As most of y'all know by now, last night President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress regarding health care reform. Personally, I thought it was an excellent speech. I didn't agree with everything in it -- mainly the requirement to carry health insurance. I understand the sentiment, but requirements such as this usually bring fines and the fines I've heard discussed seem pretty hefty and outside the budget of the average American. Also, my friend Eric brings up an excellent point regarding Obama comparing health care insurance to auto insurance. And while I'm more for single-payer or universal health care, making sure there is at least a government-run public option for those who cannot afford private insurance or whose jobs do not (or cannot) provide it is a step in the right direction. I just hope that it's only a first step and not a plateau. I also hope the passed bill takes into account those who are under-insured due to hefty deductibles. Any bill without at least a public option is laughable (co-ops would be a total joke, as would placing a trigger).
However, I do have a major concern: that Obama will not be able to get Congress to do the work it needs to do in order for the bill to be passed. I've never thought it would ever be a truly bi-partisan bill - the Republican Party in its current form is too busy flying off the crazy cliff. But even with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, there are conservative Democrats who seem determined to tag along with the GOP in their mid-air flight. That could very well sink the bill.
Plus I'm still leery after Obama's refusal to at least place a moratorium on Don't Ask Don't Tell until a full repeal can be implemented. I understand that health care is near and dear to the president's heart whereas ensuring equal rights for all American soldiers doesn't seem to be. I also understand that equal access to quality health care affects far many more people than ensuring that qualified members of the military continue to serve their country. I just feel that there has been a precedent in the Obama's presidency that makes me leery. Because of this, I still have reservations.
I hope that my reservations are unfounded.
P.S. Re: the Joe Wilson kerfluffle - those who say the Democrats did it first may be referring to the moans which Democratic lawmakers uttered during Bush's 2005 State of the Union address in which he spoke about Social Security. Moaning and muttering "No" is not the same as calling Obama a liar when he is, in fact, telling the truth.
(Crossposted from just an ordinary goddess...)
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Friday, September 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
To Feinstein's Staffers: RESIGN!
Guest Blogger: Michael Jay
Letter to Trevor Daley, District Director for Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Trevor,
Thank you for meeting with us yesterday.
I was deeply disappointed to awake to the news that Senator Feinstein has chosen to again side against her constituents and instead enable the Bush administration, this time by voting to confirm another atrocious choice as the highest law officer of the land. Mukasey's tortured parsing of his position on waterboarding is widely seen as a maneuver to protect those who would otherwise be guilty of war crimes for having ordered the use of this procedure.
It makes sense that Bush would offer a nominee who would cover for him; what doesn't make sense is why the senior Senator of the country's largest left-leaning state would give cover to Bush.
Don't take my word for that: Even Keith Olbermann could find a cynical reason as to what his own Senator had to gain by dealing with Bush, but was at a loss about California's Feinstein; he said, "Sen. Schumer has seen it, reportedly, as some kind of puzzle piece in the New York political patronage system, and he has failed. What Sen. Feinstein has seen, to justify joining Schumer in rubber-stamping Mukasey, I cannot guess."
I can guess, for here, in California, Diane Feinstein's miserable record precedes this latest vote: Her votes to extend the Patriot Act and Bush's illegal circumvention of FISA, her support of Hayden to head the CIA (no surprise, in light of the aforementioned support for illegal wiretapping), her championing of bills and amendments on flag burning (I know that issue sure keeps my neighbors up at night), her atrocious giveaway to the vendors of electronic voting machines - oh, excuse me, I meant, her recent bill to revise HAVA, and her vote to censure MoveOn all make many wonder which Party our Senator belongs to.
Excuses about the possibility of Bush installing a much worse candidate, via a recess appointment, collapse in light of the courageous action by the many true Democrats on the panel, including Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold.
But there's a much deeper factor, isn't there? Senator Feinstein's current husband, Richard Blum, was a majority owner of the military contractors URS Corp. and Perini Corp. at the same time that the Senator supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars through her position on the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) That means that, from 2001 through 2005, every time Senator Feinstein directed an appropriation, citizen Feinstein had a little bit more money for some fine dining in San Francisco. Again, this isn't just my theory; as you know, enough heat was brought to bear on this gross conflict of interest that the Senator had to resign from MILCON.
As you noted yesterday, I've politely lobbied the Senator in semi-private meetings, and it doesn't take much to see that the problems of one constituent don't amount to a hill of beans in the crazy world of the military industrial complex. Whether for profit or because she can't remember which Party she's in (let alone remember her oath to protect and defend the Constitution), Senator Feinstein chooses to enable Bush's disastrous agenda. So, now I need to repeat the request that I made to you yesterday:
Resign.
As District Director, you are enabling one of the worst offenders among those who betray the Democratic Party and their country in this time of crisis. I submit to you that one man can have an impact; your resignation would be felt by the Senator, and noted around the nation. You said that citizen comments on Mukasey amounted to only a third of those concerning Judge Roberts, yet you also heard from several who reported that it was nearly impossible to phone the Senator's office. We are frozen out; you can send a message:
Resign.
You could regain employment with one of the true Democrats. Help us build an opposition Party, before America goes past the point of no return. Help reverse the ludicrous stance of the Party, which has disappointed and abandoned its constituency to the point that more Republicans now approve of Congress than Democrats- despite our majority rule of both houses.
Please stop enabling those false leaders who enable this assault on our Constitution, our country and the world. You'll be able to look yourself in the mirror in the morning. Resign.
Thank you for considering this.
Yours,
Michael Jay
Delegate, California State Democratic Party, 42nd Assembly District
Steering Committee, Progressive Democrats of America, Los Angeles
Coordinating Committee, SoCal Grassroots
PS - After our meeting yesterday, you saw me return to the building's lobby to criticize those guards who had lied to the police. Let me explain that, while Mimi Kennedy (National Board Chair of Progressive Democrats of America), myself and four others waited politely for you to come down from the Senator's office, the lobby guards barred others from entering. After just a few complaints from these others, the guards summoned the police, by lying that "people were, or were trying to, break down the doors." I learned of this (mis-)characterization from the police officers themselves, who, thankfully, explained that they are experienced enough to know that people often exaggerate or fabricate in order to procure police presence. Know that the guards lied, that we were mischaracterized, and that the Senator and her staff are being ill-served by her landlord's employees.
To the hundreds of others reading this message: Please call Senator Feinstein's offices, and tell her how you think a Democratic California Senator should vote.
D.C.: 202-224-3841
SF: 415-393-0707
LA: 310-914-7300
Letter to Trevor Daley, District Director for Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Trevor,
Thank you for meeting with us yesterday.
I was deeply disappointed to awake to the news that Senator Feinstein has chosen to again side against her constituents and instead enable the Bush administration, this time by voting to confirm another atrocious choice as the highest law officer of the land. Mukasey's tortured parsing of his position on waterboarding is widely seen as a maneuver to protect those who would otherwise be guilty of war crimes for having ordered the use of this procedure.
It makes sense that Bush would offer a nominee who would cover for him; what doesn't make sense is why the senior Senator of the country's largest left-leaning state would give cover to Bush.
Don't take my word for that: Even Keith Olbermann could find a cynical reason as to what his own Senator had to gain by dealing with Bush, but was at a loss about California's Feinstein; he said, "Sen. Schumer has seen it, reportedly, as some kind of puzzle piece in the New York political patronage system, and he has failed. What Sen. Feinstein has seen, to justify joining Schumer in rubber-stamping Mukasey, I cannot guess."
I can guess, for here, in California, Diane Feinstein's miserable record precedes this latest vote: Her votes to extend the Patriot Act and Bush's illegal circumvention of FISA, her support of Hayden to head the CIA (no surprise, in light of the aforementioned support for illegal wiretapping), her championing of bills and amendments on flag burning (I know that issue sure keeps my neighbors up at night), her atrocious giveaway to the vendors of electronic voting machines - oh, excuse me, I meant, her recent bill to revise HAVA, and her vote to censure MoveOn all make many wonder which Party our Senator belongs to.
Excuses about the possibility of Bush installing a much worse candidate, via a recess appointment, collapse in light of the courageous action by the many true Democrats on the panel, including Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold.
But there's a much deeper factor, isn't there? Senator Feinstein's current husband, Richard Blum, was a majority owner of the military contractors URS Corp. and Perini Corp. at the same time that the Senator supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars through her position on the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) That means that, from 2001 through 2005, every time Senator Feinstein directed an appropriation, citizen Feinstein had a little bit more money for some fine dining in San Francisco. Again, this isn't just my theory; as you know, enough heat was brought to bear on this gross conflict of interest that the Senator had to resign from MILCON.
As you noted yesterday, I've politely lobbied the Senator in semi-private meetings, and it doesn't take much to see that the problems of one constituent don't amount to a hill of beans in the crazy world of the military industrial complex. Whether for profit or because she can't remember which Party she's in (let alone remember her oath to protect and defend the Constitution), Senator Feinstein chooses to enable Bush's disastrous agenda. So, now I need to repeat the request that I made to you yesterday:
Resign.
As District Director, you are enabling one of the worst offenders among those who betray the Democratic Party and their country in this time of crisis. I submit to you that one man can have an impact; your resignation would be felt by the Senator, and noted around the nation. You said that citizen comments on Mukasey amounted to only a third of those concerning Judge Roberts, yet you also heard from several who reported that it was nearly impossible to phone the Senator's office. We are frozen out; you can send a message:
Resign.
You could regain employment with one of the true Democrats. Help us build an opposition Party, before America goes past the point of no return. Help reverse the ludicrous stance of the Party, which has disappointed and abandoned its constituency to the point that more Republicans now approve of Congress than Democrats- despite our majority rule of both houses.
Please stop enabling those false leaders who enable this assault on our Constitution, our country and the world. You'll be able to look yourself in the mirror in the morning. Resign.
Thank you for considering this.
Yours,
Michael Jay
Delegate, California State Democratic Party, 42nd Assembly District
Steering Committee, Progressive Democrats of America, Los Angeles
Coordinating Committee, SoCal Grassroots
PS - After our meeting yesterday, you saw me return to the building's lobby to criticize those guards who had lied to the police. Let me explain that, while Mimi Kennedy (National Board Chair of Progressive Democrats of America), myself and four others waited politely for you to come down from the Senator's office, the lobby guards barred others from entering. After just a few complaints from these others, the guards summoned the police, by lying that "people were, or were trying to, break down the doors." I learned of this (mis-)characterization from the police officers themselves, who, thankfully, explained that they are experienced enough to know that people often exaggerate or fabricate in order to procure police presence. Know that the guards lied, that we were mischaracterized, and that the Senator and her staff are being ill-served by her landlord's employees.
To the hundreds of others reading this message: Please call Senator Feinstein's offices, and tell her how you think a Democratic California Senator should vote.
D.C.: 202-224-3841
SF: 415-393-0707
LA: 310-914-7300
Representative Howard Berman: Don't Block Impeachment
Guest Blogger: Michael Jay
Letter to Representative Howard Berman:
If you won't oppose Bush, at least don't oppose those Democrats who will!
Dear Congressman Berman,
On Tuesday Congressman Dennis Kucinich will introduce a privileged resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney.
It is a virtual certainty that another member will move to table this resolution.
What will you do?
We have debated at length our differences on the occupation of Iraq, and the wisdom of impeachment. Actually, we have no differences of opinion on Iraq: you have publicly agreed with every one of my observations, including the conclusion that the war makes us less safe; you differ, inexplicably, in the action that you take.
For years now I have begged you to be part of an opposition Party, to aggressively address Bush's assault on our country's reputation and bedrock principles. In this regard I have also demanded that you obey your oath to protect and defend the Constitution, by holding the Bush administration responsible for its irrefutably illegal actions.
You have espoused the same excuses I've heard from so many: "Impeachment will take too long" (though the time remaining is still four times the time it took to impeach Clinton and Nixon). "We don't have the votes"- as if they had the votes before they began investigating Nixon, and uncovered the smoking guns that even the Republicans couldn't deny. "It will keep us from more important work" - as if the current Congress was some beehive of new initiatives and unprecedented bipartisan efficiency. In reality, because of the failure of you and others to oppose Bush, he vetoes everything, and we pass nothing. The only thing my Party has achieved is to have squandered the wishes of those Democrats who put you in the majority with a mandate to stop funding the war and stand up to Bush. Your self described "conservative" agenda and the Party leadership's brilliant strategy has achieved one other thing: it has plunged Congress' approval ratings to 11%- less than half that of Bush's. Remember that, the next time you think my progressive stance is bad for the Party.
Well, here's your chance. You don't have to go out on a limb and introduce a resolution. You don't have to join a caucus or co-sponsor anything, or stick your head up out of the foxhole. This one's simple: I'm asking you to do nothing. That is, when the motion is made to table Kucinich's resolution to impeach, please DO NOT vote to table.
Is that so much to ask? That you not side with the Republicans (again)? That you let this action take its course, and give us a chance to get America back on track? That you see which other Democrats might show a spine? Maybe we'll surprise ourselves.
With Senator Feinstein enabling yet another lying Bush appointee for Attorney General, I'm so deep in this upside down world that I'm now asking you to do nothing: Please don't cast another vote that makes us citizen Democrats sick to heart to be Democrats. Please don't generate another front page headline in the LA Daily News like the one that read, "Berman Sides with GOP." Please let this one vestige of Thomas Jefferson's process take root for. Bottom line: If you won't oppose Bush, at least don't oppose those Democrats who will. Please remember that you took an oath- one you have yet to respect. Here's your chance. I, and the several hundred people with whom I'll be sharing this message, will be watching.
Yours,
Michael Jay
Delegate, California State Democratic Party, 42nd Assembly District
Steering Committee, Progressive Democrats of America, Los Angeles
Coordinating Committee, SoCal Grassroots
PS - To those citizens reading this message: CALL CONGRESS (202-225-3121) and tell your Democratic Representative NOT to vote to table Kucinich's resolution of impeachment.
Letter to Representative Howard Berman:
If you won't oppose Bush, at least don't oppose those Democrats who will!
Dear Congressman Berman,
On Tuesday Congressman Dennis Kucinich will introduce a privileged resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney.
It is a virtual certainty that another member will move to table this resolution.
What will you do?
We have debated at length our differences on the occupation of Iraq, and the wisdom of impeachment. Actually, we have no differences of opinion on Iraq: you have publicly agreed with every one of my observations, including the conclusion that the war makes us less safe; you differ, inexplicably, in the action that you take.
For years now I have begged you to be part of an opposition Party, to aggressively address Bush's assault on our country's reputation and bedrock principles. In this regard I have also demanded that you obey your oath to protect and defend the Constitution, by holding the Bush administration responsible for its irrefutably illegal actions.
You have espoused the same excuses I've heard from so many: "Impeachment will take too long" (though the time remaining is still four times the time it took to impeach Clinton and Nixon). "We don't have the votes"- as if they had the votes before they began investigating Nixon, and uncovered the smoking guns that even the Republicans couldn't deny. "It will keep us from more important work" - as if the current Congress was some beehive of new initiatives and unprecedented bipartisan efficiency. In reality, because of the failure of you and others to oppose Bush, he vetoes everything, and we pass nothing. The only thing my Party has achieved is to have squandered the wishes of those Democrats who put you in the majority with a mandate to stop funding the war and stand up to Bush. Your self described "conservative" agenda and the Party leadership's brilliant strategy has achieved one other thing: it has plunged Congress' approval ratings to 11%- less than half that of Bush's. Remember that, the next time you think my progressive stance is bad for the Party.
Well, here's your chance. You don't have to go out on a limb and introduce a resolution. You don't have to join a caucus or co-sponsor anything, or stick your head up out of the foxhole. This one's simple: I'm asking you to do nothing. That is, when the motion is made to table Kucinich's resolution to impeach, please DO NOT vote to table.
Is that so much to ask? That you not side with the Republicans (again)? That you let this action take its course, and give us a chance to get America back on track? That you see which other Democrats might show a spine? Maybe we'll surprise ourselves.
With Senator Feinstein enabling yet another lying Bush appointee for Attorney General, I'm so deep in this upside down world that I'm now asking you to do nothing: Please don't cast another vote that makes us citizen Democrats sick to heart to be Democrats. Please don't generate another front page headline in the LA Daily News like the one that read, "Berman Sides with GOP." Please let this one vestige of Thomas Jefferson's process take root for. Bottom line: If you won't oppose Bush, at least don't oppose those Democrats who will. Please remember that you took an oath- one you have yet to respect. Here's your chance. I, and the several hundred people with whom I'll be sharing this message, will be watching.
Yours,
Michael Jay
Delegate, California State Democratic Party, 42nd Assembly District
Steering Committee, Progressive Democrats of America, Los Angeles
Coordinating Committee, SoCal Grassroots
PS - To those citizens reading this message: CALL CONGRESS (202-225-3121) and tell your Democratic Representative NOT to vote to table Kucinich's resolution of impeachment.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Congressional Cowardliness: Good for Bush - Bad for the US
Saturday's capitulation by Congress to Bush and his administration's desire to pay more attention to citizens' private communications than to National Intelligence Estimates and real intelligence gathering has, understandably, got a lot of knickers in knots (including my own). By making a previously - and rightfully - illegal act into a legal one, Congress has ensured that private communications with friends, business contacts and loved ones in other countries are now within the purview of a power-hungry administration. Because you know our letters and packages are next.
Good one, guys. And here I thought you Dems were elected to stop this mad, mad, mad administration.
Oh, they say that they're doing it for us and have limited the law to a six month period, to end in February. And several of the Dems that said, "Sure, Bush, go ahead and infringe on the privacy of law-abiding American citizens," have said that they'll be working to fix the law. Speaker Pelosi's her blog said that S. 1927, "[...]contains many provisions that are unacceptable and she does not believe that the American people will want to wait that long before corrective action is taken." Question for all of you Dems who decided to capitulate: if this law is so very broken that it requires fixing, 1) why wait until September to start fixing it and 2) why even pass it at all? A bad law is a bad law. Pure and simple. And if y'all think Bush and Pals are going to let the sunset clause take effect, you have another think coming. Even if they do, they'll just bully Congress again and, yet gain, Congress will cave. They did it with the Patriot Act - you can be damned sure they'll do it with the Protect America Act.
BTW, California's own Senator Feinstein "defended her vote for the Republican version of the spy bill in part by circulating a letter she had received from McConnell describing the ways that the intelligence community would safeguard U.S. citizens' privacy under the new espionage authorities." Because they've been doing such a great job of that in the past, when wiretapping was illegal. Yeah, that's pretty damned believable.
Not surprisingly, protesting has commenced. MoveOn has got a petition urging Congress to reverse their capitulation. The ACLU "will today file legal papers with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) requesting that it disclose recent legal opinions discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in secret wiretapping of Americans." Even the telecoms have gotten in on the act, though there is speculation they're doing it more to avoid lawsuits than to protect US citizens' privacy.
Let's keep screaming. Contact your senators and represnetatives. Let them know that this is an unforgivable act by the very people we elected to curb the abuses of the Bush administration.
Let's protect our privacy.
Good one, guys. And here I thought you Dems were elected to stop this mad, mad, mad administration.
Oh, they say that they're doing it for us and have limited the law to a six month period, to end in February. And several of the Dems that said, "Sure, Bush, go ahead and infringe on the privacy of law-abiding American citizens," have said that they'll be working to fix the law. Speaker Pelosi's her blog said that S. 1927, "[...]contains many provisions that are unacceptable and she does not believe that the American people will want to wait that long before corrective action is taken." Question for all of you Dems who decided to capitulate: if this law is so very broken that it requires fixing, 1) why wait until September to start fixing it and 2) why even pass it at all? A bad law is a bad law. Pure and simple. And if y'all think Bush and Pals are going to let the sunset clause take effect, you have another think coming. Even if they do, they'll just bully Congress again and, yet gain, Congress will cave. They did it with the Patriot Act - you can be damned sure they'll do it with the Protect America Act.
BTW, California's own Senator Feinstein "defended her vote for the Republican version of the spy bill in part by circulating a letter she had received from McConnell describing the ways that the intelligence community would safeguard U.S. citizens' privacy under the new espionage authorities." Because they've been doing such a great job of that in the past, when wiretapping was illegal. Yeah, that's pretty damned believable.
Not surprisingly, protesting has commenced. MoveOn has got a petition urging Congress to reverse their capitulation. The ACLU "will today file legal papers with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) requesting that it disclose recent legal opinions discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in secret wiretapping of Americans." Even the telecoms have gotten in on the act, though there is speculation they're doing it more to avoid lawsuits than to protect US citizens' privacy.
Let's keep screaming. Contact your senators and represnetatives. Let them know that this is an unforgivable act by the very people we elected to curb the abuses of the Bush administration.
Let's protect our privacy.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Requiescat In Pace, Ms. Millender-McDonald
Three days after taking leave from the House after being diagnosed with cancer, Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-Carson) passed away at the age of 68.
Thank you for your service, Rep. Millender-McDonald.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Congress Tells Bush, "Oh yeah?"
Senate passes war spending bill with withdrawal deadline:
"More bad news is the disunity stirred up among antiwar progressives in Congress by the House leadership's arm-twisting and the intervention of MoveOn.org in support of the leadership's arm-twisting."
However, much as I would have preferred that this bill had gotten it right the first time, its passage by the House, with the Senate signing off on it, is a good step. Of course Bush is going to veto it - there's no chance at this stage of the game that he would allow it to go through. But let's hope that progressive Congress members, to quote Representative Pete Stark, "[We] can write a better bill."
Y'all get started on that better bill writing, ya hear?
Senate Democrats ignored a veto threat and pushed through a bill Thursday requiring President Bush to start withdrawing troops from "the civil war in Iraq," dealing a rare, sharp rebuke to a wartime commander in chief.Personally, I have a number of issues with the House bill, which are addressed best by Tim Carpenter, Director of Progressive Democrats of America, "The bad news is that the House bill funds Bush's troop surge and won't bring our troops home until a Sept 1, 2008 "deadline" – with provisions allowing troops to stay in Iraq beyond that on vaguely-defined "training" or "anti-terrorism" missions. (That's why a group of progressive Congress members – including Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, John Lewis and Dennis Kucinich – felt the need to stand firm and vote no.)
In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.
"More bad news is the disunity stirred up among antiwar progressives in Congress by the House leadership's arm-twisting and the intervention of MoveOn.org in support of the leadership's arm-twisting."
However, much as I would have preferred that this bill had gotten it right the first time, its passage by the House, with the Senate signing off on it, is a good step. Of course Bush is going to veto it - there's no chance at this stage of the game that he would allow it to go through. But let's hope that progressive Congress members, to quote Representative Pete Stark, "[We] can write a better bill."
Y'all get started on that better bill writing, ya hear?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Bush: LaLaLaLa - I Can't Hear You!
Bush hangs back on House debate:
Then again, considering the resident of the White House and his actions since he moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, I can't say that I'm surprised...
A month after President Bush announced plans to boost troop levels in Iraq, he will largely remain on the sidelines as the House begins the first major debate on the war since Democrats assumed control of Congress after the November election.Since this is a non-binding resolution, the House cannot force Bush to follow its lead. However, ignoring the resolution is idiocy of the highest form.
[...]
With Democrats in firm control of the House, Bush has little chance of derailing the resolution, which he has said he will ignore.
Then again, considering the resident of the White House and his actions since he moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, I can't say that I'm surprised...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)