Barack Obama

President Obama's Health Care Reform Proposal

One of the most insane expectations to come out of Barack Obama's campaign for Barack Obama's presidency was the misguided notion that the President was going to act as Senator, Congressman, Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice. As Kriss (aka @insanityreport) reminded people this morning, POTUS doesn't write legislation: The President's staff can suggest, poke and prod...but at the end of the day its the 100 member senate & 433 member House that write bills.

Ezra Klein bipartisanship is unlikely to take root at Thursday's summit and Nate Silver seems to agree when he tweets "my gut instinct is more pessimistic than the consensus". Taking a quick look at the summary [PDF DOWNLOAD], am of two minds.

It's not a new "third way out" but a reconciliation bill. It goes after the Ben Nelson bribery FMAP provision by eliminating it and expanding Medicare coverage to all states --trying to make up for one of the biggest mistakes during the Health Care Reform negotiations. Yet, by making no mention of the anti-abortion provision or the public option, it leaves the first one intact and the second one out of this bill.

The only interesting addition is the hot-button government oversight and regulation proposal for a Health Insurance Rate Authority. By calling upon the need for more transparency and fiscal responsibility, it kind of smacks every obstructionist that has invoked those two arguments in their efforts to stop health care reform.

Yet am with Ezra and Nathan : Will this bill really make a difference? My gut instinct hasn't been screaming no since last night. It's been completely revolted since the day universal health care & insurance was not declared as a mission and a right during these negotiations. And as Stupak is still in, immigrants are still discriminated from coverage and the public option is out, there's still no reason to cheer.

Links to Key Provisions in the President’s Proposal:

 more this way»

liza's picture



VIDEO : President Barack Obama's State Of The Union address for 2010


Now, I am not naïve. I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony, and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, have been taking place for over two hundred years. They are the very essence of our democracy.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent – a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators. Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government.

So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it together.



 more this way»

liza's picture



TEXT : President Barack Obama's 2010 State Of The Union Address

[ #SOTU delivered Jan. 27, 2010, as released by the White House ]

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For two hundred and twenty years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable – that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.
 more this way»

liza's picture



QUICK THOUGHT: Obama's CHANGE is bad for the Democratic Party

Earlier today I tweeted the following:

blogdiva: DUDE! Deeds hurt Deeds. The moron ran as ANTI-Obama! RT @DavidAll: RT @POStqia: Shhh Dont Tell Anyone, But Obama Hurt Deeds in Virginia (24 minutes ago from TwitterGadget)

It was a quick quip about how I don't believe Obama hurts Democrats in the way Republicans want everybody to believe. I threw that out there and Michael Turk hit back with the following:

MichaelTurk: @blogdiva This was the Deeds campaign's GOTV mailer, it barely has his name n it: http://is.gd/4RQsH (10 minutes ago from TweetDeck in reply to blogdiva)

ReTweetAdd to FavoritesUser ControlsMichaelTurk's Twitter Page

MichaelTurk: @blogdiva This notion that he tried to distance himself from Obama is bullshit. (21 minutes ago from TweetDeck in reply to blogdiva)

ReTweetAdd to FavoritesUser ControlsMichaelTurk's Twitter Page

MichaelTurk: @blogdiva You are smoking crack! Deeds tethered his entire campaign to Obama. I know, I sat through the commercials. (21 minutes ago from TweetDeck in reply to blogdiva)

I was going to twitter back a response but I think it merits a quick blog post with a WHAT IF: What if the problem with Obama is NOT that he is a bad politician or a so-so President? What if the problem with Obama is that he won because he sold himself as a third-party candidate? What if the problem with Obama is that he won't be able to be a truly outstanding President unless he stops playing by the Democrats rules? What if the Democratic Party and anybody who has been a willing player can't win with the "Obama Change" formula because they are the "more of the same" that needs to be wiped clean for real change to happen?
 more this way»

liza's picture



What can we learn from last night's electoral victories and losses?

First of all, congratulation to John Liu for becoming the first Chinese-American to be elected to city-wide office in New York City. That's a huge slap on the face for the New York Democratic Party establishment; an establishment that's never been too keen on grassroots movements unless they can co-opt to solidify their status-quo.

The other big grassroots story of the night was Bill de Blasio. He walloped Mark Green, one of the darlings of the New York political elite, in a run-off election and breezed into the Political Advocate's office with 76.9% of the vote.

For a political establishment that doesn't support grassroots movements unless it's ready to line their pockets --remember of all the so-called grassroots progressives and Democrats defecting to the Bloomberg campaign?-- these two wins are a wake-up call for the NY Dems political establishment.

We'll have to see how these two fare for or against the status quo in the next four years.

1. Obama is not the Democratic Party.
Virginia is the best example of this phenomenon: Even though Obama carried the state, voters repudiated the slim pickings pushed on them by the local Democratic party. Creigh Deeds, the genius Democrat who lost the election, ran as an anti-Obama Democrat. In a state that Obama basically swept during the general elections.

WHAT KIND OF STRATEGY IS THAT? Oh right, the strategy of a Democrat who rightfully doesn't look at Obama as representing him.

The biggest mistake for the Democratic Party was to sucker themselves into thinking that whatever genius political strategy Plouffe and Axelrod were able to use in getting Obama elected was going to absolve them of their state and local sins of nepotism, cronyism, corruption but most importantly utter ineptitude.

Last night was a big wake-up call for Democrats who think they'll be able to coast on the coattails of Obama for the next 3-7 years.

Which takes me to the big story of the day: Bill Owens will for New York's Congressional District #23. What's the moral of that story?

2. Carpetbaggers better not fuck with upstaters.
The sleepy corner of upper New York state became an ideological battle ground for the extreme right of the Republican party with a non-Palin-looking Dede Scozzafava being muscled out of the election by the GlennBeckian non-resident of the district Doug Hoffman. Yet in the process of eating their own, out-of-state extremists revealed the awful truth about the New York State Democratic Party: They suck.

Democrats in New York state are rarely differentiated from their Republican counterparts. Abortion is not a political lightning rod for New York politicians. On the contrary, NYC boasts a rather disturbing amount of African American and Latino right-to-lifers on their Democratic Party rolls. What separates Republicans from Democrats is the amount of money they're willing to put at the feet of the political establishment in both Albany and Washington DC.

NY23 happened to be one of those districts that NY Dems didn't look as particularly profitable for them until the teabaggers came into town. And that's basically their modus operandi: Many districts in the state are marked as losses from the get go. NY23 proved what a dangerous strategy that is --especially in a year when one more Democrat in Congress could make a huge difference in Health Care and Immigration legislation.

The challenge for true progressives in New York state will be to not only get rid of anti-gay, misogynist, immigrant hating Republicans. The challenge will be to find progressives to run against Democrats with similar political views, from local all the way up to Congressional, regardless of whether it is a "red district" or not.

3. Michael Turk put it best, Can we now agree that 2008 was a referendum on Bush and GOP arrogance, and not a vote for radical liberalism?
This bears repeating over and over and over again. Obama wasn't a choice for radical liberalism. Obama wasn't even a choice for the Democratic Party. Obama didn't even win because he was a centrist. Obama won because he successfully sold himself as an outsider from the political establishment who had a vision of a United States that could be better without partisan politics.

In other words: Obama won because he was the ANTI-IDEOLOGICAL, ANTI-PARTISAN candidate. He didn't win because people believed he could change the swamp of Capitol Hill or the rats' nest of the Democratic Party. He won because he not only wasn't part of the swamp or the rats but because he aspired to transcend all of that with his presidency.

Michael Turk's comment was directed to Republicans but you might as well use it to bash into the heads of Democrats why they can't rest on Obama's laurels. 90% of the Democratic Party does not represent "Change We Can Believe In" and that's what got played out in all of lat night's electoral losses.

4. All the money int he world is not going to win you a mandate
The race was called in favor of Bloomberg when he was winning by 3%. He ended up tallying a 4.58% win. That means that the Boss Bloomberg plunked down $21,834,061.1 per each point in his margin of win. That's an obscene amount of bribe money; yet it proves that if New York City had a true political grassroots movement represented in the Democratic Party, Thompson would have squeaked in a victory.

5. New York City is ready for a grassroots renaissance
Thompson didn't win because he was one of the ultimate insiders just like his losing predecessor, Freddy Ferrer. It's not just that Freddy was Puerto Rican and Bill was black. It was really the fact that these two have been part of the political establishment of New York City for far too long. Every single Democratic mayoral loser since Dinkins has been part of the party establishment.

Yet look at the massive margins that got both de Blasio and Liu elected. If any of these two guys want to become mayor the lesson is very simple: FIGHT MICHAEL BLOOMBERG FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS.

You can't raise $100 million to buy yourself the local and national media? Fine. Then fight the man every single step of the way for the next 4 years. Govern like you were still campaigning. Amass grassroots support and boost the numbers of your independent allies. Most importantly though, KEEP YOUR FACE IN THE LOCAL MEDIA. That means every single week, every single month, you gotta get yourself out there in front of the cameras, on the newspapers and most importantly on the blogs to move your message over and over and over again.

Michael Bloomberg doesn't have a mandate. Liu, de Blasio and every single Democrat who wants to become the next mayor needs to keep that in mind until 2013.

Which gets me to my favorite peeve:
 more this way»

liza's picture





Syndicate content

User login

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

Upcoming events

  • No upcoming events available

QUOTES

I always have difficulty expressing my political judgments in a clear, emphatic, and strong way—I feel pretentious, as if I'm saying things that are not quite true. This is because I know I cannot reduce my thoughts about life to the music of a single voice and a single point of view—I am, after all, a novelist, the kind of novelist who makes it his business to identify with all of his characters, especially the bad ones. Living as I do in a world where, in a very short time, someone who has been a victim of tyranny and oppression can suddenly become one of the oppressors, I know also that holding strong beliefs about the nature of things and people is itself a difficult enterprise. I do also believe that most of us entertain these contradictory thoughts simultaneously, in a spirit of good will and with the best of intentions. The pleasure of writing novels comes from exploring this peculiarly modern condition whereby people are forever contradicting their own minds. It is because our modern minds are so slippery that freedom of expression becomes so important: we need it to understand ourselves, our shady, contradictory, inner thoughts, and the pride and shame that I mentioned earlier.

— Orhan Pamuk
Freedom to Write

Poll