This speech by Premier Zapatero in the Spanish Cortes is one of the most remarkable speeches I have ever heard by a straight politician in a legal setting. This was the day same-sex marriage was legalized in Spain. I remember years later having dinner with many of the leaders of the LGBT movement in Spain and one of them said to me:
He said he would do it, and he did it. That’s why we love him
Always pretty remarkable when that happens.
I have been an enthusiastic supporter of the President while he was campaigning. My problem with him since then is that he doesn’t appear to be the same person. We as progressives deal in a media environment in which the assumption is that we are a conservative country. This despite much evidence to the contrary. And there is some evidence that the GOP is misreading the public in this way again. Mike Lillis via Andrew Sullivan:
But while Republicans are hoping Brown’s victory foreshadows a GOP landslide, a number of political experts are warning that the country’s restless anxiety — as evidenced not only in Massachusetts, but in Virginia, New Jersey, and now Florida as well — is less a backlash against Democrats in particular than a rebuke of the business-as-usual politics of Capitol Hill in general. Even as unemployment soared and housing markets tanked, voters have watched lawmakers bicker endlessly over a stimulus bill that proved too small and a health reform proposal that remains unfinished. Meanwhile, the banks have bounced back on the wings of a taxpayer bailout, paying out billions of dollars in employee bonuses this month while the jobs crisis outside Wall Street only worsens. In such an environment, some experts caution, incumbents on both sides of the aisle could find themselves surprisingly vulnerable in November.
I have no doubt that he will give a stemwinder of a speech. I’m just not sure what he really stands for anymore. I want to see him fight. He will bring up again a call to end DADT, but we’ve heard this before. He will announce some spending freezes. He is beginning to play more and more on the conservative side of the field. I hope we see a change in this. Not just from the speech, but from his actions.
I’m still bewildered by the Democratic Party’s inability to pass anything progressive or within a fairly centrist Democratic Party agenda. We shouldn’t go Bill Clinton’s way. No small ball. The country needs more.
As an aside, can anyone tell me the last major piece of progressive/liberal legislation that has been passed in the country.
Swinging around the web tonight, you’d think we had just overrode the US Constitution. We do need a little perspective. Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate. We should have won. Mr. Cosmo was incoherent on policy issues and yet he won. So be it. It’s not as if we really got a lot out of having 60 votes. Especially when those votes included Joe from Connecticut, among others.
The important thing is that we can not allow this to be spun as a repudiation of Obama, progressive policies, health care, or the Democratic agenda. We must keep pressure on the party to pass the damned health care bill, job stimulus legislation, and of course LGBT rights issues. It’s going to be harder now. Maybe in the end that will be good. As you may know, I’m not a fan of either party. My political beliefs don’t have any political party in this country. But, yikes, we got to keep on fighting.
What we do need is for the Democratic Party to seriously work at passing its agenda. Use reconciliation if you need to. Play every damned trick the Fox/Republican party has used. These are seriously crazy people. We should not be losing to them. We should fight them every step of the way.
I have no idea what is going to happen in tomorrow’s special election to replace the seat once held by Ted Kennedy. I don’t watch CNN, MSNBC, or Fox any more; I had found my general sanity had become more and more at stake. But if you were to read the blogs and watch the network news, this is a forgone conclusion. The Democrats are screwed. It’s impossible to know from those sources what to take. The cliche of course is that any news, good or bad, is always bad news for the Democrats as far as the media is concerned. The news loves a story, and this would be a huge story. It would be spun as a repudiation of Obama and health care and the end of the democratic party agenda. That assumes it has had a coherent agenda, but you get my point.
The Repubs are energized to vote in Mass. and the Democrats are not. That will be the tale. If Coakley loses, a lot of recrimination will come about the time we’ve waisted trying to get bipartisan support for a health bill, and our lack of willingness to fight for anything. It’s pretty known that I’m a bit down on the first year of the Obama presidency. But the biggest fear I carry now is that the Blue Dog Dems will read a Bay State loss as vindication for their view that we’ve gone to far to the left. I can’t for the life of me name one single left wing policy that we’ve passed except for the stimulus package as a Keynesian response to a tragic economic environment. Our final health care bill is a pretty market friendly conservative bill that has some good things about it.
But here’s to hoping that the media is doing what they often do, build a story that really isn’t there. Remember the Teabagger dude in upstate New York? Didn’t win, did he? In the end, we’ll know what we know tomorrow. And don’t let anyone tell you the know what’s happening and what it all means.
Post script: I mentioned yesterday the lovely comment that one of Republican Scott Brown’s supporters used in a rally (“let’s shove a curling iron up her ass”). I just felt compelled to remind people of a bit of Scott Browns past and perhaps hanging out with people calling for rape isn’t a great idea when you’ve posed for this: (for real, him, years ago)
Yes, I am being sarcastic. To no one’s surprise the Supreme Court has stayed the order to post delayed court proceedings on youtube. The possible retribution to those bigots may be too great a burden for this once great country to bare.
This whole trial has always scared me. Yes, the facts are on our side, the Constitution is on our side, precedent is on our side, and the American Exceptionalism is on our side. Yet, the bigots hold a lot of power.
President Obama has stayed silent. The Court is stacked against us. This is not a legal issue, but a political issue in practice. Can you imagine President Obama doing what Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy, or Johnson did to uphold the rule of law? The administration is already ignoring court orders to give spousal benefits to a government employee. Just ignoring it. Yikes.
I’m Mr. Grumpy today.
Fascinating article in the LA Times about what works, survives, and is in failure in the US as compared to other countries throughout the world. We simply don’t invest in the things we used to invest in.
Aspects of U.S. life in need of drastic intervention.
Public elementary education, which in most states is desperately underfunded and fails to deliver on its promise to provide all children with high-quality schooling.
The federal government, which is essentially paralyzed by partisanship and incapable of delivering solutions to the country’s most pressing problems.
State governments, which are largely dysfunctional and nearly insolvent.
American infrastructure, including highways, docks, bridges and tunnels, dikes, waterworks and other essential systems we aren’t maintaining and upgrading as we should.
Airlines and the airports they service, which are almost Third World in equipment and service standards.
Passenger rail, which has not one mile of truly high-speed rail.
The financial system, whose over-paid executives and underregulated practices ran us off an economic cliff in 2008 and compromised the whole system in the eyes of the world.
The electronic media, which, except for public broadcasting and a vital and growing Internet, are an overly commercialized, broken-down mess that have let down the country in terms of keeping us informed.
Print media, which from newspaper publishing to book publishing are in crisis.
Basic manufacturing, which has fallen so far behind it seems headed for oblivion.
The first article is basically a response to the always frustrating New York Times columnist Ross Douthat’s recent statements about the relative strengths of the American capitalism system to the more European Social Democratic model used in nearly all of the original and 1982 expanded EU. There really are no “socialist” countries in Europe despite what the Repubs will tell you. Social Democrats are capitalistic countries that believe in regulated capitalism and a significant social safety net. Gee, sounds good to me. And from experience, it seems to work well. But Ross opines:
Social democracy has its benefits, but global competitiveness isn’t one of them. As Jim Manzi points out, in an essay on “Keeping America’s Edge” in the latest issue of National Affairs, “from 1980 through today, America’s share of global output has been constant at about 21 percent. Europe’s share, meanwhile, has been collapsing in the face of global competition — going from a little less than 40 percent of global production in the 1970s to about 25 percent today.”
The always interesting Matthew Yglesias responds:
Jon Chait, for his new blog, delves in deeper and discovers a few salient points. One, Manzi is comparing US economic performance since 1980 to European performance since 1973—which is nuts. Two, Manzi is defining “Europe since 1973″ to include the Soviet Union and sundry Central European countries that spent half that period in the Communist bloc:
So, let’s look at a straight-up measure. How did the United States perform in comparison with European social democracies? Well, since 1980, the original 15 members of the European Union saw their real per capita income grow by 58%. Real per capita GDP in the United States grew by… 63%. And that measure actually overstates the difference. The European Union does not include Switzerland, Norway or Iceland — three countries that clearly qualify as European social democracies. Those three countries had 71% growth in per capita GDP since 1980 — thanks to Isha Vij of the Center for American Progress for pointing this out to me — which, if added to the EU 15, would bring the growth record of the United States and the social democracies even closer to parity.
Even more interesting to me is that though the US and the EU are pretty much at parity a key difference is the distribution of a county’s wealth. In Europe you will find far fewer very wealthy people and far fewer very poor people. So the difference is really in the distribution of wealth and a philosophy about how a society cares for its citizens.
Over the last 30 years in the United States, we have been indoctrinated by media, pundits, the Republican party and others that only our system creates wealth. Closer to the truth is that we are unique in how we distribute that wealth among our people. Rarely in Europe would you find an executive making more than say 8 times their lowest paid employee. In the US private sector, we see orders of magnitude above this. But we are so sure that no other system works, that the mere mention of a “European” system can kill any progress here in the US. And the Dems are as much to blame as the Repubs. Democrats constantly live looking over their shoulder in fear of being called socialist or a dove on foriegn policy.
We could use a little bit of adult behavior.
The other fascinating article is by one of my favorite writers, James Fallows, who has an interesting take on returning to the US after 3 years of living in China. I can say that after my time living overseas, I have been struck by several things: the amount of poverty apparent everywhere, the dirt of the city, the number of mentally ill people on the streets, and vast disparity of those with money and those without. Read the whole article, its a great read.
I have spent the last two or three years as a cynic. I’ve always been a bit of a cynic, but what I am referring to here is in the classical greek sense of the word, as in pulling one apart from politics or the believe in the ability to change a system as large as the political system of the US and indeed the world. So it’s a glorious ability to throw bombs and share a hopeless sense. But it is not a something you can live with forever. My disappointment in the loss of Constitutional control of the American government under Bush, and Obama’s willingness to not prosecute and in fact set up protections for the war criminals hurt. I left the country for a year and wanted to experience a different set of values. Values I treasure. Individual rights, regulated capatalism and a robust welfare system.
Yet, I am hopeful. I think with all the disappointment I have with the political structure in the United States and its inability to sustain real change and recognize true human rights, Obama has been a vast improvement. I do believe time will help us overcome.
I saw a concert this weekend with my personal diva, Bette, in Vegas. There’s her most signature song, The Rose. It is a song of the hope of a better spring time after a difficult winter. Our winter has gone on for so long, ten years. No job growth, war crimes, cowardize around LGBT rights. Eight years of war. But the seed, with the sun’s love, comes the rose.
I’m committed to fighting and not letting politicians off the hook. But I am also committed to hope. To holding ourselves to a higher standard. I am committed to global connection and universal citizenship. I am committed to be one of many suns that will bring light and bring the spring. In my current job, I’m committed to finding ways that every LGBT person in this city can find help when they need it. Substance abuse, mental health, poverty, HIV and AIDS, and building a sense of community have been my life for the last 25 years. I am recommitted.
What can you do to bring that light. To end the winter of our discontent, to borrow a phrase. To make this city and this country what it can be.
More courage than our current Dems?
Hat tip to Yglesias on this, but here is a proposal made on health care by Richard Nixon that looks pretty good. Here is part of it, but go read the whole thing:
- Upon adoption of appropriate Federal and State legislation, the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan would offer to every American the same broad and balanced health protection through one of three major programs: –Employee Health Insurance, covering most Americans and offered at their place of employment, with the cost to be shared by the employer and employee on a basis which would prevent excessive burdens on either; –Assisted Health Insurance, covering low-income persons, and persons who would be ineligible for the other two programs, with Federal and State government paying those costs beyond the means of the individual who is insured; and,
–An improved Medicare Plan, covering those 65 and over and offered through a Medicare system that is modified to include additional, needed benefits.
One of these three plans would be available to every American, but for everyone, participation in the program would be voluntary.The benefits offered by the three plans would be identical for all Americans, regardless of age or income. Benefits would be provided for:
–hospital care;
–physicians’ care in and out of the hospital;
–prescription and life-saving drugs;
–laboratory tests and X-rays;
–medical devices;
–ambulance services; and,
–other ancillary health care.There would be no exclusions of coverage based on the nature of the illness. For example, a person with heart disease would qualify for benefits as would a person with kidney disease.
In addition, CHIP would cover treatment for mental illness, alcoholism and drug addiction, whether that treatment were provided in hospitals and physicians’ offices or in community based settings.
Certain nursing home services and other convalescent services would also be covered. For example, home health services would be covered so that long and costly stays in nursing homes could be averted where possible.
The health needs of children would come in for special attention, since many conditions, if detected in childhood, can be prevented from causing lifelong disability and learning handicaps. Included in these services for children would be:
–preventive care up to age six;
–eye examinations;
–hearing examinations; and,
–regular dental care up to age 13.Under the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, a doctor’s decisions could be based on the health care needs of his patients, not on health insurance coverage. This difference is essential for quality care.
Every American participating in the program would be insured for catastrophic illnesses that can eat away savings and plunge individuals and families into hopeless debt for years. No family would ever have annual out-of-pocket expenses for covered health services in excess of $1,500, and low-income families would face substantially smaller expenses.
As part of this program, every American who participates in the program would receive a Health-card when the plan goes into effect in his State. This card, similar to a credit card, would be honored by hospitals, nursing homes, emergency rooms, doctors, and clinics across the country. This card could also be used to identify information on blood type and .sensitivity to particular drugs-information which might be important in an emergency.
Bills for the services paid for with the Health-card would be sent to the insurance carrier who would reimburse the provider of the care for covered services, then bill the patient for his share, if any.
The entire program would become effective in 1976, assuming that the plan is promptly enacted by the Congress.
Senator Feinstein released a statement on the health care debate, and at times really seems to understand what the key issues are and her stances are all along the lines of something I could support:
What I Support
I basically believe that reform should be incremental and should cover the following:
- Allow people to keep their current healthcare coverage. Millions of Americans have insurance that meets their needs. In all of the proposals that Congress is considering, those happy with their current plan will be able to keep it.
- Stop certain practices of insurance companies. Any bill should end discrimination based on preexisting conditions, stop insurance companies from dropping insurance when people become sick, and prevent the unreasonable denial of treatment. There must also be limits to out-of-pocket expenses to ensure that Americans are not driven into financial ruin by illness.
- Control insurance premiums. Insurance premiums have doubled over the last 9 years, 3 times faster than wages. Meanwhile, the profits of the nation’s largest private insurance companies increased 428 percent from 2000 to 2008 (Health Care for America NOW). This is unacceptable. Insurance for healthcare is an urgent and universal need, but will not be sustainable and universal if the profit margin remains unconstrained.
In order to see that premiums are affordable, I believe that all non-direct healthcare costs (advertising, overhead, profits, and other administrative costs) should be limited and not exceed 10 percent. All premium rate adjustments should be subject to review and approval by a Health Insurance Rate Authority. Bottom line: your health insurance must remain affordable. Your premiums cannot be allowed to double again in the next nine years, as they have in the past nine.
Another way of stabilizing premium affordability is the public option. Depending how the competition is structured, this “option” could compel insurance companies to lower premiums to remain competitive. It remains a viable proposal. The public option should be one of a variety of choices for people who want improved coverage, giving them an option between a private insurance plan and a public one. The public option is simply that—an option. No one will be required to enroll in the public plan. Instead, it would offer consumers an additional choice as they select a health insurance policy. Instead of choosing between policies offered only by private insurance companies, people could choose to buy a public insurance plan. Those that prefer to buy private insurance could still do so.
Not bad, but here is where she goes wrong (emphasis mine).
The purpose of creating a public plan is to increase competition so that premium costs can be controlled. It is very clear that in the current market, private insurance companies do not control the price of premiums. The public option will not replace anyone’s private insurance coverage, but it could prevent future premium increases as private insurance companies lower their prices to compete with a public option. I am also open to considering a non-profit co-operative model, as long as it can accomplish the critical goal of controlling premium costs and spurring competition. Because insurance company profit taking has been so high, it will be very difficult to control premium costs without some non-profit option.
There is simply no way that non-profit co-ops can compete effectively or have the bargaining power that the private companies have. Particularly in states where 80% or more of the private health insurance is provided by one health insurance company. The only tool that stands a chance to compete is to give Americans the option of buying into a federal plan that can compete.
But there is more that is wrong.
With over 20 percent of Californians uninsured, healthcare reform must expand coverage to those who cannot currently afford it. Any expansion of coverage must be sustainable in the long-term, and be affordable without requiring adding costs to California and its counties, and without becoming another entitlement. This is difficult to do, and it remains to be seen how it will be accomplished.
Senator, you’re just not being honest. The best way to control growing costs is a single payer system. That no one is willing to fight for it may be a truth, but it isn’t difficult to see how cost savings could be accomplished.
And one more:
Health reform should not address end of life care. I feel strongly that anything relating to end of life care does not belong in the bill. These are private family matters that do not require legislation.
Again, an untrue statement. The bills making their way through Congress don’t mandate end of life issues. They are designed to help pay for those expenses (counseling and consultation fees) for when the families make those decisions to talk to a professional about them.
Why can’t democrats stand up for the truth? Sadly, it doesn’t seem that the California Senator will be a leader for a state that has higher than average uninsured numbers at all income levels. This all seems pretty CYA to me.
____
© 2010 Thom Lynch Blog · Proudly powered by WordPress & Green Park 2 by Cordobo.
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional | Valid CSS 3
