w-dervish's Top Four Democratic Legislators (And Dishonorable Mentions)

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators ~ Unknown.

What follows is a listing of my favorite 4 Democratic Legislators; written in response to a post on the Contra O'Reilly blog. This "Moderate" blogger selects his legislators for (primarily) their support of the Bowles-Simpson Conservative Deficit Reduction plan, which has rightly (in my opinion) been criticized as being "stacked with people who want to target entitlement spending rather than any balanced proposal".

Re Bowles-Simpson being Conservative, Willis sez "only in the warped, psychotic, brain-diseased, and idiotic mind of a lunatic leftist douchebag would anything even remotely along these lines even be considered". Wrong.

In any case, my four picks are legislators I feel have exceptional character and integrity, and are among the cream of the crop. Politicians who have not been bought or sold, but in fact have been working hard for the average American (in alphabetical order)...

w-dervish's Top Four Democratic Legislators

[1] Senator Sherrod Brown (Ohio) due to his opposition to free trade, and authorship of the book, Myths of Free Trade (which details why "an unregulated global economy is a threat to all of us"). I also respect him for being a strong advocate of equal rights for LGBT individuals and being ranked as one of the most Liberal members of Congress. Unfortunately he gets a demerit for his co-sponsorship of PIPA (The Protect IP Act).

[2] Rep. John Conyers (Michigan's 14th) for introducing (every session) HR 676 The U.S. National Health Care Act (Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act. The act calls for the creation of a universal single-payer health care system in the United States), voting AGAINST HR 1540 (The National Defense Authorization Act)... the horrible legislation that allows indefinite detention without trial of American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil (signed by President Obama!), releasing (5/2005) "What Went Wrong In Ohio: The Conyers Report On The 2004 Presidential Election", voting not to count the electoral votes from Ohio in the 2004 US presidential election, suing the bush Administration in an effort to stop the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (a bill that cut Medicare and Medicaid) from becoming law, being one of the most liberal members of Congress.

[3] Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Arizona's 7th) for being the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, being rated as one of the most Liberal members of Congress, calling for a withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, opposing Arizona's SB 1070, being strongly pro-choice, support of the public option, voting against HR 1540, receiving an "F" from the NRA, requesting that the UN certify elections in the United States, opposition to a border fence due to it's potential damage to sensitive wildlife habitats, and calls for stronger oversight of the oil industry - offshore drilling in particular (In 2010, he introduced H.R. 5355 to eliminate the cap on oil company liability for the cost of environmental cleanups of spills).

[4] Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Illinois's 9th) because she voted NAY on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform's blueprint (Simpson-Bowles) and offered a superior alternative, voted not to accept Ohio's electoral votes in 2004 in response to concerns about electoral irregularities (it was in Ohio that bush stole the 2004 election), supported the public option and single-payer, voted AGAINST HR 1540, and because she gave a speech at the 2004 Chicago Democratic Socialists of America's 46th Annual Debs-Thomas-Harrington Dinner. Unfortunately I have to give her a minor demerit for her condemnation of the Progressive Democrats of America's support for the second Freedom Flotilla.

Dishonorable Mention & Runner-Ups

Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon) an individual who On The Issues (an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates) described as being a "hardcore Liberal", but upon closer examination THIS Liberal has to ask, "hard core? I think not", a decent Democrat perhaps, but a Democrat who acted as a useful idiot when he teamed up with GOP House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan to develop a Medicare reform plan that would result in the semi-privatization of the system. The Ryan-Wyden plan provoked a negative response from Wyden's Democratic allies, including President Obama.

Wyden also earns his dishonorable mention for sponsoring the Healthy Americans Act (which would institute a national system of market-based private insurance) and joining with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Trent Lott (R-MS) to help pass the bush Administration's Medicare Modernization Act (The bush Administration is alleged to have forced officials to hide its true cost, which later was tripled). The act has been also criticized as favoring pharmaceutical companies, as it prohibits the federal government from negotiating prescription drug rates), and for "mostly" supporting free trade.

And, while the Fact Checking Organization Politifact called the Democrat's claim that the Ryan-Wyden plan would "end Medicare as we know it" their "lie of the year", it is actually TRUE and not a lie at all, as a 12/25/2011 Mediate article points out...

Tommy Christopher, writing for Mediaite: The blowback from Politifact's "Lie Of The Year" award has been fast, furious, and despite Politifact's smug insistence to the contrary, bipartisan. One overlooked effect of the site's naming "Republicans Voted To End Medicare" their "Lie Of The Year" is that it gives the false impression that Paul Ryan's original plan to end Medicare as we know it was nothing to worry about, and paves the way for acceptance of the newer Ryan-Wyden Medicare "reform" plan. In an interview with Fox Business's David Asman, liberal radio and TV host Thom Hartmann slammed Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Politifact for their assault on Medicare (Thom Hartmann Calls Sen. Ron Wyden "Useful Idiot" For Promoting Ryan-Wyden Medicare Plan, 12/25/2011).

Dishonorable runner-ups include Dick Durbin, Kent Conrad and Chris Van Hollen for their support of the Bowles-Simpson recommendations. Bowles-Simpson was NOT a "good starting point" as it looked FIRST to entitlements for savings. According to economist James K. Galbraith "the current deficits were caused by the financial crisis [and] cuts in Social Security and Medicare would be harmful and would not reduce the deficit".

Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research criticized the commission for omitting a tax on the financial industry, as was recommended by the International Monetary Fund. He also denounced co-chairs Alan K. Simpson and Erskine Bowles for claiming to have looked everywhere on ways to increase revenue, but not including the financial industry (excerpted from Wikipedia).

I'm in complete agreement with the two economists quoted above. Instituting the Bowles-Simpson recommendations would hurt our economy. This is the primary reason I placed Jan Schakowsky on my top Democratic Legislators list. She voted NO, and for the right reasons (others voted NO, but for the wrong reasons; i.e. the commission didn't cut entitlements ENOUGH).

Video: Thom Hartmann and Igor Volsky discuss Politifact wrongly naming the Democrats saying that "Republicans Voted To End Medicare" their 2011 Lie Of The Year (7:42).

See also: Straight from The Warped, Psychotic, Brain-diseased, & Idiotic Mind of A Lunatic Libertarian Douchebag (SWTD #266). I thoroughly refute Willis Hart's assertion that Bowles-Simpson isn't Conservative.

SWTD #105, wDel #11.

An Insurance System That Places Profits Over People Isn't The Best In The World

I was asked if I could be tough, because I was going to be telling doctors that they couldn't do things and that I would be expected to keep a 10% denial rate. ...we were told that the medical reviewer that had the highest denial rate was going to receive a bonus at Christmas ~ physician Linda Peeno, in a 6/21/2007 interview with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, recounting her experienes working as a medical reviewer for Humana in the 1990s.

An email I received yesterday from the astroturf Teabagger billionaire-funded FreedomWorks says, "This is our moment. The House of Representatives will be voting next week on a FULL REPEAL of the 2,000 page, job-killing ObamaCare law. Send your letter to Congress to show your support! This is a huge chance for the Tea Party movement to start reversing the Democrats' big government agenda which threatens to bankrupt America". According to FreedomWorks the House will debate and vote on the bill on Wednesday January 12th.

I clicked the link and was shown a sample letter which FreedomWorks wanted me to sign my name to and forward to my members of Congress. The sample letter, which FreedomWorks said I could make edits to, read as follows...

FreedomWorks Sample Letter: As a constituent, I urge you to vote Yes on H.R. 2, the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law" Act. Voters spoke loud and clear on Nov. 2nd: No government takeover of health care. This is an unparalleled opportunity to show Americans that this Congress means business and will stick to the promises made on the campaign trail, however difficult they may be.

We need to fully repeal ObamaCare because it will kill jobs, bankrupt the government, drive up everyone's health insurance costs, put bureaucrats in charge of our health care, and ruin the world's best health care system. Our government can't afford the $2.6 trillion price tag - and our families can't afford the taxes and sky-high insurance premiums that come with this massive bill.

Congress needs to focus sensible reforms like tax credit vouchers for the uninsured, and reforms to the individual market. These are reforms that are affordable, and don't grow the size of government. With 60% of Americans in opposition to ObamaCare, the time to repeal is now. Please vote Yes on H.R. 2.

Edited letter I forwarded to my Congresspersons: As a constituent, I urge you to vote NO on H.R. 2, the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law" Act. This bill is a complete joke, and put forward for political reasons only - which is made clear by the name of the act. The health care legislation passed in the last session will not kill jobs, is not a "government takeover" of the health care industry, and will save money (according to the nonpartisan CBO). The majority of Americans either are in favor of this bill or think it didn't go far (wasn't progressive) enough. A single-payer system would qualify as a "government takeover", but that option was never on the table, even though it would have been the most cost effective.

In the last election people identifying with the Tea Party turned out and voted. Many Obama voters, disgusted by Republican obstructionism in the last session of Congress, stayed home. Republicans are gravely mistake if they believe, and conduct themselves as if, they were given a mandate. A vote to repeal the health care legislation will be a vote against the wishes of the majority of Americans. As a constituent, I urge you to take a stand against obstructionism and work with your fellow congresspersons and the White House to get our economy back on track and not waste time voting on ridiculous legislation that has no chance of becoming law.

Finally, if you are truly interested in lowering the cost of health care please support legislation that opens up Medicare to any member of the public (regardless of age) that wishes to buy into it. The Democratic health care legislation does not need to be repealed to further bring down costs.

Sign the Petition: If you wish to sign the FreedomWorks petition click here. Fee free to use my letter in any way you see fit (by attaching your name to it or by modifying it).

Further Reading
• Repeal health law? Poll shows many think it should do more by Jennifer Agiesta and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, The New Republic. 12/7/2010.
• America's Pay-or-Die Health Care System by Ralph Nader, Counterpunch. 5/6/2008.

SWTD #59

Supporters of Socialism Agree That Democrats are Horrible Compromisers

Ours is a government of checks and balances. The Mafia and crooked businessmen make out checks, and the politicians and other compromised officials improve their bank balances ~ Steve Allen (12/26/1921 to 10/30/2000) was an American television personality, musician, actor, comedian, and writer.

I turned the TV on a little early today and caught part of the end of Hardball, even though I usually I don't flip on the boob tube until 7pm when Keith Olbermann starts. Chris Matthews was discussing the Congressional Democrat's betrayal of their constituents, a large majority of whom support a government run insurance option. A Democratic Congresswoman (I forget who) defended the ditching of the public option by mentioning, several times, how this was the best they could do, because the Democrats are a large tent party, with progressive, moderate, and conservative corporate Democrats - and that meant that compromise was necessary.

Allowing people 55 years of age to buy into Medicare is a good idea, but I disagree that adding this provision and dropping the public option is an acceptable trade. Not that the public option was anything to get excited about, after they continually watered it down to the point where it would cover less than 2% of the population. Even with all the caveats that were attached, the insurance companies were still threatened. Corporate Democrats and Independent turncoat Democrats (Joe Lieberman), eager for more bribe money, sold out their constituents and helped kill the public option.

Republicans, on the other hand, stood by their constituents (the insurance cartels) and delivered to them the prospect of even more profits by mandating the public purchase their overpriced product and support multi-million dollar salaries for their CEOs. The anti-trust protection, first out, is now back in. Denial of coverage for preexisting conditions will apparently be disallowed, although the cartels will be allowed to charge these people more.

Unfortunately I'm one of those people. Eventually I assume I'll become one of the 45,000 people who die each year due to lack of insurance. That's a hell of a lot of people, so I am hardly in a unique position. As such, this post is not a plea for sympathy or well wishes. I doubt I have to worry about that in any case, as lately my blog, which I thought had a couple of readers, has gone several posts with scant attention paid. In any case, I probably have at least a couple of years before things really start to go downhill. At least the socialists who live with me hope that is the case.

On a positive note, if people 55 to 64 can buy into Medicare there are other members of my family that will benefit from that provision. And, even if there were a public option I'm sure that Tennessee (the state where I live), would opt out. So I guess there is no reason to be depressed about these developments after all!

SWTD #35

President Obama Mandates Larger Profits for Health Insurance Companies?

Maybe the President is saying to the blue dogs, "don't worry, don't worry, we'll give them a phony-baloney public option" ~ Liberal Talk Show Radio Host Thom Hartmann on his program 9/10/2009.

I've been thinking about this since last night, and it occurred to me that, while the MSNBC pundits may have thought that President Obama stated that he was in favor of a single-payer type public option being included in the healthcare reform legislation, what he actually said was that there should be a "not for profit public option available in the insurance exchange". And that this option would only be "for those who don't have insurance".

In other words, he SAID public option, but then described something that isn't a public option. Single payer means that the government is the insurer. An "insurance exchange" describes a place where the health insurance consumers can go to choose from a variety of PRIVATE plans.

David Axelrod (who appeared post-speech on the Rachel Maddow show), explained that low-income individuals would qualify for tax credits - and if they still could not afford to buy - then they could be exempted under a "hardship" provision. So the plan will NOT offer UNIVERSAL coverage - and thus will not prevent people from showing up in an emergency room after having let whatever health problem they are experiencing go untreated for to long.

And what's the deal with TAX CREDITS?? Tax credits are only of use if you actually pay taxes, number one - and secondly, just because someone gets a tax credit doesn't mean they suddenly have extra money. This is more Republican appeasement, which there seemed to be quite of bit of in the speech.

My conclusion is that while this will probably be an improvement for those in the middle class, it won't do a damn thing for poor people who can't afford insurance now.

The President also brought up MANDATES. A mandate and an extremely limited public option (possibly in name only) equal a BIG payday for the insurance companies - in my opinion.

I need to hear what Thom Hartmann thinks. That should clarify it for me if any of my fears are justified. My fear is that the President used the term "public option" but it won't be a real public option. The "not for profit" option will be administered through a private company instead of the government and only certain people will qualify.

If you have access to insurance through your employer you'll be required to take it. Even if it is not that good. Even if it stinks. Access to the "public option" will be carefully controlled. You'll have to be poor to get it, but not too poor that you can't afford it. In other words very few people will get in, thus defeating one of the main purposes of the public option, which was to keep prices down. This, in my opinion, is a fake public option. The only reason it was in the speech was to placate President Obama's liberal supporters.

People with insurance won't be subject to Recission. People with pre-existing conditions won't be denied coverage. Some people who couldn't previously afford insurance may now be able to, thanks to "tax credits". The insurance companies may be making less per person (maybe), but with insurance now mandatory, they'll make up the difference with new customers.

So, will this help everyone? Absolutely not. People will still fall through the cracks, people will still be showing up in emergency rooms without insurance, and people will still die due to lack of insurance. I can't say I'm surprised, but I also can't say that I'm not disappointed.

SWTD #20