One Year In

On this first anniversary of the election, I thought I'd post one of my favorite blogs ever. It's just a collection of homemade videos of election night parties from cities all over America. The polls close in The West and everyone thinks CNN is going to call California for Obama... instead they call the election. Mayhem ensues. Scroll down. Click. Enjoy.

Countdown To Victory

THE PUBLIC OPTION - MY PEDANTIC PRIMER

Going into tonight's big health care speech by Obama, I just need to rant for a second. Because I've found that a lot of people I speak with - even supporters of health care reform - are confused about what a "public option" is and why it needs to be "robust". So here's the skinny:

Right now, let's say you can choose from three insurers - Aetna, Kaiser Permanente and Blue Cross. Each of the three can charge whatever they want for premiums, whatever the market will bear. And the market will bear far, far more than it should, because, you know, people don't want to go bankrupt trying not to die. But these are for profit companies, and they need to please their shareholders and their boards and pay out huge bonuses and spend untold millions on marketing and political lobbying. How do they do that? By denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, refusing to pay for tests and treatments that doctors deem medically necessary, and, of course, continuing to raise premiums.

So what's a public option? It's company number four. It's the Uncle Sam Insurance Company. It would not mean free coverage. People would still pay to be covered. But because there is no profit motive - and less bullshit overhead - there is no reason to exclude people with pre-existing conditions, and denial of care won't be necessary and costs can still stay low. And anyone who tells you that it will mean "government bean counters will be making medical decisions" is just plain wrong. First of all, right now, insurance company bean counters are making medical decisions. How is that any better? And they make those decisions - usually to the patient's detriment - because they have a profit motive. Without that motive, there's no reason for bean counters to screw policy holders out of doctor recommended care.

Why does the public option need to be "robust"? Because unless the government administered insurance is nationwide and strong, it won't have the leverage and bargaining power to keep costs low and coverage fair.

So why are so many people against the "public option"? Well, the misinformed oppose it because they misunderstand it. They think it means the government dictating care to doctors - or deciding when people live or die - when it's actually just a cheaper, more effective way for people to get insurance. And since insurance companies are already making those life or death decisions, what's the difference? Why wouldn't you want an option which had less incentive to deny care?

For those who know full well what a public option is and still oppose it, it's because it threatens the one thing they hold most dear - their bloated profits (or political war chests). The very argument used to oppose the public option is the proof that it's effective. Opponents claim that the coverage will be so good, and so inexpensive, that private insurers won't be able to compete. It's hardly the truth. There will still be plenty of people who opt to stay with their private plans. And if people run in droves to the public option then it is solely because it is effective. Which means that the private insurance is ineffective. Politicians who oppose the public plan are simply protecting insurance companies from having to be effective! How exactly is that competition? 

The public plan by definition won't be Cadillac Coverage - that would be untenable if costs are to remain low. Which is why private insurance companies will always have a very lucrative role. There will always be Americans willing to pay a premium for what they believe to be better coverage. Generic ketchup is cheap and accessible - and it gets the job done on your hamburger - but millions of us still buy Heinz. The brand names - in this case the major insurers - aren't going away.

A public option is not single-payer (where private insurers disappear and doctors and hospitals get to bill a single government source which then pays out all reimbursements), it's not government run health care, it's not socialized medicine, it is absolutely no different than the medicine we have now. It's simply another insurance option, one that by definition will be so cost effective and successful and popular that politicians want to kill it because it will be too cost effective and successful and popular.

AETNA is Heinz Ketchup. Kaiser is Hunts. Blue Cross is Del Monte. And the public option is the grocery store's brand. The store's ketchup is cheaper because it doesn't have the marketing expenditures and corporate bonuses that the other brands have. And plenty of people buy it because they have to save money wherever they can but still desperately need their condiments. Regardless, most Americans still buy the brand names and Heinz, Hunt and Del Monte thrive. And just because the store itself also owns the generic brand, and can use the product as a loss leader, giving it an "unfair advantage", those are the rules of the marketplace and we all take them for granted. Maybe it even forces the big guys to lower the price of ketchup in a way they could have collectively avoided before. Nobody is rioting in the streets over this. It's how business works. At the end of the day, we all manage to get the ketchup that works for us and plenty of money is made, and God bless us everyone.

So what's the big fuckin' deal? Private insurers might be forced by a public option to lower premiums and increase coverage and stop denying care to make a buck? Bonuses might be pared down, you say, to allow for this? It may make their absurd profits merely ridiculous? Am I demonizing the insurance industry? You bet your ass I am. 

It is the job of the American government to protect the American people, not to use all the power at its disposal to protect a specific industry from having to adapt or die. A public option is merely one more choice in a menu of choices. Why shouldn't we all have the opportunity to pay less and get decent coverage? Why is protecting the insurers from irrelevance more important than protecting American consumers from being forced to overpay for a shitty product? Why is it so terrible and un-American to keep them honest?

If Blue Cross decided on its own to unilaterally drop prices and increase coverage and never turn anyone down, would those against the public option scream that Blue Cross was unfairly forcing the other two companies to compete with it? Would Blue Dogs and the GOP ask the government to intervene and force Blue Cross to re-raise their prices and water down their coverage to meet what Aetna and Kaiser were doing? It's absurd on its face, but that's what opposition to the public option is: rage at the idea that private insurance would have to negotiate deals as effectively as a supposedly ineffective government. Are we really trying to protect the industry's unfettered right to collude against us?

So for the record, any so-called health reform without a public option is no reform at all. It is merely a reinforcing of the health insurance oligarchy and it ensures less choice, not more, and more "take it or leave it" behavior from the few companies that monopolize the industry; lets 'em gouge with impunity. I am not anti-business or anti-profits. I am, however, against profits, particularly grotesque profits, when they are earned by harming consumers and not giving them the quality product that they paid for... especially when there is then no recourse. Jump to one of the competitors, you say? They've all agreed to behave the same way. Only a public plan would have the teeth to be a truly viable alternative; would afford you the opportunity to give the insurance company you want to punish a big "fuck you". Only a public option would have the ability to force the monoliths to change their ways and behave like good corporate citizens. They ain't gonna do it on moral grounds (you hear me, Evangelicals?), or principle, so what else is going to motivate them? 

Single-payer does away with private insurance altogether. And although I think that would be terrific, that's not what a public option does in any way, shape or form. It's just another insurance company... one that's less expensive, more effective and, because profits are not an issue, one that allows decisions about care to be made by doctors and not bean counters looking for any way to screw you out of coverage. After all, you can't really claim out of one side of the mouth that Obama is for unlimited, profligate spending and then claim out of the other that he wants a bureaucrat to kill grandma so he can save a few bucks. 

And as a little coda: I'm not one who goes around suggesting that people flout the law. Far from it. I pay my taxes accurately and on time and I don't even itemize although I'd probably save money. But if legislation is passed - as is currently being contemplated - requiring that all Americans buy some kind of insurance or pay a tax penalty, but a public plan is not one of the options we are allowed choose from, not only will I refuse to buy the insurance (because I will not allow the government to force me to enrich a private company under penalty of law) but I won't pay the tax penalty either. Let 'em throw me in jail. At least in there I'll be able to see a doctor for free.

Said It Before, Will Say It Again

Roland Burris is a disgrace. He is not only a buffoon, he's also a liar. I have no love lost for most politicians, but having a joke like Burris in the Senate is a true embarrassment for the Democrats.

Burris is one of the most blatantly, transparently power hungry politicians I have seen in quite some time - it's kind of breathtaking actually - and I imagine he would have been very comfortable in a Banana Republic or some Third World dictatorship. He is smug, maniacal (ego and megalo) and obnoxiously coy; he may even be a tad delusional. But although he's a comical figure worthy of mockery and derision, he's also dangerous, the kind of guy who puts his own political ambition ahead of human life: while running for Illinois governor from his post as state attorney general, he is alleged to have continued to pursue the execution of a demonstrably innocent man. His own deputy resigned her job in protest.

It's no surprise that Republicans are pouncing on reports that Burris may have perjured himself in his testimony to Congress and are now calling on him to resign. Well, it's not just Republicans - you can add my voice to that same list. Burris is execrable and he has got to go.

The U.S. Senate is already a circus, the last thing it needs is another crazy clown.

HOW IS THE STIMULUS PACKAGE LIKE THE INVASION OF IRAQ?

When Resident Bush was told by military experts that the size of the fighting force he was sending to Iraq was too small - that he needed more troops if he wanted to wage his war effectively - they were dismissed, in some cases quite literally. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki - now Obama's Secretary of Veterans Affairs - was fired after he warned the administration that it would need hundreds of thousands of troops in order to be successful. It was only later, when Bush belatedly called for his "surge" and it began to bear fruit, that Gen. Shinseki was vindicated.

The uber-competent Barack Obama wants to wage his war against this devastating recession effectively, so he is listening to economic experts - and he is taking their considered advice to heart. To a person, and from both sides of the liberal/conservative divide - those whose job it is to understand economics (and I certainly don't mean senators or congressional representatives) are telling him that any stimulus meant to jolt this woeful economy - the "financial fighting force" he must send if you will - must be enormous if it is to be effective. And as Obama himself noted in his first prime time press conference, these economists include former advisors to John McCain and both Bushes.

Now, judging by his current posturing in the Senate, a President McCain might very well have ignored or fired such advisors and opted instead for a too small, tax cut laden stimulus that fit into his rigid political world-view but would have had catastrophic effects; later, after things went to Hell in a handbasket - he'd have needed an additional "surge" in order to get things working properly. And if past is prologue, we can assume that McCain would've then crowed about the success of the surge, hoping that everyone would forget his initial opposition to funding things properly from the get go.

Well unlike his inept predecessor, or his erstwhile opponent, President Obama is actually taking the experts' advice and making a good faith effort to do things right, right out of the gate, even though it's not an easy sell. While tiresome GOP politicians are, no shock, screaming that we're spending too much - and trying to score cheap political points - world class economists of all stripes have made it abundantly clear: the stimulus must be massive if it's going to work. Obama has listened and, unlike the arrogant, willfully ignorant former president, has no intention of second guessing the educated and the expert, despite the potential political consequences if a package of that scope were to fail. We can disagree about the specifics of the package itself, but any way you slice it, President Obama is, blissfully, a serious man for serious times.

Now it's entirely possible that the stimulus is, in fact (believe it or not), too small, or that specific items in the package won't work as intended, so that further monies will be needed down the road to keep the economy afloat. But the odds of that necessity have been reduced drastically because we finally have a president who gets sound advice from people who know their business and doesn't dismiss it out of hand because it gets in the way of his pre-conceived notions or plans. A president, in short, who wants to get it right the first time.

So let's just beat the crap out of the horse, despite the fact that rigor mortis has long since set in: had George Bush listened to the experts who warned him that he needed a huge initial "expenditure" of "troop capital" in order to be successful in Iraq, the subsequent surge wouldn't have been necessary and a lot of pain, heartache and devastation would've been avoided. Instead, Bush fired those experts and bulldozed ahead with his woefully inadequate, poorly thought out, but more politically palatable plan. The consequences were dire.

Thank God that in this time of global economic crisis we have a thoughtful, sober president like Barack Obama at the helm, one who puts sound policy before political ideology or gamesmanship. As Obama himself said, the last thing he wanted for his presidency was to have to come in and spend close to a trillion dollars we don't have. But rather than offer a more easy-to-swallow package at half the price (as the increasingly unserious McCain put forth) only to watch it fail spectacularly, spawning the inevitable public mea culpa and then a scramble to clean up the attendant (but avoidable) mess, we have a chief executive who believes that if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right - and he's not shooting the highly knowledgeable messengers who have told him in no uncertain terms how it needs to be done.

FOR THOSE OF US WHO WERE PISSED ABOUT RICK WARREN

For those of us who were legitimately irritated by Obama's choice of noted, bloated bigot Rick Warren to do the inaugural invocation, it is important for us to give a shout out to the administration today for something truly admirable. Obama's Justice Department has re-hired Leslie Hagen, fired by Alberto Gonzalez when rumors of her lesbianism reached his desk.

From NPR:

"NPR first broke the story of Leslie Hagen's dismissal last April, and the Justice Department's inspector general later corroborated the report. Now, Hagen has returned to her post at the department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. In 2006, Hagen was the liaison between the main Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys' committee on Native American affairs. The chairman of that committee, Tom Heffelfinger, described Hagen to NPR last year as "the best qualified person in the nation to fill that job." Hagen's performance evaluations had the highest possible ratings — "outstanding" in each of five categories. The job came up for renewal every year. After the first year, Hagen was surprised to hear that she would have to move on.

As NPR reported in April, a top aide to the attorney general had heard a rumor that Hagen was a lesbian. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is against Justice Department rules. But Monica Goodling, senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, had Hagen removed from her job anyway.

That was more than a year ago. The inspector general eventually confirmed the NPR report and added new details, saying Goodling not only ousted Hagen but also blocked Hagen from getting other Justice Department jobs she was qualified for.

The paperwork makes it official as of Monday, Feb. 2. Hagen now has her old position back, but this time it's a little different. Her contract no longer comes up for renewal every year. Now, the job is permanent".

So Rick Warren got his insipid minute or two in the national spotlight - something symbolic and ultimately meaningless - while the administration's Hagen hire is truly substantive. If this is how the Obama administration actually ends up treating the LGBT community, judging potential hires solely based on their abilities (except maybe their ability to pay their taxes), it will prove once and for all that actions speak louder than words.

Here's To Lilly Ledbetter

Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration have done something terrific that couldn't get done in the 110th Congress and it will likely fly beneath the radar because of all the stimulus talk. They passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which had been languishing ever since Republicans defeated it the last time it came up for a vote in 2007.

All the measure does is give workers filing equal-pay lawsuits more time in which in to file their claims. It is named for Lilly Ledbetter, a longtime employee of Goodyear, who had a clear, demonstrably valid case for pay discrimination overturned by the Hell-bound majority of the Supreme Court - I'm talkin' to you, Antonin - not on the merits, mind you, but because her claim wasn't filed within 180 days of when she first accepted an offending paycheck.

That's right... as far as the Court and Congressional Republicans are concerned, if you're a woman who discovers that all the men in your company get paid more than you for the exact same job, it doesn't matter that you can objectively prove discrimination, or that it may take you some time to actually discover that your pay is different; if you don't file within six months of the first discriminatory paycheck, you shouldn't be able to seek a judicial redress of your grievance. (Don't be too shocked. This is the same Court majority, after all, who invoked the Equal Protection Clause to appoint that poor discriminated against minority George W. Bush to the presidency).

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act renews that six month statute of limitations with every discriminatory paycheck, and rightfully so. The Court's terrible ruling actually gave employers impetus to be secretive, rewarding them if they managed to keep paycheck disparity secret for a mere six months. Passing this act was such a no-brainer that it's hard to fathom that with the exception of Arlen Specter, every male GOP Senator voted against it this week (all four GOP women voted for its passage, as did every Democratic Senator who was available. Sadly, Ted Kennedy, a longtime champion of the bill, was too ill to cast his vote).

Republicans supposedly opposed the bill largely because it would "contribute to frivolous lawsuits". This disingenuous position begs two simple responses:

a) Why is the need to fight frivolous lawsuits more important than fighting discrimination?

b) If a lawsuit is frivolous... it gets tossed out on the merits. If a lawsuit is frivolous... the plaintiff loses.

So what are they afraid of? This bill doesn't guarantee plaintiffs a positive outcome, it simply gives them a fair amount of time to discover any discrepancy and seek to right a grave wrong. Period. Those with valid cases will win, those with weak cases will lose. This is how the system is supposed to work and elected officials shouldn't be in the business of throwing up obstacles to the average American seeking justice. But for some truly confounding reason, Republicans think that employers need all the defending and that American workers are the enemy.

Many of the very same Republican senators who voted against this measure are the ones running around screaming that Jesus is their idol, yet they never once seem to lift a legislative finger to help the least among us. Well American workers suffering from blatant pay inequity based solely on their sex are clearly among those in our society who need the most vocal champions. But this has always been the GOP strategy... convince "average folks" that you are for them, while actually doing everything in your power to protect entrenched power and corporate interests.

The Democrats supported this bill, the Democrats passed it, and a Democrat will sign it into law. This could easily have been done in the last Congress and been a positive, bi-partisan bill for Bush to sign into law, but it didn't get done. Something tells me that nobody will remember this come election time when some jackass Republican who voted against it is throwing a bowling ball on the campaign trail and bragging about how he's just a regular guy who believes in straight talk and fairness for the average folks who are gettin' the shaft.

Then again, this is the same party that thinks all you have to do to appeal to women is pick an asshole like Sarah Palin to run for office; actually fighting for policies that make life better for average, hard working women? Well clearly, that's just crazy talk.

This is why majorities matter, why who gets to set the agenda matters, why who has the presidency matters. Legislation like this clearly shows that the two parties are not the same. Not every bit of legislation is as dramatic as an $825 billion stimulus. Other legislative priorities are moving forward which should make us all thrilled that the Democrats are once again in charge; and we shouldn't forget to pay attention to the small, incremental changes like this one that simply make America a more perfect union.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is truly a victory for women and for workers, and it was brought to you by Congressional Democrats and Barack Obama's pen.

In Defense of Lobbyists

I'm getting sick and tired of listening to people criticize Washington "lobbyists" as the root of all evil. I dare say a vast majority of these critics don't even have a working understanding of what a lobbyist is or does. It reminds me of the constant demagogic pummeling "trial lawyers" got from the Bush administration, as if representing injured plaintiffs in tort cases is somehow inherently less moral than defending corporate interests.

So what exactly is a lobbyist? A lobbyist is simply a person - usually an expert in his or her field - hired to try and influence legislation on behalf of a "special interest" - another nebulous term meant to scare and/or outrage you. Except that everyone has a different definition of "special interest". While a Democrat might be outraged that some heavy industry is trying to weaken environmental controls, a Republican might be furious that an anti-crime group is urging Congress to pass tougher gun laws. Interests are interests are interests. Calling an interest "special" is just a way for your opposition to marginalize your cause. It's not unlike when bigots refer to gay rights activists as wanting "special" rights when in fact all they are asking for is "equal" rights. The idea of a "special" interest goes against our collective idea of fair play, but in reality we are simply talking about specific causes, many of them valid.

So a "special interest group" is not unlike a union: one worker has little power; a band of workers has much greater leverage and collective bargaining ability. And since one person may not have much political influence, banding together as a group to collectively try and influence the political process is not in and of itself a bad thing. Further, lobbyists are often an important part of pinpointing issues for legislators to look at and then educating them and their staffs on the subject.

How a lobbyist goes about winning that influence? Well, that's what we're really objecting to. Especially if there is some sort of financial quid pro quo. But objecting to the sickening influence of money in the political process is not the same as objecting to lobbying, per se, and we should not mistake the issue by targeting lobbyists for extinction.

The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people... to petition the Government for redress of grievances" (this right actually dates back to the Magna Carta, except that we were dealing not with congresses but with kings). This is, in essence, what a lobbyist does. On behalf of whatever group is hiring her, a lobbyist petitions the government, often attempting to influence agendas, votes or specific legislation. Want a civil rights expert with Washington contacts to appeal for more protections for the LGBT community and educate lawmakers on gay rights issues? Hire a lobbyist. Determined to buy your manufacturing plant more time to clean up its toxic waste? Hire a lobbyist.

You too have the right to petition your government for redress. Will it listen to you? Give you access? Pay attention to you? Not bloody likely. That's the real problem. The real problem is that most of us can't afford access and therefore will not to be taken seriously. Lobbyists per se aren't to blame, they're just doing their jobs. The real bad actors here are the politicians, congressional staffs and administration officials who won't grant access to individuals. But then again, can you blame them? There are a lot of nuts out there - just read the user comments on your typical political blog, left or right. Government officials have to have a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Are you more likely to take a meeting with an articulate, well prepared expert who's representing a vast group of people or the crazy guy who keeps calling your executive aide screaming about socialism?

Yes, of course, there is potential for abuse and corruption in the lobbying process - we see it all the time - but there's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Lobbyists are formally registered and have to file reports twice a year about the contacts they've made. There are protections and regulations in place. Now it's possible that those protections are woefully insufficient. But any attempt to limit lobbyists' influence should be done only as it relates to unethical or illegal behavior. And most of that illegal behavior is ultimately the fault not of the lobbyist, but of the elected official who is swayed by it. I suppose the argument boils down to who you believe is more responsible - the guy who offers the bribe... or the recipient who doesn't immediately reject it out of hand. I don't blame Monica Lewinsky for showing the President her thong as much as I blame Bill Clinton for not grabbing her by the lapels and angrily tossing her out of the Oval. And that defense contractor who allegedly bought Duke Cunningham's house in exchange for millions of dollars in defense contracts would have received bupkes had Cunningham not been seduced by the offer. If it were not for the complicity of those with the power, we'd only talking about attempted crimes.

So lobbyists are not really the problem... corruption is the problem. And, to the best of our ability, we should root out and fight corruption wherever we find it. And if transparency plus reasonable restrictions and regulations regarding lobbying help us do that, then fine (and to the extent that the Obama administration is trying to voluntarily, prophylactically fight corruption by limiting lobbyists from serving in administration jobs, I mostly applaud it - but I'm glad they've allowed themselves waivers as an out clause). But let's not forget that pesky little First Amendment. And just as a terrorist attack doesn't justify us shredding the Constitution, neither does political corruption justify mindlessly smearing and scapegoating an entire industry of often well meaning activists who are simply exercising their Constitutional right to petition their government.

If your congressman, senator or president is unduly allowing lobbyists to influence official decisions - especially for illegal gain - or if they only allow access to the lobbyists who contribute the most money, or the ones who shower them with gifts and favors, then by all means fire them. You can do that in the voting booth. If laws have been broken, they should also be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Corrupt lobbyists and politicians are no doubt scum and everything we can legally do to end the egregious influence of money and corporate power in the political process, we should. And when an administration as ethically bankrupt as the Bush-Cheney crowd literally allows the lobbyists and massive financial contributors to write the laws, we should scream bloody murder. But don't pretend that, across the board, the words "lobbyist" and "corruption" are interchangeable.

Hating all lobbyists is like hating all lawyers or hating all unions, even if they serve a valuable purpose. It's mindless and ignorant - but it's convenient and great for scoring cheap political points.