|
|
 Posted January 24th, 2010 at 1:59PM
Thursday’s decision, in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, “is going to flip the existing campaign order on its head,” said Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a Republican campaign lawyer at the law-and-lobbying firm Patton Boggs who has represented both candidates and outside groups, including Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group formed to oppose Senator John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.
“It will put on steroids the trend that outside groups are increasingly dominating campaigns,” Mr. Ginsberg said.
Great, so expect this court decision to spur an even greater emphasis on dollars spent each election cycle, becoming ever larger the biggest determining factor in sorting winners from losers. It was always my interpretation that the bill of rights spoke for the rights of the US citizen, not institutions of any stripe. Obviously the Supreme Court has set off on a different understanding while attempting to cohere various first amendment rulings. Unfortunately the divergent result is to limit the individuals’ voice during the democratic process. From the NY Times op-ed -
The [Supreme Court] majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.
The majority also makes the nonsensical claim that, unlike campaign contributions, which are still prohibited, independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” If Wall Street bankers told members of Congress that they would spend millions of dollars to defeat anyone who opposed their bailout, and then did so, it would certainly look corrupt.
McCain for his part has called campaign finance reform “dead” and the majority ruling in the Supreme Court “naive.” It seems like Obama, being the constitutional law scholar he is, could chart the course toward renewed campaign finance reform, viewed constitutionally legal by this conservatively activist Court. It seems like the only hope for rational government down the line.
If payola and the exchange of money is granted a verifiable constitutional guarantee, where does that leave us? If freedom of expression extends to corporations buying elections, will it similarly extend to the individual looking to purchase crack cocaine or solicit prostitutes?
Posted January 20th, 2010 at 4:00PM
Whenever there are circumstances these days that require direction from the Oval Office, it becomes a chance to “test” Obama. During immediate coverage of the Haitian earthquake last week, Matt Lauer eagerly and repeatedly dubbed it a “test.” Or cite Biden’s flub over being tested within six months in office. Has No Child Left Behind progressed to the presidency, where we now compulsively scrutinize, dutifully grading along some cosmic POTUS curve?
Never mind the response he gives when asked to self-grade (who doesn’t give themselves an A?), but think of the ludicrous proportions that question assumes when posed to his predecessor – a man familiar only with the “gentleman’s C.” (No, I would not like to be shown to YouTube footage of aforementioned question being asked.)
No one has been pleased all of the time here, myself least of all. But Obama has arguably proven his acumen for the job by now. Can it with the ongoing tallying of job performance assessments and get to analyzing the policy already. Or dare I ask too much from broadcast news?
Posted September 6th, 2009 at 12:21PM
Looking at the main news stories of the day can make your head spin. Obama’s planned televised pep talk has been churned into a massive indoctrination plot. His adviser on green jobs, Van Jones, resigns for signing a petition, with Congressman Mike Pence saying that, “His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate.” Cheney, meanwhile, continues to pardon each new brutality revealed to have occurred during his watch. (Power drills? Condonable? Really?) And on the healthcare front, all indications are to expect major concessionary overtones the next time Obama comes on air.
As the guy on Meet The Press said today: at some point, you just look at some of the headlines of the day and think, “That’s flat out stupid.”
I’d say it’s bizarre, and we’ve been here for awhile. Recent news cycles have been on a rightward spiral since the perceived stall in healthcare reform. It’s the hard right segment of the public that’s framing every debate right now.
On healthcare, I’m feeling more and more ambivalent about said efforts. I had enough concerns about a “robust” public option. But for it to be crippled or completely axed? Expanded Medicare for people deemed unprofitable to insure, operating under the current rules of the game, will result in huge, unsustainable government bloat. So OK – go the incremental route. But make sure to drop the ‘substantial’ from before the Health Insurance Reform banners.
For certain, there would be a much smaller cost of implementing reforms absent any direct gov’t effort to insure more people. Incremental reform for incremental results. The public option fails mostly because it’s an additional cost to the taxpayer, above and beyond their current exorbitant insurance premiums. Place the burden only on the $250k+’ers? Fine, “tax the rich,” but it’s disingenuous way to fund reform. And no plan currently being floated in the mainstream ensures access to everyone. I’ll go ahead and beat the dead horse: a single-payer system paid equitably (based on ability, allowing a progressive curve) would be healthcare paid for by the people using it.
Why can’t we have an honest discussion about the way we already spend our healthcare dollars? Serious reform efforts may mean increased government spending, but hysterically delineating between private and public sidesteps the real issue of out-of-control costs.
Canada’s healthcare expenses under their single-payer system are similarly outpacing inflation – but that’s a worldwide trend, and their’s is to a lesser extent than our private insurance boondoggle. Their government is doing a better job of reigning in costs than our market system. If Americans are so lousy at self-governance that we can’t insure our own citizens, who are we to be dictating terms to Afghans? Hell, we oppose their sole source of real income, poppies. 
Posted August 11th, 2009 at 12:29PM
Last Sunday on Meet The Press, I thought David Brooks was at moments unintentionally both humorous and insightful. At multiple points, Brooks resorted to using “crazy” or “insane” – in responding to a Limbaugh clip, Palin’s ‘death panel’ post on Facebook, and the regime in Iran. Simple, straightforward. Yup, I couldn’t have put it better. There are some real nutjobs making news these days.
The Chicken Littles are already decrying the end of Hope, as public support starts to slip for both healthcare reform and the White House itself. Let’s put it in perspective. Despite falling poll numbers, there is no alternative party to the Democrats. The mainstream media is doing their part to paint the loony fringe as the voice of the GOP, but their sensationalizing hits way too close to home. Scarily, the only rational Republicans left seem to be party cast outs, independents (Bloomberg), or those not seeking re-election (the majority of Repubs who broke ranks to support Sotomayor). Minority Leader John Boehner has made it abundantly, explicitly clear that Congressional Republicans will not be in the business of legislating over the next four years. (Maybe this shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering that Bush decided to not lead the country for eight years.) The disheartening part is not asinine GOP leadership, but the way in which elected officials follow that leadership lockstep, heedless of the effect to their constituents or the country as a whole.
With Obama actually wielding power and under the constraints of political realities, it’s no surprise that a certain amount of “re-disillusionment” is kicking in. For the people prepared to take a rational look at things, I need only point to the bizarre alternate reality where McCain and Palin were in charge over the past seven months. (Add four points to unemployment, half the Dow Jones, and throw in a few launched nuclear ICBMs, and you’re almost there.)
With the Republican opposition’s infantile refusal to do their jobs, ostensibly denying each Dem-sponsored bill to come along, the White House needs to take a firmer role in directing Congress and focusing the debate. Bipartisanship comes second to constructive lawmaking, and the two become mutually exclusive when one side decides to play the dunce.
Posted July 28th, 2009 at 1:30PM
Overhauling our healthcare system has been part of my agenda for ages now. I’ve never been too optimistic about its chances. As Obama came in and started to say all the right things, I began to have hope. But after flipping through the alternative press, those hopes are again dashed…
My main fear is of severely compromised reform, destined for failure. Getting everyone’s “OK” will mean flawed legislation. Make no mistake about it – single-payer systems are working the best in other countries, and Americans are not as unique as we’d all like to think. Single payer has already been introduced, by Rep. John Conyers. It’s H.R. 676, The United States National Health Care Act. Spread the word – like to the lawmakers supposed to be working for you.
Unconvinced single-payer is the way to go? The case for single-payer, made ad nauseum:
Comment by Dr. Don McCanne, PNHP Senior Health Policy Fellow:
Once again, fiscal analysis shows that the models of reform that build on our highly flawed, fragmented system of financing health care actually increase health care spending while falling far short on the goals of reform. In contrast, the single payer model would provide truly comprehensive care for absolutely everyone while significantly reducing health care spending.
The thing that got me excited and optimistic in the first place is the change in public opinion concerning healthcare. One thing Obama has done well is to make the case for reform in financial terms. Will he follow through with garbage reform when there’s the opportunity for so much more? Say it ain’t so.
The Selling of Single-Payer Features, by Helen Redmond, Counterpunch.org
The sea change in the public’s attitude toward government financed health care, however, has gotten press. A New York Times poll in June found that 72 percent supported a government-administered insurance plan – like Medicare for everyone under the age of 65. That poll also reported 64 percent believed the federal government should guarantee coverage to the entire population, i.e. health care should be a human right. Another interesting number: 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt. This is in stark contrast to President Obama’s position of tepid, incremental reform.
Posted May 19th, 2009 at 12:57PM
The Obama administration’s new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting “a war on drugs,” a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.
In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation’s drug issues.
“Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or a ‘war on a product,’ people see a war as a war on them,” he said. “We’re not at war with people in this country.”
…
Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that supports legalization of medical marijuana, said he is “cautiously optimistic” about Mr. Kerlikowske. “The analogy we have is this is like turning around an ocean liner,” he said. “What’s important is the damn thing is beginning to turn.”
Nadelmann nailed it. At least things have started to turn around. According to the WSJ article, the White House has also called for a change in the disparity of severity between crack- and cocaine-related offenses, and has ended federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in the 13 states that have legalized medical marijuana. That was one of those inanely simple things Obama could do immediately which I was waiting to see happen. Huzzah.
Posted April 1st, 2009 at 10:03AM
So I voted early yesterday on the way to PA to deal with the passing of a relative. There was a decent number of people milling about our polling place, and the same paper punch voting machines were in use. I checked last night and found the election at 50-50%, with ninety percent of districts reporting, and things haven’t changed much in the past twelve hours.
Dem Scott Murphy enjoys a razor-thin margin of 59 votes – 77,344, opposed to Tedisco’s 77,285 – according to the final tally printed in today’s Times Union. That turnout is better than the expected number of around 90,000 total.
Currently outstanding are 5,900 absentee ballots received, with more expected in the coming days. These have been sealed until a court hearing on April 6th, per an injunction obtained by Republican election lawyer John Ciampola to impound all paper ballots. It appears that registered Republicans have an edge in absentee ballots cast; but considering that they’re the majority party in the district, it shouldn’t come as a surprise or necessarily indicate an advantage.
Libertarian candidate Eric Sundwall was pushed off the ballot in the week leading up to the election. This was also per efforts by Ciampola, as Sundwall was expected to pull a few percentage points from Tedisco.
I did a quick google and found the usual partisan hack commentaries floating around. But ultimately it looks as if either candidate will follow lock-step with their respective party once in office. With the large Dem majority in the House, this one seat makes little difference. Still, I would rather have the guy who agrees with the Obama administration, and not the one cock-blocking it.
Despite the sorry state of the GOP nationally, this election was Tedisco’s to loose. He had the large early lead and name recognition as an elected official, and the 20th is a Republican district – but making the election an early referendum on the Obama administration wasn’t a smart move. The stink and political fallout from corporate bonuses and the still-miserable economy haven’t stuck to the White House yet. Meanwhile, nobody in the 20th really has any bearing on how either candidate stands on issues unrelated with Obama’s handling of the economy. Murphy defused extraneous issues by supporting civil unions (“Not marriage”) and gun control during the televised debate, and in recent days self-describing himself as an “economic conservative.” All of this mirroring Tedisco.
For what it’s worth, Murphy handled himself well during said televised debate, and appeared more capable of going off-talking point and responding to the question at hand. I believe he’ll be a capable representative, pending a longish, drawn out process to choose the winner. I say they just draw straws.
|
Tags: 
