Dr. No: Joe Lieberman Loves Campaign Cash More Than Human Lives

From the Ron Reagan show on Air America Radio:

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman has finally realized his life’s goal of becoming America’s foremost exemplar of hypocrisy and moral cowardice… and did I forget to mention dishonesty and small-minded spite? Let’s throw those in the mix as well.

A quick review: three months ago, Lieberman sat down with the Connecticut Post and reiterated his long-standing position that a Medicare buy-in should be available for people 55 to 64 years old

Again, this is something Lieberman has been saying for years: it was central to his health care platform when he was Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 and it was been his position ever since. That is, it was his position until it became part of the Senate’s proposed health care legislation. At that point, the guy who’d made a Medicare buy-in the centerpiece of his health care reform philosophy suddenly morphed into Dr. No.

On CBS last weekend, in one brief outpouring of nausea-inducing self-interest, Lieberman managed to betray assurances he had reportedly given to the Senate leadership and a number of his Senate colleagues; contradict his own oft-stated position; and, just for good measure, attempt to mislead the country about the fiscal consequences of a Medicare buy-in. Contrary to what Lieberman is currently pretending to believe, a buy-in would not, according to the Congressional Budget Office, drive up the deficit.

What’s going on here? Having heard no better explanation, I currently subscribe to what has become the conventional wisdom about the Senate’s selfish pain-in-the-ass-in-chief: Lieberman is still piqued at Democrats for not only abandoning him (for the Democratic candidate) during his near-loss in his 2006 reelection race in Connecticut, but for not backing him as the candidate of choice for the Democratic Presidential nomination back in 2004. Anyone who witnessed his cozy “debate” with Dick Cheney in 2000 will have no trouble imagining why Democrats picked someone else as their standard-bearer.

Lieberman loves campaign cash more than human lives.

Read more here.

Good News from the Nation’s Capital: DC City Council Votes To Legalize Gay Marriage

Hats off to the Washington, D.C., City Council!

From WTAE Pittsburgh:

The Washington, D.C., City Council voted Tuesday to legalize gay marriage in the nation’s capital, handing supporters a victory after a string of recent defeats in Maine, New York and New Jersey.

Mayor Adrian Fenty has promised to sign the bill, which passed 11-2, and gay couples could begin marrying as early as March. Congress, which has final say over Washington’s laws, could reject it, but Democratic leaders have suggested they are reluctant to do so.

The bill had overwhelming support among council members and was expected to pass, though opponents have vowed to try to get Congress or voters to overturn it.

David Catania, who introduced the bill and is one of two openly gay council members, called the bill a "matter of social justice" before the vote.

Two members voted "I do" when their names came up, and when the vote finished a packed chamber erupted into cheers and clapping. The "no" votes included former mayor Marion Barry, now a council member.

Thank you, D.C.! And hats off to WTAE, once again the first to get breaking news to my inbox!

Read more here.

Lieberman (the Tail) Wags the Dog (Senate): Democrats Likely to Drop Medicare Expansion

First, check Salon.com for Senator Joe Lieberman’s latest attempt to kill health care reform:

One of Joe Lieberman’s colleagues in the Connecticut delegation doesn’t think very highly of the way the "independent Democrat" has been mucking up healthcare reform legislation.

"Joe Lieberman has always been a person of conscience, and I take him at his word when he says he is opposed — but the ball seems to move," Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, told a handful of reporters outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office Monday afternoon.

Lieberman, of course, announced late Sunday that no matter how much support the idea of a Medicare buy-in might have garnered from other Senate moderates, he’s not interested in playing along. Never mind that hesupported a very similar plan only a few months ago.)

From the New York Times:

Senate Democratic leaders said Monday that they were prepared to drop a proposed expansion of Medicare and scrap a new government-run health insurance plan as they tried to rally their caucus in hopes of passing the bill before Christmas.

After a tense 90-minute meeting on Monday evening, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, was asked if Democrats were likely to jettison the Medicare proposal.

“It’s looking like that’s the case,” Mr. Baucus said, indicating that the provision might be dropped as a way of “getting support from 60 senators.”

Under the proposal, uninsured people ages 55 to 64 could purchase Medicare coverage. The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, floated the idea about 10 days ago as a way to break an intraparty impasse over his earlier proposal to create a government-run health insurance plan.

The signal from the party leadership came after the closed-door session to gauge sentiment for moving ahead with a pared-back measure that would not contain elements that liberal lawmakers had sought, particularly a public health insurance option.

Lawmakers and top aides said that the overriding view at the session held just off the Senate floor was that they had come too far in the health care debate to give up and that they should forge ahead with some legislation even if it was not all that they wanted.

I have been steaming about this all day. Lieberman (I- Connecticut) essentially works for the for-profit health insurance industry, not the American people. His wife certainly profits from the for-profit health insurance industry.

We have been bought and sold.

Weekly Address: Learning from History to Reform Wall Street

Washington, D.C.–(ENEWSPF)– In his weekly address, President Obama applauded the House for passing financial reform legislation and called on the Senate to continue working toward meaningful reform that stands up for consumers, sets clear rules of the road for businesses and investors and restores a sense of responsibility and accountability to both Wall Street and Washington.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
Weekly Address
Saturday, December 12, 2009

Over the past two years, more than seven million Americans have lost their jobs, and factories and businesses across our country have been shuttered. In one way or another, we’ve all been touched by the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The difficult steps we’ve taken since January have helped to break our fall, and begin to get us back on our feet. Our economy is growing again. The flood of job loss we saw at the beginning of this year slowed to a relative trickle last month. These are good signs for the future, but little comfort to all of our neighbors who remain out of a job. And my solemn commitment is to work every day, in every way I can, to push this recovery forward and build a new foundation for our lasting growth and prosperity.

That’s why I announced some additional steps this week to spur private sector hiring. We’ll give an added boost to small businesses across our nation through additional tax cuts and access to lending they desperately need to grow. We’ll rebuild more of our vital infrastructure and promote advanced manufacturing in clean energy to put Americans to work doing the work we need done. And I have called for the extension of unemployment insurance and health benefits to help those who have lost their jobs weather these storms until we reach that brighter day.

But even as we dig our way out of this deep hole, it’s important that we address the irresponsibility and recklessness that got us into this mess in the first place.

Some of it was the result of an era of easy credit, when millions of Americans borrowed beyond their means, bought homes they couldn’t afford, and assumed that housing prices would always rise and the day of reckoning would never come.

But much of it was due to the irresponsibility of large financial institutions on Wall Street that gambled on risky loans and complex financial products, seeking short-term profits and big bonuses with little regard for long-term consequences. It was, as some have put it, risk management without the management. And their actions, in the absence of strong oversight, intensified the cycle of bubble-and-bust and led to a financial crisis that threatened to bring down the entire economy.

It was a disaster that could have been avoided if we’d had clearer rules of the road for Wall Street and actually enforced them.

We can’t change that history. But we have an absolute responsibility to learn from it, and take steps to prevent a repeat of the crisis from which we are still recovering.

That’s why I’ve proposed a series of financial reforms that would target the abuses we have seen and leave us less exposed to the kind of breakdown we just experienced.

They would bring new transparency and accountability to the financial markets, so that the kind of risky dealings that sparked the crisis would be fully disclosed and properly regulated.

They would give us the tools to ensure that the failure of one large bank or financial institution won’t spread like a virus through the entire financial system. Because we should never again find ourselves in the position in which our only choices are bailing out banks or letting our economy collapse.

And they would consolidate the consumer protection functions currently spread across half a dozen agencies and vest them in a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This agency would have the authority to put an end to misleading and dishonest practices of banks and institutions that market financial products like credit and debit cards; mortgage, auto and payday loans.

These are commonsense reforms that respond to the obvious problems exposed by the financial crisis.

But, as we’ve learned so many times before, common sense doesn’t always prevail in Washington.

Just last week, Republican leaders in the House summoned more than 100 key lobbyists for the financial industry to a “pep rally,” and urged them to redouble their efforts to block meaningful financial reform. Not that they needed the encouragement. These industry lobbyists have already spent more than $300 million on lobbying the debate this year.

The special interests and their agents in Congress claim that reforms like the Consumer Financial Protection Agency will stifle consumer choice and that updated rules and oversight will frustrate innovation in the financial markets. But Americans don’t choose to be victimized by mysterious fees, changing terms, and pages and pages of fine print. And while innovation should be encouraged, risky schemes that threaten our entire economy should not.

We can’t afford to let the same phony arguments and bad habits of Washington kill financial reform and leave American consumers and our economy vulnerable to another meltdown.

Yesterday, the House passed comprehensive reform legislation that incorporates some of the essential changes we need, and the Senate Banking Committee is working on its own package of reforms. I urge both houses to act as quickly as possible to pass real reform that restores free and fair markets in which recklessness and greed are thwarted; and hard work, responsibility, and competition are rewarded – reform that works for businesses, investors, and consumers alike.

That’s how we’ll keep our economy and our institutions strong. That’s how we’ll restore a sense of responsibility and accountability to both Wall Street and Washington. And that’s how we’ll safeguard everything the American people are working so hard to build – a broad-based recovery; lasting prosperity; and a renewed American Dream. Thank you.

Source: WhiteHouse.Gov

Senate Leaders in Tentative Deal to Radically Alter Public Option

The New York Times is reporting this evening that Senate leaders are in talks to radically alter the public option.

From the New York Times:

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said on Tuesday night that he had reached “a broad agreement” among a group of 10 Democrats who have been working to resolve the dispute over a proposed government-run insurance plan that has posed perhaps the biggest obstacle to major health care legislation.

Mr. Reid refused to provide details, saying only that the group of 10 senators – five liberals and five centrists – would be sending proposals to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis. The broader Senate Democratic caucus appeared to be in a state of confusion with even some senior party leaders saying they were unaware of any agreement.

But Democratic aides said that the group had tentatively agreed on a proposal that would replace a government-run health care plan with a menu of new national, privately-run insurance plans modeled after the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which covers more than eight million federal workers, including members of Congress, and their dependents.

This is bad news for America. There is broad support for the public option among the public. Senator Harry Reid and the other leaders are caving to the for-profit health insurance industry.

In Support of Obama’s ‘Surge’ in Afghanistan

The New York Times posted an extensive article on the process through which President Obama arrived at his decision to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Obama was "haunted by the human toll," his advisers say, and wrestled with the economic toll. One estimate claimed that an expanded presence would cost $1 trillion over 10 years. The "fiscally conservative" far right doesn’t bat an eye at these costs. Obama was concerned.

From The New York Times:

Now as his top military adviser ran through a slide show of options, Mr. Obama expressed frustration. He held up a chart showing how reinforcements would flow into Afghanistan over 18 months and eventually begin to pull out, a bell curve that meant American forces would be there for years to come.

“I want this pushed to the left,” he told advisers, pointing to the bell curve. In other words, the troops should be in sooner, then out sooner.

When the history of the Obama presidency is written, that day with the chart may prove to be a turning point, the moment a young commander in chief set in motion a high-stakes gamble to turn around a losing war. By moving the bell curve to the left, Mr. Obama decided to send 30,000 troops mostly in the next six months and then begin pulling them out a year after that, betting that a quick jolt of extra forces could knock the enemy back on its heels enough for the Afghans to take over the fight.

The three-month review that led to the escalate-then-exit strategy is a case study in decision making in the Obama White House — intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating for nearly all involved. It was a virtual seminar in Afghanistan and Pakistan, led by a president described by one participant as something “between a college professor and a gentle cross-examiner.”

Mr. Obama peppered advisers with questions and showed an insatiable demand for information, taxing analysts who prepared three dozen intelligence reports for him and Pentagon staff members who churned out thousands of pages of documents.

We never heard President George W. Bush described as "intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest," although he may have been "deeply frustrating for nearly all involved." Obama was "deeply frustrating" for different reasons.

“I don’t want to be going to Walter Reed for another eight years,” he told his advisers.

Read the NYTimes article. Any who thought Obama was not listening to his generals should take heed. He was taking them back to boot camp, pushing and challenging them more than they had been pushed or challenged before. As Commander-in-Chief, he alone makes the policy decisions in war. The generals meet the professor.

I’m with the professor and the generals.

No one gets everything they want in a time of war.

Want to be a U.S. Attorney? Sleep with Sen. Max Baucus

Right now, the headline is the complete story. But it’s a wicked headline.

From the Associated Press:

A spokesman for U.S. Sen. Max Baucus says the Montana Democrat was in a romantic relationship with the woman he nominated for U.S. attorney.

Spokesman Ty Matsdorf says Baucus and his former state office director Melodee Hanes began the relationship in the summer of 2008. Baucus nominated Hanes for the U.S. attorney post last March, but she later withdrew her name.

I’m remembering the legendary George Costanza from Sienfeld blurting out, "I’m giving you a raise!" in the midst of a liaison with a secretary.

Why Do Republicans Oppose Al Franken’s Anti-Rape Ammendment?

I’m trying to figure this one out.

Why, exactly, are Republicans in Congress having such a tough time wrapping their heads around Sen. Al Franken’s anti-rape amendment? Could it be that they have friends at KBR and Halliburton who might suddenly be held accountable for the heinous crime of rape?

From ENEWSPF:

Senate Republicans, who have been taking heat for fighting an amendment to protect rape victims, are now lashing out at Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) for even proposing the measure in the first place.

In October, Franken introduced an amendment that would deny funding to defense contractors that "restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court." Franken was inspired by the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, a former employee of KBR (previously a subsidiary of Halliburton), who "was gang raped by her co-workers" while stationed in Iraq.When Jones returned to the U.S., KBR tried to prevent her from taking the case to court. The measure to punish such practices passed, with 30 out of 40 Republicans voting against it.

Today, Politico reports that conservative Senators blame Franken for the backlash they have faced. Apparently, Franken isn’t doing enough to defend those Republicans who fought his proposal to protect women like Jones. Moreover, some of them say, the amendment was really just a "partisan" trap meant to embarrass the Republicans who opposed it:

"I don’t know what his motivation was for taking us on, but I would hope that we won’t see a lot of Daily Kos-inspired amendments in the future coming from him," said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, No. 4 in the Senate Republican leadership. "I think hopefully he’ll settle down and do kind of the serious work of legislating that’s important to Minnesota." […]

Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), who also voted against the amendment, said, "from what I know of" Franken, he "expected" such tactics. […]

"It was partisan – and he knew it," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). "That’s exactly what I’d expect."

Thune did not elaborate on why protecting victims of sexual assault isn’t "serious work," nor did Coburn explain how a measure that garnered support from 10 Republicans — a quarter of the caucus — was "partisan."

Read more here.

After reading, ask yourself, who would oppose an anti-rape amendment?

Study: Senate Health Bill Brings No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums

The Senate health care bill looks better and better every day, and Republican objections ring more and more hollow.

From the New York Times:

The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers.

The eagerly awaited report, which came as the Senate began debate on the legislation, provided Democrats with ammunition against Republicans who have criticized the bill on the ground that it would raise costs for a majority of Americans.

Centrist Democrats like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, whose votes are vital to President Obama’s hopes of getting the bill approved, had feared that the measure would drive up costs for people with employer-sponsored coverage. After reading the budget office report, Mr. Bayh said he was reassured on that point.

Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the budget office said the bill would tend to drive up premiums. But as a result of the subsidies, it said, most people in the individual insurance market would see their costs decline, compared with the costs expected under current law. The subsidies, a main feature of the bill, would cost the government nearly $450 billion in the next 10 years and would cover nearly two-thirds of premiums for people who receive them.

We are on the verge of historic health care reform in the United States.

Keep the fire burning.

More here.

Senate Begins Historic Health Care Reform Debate

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say the Associated Press has an opinion on the health care reform debate that began today in Congress.

From the AP, via Yahoo! News:

Riven by partisanship, the Senate plunged into a widely anticipated debate Monday over sweeping health care legislation that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to approve and Republicans have sworn to block.

Debate is expected to last for weeks over the legislation, which includes a first-time requirement for most Americans to carry insurance and a mandate for insurers to cover any paying customer regardless ofmedical history or condition.

"We must avoid the temptation to drown in distractions and distortions," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in the first moments of the first speech, a jab at Republicans that was reciprocated minutes later.

"Well, I don’t know what’s more preposterous: saying that this plan ‘saves Medicare’ or thinking that people will actually believe you," Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said of Reid’s oft-made statement.

At a cost of nearly $1 trillion, the legislation is designed to extend health care to millions of American who lack it, abolish insurance industry practices such as denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and cut back on the rise of health care spending overall.

Despite its huge price tag, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 2,074-page bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion over the next decade. In all, CBO said 31 million uninsured individuals would receive insurance if the bill were enacted, many of them assisted by federal subsidies. As much as 94 percent of the eligible population would wind up covered. The legislation would be paid for through a combination of cuts in projected Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers, a payroll tax on the wealthy and taxes on drug makers, medical device manufacturers, owners of high-cost insurance and others.

Mitch McConnell is being completely disingenuine. The Republicans have been working to dismantle Medicare for years. The best news is from the Congressional Budget Office. The plan is fiscally sound.

And I don’t want to hear any more Republicans screaming about having to read a 2,074-page bill. Grow up. You wanted to go to Washington. Now read.