Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rep. Anthony Weiner goes off on Republicans, saying they are owned by the health insurance industry.
He’s right. American health care is not a business goal. It’s life and death. That’s it.
Watch the video, and let’s pass health reform.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rachel Maddow calls out Republicans who are being very deceptive about the so-called "nuclear option."
Republicans have used "reconciliation" to pass legislation many, many times over the past several years.
Watch the video, and let’s pass health reform.
Three cheers to the Party of No! If Obama does anything, the GOP is against it, even if they specifically asked him to do it.
No matter what it is.
On February 8th, Republican House leader John Beohner sent a letter to the White House, demanding that the White House post online any health care proposal it wished to discuss at the health care summit:
If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand?
So, four days later, the White House accepted this demand, and announced it would post a legislative proposal online more than 72 hours before the summit:
Since this meeting will be most productive if information is widely available before the meeting, we will post online the text of a proposed health insurance reform package.
Boehner’s response defies logic:
Boehner’s condemnation comes as the White House announced it would post comprehensive healthcare reform legislation online before the meeting. The Ohio Republican said it is now clear that Democrats intend to move ahead on their own course regardless of negotiations.
"A productive bipartisan discussion should begin with a clean sheet of paper," Boehner said in a statement. "We now know that instead of starting the ‘bipartisan’ health care ‘summit’ on Feb. 25 with a clean sheet of paper, the president and his party intend to arrive with a new bill written behind closed doors exclusively by Democrats– a backroom deal that will transform one-sixth of our nation’s economy and affect every family and small business in America."
Boehner’s request is not ancient history; it happened February 8 of this year.
There you have it, the Party of No. Impossible to work with at every turn.
Time for Reconciliation, to keep Democracy moving.
Nod to Americablog for this.
Sen. Evan Bayh is expected to announce Monday that he will not seek a third term in the Senate, a source close to the Indiana Democrat told CNN.
Political speculation from AmericaBlog:
Bayh may have really screwed the Democrats here. I just looked up the filing requirements for Senate primary candidates in Indiana. The CAN-4 form, which can be located here, titled, INDIANA PETITION FOR PRIMARY BALLOT PLACEMENT AS A CANDIDATE FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR, states:
INSTRUCTIONS: This petition is used to nominate candidates for placement on the May 4, 2010 Democratic or Republican Primary Election Ballot for the office of United States Senator. Petitioners are not required to provide precinct and congressional district information. The county voter registration office will complete this information after the petition is filed. Each candidate must also complete a Declaration of Candidacy for Primary Nomination form (CAN-2). This petition must be filed with the appropriate county voter registration office for processing beginning January 4, 2010, and no later than NOON, February 16, 2010.
That means Democrats might only have until tomorrow at noon to get a candidate on the ballot. I’m going to check further on this.
Some more political speculation from ABC News:
The decision blows a sizeable hole in the Democrats’ 2010 lineup, in a state that Republicans have long eyed as a prime pick-up opportunity. The retirement is likely to intensify chatter about the GOP’s chances to take over the Senate this year.
"After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so by serving in Congress has waned," Bayh plans to say, according to excerpts obtained by The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza.
Republicans recently coaxed former Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., into running for Bayh’s seat, which he held before Bayh was elected to two terms. Coats’ candidacy got off to a slow start, with questions about his lobbying clients and his residency, though Bayh’s exit makes this a much easier race for any Republican.
The Democrats need to get overthemselves and turn to reconciliation to start passing positive and much-needed legislation. The Republicans used reconciliation to force the Bush tax cuts through Congress and there was barely a whimper from the press or the public. The Democrats were perceived at the time as weak. Republicans were perceived as "savvy" and "cunning."
Now the Democrats are worried about making the Republicans "angry." And that’s too bad.
Time for the Democrats to grow a pair, as Howard Dean said. Now.
This could turn into quite the
President Obama and top Pentagon officials met repeatedly over the past year about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans openly gay members of the military.
But it was in Oval Office strategy sessions to review court cases challenging the ban — ones that could reach the Supreme Court — that Mr. Obama faced the fact that if he did not change the policy, his administration would be forced to defend publicly the constitutionality of a law he had long opposed.
As a participant recounted one of the sessions, Mr. Obama told Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, that the law was “just wrong.” Mr. Obama told them, the participant said, that he had delayed acting on repeal because the military was stretched in two wars and he did not want another polarizing debate in 2009 to distract from his health care fight.
But in 2010, he told them, this would be a priority. He got no objections.
On Tuesday, in the first Congressional hearing on the issue in 17 years, Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen will unveil the Pentagon’s initial plans for carrying out a repeal, which requires an act of Congress. Gay rights leaders say they expect Mr. Gates to announce in the interim that the Defense Department will not take action to discharge service members whose sexual orientation is revealed by third parties or jilted partners, one of the most onerous aspects of the law. Pentagon officials had no comment.
Gay rights groups are calling the hearing historic even as they question how quickly the administration is prepared to act. But Republicans are already signaling that they are not eager to take up the issue.
I hope that our friends in these gay rights groups start to understand that the president was actually working on repealing the ban on gays in the military almost non-stop since taking office, meeting "repeatedly" with top Pentagon officials, in addition to talking about the wars the previous president started.
Maybe, just maybe, there’s more involved in being President of the United States than viewing everything through the lenses of one issue?
The ban should be repealed, and I hope it is soon.
I’m near the end of Frank Schaeffer’s Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion (or Atheism)
When I was a child (to paraphrase St. Paul), I did not trust the military. Now that I am a man, I have an incredible respect for those who serve this country in uniform. Some liberals really go overboard slamming the military, and they should not. These men and women learn to move beyond preoccupation with the self. They think of the other, the platoon, the United States of America, before they think of themselves. Those in uniform are worthy of our respect and support.
Gays and lesbians are more than capable of serving openly, thinking of others first, the platoon, the United States of America, before they think of themselves. Gay and lesbian soldiers serve openly in the military of other countries every day.
Gay and lesbian soldiers have been serving the United States of America in the military for centuries. Let them finally and proudly serve openly.
Washington, D.C.–January 30, 2010.
At this time last year, amidst headlines about banks on the verge of collapse and job losses of 700,000 a month, we received another troubling piece of news about our economy. Our economy was shrinking at an alarming rate – the largest six-month decline in 50 years. Our factories and farms were producing less; our businesses were selling less; and more job losses were on the horizon.
One year later, according to numbers released this past week, this trend has reversed itself. For the past six months, our economy has been growing again. And last quarter, it grew more quickly than at any time in the past six years.
This is a sign of progress. And it’s an affirmation of the difficult decisions we made last year to pull our financial system back from the brink and get our economy moving again.
But when so many people are still struggling – when one in ten Americans still can’t find work, and millions more are working harder and longer for less – our mission isn’t just to grow the economy. It’s to grow jobs for folks who want them, and ensure wages are rising for those who have them. It’s not just about improvements we see in quarterly statistics, but ones people feel in their daily lives – a bigger paycheck; more security; the ability to give your kids a decent shot in life and still have enough to retire one day yourself.
That’s why job creation will be our number one focus in 2010. We’ll put more Americans back to work rebuilding our infrastructure all across the country. And since the true engines of job creation are America’s businesses, I’ve proposed tax credits to help them hire new workers, raise wages, and invest in new plants and equipment. I also want to eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and help small businesses get the loans they need to open their doors and expand their operations.
But as we work to create jobs, it is critical that we rein in the budget deficits we’ve been accumulating for far too long – deficits that won’t just burden our children and grandchildren, but could damage our markets, drive up our interest rates, and jeopardize our recovery right now.
There are certain core principles our families and businesses follow when they sit down to do their own budgets. They accept that they can’t get everything they want and focus on what they really need. They make tough decisions and sacrifice for their kids. They don’t spend what they don’t have, and they make do with what they’ve got.
It’s time their government did the same. That’s why I’m pleased that the Senate has just restored the pay-as-you-go law that was in place back in the 1990s. It’s no coincidence that we ended that decade with a $236 billion surplus. But then we did away with PAYGO – and we ended the next decade with a $1.3 trillion deficit. Reinstating this law will help get us back on track, ensuring that every time we spend, we find somewhere else to cut.
I’ve also proposed a spending freeze, so that as we increase investments in things we need, like job creation and middle class tax cuts – we cut spending on those we don’t, like tax cuts for oil companies and investment fund managers, and programs that are redundant, obsolete, or simply ineffective. Spending related to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected – and neither will national security – but all other discretionary government programs will.
Finally, I’ve called for a bi-partisan Fiscal Commission – a panel of Democrats and Republicans who would sit down and hammer out concrete deficit-reduction proposals by a certain deadline. Because we’ve heard plenty of talk and a lot of yelling on TV about deficits, and it’s now time to come together and make the painful choices we need to eliminate those deficits.
This past week, 53 Democrats and Republicans voted for this commission in the Senate. But it failed when seven Republicans who had co-sponsored this idea in the first place suddenly decided to vote against it.
Now, it’s one thing to have an honest difference of opinion about something. I will always respect those who take a principled stand for what they believe, even if I disagree with them.
But what I won’t accept is changing positions because it’s good politics. What I won’t accept is opposition for opposition’s sake. We cannot have a serious discussion and take meaningful action to create jobs and control our deficits if politicians just do what’s necessary to win the next election instead of what’s best for the next generation.
I’m ready and eager to work with anyone who’s serious about solving the real problems facing our people and our country. I welcome anyone who comes to the table in good faith to help get our economy moving again and fulfill this country’s promise. That’s why we were elected in the first place. That’s what the American people expect and deserve. And that’s what we must deliver.
Thank you.
Source: whitehouse.gov
From the Philadelphia Gay News:
About eight months after he pledged to introduce a bill that would institute a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution, Pennsylvania Sen. John Eichelberger (R-30th Dist.) has made good on his promise.
SB 707, which Eichelberger introduced Jan. 26, would add to the Pennsylvania Constitution the language: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as marriage.”
Eichelberger announced his intention to spearhead such an initiative last May, and Sen. Daylin Leach (D-17th Dist.) shortly thereafter introduced a measure that seeks to legalize same-sex marriage in the Keystone State.
To amend the constitution, both chambers of the state legislature would have to pass the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment in two consecutive sessions before the question is posed to voters.
I don’t get it at all. Gays and Lesbians want to do one of the most conservative things possible: get married.
Get over.
Declaring “I don’t quit,”‘ an embattled President Barack Obama vowed in his first State of the Union address Wednesday night to make job growth his topmost priority and urged a divided Congress to boost the still-ailing economy with fresh stimulus spending. Defiant despite stinging setbacks, he said he would not abandon ambitious plans for longer-term fixes to health care, energy, education and more.
“Change has not come fast enough,” Obama said before a politician-packed House chamber and a TV audience of millions. “As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may be, it’s time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.”
Obama looked to change the conversation from how his presidency is stalling — over the messy health care debate, a limping economy and the missteps that led to Christmas Day’s barely averted terrorist disaster — to how he is seizing the reins.
A chief demand was for lawmakers to press forward with his prized health care overhaul, which is in severe danger in Congress, and to resist the temptation to substitute a smaller-bore solution for the far-reaching changes he wants.
“Do not walk away from reform,” he implored. “Not now. Not when we are so close.”
Republicans applauded the president when he entered the chamber, and even craned their necks and welcomed Michelle Obama when she took her seat. But the warm feelings of bipartisanship disappeared early.
I don’t know how “embattled” President Obama is right now. Every president is “embattled.” I found the tone of the SOTU remarkable. But Congress needs to remember how to be a parliament, and they’re not there yet. Republicans say, “NO!” Democrats let the tail wag the dog and give up the fight. The intelligence factor in Congress is rather low right now, I fear, on both sides of the aisle. Republicans are too dumb to realize that there is more to life than cheap politics, and Democrats are too dumb to know how to make Congress work.
Too bad.
I’m glad this president does not “give up.” We still have work to do.
From Chris Hayes at The Nation:
For the first time since the Massachusetts debacle, I’m cautiously optimistic about the fate of health care reform. Here’s why: In the wake of Scott Brown’s election, what was most dispiriting was the total leadership vacuum and chaotic, every-man-for-himself atmosphere among congressional Democrats. There didn’t seem to be any hard consensus on what to do next. Some said: break it up into smaller pieces, radically pare down the bill, go back and find Republican support (ha!) or let the thing die. Every one of these options would actually spell the death of health care reform, and one of the most stunning legislative failures in recent memory. To even consider such a move seemed insane, and yet those of us paid to observe Congress have spent the last two weeks watching, with mouth agape, as congressional Democrats slowly raised a loaded gun to their collective mouths and volubly considered pulling the trigger.
But sanity has, tentatively, provisionally prevailed. After spending much of yesterday talking to folks on capitol hill, it’s clear there is increasingly consensus on a path forward: As I explained last night on Rachel Maddow, it involves a few steps, but is relatively straightforward. The House has to come up with a list of changes to the Senate bill that will get them to 218 votes (and will also pass muster with the procedural constraints of “reconciliation”. For more on that you can listen to last week’s episode of The Breakdown.) They then send those changes to the Senate leadership, which can pass them through reconciliation, a process that requires a simple majority. Once that process has moved forward or (better!) is completed, the House can then pass in quick succession the Senate bill, and the amended fix.
To be honest, I want to read this in depth later on. Just placing a link to Hayes’ post here so I can come back to it later on.
But this is good news.
Washington, D.C.–January 23, 2010.
One of the reasons I ran for President was because I believed so strongly that the voices of everyday Americans, hardworking folks doing everything they can to stay afloat, just weren’t being heard over the powerful voices of the special interests in Washington. And the result was a national agenda too often skewed in favor of those with the power to tilt the tables.
In my first year in office, we pushed back on that power by implementing historic reforms to get rid of the influence of those special interests. On my first day in office, we closed the revolving door between lobbying firms and the government so that no one in my administration would make decisions based on the interests of former or future employers. We barred gifts from federal lobbyists to executive branch officials. We imposed tough restrictions to prevent funds for our recovery from lining the pockets of the well-connected, instead of creating jobs for Americans. And for the first time in history, we have publicly disclosed the names of lobbyists and non-lobbyists alike who visit the White House every day, so that you know what’s going on in the White House – the people’s house.
We’ve been making steady progress. But this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned more than a century of law – including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks.
This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.
I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.
All of us, regardless of party, should be worried that it will be that much harder to get fair, common-sense financial reforms, or close unwarranted tax loopholes that reward corporations from sheltering their income or shipping American jobs off-shore.
It will make it more difficult to pass commonsense laws to promote energy independence because even foreign entities would be allowed to mix in our elections.
It would give the health insurance industry even more leverage to fend off reforms that would protect patients.
We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.
And we don’t intend to. When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with Members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision. We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done.
A hundred years ago, one of the great Republican Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, fought to limit special interest spending and influence over American political campaigns and warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending. His message rings as true as ever today, in this age of mass communications, when the decks are too often stacked against ordinary Americans. And as long as I’m your President, I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.
Source: whitehouse.gov