hell of passing without ending the money-pit called Iraq? It seems as if the Kevin Zeeses, the Dennis Kucinichs, the Ralph Naders of the world, (a man you blamed for the Sore-Loserman ticket losing in 2000) and their allies/supporters are the only people with microphones and/or platforms left who still possess any common sense in this country.
Normally I would find it hard to believe,(but in this country having a college degree does not equate to having a true intellect), that you can't make the connection between the endless spending in Iraq and the contstraints that it WILL PUT ON DOMESTIC SPENDING at home. College for all, public financing of campaigns, healthcare for all, those cost big bucks which the treasury does not and will never have so long as the bill for the Iraq War is being footed by the American taxpayer.
I always had you pegged right, Katrina, you are one of those INSIDE THE BELTWAY(NEW YORK BELTWAY) TYPES that is simply out for your own gratification, whatever that entails. You can't be on the side of the American people without calling for an end to the Iraq War. I don't know why you made that pledge in your magazine before the November 2006 elections when you knew the entire time that you had no intentions of following through with it.................I hope you sleep well at night because NOW ALONG WITH BUSH AND HIS ALLIES IN CONGRESS I AM HOLDING YOU PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH AND EVERY DEATH THAT HAPPENS TO EVERY AMERICAN SOLDIER/THEIR ALLIES AND EVERY IRAQI TILL THIS WAR ENDS.............
Time is not on your side, our side, or anyone else's side. Time is of the essence and the world has no time to lose. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will buy Bush's war by not cutting off funding. And when they do that, they will FALL in November 2008.
KATRINA, TIME FOR YOU TO TURN UP THE HEAT ON THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS AND IF THEY REFUSE TO HEED THE CALL FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ, THEN PULL THE PLUG ON THEIR MAJORITY IN NOVEMBER 2008.
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/06/2007 @ 8:46pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/06/2007 @ 8:36pm | ignore this person
Agreed. That is why it is important for the people to put the heat on Katrina Vanden Huevel and The Nation magazine to follow through on their pledge and the Democrats in Congress to finally put an end to the war in Iraq.
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/06/2007 @ 8:50pm
Katrina Vanden Huevel,
READ IT AND WEEP:
They're Willing to Work with Republicans, But What About Progressives?
Democrats in the Spotlight
By RALPH NADER
The New York Times captured the headline--"Jubilant Democrats Assume Control on Capitol Hill." Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to become Speaker of the House, overshadowed her co-leader, Senator Harry Reid, the new majority leader of the Senate, though both of their speeches were remarkably similar. Now that the Democrats, after twelve long years, control the Congress, what are they going to do with it? Quite clearly, in their first 100 hours in the House of Representatives, they want to increase the long-frozen minimum wage, give the federal government authority to negotiate price cuts with the drug companies for the medicines that Uncle Sam is the purchasing agent, reduce interest rates on student loans, roll back subsidies for oil and gas companies and void restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. All these are called reforms. But most are catch-ups or rollbacks of mostly corporate-lobbied policies that pushed our country back. Not exactly breaking new ground. But then, the Democrats chose them for their relative ease of passage. If, however, they are blocked by the Republicans, Democrats want to make them issues that could cost the GOP votes in the coming 2008 election. It is the 2008 election that looms over this new Congress. For the Democrats in office, with few exceptions, extreme caution is the mode. This means that all the outrages Democrats attributed to the Bush regime since 2001--many of which could have been stopped by the large Democratic minority then in the Congress are not on the agenda today. Early and troubling signals from Capitol Hill indicate that the Democrats are not going to move to remove the brazen Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, are not going to go after the huge waste and redundancy in military weapons contracts rendered obsolete with the demise of the Soviet Union, are not going to end massive corporate welfare, as we know it, and are not going to propose a serious crackdown on widespread corporate crime, fraud and abuse. Granted, the Democrats are making big noises about ethics reform, moving to ban a variety of corporate freebies from corporate jet travel to gifts and dinners. But the 800 pound gorilla is big business money in political campaigns. The gorilla seems not to worry. Fund-raising dinners are already starting up and the corporate greasers are readjusting their attentions to the receptive majority Democrats. Of all the reasons why the Democrats won in 2006, most of them agree that the foremost one was the public's expanding revulsion against Bush over the Iraq war-quagmire. To move to end that disaster for the United States, for Iraq and for our status in the world, the Democrats possess a number of assets. Public opinion is nearing 70 percent against Bush and the war. Bush's approval rating is in the low 30s. Only 17 percent of the public supports his increasing the number of soldiers in Iraq. The situation in Iraq is worsening by the month, including U.S. casualties and expenditures. Finally, dozens of ex-generals, admirals, top national security advisors, diplomats and a growing number of former high Bush Administration officials are pressing for various withdrawal strategies. What more does an opposition Party in control of the legislative branch need? Battlefield veteran, Cong. John Murtha has been out in front for over a year demanding an 'out of Iraq' policy. Later this month, about 1000 active duty soldiers will petition their Congress to get out of this war. Demonstrations are increasing around the country. Still, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, themselves critical of Bush's criminal war, exude ambiguities and eschew a decisive alternative pathway to peace. It is as if they are on the sidelines watching Bush-Cheney self-destruct politically for the Republicans in 2008. If you are looking to test these early signs in the coming months, consider what kind of investigations the Senate and House Committees launch. Consider whether the few Democrats demanding an impeachment process for the accountability of Messrs. Bush and Cheney are silenced by their leaders. About two years ago, a poll showed 52 percent of Americans would favor impeachment if they learned the President was lying about the reasons for invading Iraq. That number is probably larger today, given all the disclosures that confirm the multiple lies, fabrications and cover-ups leading to and during the Iraq military occupation. Another litmus paper test is how closely these dominant Democrats work with progressive national citizen groups in Washington, D.C. When the Republicans took over in 1995, groups like the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute almost took up residence in the Senate and the House, feeding legislation, studies and strategies to the welcoming Republicans.
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/06/2007 @ 9:05pm
Katrina Vanden Huevel,
READ AND TAKE NOTE:
The Pelosi Cop-out
Friday, January 5th, 2007 in News by Justin Raimondo|
Confirming in spades the central theme of today's "Behind the Headlines" column, newly-installed Speaker of the House Nancy "It's All About Me" Pelosi's speech at the swearing-in reiterated her ongoing cop-out:
The election of 2006 was a call to change - not merely to change the control of Congress, but for a new direction for our country. Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in Iraq.
The American people rejected an open-ended obligation to a war without end. Shortly, President Bush will address the nation on the subject of Iraq. It is the responsibility of the President to articulate a new plan for Iraq that makes it clear to the Iraqis that they must defend their own streets and their own security, a plan that promotes stability in the region, and that allows us to responsibly redeploy American forces.
Yet the President is not proposing an "open-ended commitment" -- at least, explicitly. He still maintains that we can begin to withdraw as soon as the Iraqi military is up to par. If you sweep away the rhetorical flourishes, and the political posturing, the Democratic position of "phased redeployment" isn't much different than the course we're already on.
And why is it only the President's responsibility to come up with a new "plan" for Iraq? Didn't more than a few Democrats vote for this war? Okay, so the Democrats are against an "open-ended commitment" -- what do they propose, instead? "Phased redeployment" is phrase-making pure and simple, but what does it mean, concretly?
The rest of Pelosi's peroration makes it all too clear that it isn't just on Iraq that the two wings of the War Party come together. Sayeth Speaker Pelosi:
Let us be the Congress that rebuilds our military to meet the national security challenges of the 21st century. Let us be the Congress that strongly honors our responsibility to protect our people from terrorism.Let us be the Congress that never forgets our commitment to our veterans and first responders, always honoring them as the heroes they are.
Translation: More money for the military, more glorification of war and war-makers, more nonsense about the "war on terrorism" that truly does have no end -- this is what we get from Speaker Pelosi.
And we get more of the same, only at some length, in Pelosi's "Open Letter to the President," co-authored with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Naturally, the Democratic National Committee's house organ, otherwise known as the Huffington Post, is headlining this exercise in partisan gas-baggery, but if we look at what the letter actually says, it is hardly cause for celebration:
Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror.
To be clear: the Democrats would begin "redeployment" by June, by which time the Iraqi civil war will have intensified to the point where the country will be plunged into complete chaos -- and we will hear prominent voices warning against a "premature" withdrawal before "stabilization" is achieved. And how, pray tell, will changing "the mission" in the way Pelosi-Reid describe, change what is happening right now on the ground? When American forces go into Iraqi villages and kick down doors, terrorizing the inhabitants and sometimes killing them, will they do it in the name of "counter-terror," or "force protection"? Perhaps they can pass it off as a training exercise. It is a macabre position to take -- as if words had some magical power to transform atrocities into good policy.
A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement.
No one at Antiwar.com opposes breaking the diplomatic embargo on Iran and Syria, yet American withdrawal must not be contingent on forging a diplomatic "consensus" and a political solution. If we ever showed any serious inclination to pack our bags and get out of town, a number of neighboring countries, such as Jordan, Turkey, and quite possibly the Iranians (or a powerful faction in Tehran), would beseech us to stay
In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.
Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close.
Agreed. Yet the Democrats have no specific proposal of their own: instead, they content themselves with taking potshots from the sidelines and insist that it is the sole responsibility of the President to call the shots. That's what got us into this war in the first place -- Congress abdicated it's constitutional authority, and gave the White House a blank check. And Bush and his pet neocons ran with it.
The Democrats need to put up, or shut up. They're against the "surge" -- except, perhaps, Carl Levin, given the circumstances – but does that mean they'll vote against new funding for the war? Of course not. A Democratic-controlled Congress can cut the purse-strings -- and we're waiting. My guess is that we have a very long wait indeed ….
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/06/2007 @ 9:41pm
define long
Posted by Will C. at 01/07/2007 @ 01:53am
I like that idea of a single six year term for our chief executive. Make the election deceit-free, no advertising a guy like he or she's a product, and hold it on "off" years when no other federal offices are being contested.
Posted by lewwelge at 01/07/2007 @ 12:11pm
No cliche'd 'tax the rich'? Maybe that's #11.
Posted by woodyee at 01/07/2007 @ 5:01pm
Woodyee:
Under "health care for all": a tax on the top 5 percent of income earners.
But it's implied for everything else the democrats want to do.
Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2007 @ 5:54pm
Katrina Vanden Huevel,
YOU CAN BE DISMISSIVE OF MY WARNINGS AS SIMPLY ONE POSTER OUT OF MANY, BUT I CAN PROMISE YOU, SHOULD THE DEMOCRATS CONTINUE ON THEIR PRESENT COURSE UNTIL NOVEMBER 2008, THEY WILL LOSE POWER IN THE CONGRESS AND THEY WILL LOSE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
Reversion to Form
Meet the Democrats: Party of Invertebrates
By DAVE LINDORFF
Reverting to form, Democrats in Congress are cautiously trying to have it both ways so as to avoid having to take a stand on any of the issues that matter.
Faced with President Bush's own disastrous decision to go "double or nothing" on his losing Iraq War by adding another 20,000 or more troops to the front, House leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate leader Harry Reid chose towrite a letter to the White House "urging" the president not to go that route.
The idea seems to be that if he goes ahead and sends the additional troops into the cauldron and things go from bad to worse, Pelosi and Reid will be able to say that they opposed the idea, while they will be immune from right-wing charges that they undermined the commander in chief, since they didn't do anything concrete to block his insane plan.
The truth is that Democrats could, if they had any principle and if they honored the wishes of the electorate, bring U.S. involvement in the Iraq War to a screeching halt. How? They could vote to cut off all funding for the Iraq War except for the costs of safely withdrawing all troops from the country. Nobody could accuse them, were they to do this, with putting American troops at risk. But they would have to face those who would accuse them of "cutting and running."
Democrats also have the votes to put an end to Bush's serial trashing of cherished civil liberties. Instead of grumbling about violations of the First and Fourth Amendment, as Democrats have been doing so ineffectively now for five years, they could simply vote to revoke the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, approved almost without objection by both houses of Congress back in September 2001 (there is no veto for resolutions). It is that resolution which Bush and his mob attorneys in the White House and "Justice" Department have been citing as justification for the president's assumption of dictatorial powers, such as the power to revoke habeas corpus rights of American citizens, the power to authorize torture and detention without trial, the power to kidnap and render people, the power to declare American citizens to be "unlawful combatants" devoid of citizenship rights, the power to invalidate duly passed acts of Congress, and the power to ignore federal laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Revoke the 2001 AUMF and the president would have no grounds, fraudulent and unconstitutional as they in any case are, to claim that the nation is in a state of war and that he, as commander in chief, is no longer constrained by the Constitution.
We don't hear any calls in Congress to revoke the AUMF though, because that would require taking a concrete and resolute stand on principle in defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and taking the heat from right wing cranks who would accuse them of being "soft on terror."
And of course there is impeachment.
On Jan. 3 and 4, most members of Congress took their oath of office for the 110th Congress. That oath pledges them to "support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic." If they were to take those words to heart, it's pretty clear that--given the president's blatant abuses of power and willful violation of both law and Constitution--they constitute a call to action. This is, after all, not a simply matter of lying about a blowjob; the president has already been found by a federal district judge to have violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act-a felony. Moreover, a majority of the Supreme Court justices also declared last June that the president had violated both the Third Geneva Convention and the U.S. Criminal Code in authorizing and failing to prevent rampant torture of captives in the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War and the so-called "war" on terror. The members of the House and Senate know full well that the president lied to them and to the American people about the reasons for the Iraq invasion, just as they are lying now about the reasons for a future war on Iran. All of these things-and the list runs much longer (check out my book, "The Case for Impeachment")-are serious threats to the Constitution, and call for impeachment.
In fact, the escalation in Iraq, with the addition of 20,000 more troops, will itself be a clear impeachable violation of the War Powers Act unless the president first obtains the approval of both houses of Congress. As constitutional attorney Francis Boyle points out, the Section 4(a)(3) of the War Powers Act states unambiguously that the act is triggered "in the absence of a declaration of war [and there has been no declaration of war in the case of the Iraq invasion], in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introducedin numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation."
So where are the bills for impeachment? The party's Grande Dame, Nancy Pelosi, still insists that "impeachment is off the table," and John Conyers, the new House Judiciary Committee chair, who knows better and who even has a new book out that outlines many of the president's Constitutional crimes, has so far buckled under to pressure from Pelosi and the rest of the party leadership, even echoing her words about impeachment being "off the table."
The Democrats, so far, are proving yet again that they have become a party devoid of principle, without spine and without conscience.
One thing is certain: If the Democrats, having control of both House and Senate, fail to act on these three critical issues-ending the war, revoking the president's claim to dictatorial powers, and initiating impeachment proceedings-they will have sealed their fate come 2008 as an anachronism, not a party, and will deserve to be abandoned by all thinking voters.
Posted by POSEIDON at 01/08/2007 @ 11:51pm
Posted by MASK 01/05/2007 @ 9:59pm
Don't let that bogey man getcha. There's a evil socialist a-hiding in ever woodpile just a waitin for the opportunity to jump out and freeload on ya.
Posted by canaar at 01/09/2007 @ 12:48am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/06/2007 @ 10:58am
A veritable road to Damascus moment. I am hearing choirs of Angels and I am seeking further signs that the Apocalypse is upon us.
Posted by canaar at 01/09/2007 @ 12:51am
Posted by MASK 01/06/2007 @ 3:17pm
L'etat c'est moi y vous.
Posted by canaar at 01/09/2007 @ 12:54am
1. Healthcare for All
More than 47 million Americans are now living without health coverage. Representative John Conyers's United States National Health Insurance Act (HR 676) would create a single-payer healthcare system by expanding Medicare to every resident.
Are we making the assumption that Medicare is effective right now? We want to put more money into an entity that is currently heading towards bankruptcy? It seems to me that holding the individual accountable for their own health is the most effective way to prevent diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, obesity and a list of other preventable diseases. Put the money towards educating people on how to prevent these types of diseases.
All necessary medical care would be covered--from prescription drugs to hospital services to long-term care. There would be no deductibles or co-payments.
This would make healthcare so readily available that there would be virtually nothing stopping individuals from going to the doctor. The lines to see the doctor would be unbearable. By having the government control the finances through the Medicare scenario we would see taxpayers suffering the most. The unemployed would clog the lines to clinics forcing the taxpayers to seek private healthcare (paying two times for their healthcare). For example, go to Spain. Everyone has access to healthcare but I have personally seen one woman who had to either wait a week to get into the government clinic to look into a rash on her arm or pay 50 euros to see her private practice doctor. Another close friend of mine went undiagnosed with lung cancer for over a year. My assumption was the clinics were too clogged in order for the doctors to run the appropriate tests. Having access to healthcare does not ensure quality of care.
Funding would come from sources including savings from negotiated bulk procurement of medications; a tax on the top 5 percent of income earners; and a phased-in payroll tax that is lower than what employers currently pay for less comprehensive employee health coverage. With seventy-eight Congressional co-sponsors, and the endorsement of more than 200 labor organizations as well as healthcare groups, there is muscle and momentum behind this bill. To get involved, check out www.Healthcare-Now.org.
It would be nice to see this type of effort being focused on providing better education. Build better leaders through more educational opportunities. Like the farmer that can feed hundreds, doctors, businessmen and more healthcare reform could more for the population as a whole rather than put a band-aid on this situation.
Posted by BrandonC at 01/09/2007 @ 11:48am
Damn! That sounds like an AGENDA that the MAJORITY of Americans would SUPPORT!
Posted by Krashkopf at 01/09/2007 @ 11:50am