As you may have heard, this morning in Wichita Kansas Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed in his church, as a direct protest of his role as one of the few doctors in the country who performs late-term abortions. Dr. Tiller had been the subject of harassment for years; he was shot in both arms and his clinic has been bombed, in addition to numerous threats on his life. This is obviously a great tragedy for his family and friends, but also a great loss for his community as well as the choices and heath of women.
Earlier this month, the man who drove his car into a St. Paul Planned Parenthood was sentenced to time in jail, and the state is pushing to have him committed for life, on account of mental illness.
While there has been some speculation about an increase in clinic violence due to Barack Obama taking office, this should be clear: there is nothing political about what happened this morning, and there is nothing political about the man who ran his car into Planned Parenthood this January. These acts are nothing short of terrorism, intended to intimidate, harass and kill licensed professionals and their patients who are seeking medical help.
I will post about any vigils to be held in Minnesota, as I hear about them. In the meantime, consider donating to any of the fantastic clinics in this state, or Medical Students for Choice, a non-profit supporting ob/gyn medical students.
In this week’s address, Barack Obama makes the case for the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor. He discusses both her legal background and her life story. Both are extraordinary, and both are important. Judge Sotomayor has said she is always mindful of the impact her decisions will have in the real world, so her life experience is indeed important. At the same time, she has a record of fairly and narrowly applying the law in her decisions, and she was first appointed to the Federal courts by a Republican.
Sotomayor looks like an easy prospect for confirmation. Watch Obama discuss his choice below.
A reader has passed along an excellent series being run on the denialism blog, about healthcare systems in other countries. There’s a lot we can learn from other industrialized nations, all of which have lower costs than the United States, and most of which have better healthcare outcomes and higher patient satisfaction.
In particular, we can learn from the Netherlands, which has a system based entirely on private insurance. According to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund, the Netherlands, which has one of the lowest public costs of all the countries surveyed, has the highest satisfaction by far.
After once again ignoring the elected DFL legislature and deciding he has to have things his own way, Tim Pawlenty now claims he wants the DFL’s input. At least, that’s how he puts it. More accurately, he wants DFL legislators to take partial ownership of his plan to slash Minnesota’s budget, so he won’t have to bear the full brunt of the voters’ anger.
…before using his unallotment authority, Pawlenty told legislators he wanted their views considered.
“Each legislator or committee chair has experience and insight into these issues. We want to make sure we take into account their perspective and their input,” said Pawlenty.
DFLers in the legislature may not have much sense, but at least they have the sense not to fall for this one:
So far, no legislators have written back. The majority leader in the Minnesota Senate, DFLer Larry Pogemiller of Minneapolis, says he won’t be offering any suggestions, at least not formally.
Pogemiller says the House and Senate just spent five months doing that, and he’s not sure the governor was listening. [MPR, emphasis added]
During the legislative session, Pawlenty was more interested in political gamesmanship than sound policy. Now he suddenly wants to talk? Sorry, Timmy, the DFL passed a plan, and you vetoed it. Now you can take responsibility.
The Washington Post yesterday had an article on the possibility of a national sales tax, called a value-added tax.
The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation’s money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it’s all about the money.
In other words, a VAT would be in addition to the federal income tax. That’s going to be a pretty tough sell.
The big problem with a national sales tax is that states already rely on sales taxes to fund their budgets. The big revenue sources — sometimes known as the big three — are income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. In our current system, the federal government relies on the income tax, states rely on the sales tax, and local governments rely on the property tax. Some states, such as Minnesota, also have an income tax, but the rates are low compared to the federal tax.
A federal VAT, though, wouldn’t add just a small percentage on top of the state sales taxes. It could range from 10 percent to 25 percent — and that would be on top of state sales taxes. That would put a lot of political pressure on states to reduce their sales taxes, at a time when many states actually need to increase revenue.
It’s certainly possible that a VAT could gain public acceptance, if the upside were good enough. If we could use a VAT to pay for universal health care and return our budget from a deficit to a surplus, it’s possible that Americans might accept the imposition of a VAT. But it would make our state’s finances a lot more difficult, and probably lead to new taxes and fees at the state level. All in all, a VAT would just add to our increasingly complicated tax system.
Unless some major new dirt surfaces, and quickly, the Republican party has absolutely no basis for opposing Sonia Sotomayor. They most certainly don’t have the votes to filibuster her nomination, nor do they have any good reason to do so. Maybe they should just let it go.
Don’t get me wrong — I’m all for careful scrutiny, having the Senate do their due diligence, etc. If the right has anything substantive to discuss, we should certainly discuss it, but if all they have is name-calling, it would be in their best interest not to overdo it. So far, the only worthwhile thing they’ve come up with is Sotomayor’s claim that the court of appeals is “where policy is made.” Of course, as Senate Guru points out, this is true:
Going back to my grade school social studies class, we learned that there are three sources of “policy”:
laws passed by the legislative branch,
executive orders signed in the executive branch, and
judicial decisions handed down in the judicial branch.
Judges don’t make laws. But they do make policy.
Now that we’ve disposed of that objection, does the GOP have anything else useful to contribute? It certainly doesn’t seem so; all the rest of the GOP’s opposition to Sotomayor is simply embarrassing. So far, their arguments seem to consist of calling her a racist and suggesting that her penchant for Puerto Rican food is indicative of judicial activism.
Republicans think they’ve found their winning talking point on healthcare reform: the same talking point they used 15 years ago. And they’re not going to let a pesky thing like reality get in the way of their talking points. Here’s GOP pollster and messaging guru Frank Luntz:
Is [“Washington takeover”] a correct description of the president’s plans for reform?
We don’t know what he is proposing. We want to avoid “a Washington takeover.”
But that’s not at issue. What the Democrats want is for everyone to be able to choose between their old, private health-insurance plan and an all-new, public health-insurance option.
I’m not a policy person. I’m a language person.
I’d wager that very few Republicans are “policy people.” They’re “politics people.” Obama and the Demcorats are working to get a healthcare reform package passed that will provide a working healthcare system, cover all Americans, and reduce skyrocketing healthcare costs. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to have very little interest in these policy goals. Their sole goal is to retain the private market system we have now, despite its outrageous costs and the fact that it leaves 1 in 6 Americans without health coverage.
You would think Republicans, particularly someone like Luntz, would recognize that their talking points are no longer relevant. 15 years ago, when our healthcare system still worked somewhat, Americans cared about a “Washington takeover.” Now, they just want outrageous healthcare costs to stop dragging our country down.
SIWP was founded in 2002 with the dual goals of “empower[ing] youth to build peace skills” and erecting two 9/11 “Freedom Fountain” memorials. One of the fountains—a computer-rendered image on the website showed the body inlaid with coins symbolizing fallen firefighters and an upper basin supported by pillars resembling the World Trade Center towers—was to be located in the Twin Cities area, with the second to be built in New York. SIWP also sold peace bandanas, peace promise wristbands, and even peace water—“because creating so much peace can make one thirsty.”
But this group did not seem to really do anything for anyone, at least publicly. John Goodman and Nasser Kaseminy were “among the original directors” and John Goodman’s son, Shane, was the CEO. Shane still owns the domain name under his for-profit business, the Goodman Group:
Of course, everyone involved with SIWP is a huge donor to Norm Coleman. Where did the money this foundation raised go?Silverstein digs further:
…some six years later the foundation has raised and spent about $100,000 but has done, as far as I can tell, virtually nothing to honor the victims of 9/11 or to “remind the world…that it cannot be allowed to happen again.”
So what exactly is the purpose of this IRS-approved non-profit organization?
Very good question.
Calls to the organization at (612) 922-STEP were not answered.
The California Supreme Court yesterday upheld the state’s gay marriage ban. It didn’t have much of a choice, after voters approved Proposition 8, but I can’t help but wonder if we should really be holding a majority vote on minority rights. After all, there’s a reason we’re actually a Republic, not a direct Democracy — we have to be concerned about “the tyranny of the majority.”
Marriage opponents love to argue about the “slippery slope” of equal marriage — to hear them tell it, we’ll soon be marrying people and goats. But what about the slippery slope of opposing equal marriage? We’ve now denied homosexuals the right to marry; who will be next? Perhaps we’ll decide that Muslims should not be allowed to marry in the US. Or maybe we’ll decided that noncitizens shouldn’t be allowed to marry US citizens. What would prevent us from taking a vote on that?
Where do we draw the line once we begin upholding unjust laws simply because they were approved by the majority? Can the majority now act with impunity to turn minorities of all types into second-class citizens? For instance, what if we were to reinstitute laws against interracial marriage? Having ruled that we can refuse gays and lesbians the right to marry, would our courts have any authority to prevent the further erosion of marriage rights?
Is Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) representative of the entire Republican party in his thinking? My guess is that he is:
Of primary concern to me is whether or not Judge Sotomayor follows the proper role of judges and refrains from legislating from the bench. Some of her recent comments on this matter have given me cause for great concern. In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences. [Think Progress]
Will Sotomayor’s race, ethnicity, and gender influence her rulings? Of course they will — all judges and lawmakers are affected by their personal experiences. Utter impartiality is impossible, and any judge who claims they’re capable of it is lying. Besides, is it even desirable? There’s a reason we still ask judges to interpret the law, not computer algorithms.
The biggest problem with Inhofe’s statement is that he presumes that Sotomayor’s race and gender will somehow negatively impact her rulings, while ignoring the impact of his own race and gender. I’m sure Inhofe’s positions, such as his complete tone-deafness on race and gender issues, are strongly impacted by his own white maleness.
The conservative vs. moderate split threatening to rupture the Republican Party played out across the airwaves Sunday, with Colin Powell and Tom Ridge denouncing shrill and judgmental voices they say are steering the GOP too far right. Karl Rove challenged Powell to lay out his vision and “back it up” by helping elect Republicans.
…
[Karl] Rove, chief political strategist for the younger Bush, took the position that “if you say you’re Republican, you’re Republican.” But he wanted more than words from Powell.
“I don’t like this thing where people — and Powell is one them — who said, `Rush Limbaugh, shut up.’ We believe, as Republicans in the marketplace of ideas. Let that marketplace decide,” Rove said.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Monday, suggests that 70 percent have a favorable opinion of Powell, who was Secretary of State during President George W. Bush’s first term, and who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Persian Gulf War.
Only 30 percent of those polled have a favorable view of Limbaugh, the popular conservative radio talk show host, with 53 percent saying they hold an unfavorable opinion.
In poll numbers released Thursday, 37 percent say they have a favorable opinion of Dick Cheney, with 55 percent indicating they hold an unfavorable view of the former vice president.
I know who I’d choose as a standard-bearer if I ever wanted to win another election.
On health care reform, conservatives’ talking points are based on “patient-centered” health care — by which they really just mean private-market health care. But has the private market really provided health care that works? After all, it has left nearly 1 in 6 Americans uninsured, and millions more underinsured. Soaring healthcare costs, led by unnecessary procedures and prescription drug advertising, are a leading source of bankruptcy. The cost to our society is enormous as the uninsured turn to emergency rooms for medical care.
With health care reform looming as the next big task for Congress, it’s time to focus on providing health care to all. Anything less than universal health care will fail millions of patients, and cost us more in the long run anyway. We can’t have “patient-centered” health care if our health care systems fails to provide access to millions of patients.
Our health care should of course serve patients — but shouldn’t it serve our society as well? The best way to serve both patients and our society as a whole is ensure that everybody has access to health care. After all, for patients that don’t have access to health care, their care isn’t very patient-centered, is it? Without access to preventative care, minor ailments can fester until they become disasters and require a trip to the emergency room. When patients need to use the emergency room for medical care, it’s not just bad for the patients, it costs taxpayers and health care companies billions of dollars.
There’s a reason conservatives have stopped talking about private-market health care: Americans see the damage it has caused. Now they’re pushing the same plan, but using buzzwords to try to hide that their plan is just more of the same. It’s time to give up on our current health care system, and find a system that works for everyone.
“I want to find out if it’s torture,” Mancow told his listeners Friday morning, adding that he hoped his on-air test would help prove that waterboarding did not, in fact, constitute torture.
The intent was to show that waterboarding is no big deal. The experience, though, was far different than he expected:
“The average person can take this for 14 seconds,” Marine Sergeant Clay South answered, adding, “He’s going to wiggle, he’s going to scream, he’s going to wish he never did this.”
…
Turns out the stunt wasn’t so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.
Democrats have an unprecedented amount of power in Washington right now. They control the presidency and both houses in Congress, including a nearly fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. But despite all this power, they are still terrified of big corporate interests.
Take the healthcare debate. The most effective way to provide coverage to everyone and reduce costs would be a universal single-payer healthcare system. But not only is that entirely unlikely, liberals find themselves fighting to even include a “public plan” option. And Max Baucus, the Finance Committee Chairman, is practically apologizing for it:
“I do suspect that a version will be there,” Baucus said. “Now, by saying that, I don’t want to frighten people, particularly on the industry side. … All I’m saying is, there are ways to skin a cat. There are ways to find a solution.”
You don’t want to frighten people? You have the power and the votes to get this done, despite industry objectives. Forget about whether you’re frightening them — it’s time to send a message to the industry: This is happening with or without you, but we’re happy to consider your input. Healthcare reform is long past due. We shouldn’t be worried about frightening those who helped to kill it 15 years ago.
Nothing — absolutely nothing — should lead America to turn away from our most important values. We can keep our country safe without compromising these values. In fact, in many cases, holding onto those values will keep us safer than abandoning them. That’s what Obama’s speech yesterday was all about. Here are a few choice excerpts:
…I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall — the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights — these are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.
I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and it keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset — in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.
…Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law…
So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it.
People Are Shouting
RSS