Washington is on fire today!

Even snow covered bushes are burning in celebration now that the Senate has approved a procedural motion to move to final consideration of the health care reform bill...thus assuring its passage on Christmas Eve. Have a very Merry Christmas!!

Success Comes Only with Defeat: Republican Strategy 2009

I’ve been thinking about Republican strategy the last few days, unsure about whether to say anything or not --- but as the health care reform bill moves ever closer to final passage in the US Senate, it is worth noting the all or nothing strategy the R’s have adopted. The R's are the most risk averse people you have ever met and that is why it surprises me they have rolled all the dice on a strategy aimed at total defeat of health care reform.

No compromise, no consolation prize, no joke. Only nothing will do.

I am surprised. And it is hard for these people to surprise me.

If they are right and the health care bill turns out to be the worst new law to pass in decades, the Democrats will pay the price next November and again in 2012. But if, as I suspect, the law will actually move health care reform forward in an overall positive way, the R’s will pay the price by being relegated to the back bench for a long, long time, having demonstrated fully and completely that they are not interested in solving problems, only in playing an obstinate role, a naysayer role. In other words, the opposite of what the founding fathers intended when they set up a republic that would send representatives to Washington to govern with an eye always toward making tomorrow a better day through the sheer force of new ideas if nothing else.

The R’s have clearly stated they have no new ideas and don’t intend to come up with any anytime soon. The substantive policy defeat the Democrats are about to hand the R's will last for decades.

What you will never learn from a civics book

Even many who proudly proclaim their keen understanding of the Washington political game do not understand the nuance I am about to reveal.

Most Republicans want the health care reform bill to pass, BUT they will never vote for it.

Many brows are furrowing about now, so here’s why.

As Bob Dole used to say, “No one ever got blamed for voting against a bill that passed.” In other words, If your Republican representative votes against a bill – any bill – that passes and it turns out to be a great success for the American people, he will excuse his lack of support by saying, “I voted against it because I wanted to improve it. It wasn’t good enough, in my view, and I was working to improve it…when it passed.” Now, if the new law turns out to be a colossal failure, the same Republican representative will say, “Yes, I knew it, I told you so, a few of us were standing up for you and for America (play God Bless America here), and as long as you continue to send me to Washington, I will continue to stand up for you.”

This, by the way, is not new. For the last 60 years at least, Republicans have been content to sit on the back bench, throw eggs at the majority in public, and urge them on to success in private. It is a lot easier than actually using the gray matter between the ears and coming up with real ideas that will work to solve real problems.

GOP Shoe Does Not Fit Anymore

If the Republicans win the current debate to decide whether or not America will begin the process of reforming health care costs, coverage and delivery, every one of us will lose.

And we will lose something far more precious than rejection of one major reform initiative. We will have handed control of our government to one very influential special interest group: the health insurance companies. The NRA will be proud of their success.

President Truman urged the Congress to pass legislation covering all Americans with basic health care. That was 60 years ago. In 1972, the first speech I wrote for a U.S. Senator focused on the need for health care reform. That was 37 years ago. In 1993, President Bill Clinton urged Congress to move forward finally on health care reform, and again, the insurance industry rejected it flatly. Each time they succeeded by buying the votes they needed to gain total loyalty from a minority that could be counted on to defeat any and all efforts to move forward on the issue.

And now, Republicans stand on the threshold of defeating the current health care reform legislation supported by President Obama and a majority of the Congress. In addition to serving the interest of the insurance companies, the GOP opposition will hand a major defeat to President Obama ...and they live for that.

Why not use the reconciliation process to circumvent the opposition? That’s the question I am asked often. It might be done. Remember, only items in the bill that affect budget numbers – spending issues or tax revenues can be considered in reconciliation but that would include much of the bill. Excluded would be all of the oversight and regulatory provisions in the current bill.

Remember this: It was the Republicans who set up this process of passing legislation through reconciliation without the risk of a filibuster. And now that they are in the minority, they rue the day they thought of this mischief.

Until 1996, reconciliation was limited solely to deficit reduction, but that year the Republican majority adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would increase the deficit.

Under Bush 43, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed. That’s right – oil drilling! Thankfully, the idea did not pass.

They were in the majority and they were dedicated to perverting the reconciliation process to pass any and all bills they wanted. So much for the Senate rules. So much for respecting the views of the minority.

And they paid no heed to the warnings that the day would come when the Democrats would be kin the majority and use they same rule against them. Now they have the audacity, the unmitigated gall, to say the Democrats should not use the reconciliation process to pass one of the most important bills of our time.

Make no mistake: They represent the insurance companies; they do not represent the interest of their constituents. Is this the form of government the “tea baggers” support? Maybe they don’t understand a representative democracy as defined by our Constitution. (Maybe they ought to read the Constitution.)

When no one's happy

After President Obama’s speech at West Point, it seemed certain that most of the pundits would find some parts to applaud and even more to criticize. And no one, absolutely no one was completely happy with the entirety of his proposal. That may be exactly where we need to be to move forward with this complex problem.

Are we so polarized in this nation that everything must be black or white to be acceptable to us? Can’t we just acknowledge that this man has an enormous challenge before him? Maybe he has it wrong, maybe he has it right. One thing is certain: we can be sure he has given it more thought than nearly anyone on the planet. And with his considerable intellect, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. That is one very heavy weight he carries around all day.

Not long ago, I listened to Bill Moyers on PBS as he played the tapes of telephone conversations between LBJ and his friends, allies in Congress, and officials within his own administration. You could hear the angst in his voice over and over again as he tried to divine the answer to the thickest thicket he had ever been in. It is clear President Obama is not going to let Afghanistan do to America what Vietnam did. We will do the job he outlined last night and we will come home.

This is not 1945 so there will be no peace treaty signed on the deck of some battleship. But, mind you, coming home in 2011 does not mean we will cease to participate in the strategic security of that entire region. The rest of the free world looks to us to make sure we keep an eye on every untoward movement there.

Why health care reform WILL become law this year

As the debate on health care reform approaches the day of final reckoning in the Congress, health insurance companies continue to increase their premiums -- even for federal employees -- in double digits. Last week, I heard from a federal employee whose agency announced proudly that it had been able to negotiate a lower rate with BCBS Carefirst of the National Capital Area. Now, instead of a 25 percent increase in premiums for 2010, federal employees under the plan would only pay an increase of 9.5 percent. Mind you, our nation's inflation rate has been less than 2 percent for the past year. Gall? No. Nerve? No. There is another name for it.


Health insurance companies have for the past 20 years imposed ever increasing premiums on a public that generally has paid little attention because they don't pay the premiums, "my agency (or my company) pays them." Of course, you and I know that is not true. Indeed we all pay. Because products and services for all other sectors of our economy must go up to feed the appetite of the health insurance industry....and sooner or later, those goods and services become non competitive with those produced by others, e.g., Mexicans, Chinese, Koreans, etc. And jobs go overseas to produce those things we need.


Meanwhile, back home, we just continue to complain about it all and keep on paying the higher and higher premiums which have nothing to do with the laws of supply and demand. They have everything to do with .....greed. Republicans who want to protect such a system are either ignorant of how the capitalist system works or are intentionally turning a blind eye to the problem. I choose to think they are ignorant rather than intentionally acquiescing to those who keep their campaign coffers full.


And so, to the health insurance companies, work with your government, get costs under control, because if you don't, to paraphrase the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, "The government will be back." Would you like me to tell you what comes next IF the current version of health care reform doesn't pass? I didn't think so.


Thank you for your attention. You may now return to counting the deposits your health insurance company will make in the bank today.

Are we done yet?

We are rapidly moving to the point in our history where no one -- and I mean NO ONE -- can govern this nation. We are so utterly and completely polarized that no one will be able to keep enough of us in the center long enough to govern in a way that moves us forward.

There are many reasons for the polarization but I blame the Internet first and radical talk media second. The Internet is an open sewer and people are so very quick to accept everything on it as truth....when 90% is definitely not.

Last night I got an e-m that had been circulated among hundreds of people. It showed President Obama at Ft. Hood on Veterans Day standing on a stage with hands folded in front of him while military people on the stage were saluting. The person who started the e-mail string said "Why can't this guy honor the fallen as he should; why can't he at least put his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem. If I had a sword, I would take care of the problem. I am outraged and you should be, too. Send this to everyone in your mailing list." I took 15 seconds to read about it on Snopes.com and here is what I learned. The photo was NOT taken at Ft. Hood. It was Arlington cemetery. It was NOT taken on Veterans Day 2009; it was Memorial Day 2009. And most importantly, it was NOT taken during the playing of the National Anthem. It was taken just moments after Obama took the stage and the band was still playing "Hail to the Chief." It would have been inappropriate for him to salute himself!! In my opinion, this type of e-m activity is not amusing in the slightest.

This man, Barack Obama, is doing the best job of which he is capable for us. He will make mistakes, and unlike some in that office, he will admit to them. But there is a fairly large and vocal contingent who are not really part of any major political party who hate him for being there. They do not understand our system of government. If they did, they would understand that when the voters have spoken, you get with the program. I'm sorry but this is serious. And it is adversely impacting all major issues before the Congress. If we can't get health care reform done this year, an issue that has been waiting for its day of deliberation for more than six decades, this country will have demonstrated that the people won't let our Congress perform as it should....and all of us will be done.

Health Scare Tactics

Today, as the NY Times reports drug makers are raising prices as they anticipate the passage of a health care reform bill that may restrict their ability to charge whatever their greed might dictate, I recall a column in last Wednesday’s Washington Post by Ruth Marcus. Ruth did an excellent job of capturing the outrageous lies the Republicans are spouting at the behest of the drug makers and insurance companies in reckless attempts to derail health care reform.

Here are several citations from Ms. Marcus’ column for you to share with friends over the back fence.

John Boehner, House minority leader:

"If you're a Medicare Advantage enrollee . . . the Congressional Budget Office says that 80 percent of them are going to lose their Medicare Advantage."

Not true. The CBO hasn't said anything of the sort. Boehner's office acknowledges that he misspoke: He meant to cite a study from the Medicare actuary estimating that projected enrollment would be down by 64 percent -- if the cuts took effect. Choosing not to enroll in Medicare Advantage is different from "losing" it.

Kentucky Republican Brett Guthrie: "The bill raises taxes for just about everyone."

Not true. The bill imposes surtax on the top 0.3 percent of households, individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.

Georgia Republican Tom Price: "This bill, on Page 733, empowers the Washington bureaucracy to deny lifesaving patient care if it costs too much."

Not true. The bill sets up a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research "in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically."

Price, again: "This bill, on Page 94, will make it illegal for any American to obtain health care not approved by Washington."

Not true. The vast majority of Americans get their insurance through their employers. The bill envisions setting minimum federal standards for such insurance, in part to determine who is eligible to buy coverage through the newly created insurance exchanges. This is hardly tantamount to making it "illegal" to obtain "health care" without Washington's approval.

Michigan Republican Dave Camp: "Americans could face five years in jail if they don't comply with the bill's demands to buy approved health insurance."

Not true. The bill requires people to obtain insurance or, with some hardship exceptions, pay a fine. No one is being jailed for being uninsured. People who intentionally evade paying the fine could, in theory, be prosecuted -- just like others who cheat on their taxes.

California Republican Buck McKeon: "I offered two amendments to try to improve this bill -- one to require members of Congress to enroll in the public option like we're going to require all of you to do."

Not true. No one is required to enroll in the public option. In fact, most people won't even be eligible to enroll in the public option or other plans available through the exchanges.

Florida Republican Ginny Brown-Waite: "The president's own economic advisers have said that this bill will kill 5.5 million jobs."

Not true. Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, has estimated that the bill would increase economic growth and add jobs. Republicans misuse Romer's previous economic research on the impact of tax increases to produce the phony 5.5 million number.

Thank you, Ruth Marcus.

How uncomfortable it must be for these Republicans who have so completely sold out to the pharmaceutical industry and health insurance companies to so willingly participate in such a farce. Have they no shame; have they no conscience? I guess not.

Friday Potpourri

That 10.8 percent unemployment rate from……..Ronald Reagan.

You’re going to hear a lot of Obama critics today saying, “Where are the jobs, Mr. Obama?” They know the unemployment rate is a “lagging indicator,” as the economists say. But they have forgotten how our system works (if they ever knew). So, here is the unemployment rate for one of the recessions presided over by their saint and savior, Ronald Reagan.

For the 12 months of July 1982 to June 1983, the unemployment rate was 9.8 percent or above. For 10 of those 12 months, the unemployment rate was above 10 percent, reaching a high of 10.8 percent in November and December of 1982. Give it a rest, my dear Republican friends.

Memo to GOP

Yesterday, John Boehner, minority leader of the House of Representatives stood before a rally of raging opponents of the health care reform proposed and he railed on about the difficulty of governing when we forget the sacred principles of the U.S. Constitution. He said “I’m going to read to you the first paragraph of that great document,” and then he proceeded to read the first paragraph of the ….Declaration of Independence.

PS to GOP: why not ask your members to read the Constitution before they actually run for office?

GOP angst over Obama’s ability to address more than one issue at a time.

One Republican friend asked me this week why President Obama doesn’t stay in the Oval Office and work on one major issue at a time instead of spending tax money flying all over the nation in Air Force One talking to constituents?

I explained this President has 322 million citizens looking to him to keep the lights on for them, clear the air for them, provide adequate and affordable health care for them, assist with the education of their children, and oh yes, protect them from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I don't begrudge him a ride on a big plane to Wisconsin to talk with his constituents about education and other important issues.

The reason this President continues his high approval rating with most Americans is because they perceive in him a President, finally, who actually CAN keep more than one ball in the air at the same time.

Reagan or Obama?

Was the nation's unemployment rate higher under Reagan or Obama?

If you picked Obama, you lose....by a long shot.

This past week almost all of the news anchors reported the latest unemployment stats this way: “Unemployment numbers rose to 9.8 percent in September, the highest since 1983.”

For several days now, the line has been repeated, and each time I want to shout, “Why don’t you say, ‘Unemployment is at 9.8 percent, the highest since 1983 WHEN RONALD REAGAN, GOP SAINT AND SAVIOR was President; yes, REAGAN, THE PRESIDENT WHO ALSO TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT DURING HIS TIME IN OFFICE, the guy whose policies Republican leaders in Congress today praise ad nauseam.’ Why don’t you add that to your report?”

The recession of the early 1980s was severe but nothing like the recession of the late 2000’s brought on in large part by profligate spending and lack of regulatory oversight by federal agencies during the Bush/Cheney administration.

In all fairness to Ronald Reagan, his recession was due primarily to external forces -- the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution which took place in 1979. The new Iranian regime lowered export volume of its oil, thus forcing the price of oil up and precipitating an economic crisis for most of the developed nations. The US adopted a tight monetary policy to control inflation and this led to a recession...and unemployment spiked. (It seems tame when compared to 2007-2008 near collapse of the entire economy.)

Reagan’s unemployment numbers hit 9.8 percent in July 1982 and kept rising. The percentage did not drop below 10 percent for a full year – 12 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS!

The late 2000s recession was started by the collapse of the housing market.Many real estate companies were put in jeopardy, some even collapsed. Many banks did collapse causing a measure of public panic. Available credit spiraled downward, making it almost impossible for anybody to get a loan. Consumer confidence fell like a rock. And that was just the beginning. Many have called the current recession the worst since World War II.

So, to my Republican friends: Obama policies have been in effect for less than six months. Come back to see me IF unemployment remains above 9.8 percent for MORE than a full year.

To my Democratic friends: You have no one to blame but yourselves if you let the R’s get away with claiming Obama’s policies don’t work, won’t work, and that they somehow prove R’s should be back in power.

When they complain about Obama, just say three words to them: "12 consecutive months." Those among the GOP who know better are not likely to ask you to explain what you mean.

A Perfect Health Care Reform Bill???

Congress will never achieve the perfect bill in seeking to enact true health care reform for the benefit of all Americans. But that will be OK.

Indeed, that will be just fine.

When the 1787 Constitutional Convention was in its last day, and still there remained deep divides among the delegates Benjamin Franklin penned these words and, too weak to actually deliver the speech, asked fellow Pennsylvanian James Wilson to deliver his words. Here are selected lines from his speech:

"Mr. President –

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. ..

It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error.

...I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us…

…I doubt, too, whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?

…It, therefore, astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats.

Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best…"

It is my hope that at least one representative in Congress will rise this fall to repeat Mr. Franklin’s words for the benefit of all his colleagues…and that each will bear Mr. Franklin’s words in mind as he casts a vote in favor of health care reform.

Bush 43 White House: More Like "The Office."

I have been saying for years that tales of the Bush 43 White House, written upon his retirement from office by his former staff, are going to make your hair curl. Scott McClellan got the ball rolling with his book, What Happened.

Now comes a book by former speech writer, Matt Latimer, Speech Less: Tales of a White House Survivor. In an article I saw this morning, he writes, “In 2007, I finally made it to the Bush White House as a presidential speechwriter. But it was not at all what I envisioned. It was less like Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing and more The Office.”

I have to get this book.

On the other hand, I know already I will not enjoy reading it. I know it will make me sick to learn more of the incompetence of the Bush 43 White House and of the damage Bush/Cheney did to the republic. I think I will buy it and put it on a shelf to read a few years from now.

Throw a Shoe!

First it was the right-wingers who got so upset when they heard President Obama was about to deliver a speech to their children on the first day of school. They warned of a brainwashing experience…and they wouldn’t let it go.

Then it was the left-wingers who really got riled when that crazy Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted, “You lie!,” at President Obama during his speech to the joint session of Congress…and they wouldn’t let it go.

What’s the matter with people? Can’t we cool it just a little bit. We’re about to get this thing completely off the rails. Are there any grown-ups in the room?

I like the idea of throwing shoes at the person we disagree with and letting it go at that. It’s far more civil and certainly makes the point clearly and unambiguously.

Who of us didn’t smile as we watched the Iraqi reporter throw both of his shoes at GW Bush last year in disgust. That said it all, didn’t it?

How much better would it be – and how quickly the issue resolved – if we all just threw a shoe – two shoes if we felt strongly – at the person making the statement we didn’t like.

For example, teachers could throw worn out shoes with a big hole in each sole at TV’s Glenn Beck for trying to convince us President Obama was trying to brainwash our kids. Most of his opinions have holes clean through them, don't they?

South Carolina reporters could throw a high heeled shoe at Governor Sanford the next time he brings up his Argentina mistress.

When former VP Dick Cheney brings up how great everything was during the Bush/Cheney administration, reporters could throw a pair of rubber galoshes at him.

Even Congressman Joe Wilson could have thrown one of his Gucci loafers at Obama if he really thought the President was misleading America on health care reform. Wilson wouldn’t have hit him because Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia would have jumped up, caught them, and walked out with them so he could compare expensive loafers with the health insurance industry lobbyists waiting in the hall.

Don’t you think we should cool off this altogether too hot attempt at public discourse today?

Just throw a shoe!

Urgent Obama Alert

Please take immediate action and help save our children from President Obama’s first indoctrination speech. I understand President Obama will address the nation’s school children Tuesday and tell them to…uh, do their best. Can you imagine? The very idea. We must protect our children!

I also understand he is going to tell them to…uh, stay away from drugs. What!? There he goes again, messing with our health care. Sounds communistic to me!

It’s great that the right wing of the Republican national political party is on the case and alerting the nation to this terrible danger.

This just in: The Bulloch County Georgia board of education has decided, as a first step, to tape the speech on Tuesday and review it carefully for any evidence of brainwashing. Whew! Thank Goodness for their alertness. Maybe we’ll save a few of the children.

This message brought to you by the “Palin for President 2013 Committee.”

Emotion...or Power

A friend asked me today if the current health care debate was the most emotional issue since the civil rights debate of the 1960s.

I told him this debate has nothing to do with emotion; it has everything to do with power. For the people, it is an emotional issue. For the country's elected leaders, it is ONLY about power.

For the Republicans, it is about their very existence. If they lose their all out battle to defeat ANY health care reform, they believe viscerally that the people will like what the government gives them (just as they like Medicare today, "don't you mess with my Medicare"), and they believe the people will not be inclined to replace Dems with Repubs at that point. That means Rs lose power big time and will likely be relegated to minority status for a long, long time.

They are rolling the dice on this one. If they can defeat Obama, they know they have a chance to regain control of the Congress and soon thereafter, the White House. If they lose this fight, they lose whatever small amount of power they have left....and must be content to be the powerless naysayers in the corner for a long time. That is why the battle is so bloody, and why the Rs are attempting to make it the most emotional you have ever seen ("don't want no death panel telling me when I can die," "don't want my country to become another Russia," "don't want no socialized medicine in America.")

The right wing is fomenting much of the irrational comment AND behavior. The racists and the crazies are coming out of the woodwork. This is going to be a tough fall.

I don't know if the Dems in Congress have the spine to stick with what is right for America. Nearly everyone agrees we need to rein in private insurance companies and get premiums under control; we need to accept all applicants for healthcare regardless of pre-existing conditions; we need to guarantee a minimum package of benefits for everyone. Frankly, I can find no one on Capitol Hill who disagrees on two basic elements of reform: the need to reform of health insurance markets, and the need to expand healthcare coverage, with federal subsidies for some. Even Repubs recognize consensus can be reached in these areas...........BUT, right now, they are fighting all -- I repeat -- ALL efforts at reform, because they fear risking the lost of that true mother's milk of politics -- POWER.

Dick Cheney speaks the truth, if you will...

What is Dick Cheney’s intent when he so frequently uses the term, “if you will,” under tough questioning by a reporter?

By now most of us have figured out that the former Vice President is attempting to make his firmly stated response seem like a bona fide truth that should be accepted because it is so obvious to him and now should be to you. At the very least, it is pretentious use of our good language. The phrase is insulting, sounds downright phony and is just plain irritating to the ear.

What does he really mean when he says, “America is safer because we used torture, if you will, during the 8 years of the Bush 43 administration.” He is really saying, “America is safer because we used torture, if you will permit me to lie to you again…“

The next time you hear Dick Cheney use “if you will” during any public discussion, silently add “…permit me to lie” after he says the phrase and you will quickly see the true meaning of “Cheneyspeak.” Example: “The Constitution was held sacrosanct, if you will (permit me to lie) during the Bush Administration.”

Surely we had early clues to his true intent when we heard him say, “The insurgency is in its last throes, if you will…” Or, “…the dark side, if you will.”

One rarely sees “if you will” in print. It is almost always reserved for conversation and generally when the person is attempting to refute some point that otherwise would be open to question.

When Dick Cheney uses the line, it’s as if he expects the listener already believes him to be a liar, and so he throws it in to deflect the listener from the truth: He IS lying.

It’s also like saying, “With all due respect to the Constitution, we ignored it.”

((Will anyone…ANYONE…please lead him off the stage!?))

Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine

I am ready to support an effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to our nation’s airwaves.

During the decade of the 1960s, when I worked in broadcasting, I was an ardent opponent of the FCC rule (established in 1949) to require the broadcasters to air all sides of issues. It sure felt constricting to me. But if I had known the hell its abolition would unleash on the general populous in our 21^st century totally wired world, I would have worked just as hard to hold it fast.

For the most part, it has given right wing broadcasters with their general opposition to all things progressive a very loud political megaphone from which to preach their my-way-is-the-only-way gospel, and in the process, it has enabled media owners to regularly ignore opposing views. I understand: that means the entertaining stuff gets on the air, the intelligent (boring) stuff does not.

I’m sorry to say it but an imbalance exists that threatens our republic.

I remember well the debate in 1978 over whether or not the Senate should approve the Panama Canal Treaties. I was there, reading the mail of one US Senator and listening to broadcast “discussions” of the merits of the treaties. The official mail to Senators was generally 100 to one against approval of the treaties. “We built it, we own it, it’s ours” was the rallying call. There was little or no interest in understanding the broader foreign policy implications of disapproving the treaties. I bring up the 1978 vote on the Panama Canal Treaties as a reminder that we elect our representatives to the legislative chambers of this republic, not to bend to the fickle weathervane of public opinion but to use their heads (when we have lost ours) to vote what is right for America, not what will get them re-elected next year.

Let's cool the rhetoric and let them do their jobs without threats. There clearly exists an imbalance on talk radio and talk TV. Rush Limburger, Bill O’Reilly, and the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin ought not to be allowed to unduly influence public opinion. But they are allowed…and they do influence public opinion and actions of governments. Witness their followers at the August town hall meetings creating chaos, not intelligent discussion of the merits of health care reform. Broadcasters ought to be working to inform the public, not inflame them.

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired…just tired of what I am hearing and viewing. It does not help our country, it undermines the best efforts of honorable men and women.

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would not solve all problems on the airwaves but it would bring back some semblance of sanity to the airwaves, sanity and fairness that would help the listener/viewer avoid exposure to the current extremes of broadcast abuse.

America WILL survive!

There is good news in a new poll released from Daily Kos/Research 2000 but the good news is hidden near the end of the results.

When people were asked which news sources they watch, the answers were as follows:

• Conservatives watch Fox News and little else
• Independents watch little news at all
• Democrats split their dial between CNN and MSNBC
• 18-29 year olds don’t watch much cable news, but they particularly shun Fox.

The really good news is in that last finding.

If the next generation – 18 to 29 year olds – in 2009 are refusing to watch the fiction that is peddled as fact on Fox, there is hope, indeed, for America’s future.

Youth – you gotta love ‘em!

"Cut the deficit, cut my taxes, but don't spend less."

It now appears the Obama health care proposal is being watered down even as you and I sit in front of our computers. It appears Congress will exempt about 83% of small businesses from compliance with the new law. I’m sure those 83% of small businesses will, in the spirit of true altruism, offer health coverage to their employees anyway, aren’t you?

In the end, the new law may not offer much reform....but maybe that's what Americans think they want right now. It seems government can't get our attention until disaster strikes us and then government has 15 minutes to straighten out the problem or we dump 'em.

Is this a great country or what!

The NYTimes/CBS poll soon to be released, perhaps today, will say:

"Most Americans continue to want the federal government to focus on reducing the budget deficit rather than spending money to stimulate the national economy... Yet at the same time, most oppose some proposed solution for decreasing it."

"Fifty-six percent of respondents said that they were not willing to pay more in taxes in order to reduce the deficit, and nearly as many said they were not willing for the government to provide fewer services in areas such as health care, education and defense spending."

Think about our recent history on health care reform. When the Clinton team proposed it, all the stakeholders opposed it and it went down in quick defeat. If the Obama effort at true reform goes down with a watered down version of virtually no changes, that will be another setback. And the Republicans want nothing but the status quo because the “free market will solve everything.”

In the meantime, the American people are seeing their health insurance premiums increase in double digits every year while inflation is an anemic 1.5% to 3%. What sort of civic mindedness thinks that’s a better state of affairs than we would get with the Obama plan?

I don’t know about you but I would gladly pay more in taxes if it would result in bringing my insurance increases down to ….oh, say….8-9% annually (which is itself outrageous).

I fear we are reaching a state of national mindset that will not allow anyone or any institution to govern effectively. It was a great republic at one time. Now it's just overweight and selfish...and demanding more and more for less and less.

Health Care Reform is a Complex Issue

Opponents of the current health care reform legislation are attempting to boil it down to language that will support their efforts to enlist others in working to defeat the bill. And they don't care if they exaggerate or get it totally wrong; they’ve got to kill this thing. Right now, the bill in question is HR 3200. It is 1,018 pages, not the 1,800 pages frequently claimed in e-mails circulating on the Internet. And most critics will be quick to claim members of Congress have not read the bill. A comment on that in a moment.

BTW, HR 3200 is not the only bill working its way through Congress. There are three bills being considered by House committees and at least two in the Senate. The Senate is not as far along as the House but we are a long way from setting language in concrete. You wouldn’t know that from the scaremongers who are using the draft to claim every evil known to man is about to be visited upon us.

The e-mail I received listed 31 so-called “egregious acts of government intervention in our lives” if health care reform passes. Here’s the first one:

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS THAT SELF-INSURE!!

Not true. It actually says “The Commissioner…shall conduct a study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets.” [Underline added by Ben]

Several criteria are listed for the study but the one that troubles most opponents is the one:

(C) The financial solvency and capital reserve levels of employers that self-insure by employer size.

In other words, the new Commissioner will be required to conduct a study of the solvency of self-insured employers and provide recommendations to Congress on how to make the program work better.

Because the study will take a look at the "solvency and capital reserve levels" of employers, the author of the scare e-mail interprets that to mean the government will audit your books. That's not what the language says...but, wait a minute, isn't it true that government already has the authority to audits the tax returns of businesses, and individuals?

The next item in the e-mail says:

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL

BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Not true. Language in the bill actually says there will be a public/private advisory committee established to recommend covered benefits.

The proposal says there will be 26 members appointed by the President and Congress to serve on this advisory panel…and more than government will be represented on it. Here is the actual language of the bill:

(1) PARTICIPATION- The membership of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies. and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health and shall represent a balance among various sectors of the health care system so that no single sector unduly influences the recommendations of such Committee.

Does that sound like "a Government Committee will decide your benefits?" Hardly. The advisory committee even includes "consumer representatives" and -- note the last line -- "so that no single sector unduly influences the recommendations of such Committee." That doesn’t sound very malevolent to me.

The person who wrote the e-mail I received attempted to cite 29 additional provisions of the new proposal that convinced him there should be no law passed to address health care reform. His exaggerations undermine his argument for as soon as they are exposed for the exaggerations they are, and in some cases, outright falsehoods, his argument is dismissed. But his hard-line ultra right wing view is shared by many members of Congress who think it best that America not address health care reform.

Finally, don't let anyone get away with telling you Members of Congress don't read the bills they pass into law. When it comes to important landmark legislation such as health care reform, every member will read every word. Most of them will read and re-read the most important sections of the bill many times.

Those who don't want health care reform to pass claim members have not read the bill because THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO READ THE BILL. They want you to think the task is too daunting and you should be happy they are reading and interpreting it for you.

At some point, we must stop listening to those who only want to scare us, and start listening to those who want to genuinely lead us.

Change is coming. The status quo of our health care delivery system is untenable. Of course, there are those who don't want any change. I say to them, take a look around you.

Collection boxes for US Mail are going away. They will soon be relics of our past because Americans have adopted new forms of communication.

Cars will soon be run on energy other than fossil fuels because the supply of fossil fuels is finite and will soon disappear altogether. And our cars will be made of material that doesn't break in a crash, only bends.

In our lifetimes, most of our electricity will be generated by means other than fossil fuels.

Change is part of who we are. Change is not something we should be afraid of.

We have 47 million (or more) Americans who don't have any health care coverage. It is costing us an arm and a leg to take care of them in Emergency Rooms across this nation. We can't continue to do so. Our hospitals and other aspects of our healthcare delivery system are suffering.

In addition, you and I and others who have health insurance, have seen our premiums soar annually in double digits for the past 25 years (that's my own experience) and even the rates we pay, exorbitant as they are, are unrelated to the true cost of health care. That true cost, which most of us never see, impacts us all and robs our nation of precious resources that could be used to help us achieve higher productivity.

President Obama is trying to do something very difficult. He needs the help of a lot of people. Mostly he needs citizens to have a little faith in him, and believe he has our nation's best interest at heart...because he does.

Questions from Readers

Why don’t we have more willing bipartisanship in the Congress?

I think it goes back to redistricting. State legislatures have done such a "good" job of carving out districts that support one party or the other that those elected are not allowed – or cannot afford, politically – to be bipartisan in their thinking or their voting.

Voters of their "solid" districts won't give them the freedom to look at the other side, to consider the merits of another point of view. That is a sad development for America, and truly undermines our representative form of government. Both parties are guilty of carving out districts where there is little chance of successfully contesting the status quo. By the way, our founders wanted nothing to do with the status quo if you recall history. I don't know why today's "leaders" are afraid of addressing it.

Why is President Obama in such a rush to pass health care reform?

In my view, nothing is being rushed. All the issues have been simmering on the stove for years. Most legislative leaders on Capitol Hill are thoroughly familiar with them…BUT no one has had the courage to take them off the hot stove. All have been content to wait for a real cook to come along brave enough to pick up the pot, hot to the touch with all the sensitive issues brewing inside, and serve it up to everyone at the table. Obama, it turns out, is that cook and he is not afraid of the heat.

Sen. Demint (R-SC) speaks for a large number of Republicans who see health care as "Obama's Waterloo.” As Demint said, “We can use it to break him." They have no intention of serving the public interest. None at all. Their only goal is to defeat Obama. The public interest be damned. Regrettably, that is the essence of the Republican Party these days. Why not be seen coming to the table to say, "We like this, we don't like that, we can compromise on these two." Everyone in America knows the health care system is broken. Costs are out of control. So, let's do something about it. No, the Republicans don't want to do anything if it means Obama might actually succeed. They just can't stomach that possibility.

Why can’t the vote wait until later this year or even next year?

Look, every member of Congress understands very well why the vote must take place soon. If we don't get a bill out of committee before the August recess, two things will happen: (1) the crush of the legislative calendar will cut short the days when the bill may be considered in both chambers, and (2) opposition to any reform of health care will use the time to distort the bill in the hope of preventing any change. Time and the inclination to say "no" to anything new will be working against meaningful change this year. The largest lobbying operation the world has ever known is working against it. If Obama succeeds, his middle name ought to be changed to Hercules.

As the schedule slips and votes are put off, passage of meaningful legislation becomes less assured. Only one thing is 99% certain: if health care reform doesn’t pass this year, it is probably dead for the foreseeable future. Rush Limbaugh and New Gingrich will have won again and 225 million Americans will have lost…again. Won't that be special?!

What about this “birther movement,” (challenging the validity of Obama’s birth as a natural born American)?

Every American ought to be disgusted with this development and denounce it at every opportunity. The "birther movement," make no mistake about it, is blatant racism by those who cannot stand to see a black man succeed....and particularly not this one. We have come a long way as a nation but ... we have not traveled far.

Walter Cronkite

Now they are all gone.

Eric Sevareid, Charles Collingwood, Robert Trout, Howard K. Smith, Richard C. Hottelet, Edward R. Murrow .... and now Walter Cronkite. These were the best and brightest of print and broadcast journalists. All came from a newspaper and/or wire service background. They understood the news; they understood their role in reporting it; they trusted the listener to hear and understand the import of what they were saying.

They came to be known first to America through their reporting of unfolding events in Europe during WWII. After the war most of them joined CBS, though I recall Howard K. Smith went to ABC.

What we miss now is the intellectual and moral honesty they brought to their craft. My wife knows how much I miss that in today's news reporting because I complain about it to her all the time.

Today's news reporting is more about speculation, fear, conspiracy, distrust, and of course, the performance of the reporter.

No one alive at the time of President Kennedy's assassination will ever forget the moment Walter Cronkite reported the official death, exact time and place, and nothing more. Can you imagine the same report by one of today's reporters. It would probably go something like this:

Reporter Jane Doe: "President Kennedy was brutally murdered today in Dallas, Texas. We don't know but there may have been more more than one killer. Some have said the Russians may have been involved. Our armed forces are attempting to secure the borders and the Pentagon may be preparing for war. No one knows for sure because the reports we are getting from official sources are inconsistent at best. ... Now to John Smith in the weather center."

Reporter John Smith: "Weather in a moment, Jane, but first viewers need to know at least four Category Five hurricanes are expected to reach landfall along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts this season. Viewers should prepare today for the worst to come. Today, however, the high will be 75 and pleasant...a good day to visit the hardware store and stock up for the rough weather ahead."

See what I mean.

What are they teaching in Journalism schools today? Is this genie so far out of the bottle that it can't be put back?

I'm trying to think of someone in the media even close to the Cronkite mold....and I am coming up empty. If you can think of even one, let me know.

Cheney is no patriot.

As most Americans know by now, Dick Cheney, former member of Congress and former Vice President of the United States of America is no patriot. At the very least, he is a disgrace to our system of government.

This afternoon, the New York Times reported the latest and certainly the most serious violation of his duty to uphold the US Constitution. Details will follow no doubt but here is the NYT report:

"The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a
secret counter terrorism program from Congress for eight years
on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the
agency's director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and
House intelligence committees, two people with direct
knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

"The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal
the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the
mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush
administration had put a high priority on the program and its
secrecy.

"Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of
its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two
intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions
the next day."

It is my hope that every news organization, every blog, and every legitimate news organ in America will print/report this story.  When you hear the details of this Cheney authorized plan that only he had the right to oversee, you will be as disgusted as I am.

It is time for all of us -- Republicans as well as Democrats -- to denounce this individual for what he is.

Just thinking about highways…”electric” highways, that is.

There are some people in the electric utility industry who just don’t get it. One CEO actually wrote in a leading utility publication, “We already have a smart grid.” The one we built 50 years ago, he says, with its upgrades, is doing just fine, thank you. He doesn’t get it. Yes, today’s transmission and distribution systems allow better monitoring of use, leading to great efficiencies and conservation of electricity.

But that is not enough by a long shot. We have to do more.

Just as President Eisenhower saw the need to build an interstate highway system and superimpose it on the existing hodge-podge of two-lane highways choking our cities and slowing down economic expansion, so President Obama has in mind a network of electric transmission superhighways crisscrossing the continent. And the electricity they carry will be a result of new technologies – some that we know about and some we don’t know very much about – that will, for example, convert AC current to DC at a series of substations across the land before converting the DC back to AC at the point of distribution to final customer.

Wow, that’s new.

No, it’s not.

It’s definitely not a new idea. They’re already doing it in Quebec and China and working on it other developed countries. Another idea is to kick up the voltage to an extra high 765 kilovolts, almost twice as much as is typically carried on those heavy duty high voltage lines now. The advantage, engineers say, is that utilities could minimize the need for converting back and forth between AC and DC.

As they say in the movies, “We have people working on these ideas right now.”

Look, I don’t know if this is where we are going. I’m not an engineer. I just know that we have to do something in order to keep up with demand, in order to provide electricity at cost effective rates, in order to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels (this new superhighway would enable renewable energy – wind and solar – to be carried great distances, from places where it is easily generated to places where it is needed most), and we should all be in favor of that.

It will be a true paradigm shift, yes, in the way we think about electricity, the way it is generated, transmitted and distributed to customers. It will definitely not be business as usual.

To claim that we don’t need to spend the money on a new way of generating, transporting and delivering electricity is naïve at best and irresponsible at worst.

Utilities would do the country – and especially their customers – a service if they would begin to open the window on what the future will make possible, and explain it clearly. For it is through such major innovations that the nation will begin to realize exponential growth in all areas of the economy which, in turn, will lead to the productivity growth we must have to generate the revenues required to service the national debt more easily while continuing to provide the services people have come to expect from their government.

"Politics as Usual"

Friends have asked, "So, what do you make of Sarah Palin's resignation?"

Well, I want to take her at her word so I will use what I call the "Larry Craig test of political truthiness." You remember when Larry Craig first walked to the microphones to defend himself on the charge that he had solicited sex in an airport men's room, he said very clearly in the middle of his defense, "I am not gay. I never have been gay. I have never engaged in gay activity." Now, right there, you knew he was gay.

Trust me, I have studied political non-speech for 38 years and I am sharing with you the benefit of that carefully cultivated insight.

What does this have to do with Sarah Palin? In her rambling resignation speech, she said she did not believe in politics as usual. Not three times, but five times she referenced this closely held conviction:

1. "...I promised no more politics as usual."
2. "...Trust me with this decision and know that it is no more politics as usual."
3. "...It's no more politics as usual..."
4. "...No more conventional politics as usual."
5. "...I'm not wired to operate under the same old politics as usual."

Make no mistake about it: Sarah Palin's decision was strictly politics as usual. Her ambition rules her every move. It is too bad that somewhere along the way she didn't let her brain learn some of the substance that her ambition could use today.

She will soon be free to raise the money she needs, to pick up the favors she needs, to assemble the organization she needs to make a run for President in 2012. And the voters will exercise their good judgment at the polls in 2012....and that is the best part of "politics as usual."

Every Day is Independence Day

Every Fourth of July, I hear someone say, “I wish America could return to the days of our founding fathers,” a wish no doubt for a time when everything important in life was known, certain, and not likely to change.

The only problem is that does not describe our founders’ ambitions. The men who put their signatures on the Declaration of Independence had something else in mind: They were uncomfortable with their present status and wanted to change it.

They wanted nothing of religious constriction, governmental tyranny, or suffocating conventional wisdom in the exploration of science, theology, art and politics. They were focused like today’s laser beam on the future, and were enthralled with the potential that exists in the human mind.

The world was ripe for the embracing of radical change in the era of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin. Our founders wanted anything but the status quo. Tomorrow was always likely to be a better day for the improvements it would bring in previously “accepted” thought.

What would they say about the so-called “improvements” of our time?

Well, the Internet has certainly changed our political process by making it possible for a veritable unknown candidate from Illinois to demonstrate to a majority of the electorate that he can be trusted with the government. Indeed, the Internet has changed our entire world through a diffusion of knowledge that has touched and stimulated people on every square foot of this planet.

Surely that diffusion of knowledge is something the founders would applaud, though certainly not every use of the Internet would be approved.

As for tomorrow, what secrets will be revealed through continued DNA research? What products and technologies will be made possible by the exploitation of nanotechnology? What new fuels will be developed that power our cars while cleaning the air we breathe? And what of the atom smashing capabilities of the super collider recently built but untested in Europe. What a marvelous world awaits our children and grandchildren!

You may laugh at my speculation, but I have long ago ceased to laugh at the seemingly impossible. Too many of those “impossible” ideas are in my house today.

When the colonists decided they didn’t want to be told to send their tax money to England, King George III must have longed for the comfort of “the good old days.” And surely there were citizens in colonial America who would have been more comfortable with seeking an accommodation with the Crown – but of course, it was not to be.

To find comfort for their lives was not the goal of our forefathers. They envisioned a never quite satisfied electorate always “looking forward, not backwards, for improvement” in their government.

The founders believed America could be improved if each succeeding generation could find the mettle to be worthy stewards of the government they bequeathed to us.

We celebrate our Independence from England on one specific day of the year, but we renew our founders’ independent spirit each day we devote to improving this republic.

Dawn of New Era

With so much media attention focused last week on coverage of Michael Jackson’s death, it is not surprising that most Americans are not aware the entire country has entered a new era. Maybe you felt the earth move just a bit last Friday when the vote came in on the so-called “climate change” bill in the House. By passing the comprehensive energy bill by a vote of 219 to 212, the House crossed a threshold never achieved before – one that sets out to change American energy policy.

It's not law yet...but it's moving!

I have been an observer of the many attempts by Congress to address this issue in a substantive way since 1973, and I’ve seen many serious attempts to reform energy policy get sucked into the powerful quicksand of the status quo. Nothing happens to change things. All efforts to do so disappear before your eyes.

But not this time.

Under the bill, greenhouse gases must be trimmed by 17 percent from 2005 levels and all by 2020. Utilities must also generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. Energy efficiency gains of 8 percent are required by the same time. The overall goal is to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

This bill is a game changer. America’s utilities know it. Some generators of electricity fear the impact on their bottom line and on the economy in general. But they are also aware that if it is accompanied by initiatives to facilitate the development of new technologies in the market, it could work without slowing down economic growth. The growth – real growth – that results from this massive and complex effort could be the beginning of the paradigm shift that awaits this country in its new world leadership role on energy.

Now – on to the US Senate.

Republicans Can't Say "Taxes"

Banks will soon begin paying back the money they borrowed earlier this year from the taxpayers. Obama’s early initiative is proving to have been a good investment for those who pay America’s taxes. When you think about it, isn’t the paying of our fair share of taxes about the most patriotic thing a citizen can do?

(Did you notice I used the word “taxes” in every sentence above? It didn’t hurt at all.)

Why then is it that the Rs can’t even bring themselves to say the word “taxes” except when they choose to smear initiatives sponsored by the Democrats? Do they take voters in their party for complete fools, Simple Simons who can’t even find their way to the fair? It would appear so.

Of course, nobody wants to pay too much in taxes, but it is disingenuous to pretend to lead voters by promising to magically reduce their taxes and reduce government spending when you know the truth: you may succeed in lowering taxes for short term political expediency BUT you will not be able to effect a commensurate decrease in spending so long as 67 percent of the federal budget is fixed – which it is. All you will succeed in doing is raise the deficit and soon the debt – as Ronald Reagan did.

But I digress.

The American Petroleum Institute is run by a Republican. How do I know? Take a look at the TV commercials API is running on television in support of off shore drilling. A line from one of their TV commercials says:

“Increased production of oil and natural gas can help rebuild America’s economy by creating new jobs and generating more than $1 trillion for federal, state and local budgets.”

They cannot bring themselves to say “…more than $1 trillion in taxes for federal, state and local budgets.” They can’t say “taxes” because their tongues are incapable of saying the word without giving it a negative partisan connotation. Yes, they prefer to attach the word “Democrat” to it each time it is used. The Rs have succeeded for so long with the slogan – “we’ll give you lower taxes and smaller government” – that they know nothing else. Maybe they should change their name to the “Know Nothing” party. Do you think the Simple Simons of their party would ever catch on?