First of all, I am happy to announce that I’ve been included in the Jon Swift Memorial Roundup 2010. Jon Swift (not his real name) was incredibly influential early blogger. He was a conservative with liberal leanings. He wasn’t angry. He was the first major blogger to include me in his blogroll. His death was painful and shocking. I truly appreciate being included in this Roundup.
Secondly, Ezra Klein is talking my language. This is very similar to a post that I did some time ago.
Speaker John Boehner’s office tweets, “@CNN survey: 60 percent of Americans oppose unconstitutional individual mandate in ObamaCare.” The link goes to this Hill article reporting that support for the individual mandate has slipped from 44 percent to 38 percent. But if you look at the full poll (pdf), there’s more of interest. For instance, this question:
So 56 percent of voters either favor the legislation or wish it was more liberal. Only 37 percent oppose it for being too liberal. There’s some ambiguity as to what people mean when they use the world “liberal” in this context, but I’m pretty sure that it’s not anything John Boehner would find particularly congenial.
I looked at a different poll but the results were the same. Americans have wanted the government to step in and take responsibility for healthcare for more than a decade.
I know that conservatives are always talking about cutting the size of government. They are saying that we pay too many and too much for taxes. Whatever. We need government. We need government to be fully funded so that it can function. Look at New York City. It used to function. Now it can’t even clean the streets after a snowstorm. This was an easy disaster. There was plenty of warning. Hell, all you needed to do was watch the Weather Channel and you could have nailed this one. Now, EMS vehicles can’t get through snow clogged streets. There is no excuse. Mayor Bloomberg should resign. Now!
From NYT:
At 3:58 a.m. on Christmas morning, the National Weather Service upgraded its alert about the snow headed to New York City, issuing a winter storm watch. By 3:55 p.m., it had declared a formal blizzard warning, a rare degree of alarm. But city officials opted not to declare a snow emergency — a significant mobilization that would have, among other things, aided initial snow plowing efforts.
By 4 p.m. Sunday, several inches of snow had accumulated when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg made a plea for help at his first news conference about the escalating storm: he asked people with heavy equipment and other kinds of towing machinery to call the city’s 311 line to register for work. A full day had gone by since the blizzard warning had been issued.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority entered the holiday weekend with modest concerns about the weather. On Friday, it issued its lowest-level warning to subway and bus workers. Indeed, it was not until late Sunday morning, hours after snow had begun to fall, that the agency went to a full alert, rushing to call in additional crew members and emergency workers. Over the next 48 hours, subways lost power on frozen tracks and hundreds of buses wound up stuck in snow-filled streets.
I hope everyone had a safe and merry Christmas!
First, of all the Cowboys have had some bad luck. 2 pick 6′s on tipped balls.
Stephen McGee is going to take some snaps for the Cowboys. Kitna is in the locker room getting x-rays, a targot card reading and a massage.
The Cowboys played hard the whole game. Unfortunately, they made too many mistakes. This game mirrors the Cowboys season. A missed extra point. Seriously. The pass defense is awful, simply awful.
Looking forward to next year.
I hope that everyone has a happy and safe holiday season. Merry Christmas! As a Christian who is a liberal, I have no problem saying Merry Christmas. I also have no problem acknowledging that there are Americans who do not celebrate Christmas. To those – happy Hanukkah, happy holidays. (That really wasn’t all that hard.)
I have argued that we are living in a new era. We live in an era in which business recovers from economic disaster without creating significant jobs in the United States. If we look at big business, business is booming. Major corporations are looking to rake in record profits. Yet, the unemployment rate hovers just below 10%.
Over the past 20 years, business has learned to do more with less. There has been an emphasis on corporations being leaner and meaner. Many factory jobs have been shipped overseas. These jobs aren’t coming back. The factories that have remained have been upgraded, computerized and automated, therefore requiring less manual labor. So, in my opinion, it is foolish for us to think that as the economy “heats up” it will begin to hire millions of Americans. There are over 26.6 million Americans either unemployed or underemployed. This isn’t going to happen. The economy isn’t going to spontaneously began hiring millions of Americans. The government has to do something.
I think this is where the Democrats have screwed up their political strategy. They’ve been telling Americans that the economy is on the rebound. They’ve been touting numbers from Wall Street, yet middle America continues to hurt. We need jobs and we need jobs that are paying a living wage. The Democrats have basically taken air out of their own balloon by telling Americans that things are better and that things are turning around. Now, because things are “better,” there is no incentive on Capitol Hill for any major initiative to put Americans back to work.
The Democrats are stuck. Republicans seem to have momentum in doing nothing and implementing… Nothing. The unemployment rate will stay around 10% because nothing major will be done in the next two years. The Democrats have to figure out a way to fix this problem. If they can’t fix this problem, look for the Democrats to lose significant number of seats in 2012, including… The White House.
I’m sorry this is so depressing. I just want to be honest. This is what I see.
I know that progressives have been pushing for an end to the filibuster for the last 12-18 months. I don’t know? I’ve been thinking about it and I still don’t know. On one hand, you have the graph below.
It is clear that the Republicans have obstructed progress/legislation at every turn. Their whole purpose was to show America that the Democrats and President Barack Obama could not get anything done. They were rewarded with a landslide victory in the House. But, to get back to my point, the filibuster is a tool the minority. It is supposed to be like that lever that is behind the glass that you pull in case of fire. It is clear that the Republicans have misused the filibuster but in changing the rules could the Democrats regret the change in several years? When the Democrats are in the minority and Republicans are pushing for yet another tax cut for the rich or a bailout for Wall Street which leaves main street behind or the return of the Patriot act, will the Democrats regret the change?
From Ezra Klein:
And if we don’t do anything, I’d argue, our political system will continue to disappoint. The polls — both in the abstract and in the judgments of the lame-duck session — continue to show that the American people want the two parties to join together to get things done. But the filibuster is a powerful incentive to do just the opposite: It gives the minority the power to make the majority fail at its job, and now that both Democrats and Republicans have realized that kneecapping the other is the quickest way back into power, it’s the strategy that they turn to first. The lame-duck session was so productive precisely because the congressional session that preceded it was less productive than a supermajority of members thought it should’ve been. That’s an indictment of the system, not an argument in its favor.
You might say, however, that the American people don’t just want action. They want bipartisan action. To some degree, I think that’s right. When the two sides go to war over this or that bill, it turns off the public. But the theory that the filibuster encourages bipartisanship gets it exactly backwards. The START treaty, which first looked unlikely to pass, and then barely got the required votes, and then suddenly got many more than the required votes once its success appeared assured, shows something important about the political system: For the minority, the first-best outcome is defeating the majority, but the second-best outcome might be working to make the bill better and help it pass.
(Above–Picture of Galveston Seawall I took earlier his year. Government, in concert with our own hard work, can help protect us from the storms of life.)
From the Houston Chronicle—
“….the seawall from Fourth Street to 83rd Street will be landscaped with palm trees and native grasses… Other improvements include solar lighting, benches and markers with information on history and local plants and wildlife. The bulk of the $15 million cost for the entire project will be paid for with federal transportation money…”
In 2010, the voters of Galveston County elected a Republican county government.
I thought the message of the 2010 election was to get government out of our lives.
Where are the objections to this project from Galveston County Republicans? Where are the Republicans of principle holding bake sales to raise funds for Seawall improvements? Where are the citizens forming volunteer parties to do this work without federal intrusion from Washington?
People can go on and on about government. But in the end they take the money.
There is nothing wrong with taking the money for useful projects such as improving a resource as vital to the safety and prosperity of Galveston County as is the Seawall.
Also, there is nothing wrong with realizing the fact that government has a role to play in our lives.
Where’s the Outrage? readers across the nation will no doubt see similar cases of people who say they don’t want federal government help, but who then take the money.
We should be proud of the fact that we live in a civilized nation where funds are raised and people are helped for the good of the general welfare.
Here is some history of the Galveston Seawall.
(Photo copyright Neil Aquino)
This is the kind of outta da box thinking that can really help DC, NY and Boston with their traffic/pollution problem. It doesn’t look like a solution for everyone in every city. Still the AirPod (wonder if Apple will sue them over trademark issues) is a cool car.
From HuffPo:
Compared to a standard car, the AirPod emits a fraction of the pollution, can reach up to 50 mph, and will cost around $10,000. Motor Development International hopes that the AirPod will be the future of urban transportation.

(Above–Smoke as observed from space in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack.)
Republicans have said they are concerned that the bill would add to the deficit, yet adding to the deficit did not seem to be a concern for Republicans when it came to protecting tax cuts for the most wealthy Americans.
The 9/11 bill will cost $7.4 billion.
Republicans care that the wealthy become more powerful and wealthy.
How is it that tax cuts for the rich are okay with many Republicans, but assistance for those who risked their health to help after the destruction of the World Trade Center is not okay?
Mike Huckabee, a former Republican Presidential candidate, says the 9/11 bill should be passed.
Here is some of what Mr. Huckabee said—
“There are people who need medical care right now, and frankly, the clock is running out on them. Their lives are fading away, even as we sit here talking about it,”
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani also supports the legislation.
Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has renewed his commitment to not allowing the bill to proceed. Senator Coburn is a doctor.
Senator Coburn says he does not like the process that has been used to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate.
Sure.
How do average working people tolerate these things?
How can any loyal American support Republican actions in this matter?

For reasons that are unclear to me it seems that it is easier to believe a lie than the truth. I was just reading through the list of whoppers for last year. We’ve heard them all. We’ve read the mom blogs. We’ve heard them over the water cooler at work. We’ve heard our friends and neighbors talk about these lies as if they were facts. We’ve all seen the “deer in the headlights” look when we point out that health-care reform was never going to be “a government takeover.”
From PolitiFact:
In the spring of 2009, a Republican strategist settled on a brilliant and powerful attack line for President Barack Obama’s ambitious plan to overhaul America’s health insurance system. Frank Luntz, a consultant famous for his phraseology, urged GOP leaders to call it a “government takeover.”
The phrase is simply not true.
Said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: ”The label ‘government takeover” has no basis in reality, but instead reflects a political dynamic where conservatives label any increase in government authority in health care as a ‘takeover.’ ”
An inaccurate claim
“Government takeover” conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:
• Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
• Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up “exchanges” where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don’t have it.
• The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
• The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers. (more …)
Other honorable mentions for lie of the year:
“The president United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day” – Michele Bachmann.
“The stimulus is not created one private sector job.” – Governor elect Rick Scott.
The ethics report “exonerates me.” – Representative Charlie Rangel.
“Phoenix is the number two kidnapping capital of the world.” Senator John McCain.
I have never liked the law Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It was stupid. It was an excellent example of liberal overreach combined with liberal spinelessness. Remember that President Clinton promised to end discrimination in the military. This was a great goal but he didn’t talk with the military or didn’t think that they would mind. He was talking and promising without thinking. Then he got elected and had to confront reality. The military wasn’t interested in changing, period. So, being a politician, President Clinton decided that he would compromise. Let’ s pick a halfway point, he thought. Well, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was that compromise. It was the halfway point between complete discrimination and complete equality. It was sort of discrimination which was sort of stupid.
So, the Senate finally voted to end this discriminatory policy. This is a great thing. Now, the military will have to adjust. The military will adjust because they are great soldiers who answer to the people.
From HuffPo:
The Senate voted 65-31 on Saturday to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, defeating a 17-year policy of banning gay and lesbian service members from serving openly in the military. Six Republicans initially crossed the aisle to vote against the policy: Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio).
The Senate vote is a vindication of Obama’s decision to push for congressional repeal as opposed to unilateral executive action, though activists note he could have done both. The Senate will make a final vote on ending the policy at 3 p.m.
In the first procedural vote on Saturday morning, 63 senators voted in favor of the bill and 33 against. In the final passage, Sens. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) switched their voted to “aye,” despite initially voting against moving forward with the bill.
“The important thing today is that 63 senators were on the right side of history,” Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, told HuffPost after the first vote, adding he sees the bill as a “stepping stone to further advances for the gay and lesbian community.”
I’m at a loss for words…
From TPM:
President Barack Obama on Friday signed into law a bill extending Bush-era tax cuts and said he hoped the bipartisan spirit that had made it possible would help restore Americans’ faith in Washington.
“The final product proves when we can put aside the partisanship and the political games, when we can put aside what’s good for some of us in favor of what’s good for all of us, we can get a lot done,” he said at a White House ceremony.
Obama brokered the tax deal with Republicans over the objections of many of his fellow Democrats who said it was too generous to the rich, and U.S. lawmakers passed the $858 billion package of renewed tax cuts and more unemployment benefits near midnight on Thursday.
“This is real money that’s going to make a real difference in people’s lives,” Obama said. “That’s how we’re going to spark demand, spur hiring, and strengthen our economy in the new year.”
The bill was expected to provide at least a short-term boost to the U.S. economy and reduce unemployment, which remains near 10 percent. But it will also add to a $14 trillion national debt that some fear is nearing dangerous levels.
Above you see a Christmas ornament on my Christmas Tree.
The ornament is of the U.S. Capitol with a copy of the Constitution scrolled around the building.
You light up the ornament by placing a Christmas tree light into the back of the ornament.
I placed a green bulb in the Capitol/Constitution because our nation’s political system is run by big money.
It’s always been this way—But since the terrible Citizens United ruling earlier this year by the Supreme Court, the rule of big money is even worse.
The 2012 campaign is going to be all about big money from often secret sources.
The Citzens United decision allows for unlimited secret money to be donated to political campaigns from corporations and the super-rich.
I’m not certain my protest of making the Capitol and the Constitution the color of money will change much.
It is simply what I could do in the context of my Christmas Tree.
However, there are things we can do to combat the role of big money in our politics.
We can donate money ourselves, discuss issues with friends and family, run for office, start a blog, contact our elected officials, volunteer for candidates or causes we support, and do whatever else we feel may be of value.
There are always things we can do. It is up to us to do the work of freedom and democracy.
To the left of the Capitol ornament you see a salmon.
That would be a great movie where the Capitol was attacked by a salmon. I hope somebody makes that movie real soon.
No matter what your religion, this is a time of year for happiness, togetherness and celebration. With more than 6.3 million Americans being unemployed for more than six months, it’s hard for me to generate a lot of happiness. The president’s deficit commission has put everything on the table in order to “balance the budget.” The Commission has proposed deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as well as other programs. Republicans, along with some conservative Democrats, have decided that renewing unemployment benefits for millions of Americans should not be automatic but instead should be a bargaining chip to extend the President Bush-era tax cuts, including slashing the estate tax!
So, while you and I are focused on how to pay our bills, keep the lights on and put food on the table, the mainstream media is focused on the fact that Newt Gingrich believes that the Obama Administration is chaotic. Also, they want us to know that former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has a beef with Sarah Palin. By the way, did you know that Bristol Palin was not forced to dance on Dancing with the Stars? Who cares? Why is any of this important? How does any of this help you and me?
We have real problems in this country. Our unemployment rate is 9.8%. Our economy continues to be on life support. We want jobs. Jobs are not produced by tax cuts. They simply aren’t. If we learned one thing from President Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down economics it was that it simply doesn’t work. According to the Economic Policy Institute, from 1980 through 1990 wages for the top 1% rose 80% to just under an average of $200,000 a year. During the same period, wages for the rest of us, the bottom 90%, rose only 3%. 3%! I won’t even mention that these tax cuts, combined with an increase in military spending, grew our national debt almost 200% during the eight years that President Reagan was in office. So, to prove that our experiment in Reaganomics was a complete and utter failure, we decided to repeat the experiment under President George W. Bush. The results were exactly the same. Incomes for the rich skyrocketed. Median income for the rest of us was basically flat. Trickle-down economics does not work unless you’re rich.
Cold hard facts are hard to find inside the Beltway. Somehow real data does not penetrate the Capitol. Our elected officials have been arguing over the Bush-era tax cuts for more than three months. Fiercely emotional arguments have been presented on both sides. Republicans have argued that the tax cuts are necessary to stimulate the economy, that they will create jobs. Democrats have argued that tax cuts for Rush Limbaugh, his rich buddies and Wall Street fat cats are ludicrous.
I think that you and I are missing the point. There seems to be universal agreement on Capitol Hill over corporate welfare. The financial sector has not had to lay off thousands of people. As a matter fact, in spite of a recession, the financial sector just racked up $19 billion in profits. According to Senator Bernie Sanders, the Federal Reserve gave away over $3 trillion in order to prop up ailing financial companies during the federal bailout. This is above and beyond the toxic asset relief program. This money wasn’t used to create jobs. Instead, this money was used to make Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, to name a few, look better on paper. Congress has consistently given us a lump of coal in our Christmas stocking while giving Wall Street truck loads of gold. Can you or I get a direct cash infusion from the Federal Reserve? I don’t need a trillion or even a billion… just a few hundred million dollars directly injected into my bank account would go a long way toward me my having a very Merry Christmas.
We need the unemployment benefits renewed. We need jobs. My Christmas wish is that we can get Congress to act on both of these critically important legislative issues. Merry Christmas and happy holidays.
I didn’t think that we were going to get this close. The House has passed a stand alone Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell bill. Here is Rep. John Lewis on the floor of the House urging repeal.
From TPM:
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) pledged her support for the standalone bill to repeal the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy this afternoon. Cloture to pass a repeal as part of the defense authorization failed by a mere 3 votes last week.
Snowe was among several theoretical supporters of repeal who said she voted against cloture because of procedural issues: Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) objected to the time allotted to debate the underlying bill; and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said that the timing for repeal was, in his view, not quite right.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) said, on the other hand, that she’d missed the vote because of a dental appointment. So, with Snowe’s support, repeal supporters are within 1 vote of cloture — and a repeal of DADT.
The House passed its own version of the DADT repeal bill early this evening.
From former health-insurance industry executive Wendell Potter:
When I testified before Congress last year, I told lawmakers that if they passed a health care reform bill with an individual mandate but no public option, they might as well call their bill the “Health Insurance Profit Protection and Enhancement Act.” Well, of course, that is exactly what Congress did, but they didn’t change the name of the new law as I suggested.
I was as upset as anyone that the public option was stripped out, but I nevertheless later said that Congress should still pass the bill because of the protections it contained against common predatory practices by insurers, like canceling breast cancer patients’ insurance in the midst of treatment and refusing to sell coverage at any price to people with pre-existing conditions. The bill also expands Medicaid to encompass several million Americans who cannot afford to buy overpriced and often inadequate health insurance.
I have no doubt the insurance executives I used to work with were doing high fives when the public option bit the dust, and their favorite part of the bill — the mandate that will require us to buy their insurance products if we’re not eligible for an existing public plan like Medicare, Medicaid or the VA program — became the law of the land.
After the recent ruling by the federal judge in Virginia that the mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, however, I’m sure my old buddies who are still in the industry are downright apoplectic.
As I noted in my essay in Newsweek last month, the insurers, and the Republicans they helped to elect to Congress, have a real dilemma on their hands. The Republicans led voters to believe that the new health reform law represents a “government takeover” of our health care system (it certainly does not, not by a long shot) and promised to “repeal and replace it.” Several politically-ambitious GOP attorneys general (and one Democrat) filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionally of the individual mandate so prized by the insurers.
Now that the Virginia judge has sided with those AGs and other plaintiffs, the insurance industry flacks (like I used to be) are now spinning in overdrive.
Check out the Bloomberg story about the judge’s decision. The headline alone says it all: “Lack of Health Mandate Would Lead to Skyrocketing Costs, Insurers Say.” Read it if you’re interested in seeing how the insurers are spinning this story, and how they will continue to spin it until Congress and the Republican-appointed judges drop their charade of dismantling the new law. What they really want to accomplish, and what consumer advocates need to keep an eye on, is having Congress figure out how to strip out the new regulations and consumer protections in the law. That’s what they don’t like.
Why? Because Wall Street doesn’t like them. Investors are afraid that if insurers have to play fair for a change, they won’t make as much money. They have enjoyed skyrocketing profits lately, especially this year. The prospect that a reform law would include decent consumer protections but no individual mandate scares the bejesus out of them. Hence, the spin that we are in for skyrocketing health care costs if the Virginia judge’s decision is upheld.
The thing to keep in mind is that, despite the headlines and hype, this is just one judge’s opinion. Others have gone the other way. We are a long way from knowing if, and how, the new health reform act will ultimately be implemented.