by RAULC, Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 12:08:13 PM EST
The Volokh conspiracy has had a solid debate on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. The more one looks at this, the more seemingly unconstitutional it is. Health care has been the most important Democratic issue for a very long time- if dems screw this issue we deserve to lose. The regressive effect on a corporalist approach simply is antiethical for dem values (see Digby & Glenwald)- in fact I don't care as much on other issues. Yes, no bill may be hurtful but a bad bill would be self destructive. Kos is correct, we are falling for a GOP trap; GOP will change the bill and we will have nothing to show except minority status forever, (Congress has rescinded healthcare changes before-recall the Medicare reforms. For the good of the party and the country, progressives should vote against this disaster.
by tarheel74, Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:27:11 AM EST
Fiasco? Yes. Intense tone deafness? Yes. Complete lack of leadership? Yes.
Even yesterday, much like snake-oil salesman, the President went on tv to sell this crap heap as a way of saving money. Give me a break!! You wanna save tax payer money Mr. President, stop giving billions in tax breaks to undeserving banks (see Charles' diary and the excellent analysis he has linked to). Today the progressives have started laying the blame of the fiasco where it partially belongs, at 1600 Pennsylvania where they had abdicated all leadership.
Here's Howard Dean explaining why claiming this bill saves money is akin to selling snake oil:
by Jonathan Singer, Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:21:17 AM EST
Greg Sargent makes an excellent catch, finding that not only did Joe Lieberman support in the somewhat distant past the type of Medicare buy-in proposal he is now promising to filibuster -- he spoke out in favor of such a proposal just three months ago. Take a look:
The Beltway press is beginning to take note that Lieberman's position isn't really principled, and this video evidence isn't likely to help the Connecticut Senator convince anyone otherwise. Given that Lieberman's power stems from his cachet with the establishment, the potential that he will lose this cachet as more realize that his positions are less about principle than politics might actually be the way to get him to back down.
by mole333, Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 09:59:33 AM EST
Trying to get back to regular newsletters, but it may not be quite weekly.
I am continuing to introduce a some more local pages focusing on particular counties or congressional districts in Texas, California and New York. These are focused on some swing districts that I think are worth concentrating on where I think I have readers. So keep an eye open for some new info on some local districts in these three states. My intention is to compile some info which I won't necessarily update regularly, but will still be a good resource for people in those areas. This week I add Suffolk County and the 19th Congressional District in New York. My motivation is that these are districts with Democrats who are very progressive for the districts they represent (thanks to this website for info: www.progressivepunch.org) and who are potential targets for Republican challengers, so I want to help them out. I also started coverage of Lancaster County, PA where the Pitts of Stupal-Pitts is the Congressional Rep. Last newsletter I covered the TX-10 and TX-21 districts where healthcare reform is desperately needed but obstructionist Republicans are preventing it.
by tarheel74, Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 06:27:56 AM EST
The latest news today is that the banks that we the taxpayers saved, had been laundering drug money to stay afloat. So unwittingly, due to the largess of the Federal government, all of us might be complicit in saving companies that broke Federal racketeering law. This is explosive stuff and everyone should read this report in the Guardian.