So the new healthcare compromise coming from the Senate would be lowering the age of Medicare buy-in to 55 from the current 65.
Sounds like a good idea to me. If we're not getting a public option out of the Senate (and we're not) then I like this as part of a compromise. It sets the precedent to lower the bar more in the future and lays the ground work for a Medicare-for-almost-all in the future. Which is exactly what a lot of us lefties wanted in the first place.
Anyway, devil is in the details and I reserve the right to be horrified by some aspect of the compromise at a future date but on the surface this isn't too bad.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Question
While we're on the topic of Shitty Things Said By Our Political Punditry, Dissing the Disabled Division let me ask; Am I the only person in America who was unaware that Charles Krauthammer was in a wheelchair until Joe Klein inexplicably raised the issue earlier this year?
Little Tommy Friedman
I'm sorry but this guy is just a complete fucking asshole.
And who can forget his all time #1 hit in the lead up to the Iraq War,
And who can forget his all time #1 hit in the lead up to the Iraq War,
You don’t think, you know, we care about our open society. You think this bubble fantasy, we’re just going to let it grow? Well, suck on this, ok. That Charlie, is what this war was about. We could have hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That’s the real truth.
It seems that the GOP base rather prefers being completely out of power
I'm not sure how else to explain the nuts obsession with certifiably crazy ballot measures calling for the reduction of the state budget by some $1 billion. For the first time in 3 election cycles it looks as though the GOP may have some life in Colorado and instead of coalescing around a mission to win back the governor's office and possibly take control of the state Senate they're going to be busy fighting with each other. The party establishment tried to subvert some of this by forcing an end to the gubernatorial primary but the base refuses to be sated.
Democrats will surely spend the next 11 months asking McInnis and every other GOP candidate to firmly disavow this (and other) ballot measures. The candidate can either do the responsible thing and come out against such a measure (thus alienating the tea-baggers and possibly triggering a primary) or they can alienate the sentient human beings who make up the portion of the Colorado electorate that does not self-identify with tea-bagging.
But hey, Jon Caldera will get a bunch of attention so who really cares if the right-wing agenda is advanced one iota by this "strategy."
Democrats will surely spend the next 11 months asking McInnis and every other GOP candidate to firmly disavow this (and other) ballot measures. The candidate can either do the responsible thing and come out against such a measure (thus alienating the tea-baggers and possibly triggering a primary) or they can alienate the sentient human beings who make up the portion of the Colorado electorate that does not self-identify with tea-bagging.
But hey, Jon Caldera will get a bunch of attention so who really cares if the right-wing agenda is advanced one iota by this "strategy."
Friday, December 4, 2009
On beltway public option squishiness
If, like me, you think Ezra Klein has gone a bit squishy on healthcare reform (particularly the public option) since his ascension to the WaPo you owe it to Ezra to read his post today on the topic,
I'm a policy guy, arguably to the point of myopia. The public option compromises that are on the table at this point aren't really compromises worth having. It's my job to say that, I think. Pointing this out has led a lot of longtime readers to give up on me as some sort of establishment dupe, and I see where they're coming from. Here's where I'm coming from.
It might have been a necessary thing from an activism point of view, but convincing liberals that this bill was worthless in the absence of the public option was a terrible decision, wrong on the merits and unfair to the base. The achievement of this bill is $900 billion to help people purchase health-care coverage, a new market that begins to equalize the conditions of the unemployed and the employed, and a regulatory structure in which this country can build, for the first time, a universal health-care system. Thousands and thousands of lives will be saved by this bill. Bankruptcies will be averted. Rescission letters won't be sent. Parents won't have to fret because they can't take their child, or themselves, to the emergency room. This bill will, without doubt, do more good than any single piece of legislation passed during my (admittedly brief) lifetime. If it passes, the party that fought for it for decades deserves to feel a sense of accomplishment.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Marriage counselors called in to help DPS Board
Seth has the details, I'll just give my compliments to Post columnist Susan Greene for bringing the snark.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Seasonal...
Hope everyone had a safe commute, while it wasn't quite 7 Below last night it sure felt close...
More Obama and Afghanistan
Listening to the news on NPR driving in this morning and hearing Republicans advocating for an endless occupation it occurred to me that Obama has boxed the GOP nicely. The American public doesn't want an endless occupation and yet they don't want to up and leave. Obama's decision places him squarely in the mainstream of public opinion and forces the GOP to come across as they did in 2005 and 2006 - out of touch and advocating for endless blood and treasure for a war that Americans are increasingly growing weary of.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
On Obama and Afghanistan...
Wasn't able to listen to much of the speech unfortunaly but I do have a few thoughts about the Obama plan.
First and foremost, there basically is no good answer in Afghanistan. None.
Before I heard about the withdrawal time line my thought was that fulfilling McChrystal's request for troops was tactically a smart move (morally is another question). The general got what he wanted and if things don't improve no one can blame Obama for not listening to the general. I thought that it set Obama up nicely to pull the rip cord on the whole thing in the not-so distant future, "Hey, we tried it your way and it's not working. We're getting out."
The time line is an interesting curveball. From a military perspective I think that it improves our standing on the ground with ordinary Afghani's who are weary of decades long foreign occupation. We're leaving and not after pre-conditions are met, we've set a date and we're leaving. It also puts a hard and fast deadline on the Afghan government to get their act together, something that has long been needed in my opinion. As far as the Taliban goes it will be interesting to see if they ramp up attacks or if they lay in wait, biding their time for us to leave. If they lay in wait it may actually provide enough breathing room to give the government a fighting chance.
Domestically the time line probably tempers some of the outrage from Obama voters, it certainly did for me. I don't like the idea of adding more troops because I'm not convinced that it will make any appreciable difference - except in the American body count. At least though we can point to a firm date where we will be getting the hell out of there. I'm not happy but I think it's a decent compromise.
It's amazing the utter mess that BushCo. left behind. I really cannot imagine the pressure that the administration is under to fix Afghanistan, Iraq, the economy writ large, healthcare... Anyone of those things would be an incredible challenge.
First and foremost, there basically is no good answer in Afghanistan. None.
Before I heard about the withdrawal time line my thought was that fulfilling McChrystal's request for troops was tactically a smart move (morally is another question). The general got what he wanted and if things don't improve no one can blame Obama for not listening to the general. I thought that it set Obama up nicely to pull the rip cord on the whole thing in the not-so distant future, "Hey, we tried it your way and it's not working. We're getting out."
The time line is an interesting curveball. From a military perspective I think that it improves our standing on the ground with ordinary Afghani's who are weary of decades long foreign occupation. We're leaving and not after pre-conditions are met, we've set a date and we're leaving. It also puts a hard and fast deadline on the Afghan government to get their act together, something that has long been needed in my opinion. As far as the Taliban goes it will be interesting to see if they ramp up attacks or if they lay in wait, biding their time for us to leave. If they lay in wait it may actually provide enough breathing room to give the government a fighting chance.
Domestically the time line probably tempers some of the outrage from Obama voters, it certainly did for me. I don't like the idea of adding more troops because I'm not convinced that it will make any appreciable difference - except in the American body count. At least though we can point to a firm date where we will be getting the hell out of there. I'm not happy but I think it's a decent compromise.
It's amazing the utter mess that BushCo. left behind. I really cannot imagine the pressure that the administration is under to fix Afghanistan, Iraq, the economy writ large, healthcare... Anyone of those things would be an incredible challenge.
On the DPS kerfuffle
Pols,
Note that Pols objection is one of style over substance, Merida was "disrespectful." I suppose she was but so what? The lame duck school board chose to move forward with an agenda that had been clearly rejected by voters in November. That seems like a bit more substantive degree of "disrespect" than Merida's actions, no?
As to her vote not making a difference, again - so what? Individual votes of elected officials often are not decisive but the official should still vote their conscience and, in a case like this where the public has clearly spoken, vote to support the clear mandate of their constituents. That's a critique that is quite literally without substance.
Criticizing someone for being "disrespectful" while completely ignoring the substantive debate behind the actions is a pretty vapid analysis.
Getting a court order to be seated early and not even allowing your predecessor to finish out her final day on the board, as tradition has long held? Andrea Merida couldn't have been more inappropriate and disrespectful if she had showed up in a "Fuck Denver" t-shirt. And all of this was for what? At the end of the night, her vote didn't even make a difference.
Note that Pols objection is one of style over substance, Merida was "disrespectful." I suppose she was but so what? The lame duck school board chose to move forward with an agenda that had been clearly rejected by voters in November. That seems like a bit more substantive degree of "disrespect" than Merida's actions, no?
As to her vote not making a difference, again - so what? Individual votes of elected officials often are not decisive but the official should still vote their conscience and, in a case like this where the public has clearly spoken, vote to support the clear mandate of their constituents. That's a critique that is quite literally without substance.
Criticizing someone for being "disrespectful" while completely ignoring the substantive debate behind the actions is a pretty vapid analysis.
Hypocrisy from DPS "reformers"...
Interesting article in the Denver Post today about last night's Denver School board meeting. The newly elected board members, selected to slow the reform agenda of the present board, were not to be seated until near the end of the meeting - after votes were taken on multiple reform measures.
To fight back (in an ultimately futile attempt) newly elected Board member Andrea Merida went to Denver District Court Monday afternoon, had the November 3rd election results certified and forced the Board to seat her before the reform votes were taken.
The Post's story portrarys the reformers as the victims,
This is, of course, utter nonsense. The voters of Denver clearly spoke on November 3rd and they spoke out against the present board and their reform agenda. The sitting board members have chosen to ignore this clear voter mandate and continue with their reforms up until the very end of their terms - lame duck status be damned. Their actions can fairly be described as hardball politics.
Merida's actions were perfectly legal and simply a tit-for-tat hardball response.What choice was she left with? The school board had decided to forge ahead with an agenda of school closures, charter granting and school moves despite the clear vote of no confidence that the board had received from voters just 4 weeks ago and, likely, contrary to state law.
Merida has an obligation to the constituents who elected her, once the board chose to take the course that they did Merida had little choice. It would have been irresponsible to sit idly by while lame duck board members flaunted the clear will of Denver voters and possibly skirted state law.
The lame duck members of the Denver School Board chose the path of legally suspect political hardball They don't then get to cry foul when the political tables are turned on them.
To fight back (in an ultimately futile attempt) newly elected Board member Andrea Merida went to Denver District Court Monday afternoon, had the November 3rd election results certified and forced the Board to seat her before the reform votes were taken.
The Post's story portrarys the reformers as the victims,
"We have had a really disappointing situation transpiring today," board President Theresa Peña said in the boardroom that was filled to capacity. "One of our new colleagues was sworn in today at noon. She is now a sitting board member. Michelle Moss will not be able to finish out her term. Michelle, I am incredibly sorry."
Moss tearfully left the dais.
"I find it to be one of the most disrespectful, underhanded political maneuvers that I have ever seen in my life," Moss said in the hallway as Merida voted. "Denver is in serious trouble. It's a clear indication that they will stop reform and do whatever it takes. It's a sad day in Denver."
This is, of course, utter nonsense. The voters of Denver clearly spoke on November 3rd and they spoke out against the present board and their reform agenda. The sitting board members have chosen to ignore this clear voter mandate and continue with their reforms up until the very end of their terms - lame duck status be damned. Their actions can fairly be described as hardball politics.
Merida's actions were perfectly legal and simply a tit-for-tat hardball response.What choice was she left with? The school board had decided to forge ahead with an agenda of school closures, charter granting and school moves despite the clear vote of no confidence that the board had received from voters just 4 weeks ago and, likely, contrary to state law.
Merida has an obligation to the constituents who elected her, once the board chose to take the course that they did Merida had little choice. It would have been irresponsible to sit idly by while lame duck board members flaunted the clear will of Denver voters and possibly skirted state law.
The lame duck members of the Denver School Board chose the path of legally suspect political hardball They don't then get to cry foul when the political tables are turned on them.
The cause endures...
Sir Charles notes that perhaps we liberals should take more of a long view - we're fighting for generational change, and that can take ummmm... well... a generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)