Health Care Bill Passes House; Senate Next

I’m sure I’ll have plenty to write about this legislation as it continues to make its way through Congress and as its effects become more clear.  Quite frankly, I get the feeling that there is more I don’t like about it right now that there is I do like about it.  Supposedly, that’s the process that must take place for progress to be made … someday.  But this is today and the American people did not get out of the House what they voted to get out of the House.  Smart people will assess the landscape that developed this year as Democrats sold out issue after issue to appease their corporate masters and desperately trying to avoid mean-sounding ads in the media next year.  As to that latter point, does any sane person really expect future Republican challengers to go easy on Democrats because they voted against this bill?

The main point I wanted to highlight in this post is the truly disgusting and immoral Stupak Amendment – the one that was written to prevent private insurance plans from covering abortions.  Somehow, something like this still has the ability to stun me.  As written, a woman’s private insurance would be prevented from covering a procedure that she and a doctor came to a decision about.  This issue must be resolved – and so-called advocacy groups are failing time and time again to do anything about it.

I’m going to copy and paste a list from another blog.  It is the list of the 64 Democrats who voted with the Cons to pass this foul intrusion into women’s lives.  Not so surprisingly, only 2 of the Democrats voting for it were women.  So 62 male Democratic Representatives voted to make a procedure for women even harder to perform.  I’m keeping an eye on their 2010 races.  If some look close, I’m donating to their opponents’ campaigns.  If NARAL and Planned Parenthood won’t hold these trolls accountable, I hope the people will.  Emphasis below is mine.

For future reference, here is the list of Democrats who voted “Aye” on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

AL-2 Bright, Bobby; AL- 5 Griffith, Parker; AL-7 Davis, Artur; AR-1 Berry, Robert; AR-2 Snyder, Victor; AR-4 AR-4 Ross, Mike; CA-18 Cardoza, Dennis; CA-20 Costa, Jim; CA-43 Baca, Joe; CO-3 Salazar, John.

GA-2 Bishop, Sanford; GA-8 Marshall, James; GA-12 Barrow, John; KY-6 Chandler, Ben; IL-3 Lipinski, Daniel; IL-12 Costello, Jerry; IN-2 Donnelly, Joe; IN-8 Ellsworth, Brad; IN-9 Hill, Baron; LA-3 Melancon, Charles; ME-2 Michaud, Michael.

MA-2 Neal, Richard; MA-9 Lynch, Stephen; MI-5 Kildee, Dale; MI-1 Stupak, Bart; MN-7 Peterson, Collin; MN-8 Oberstar, James; MS-1 Childers, Travis; MS-4 Taylor, Gene; MO-4 Skelton, Ike; NM-2 Teague, Harry

NC-2 Etheridge, Bob; NC-7 McIntyre, Mike; NC-11 Shuler, Heath; ND Pomeroy, Earl; OH-1 Driehaus, Steve; OH-6 Wilson, Charles;  OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy; OH-16 Boccieri, John; OH-17 Ryan, Timothy; OH-18 Space, Zachary.

OK-2 Boren, Dan; PA-3 Dahlkemper, Kathleen; PA-4 Altmire, Jason; PA-10 Carney, Christopher; PA-11 Kanjorski, Paul; PA-12 Murtha, John; PA-14 Doyle, Michael; PA-17 Holden, Tim; RI-2 Langevin, James

SC-5 Spratt, John; TN-4 Davis, Lincoln; TN-5 Cooper, Jim; TN-6 Gordon, Barton; TN-8 Tanner, John; TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre; TX-23 Rodriguez, Ciro; TX-27 Ortiz, Solomon; TX-28 Cuellar, Henry.

UT-2 Matheson, Jim; VA-5 Perriello, Thomas; WV-1 Mollohan, Alan; WV-3 Rahall, Nick; WI-7 Obey, David.

Here is the list of 26 Democrats who voted “Aye” on Stupak (to discriminate against women) but “Nay” on the final bill (H.R. 3962; to deny Americans health care choice):

Altmire, Barrow, Boccieri, Boren, Bright, Chandler, Childers, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Gordon (TN), Griffith, Holden, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Tanner, Taylor, Teague

Catholic Church & Life

Wouldn’t it be nice to hear about the Catholic church requiring Congresspersons to amend legislation so that people that were already born weren’t killed by U.S. military action?  They keep saying they’re against wars, invasions and occupations – on the pretense of preferring people stay alive.  But there was no strong-arming Representatives to hold up legislation to invade Afghanistan or Iraq.

This particular exercise was futile for additional reasons: private insurers are already barred from using federal funds to pay for abortions.  That’s been the law for years.  This amendment is simply political grand-standing by a group of people who love to proclaim how victimized they are.  The amendment would prevent women who buy private insurance from being able to us that insurance to pay for an abortion in the unlikely event they need one.

This is encouraging:

Female Democrats on the Rules Committee, including Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, left the room during consideration of the Stupak amendment and didn’t cast a vote.

They should do more than this.  They should vote against the bill in its entirety if the amendment hangs on to the end.  Why?

“This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all, by creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes,” said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America in a late-night release.

What procedures do Catholics object to men having?  None?  Gee, I wonder why that is.  The Catholic church wants to set up a health care system where women continue to be treated as second-class persons.  In the 21st century.  That’s immoral.

[Update]: As another blogger reminded me, this is why I don’t donate to NARAL or Planned Parenthood anymore.  They know this amendment was likely to be introduced and they chose to do nothing to prevent that.  They both have millions of dollars at their disposal that they could use to pressure Democrats with, but they choose not to.  The people donating to these organizations and using their services are the ones who will suffer the most because of the political decisions the groups have made.  Hope that works out well for them.

Sen. Inhofe’s Energy/Climate Bill Boycott Fails [Update X2]

On Halloween, I wrote a post detailing Sen. Inhofe’s (R-Denier) attempt to stop the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee from doing their jobs and voting on a piece of legislation.  Why boycott the energy and climate legislation committee markup?  Because then it may not get out of that committee, dying before an up-or-down vote could be made in the whole Senate.  That up-or-down concept received a lot of attention when the Cons were in charge and Democrats were trying to debate the Cons’ bills and offer amendments.  Now?  Not so much.  Hypocrites.

In response to Sen. Inhofe’s childish tantrum to not play with others, Sen. Boxer laid out a potential work-around: using an interpretation of the rules to move the bill out of committee without having any minority party members present.  The committee met today to vote on the bill.  Sen. Inhofe and his car of clowns didn’t bother to show up.  Sen. Boxer had the committee vote – and they passed the bill out.

Sen. Inhofe, predictably, ran to the press, crying that things were so unfair and Sen. Boxer was a big meanie who didn’t want to listen to them.

Who the frack cares?  Seriously.  The Cons made the decision to not participate.  They know what’s at stake, which is why they’re trying to prevent any reasonable consideration of energy and climate legislation.  They have dirty energy corporations to appease with their votes.  As to Inhofe’s complaint that how often the procedure has been used?  More nonsense.  Either come to the table with an intent to do some work or shut the hell up.

This leads to 2 conclusions.  1: Do your damn job, Cons!  2: More of this, please.  If the Cons don’t want to participate in good faith, Dems shouldn’t let that hold them back from moving bills through Congress.

[Update 11/6/09]: Oh, Max Baucus (Bought-ND) was the only person to vote against the bill.  10-1 was the final number and all of them were Democrats.  I don’t care that the bill passed as it relates to Baucus.  He tried to destroy the health care bill and voted against this bill.  I’m supporting whoever his next opponent is – in a potential primary but for sure the general election.  Votes have consequences, Max.  You’re done.

[Update 2 11/8/09]: The more you read, the more you know.  It turns out that the Cons wanted the EPA to redo a lengthy analysis on the legislation, something the EPA justifiably rejected on the grounds that the differences between a new analysis and an analysis already done would be undetectable by their models.  Further, I read this at Climate Progress:

Since 2001, the Senate has debated at least eight energy or global warming bills where there was no analysis by EPA, Congressional Budget Office or the Energy Information Administration completed in advance of Committee deliberations.

Isn’t that interesting?  Senate Cons have no valid reason to demand another analysis be done, not when they didn’t allow, request or demand such studies be performed during their mishandling of the Senate in the recent past.

Corporate-Dems Trying to Take Wrong Lesson From 2009 Elections

The 2009 election is now behind us. The 2010 election is moving toward us quickly. What have I picked up from this year’s election results? That Democrats, especially those which I label CorporateDems, who run away from the Democratic base will lose, and deservedly so.

If CorporateDems want to chase down Con votes, I say go for it. The Cons won’t vote for them and there’s now proof that progressives won’t turn out to help them. Having a (D) after their name isn’t enough.

Sen. Inhofe (R-Denier) Plans Boycott of Senate Committee Vote on Energy/Climate Bill

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said Thursday that she is planning to hold a markup Tuesday on S. 1733 (pdf), the Senate version of the Energy and Climate legislation President Obama and a majority of Americans are searching for.  In usual fashion, the Cons in the Senate are trying to figure out ways they can continue to stall movement of the bill.  In much the same way that they convinced all-too-willing Democrats to push health care legislation further and further back on the legislative calendar, climate legislation has been bottled up in committee for months now.  If Sen. Inhofe (R-Denier) and his Con colleagues get their way, the energy and climate legislation will either never move out of committee or will be so terribly weakened that there might as well not be any legislation at all.

Sen. Inhofe and six other Cons on the Environment and Public Works Committee are planning a boycott of the markup come Tuesday, which would mean Sen. Boxer couldn’t hold a vote to move it out of committee.  She unfortunately needs 2 Cons to show up to move the legislation further along.  Those same Cons are more interested in trying to show how ineffectual government can possibly be by slowing everything down to no movement (thereby fulfilling their own sick predictions), especially when it comes to energy and climate legislation.  By doing so, they prove they are pleased with recent news that China and other nations are taking over industries the U.S. invented in the 20th century, industries that will determine which country dominates the 21st century.  Enslaved to their failed ideologies, the Cons work tirelessly to ensure it is not the U.S. that continues dominance in these fields and in 21st century geopolitics.

Despite ever-growing proof that our climate forcing is causing changes in Earth’s climate much faster than recently thought; despite ever-growing proof that switching our economy to more efficient and renewable-energy-driven technologies will save us billions every year (costing no jobs, wrecking no economies) and stop our climate forcing, the Cons cannot break away from their dirty energy corporate benefactors and do something positive for this country and the planet.

Instead, the Cons are whining about how Boxer runs her Committee meetings, planning senseless obstructionist tactics and demanding that the EPA undertake study after study after study, none of which will ever get one single Con to vote for the bill anyway.

Sen. Boxer opened the door to alternative approaches for moving the bill, including the use of Senate Rule 14 that allows the majority to discharge legislation out of a committee and bring it directly to the floor.  I hope she does it.  When Cons were trying to force their extremist political nominees and destructive legislation down Americans’ throats, they couldn’t talk enough about “Up or down votes” and how Democrats were holding them up.  Why won’t Cons support “Up or down votes” now?  Because their fringe party is now in the minority.  They’re truly being obstructionists, needlessly so on every issue.  Sen. Boxer and the Democrats should do whatever they can to push the people’s business forward – rolling over the Cons if need be.

Colorado’s Share of President Obama’s Smart Grid Investments

Did you hear all the talk about President Obama’s announcement that $3.4 Billion in energy grid modernization investment? It hasn’t exactly dominated the top-of-the-hour news reports, but made some small ripples on Tuesday.

While Congress remains bogged down on health care, to say nothing of energy and climate, legislation, the executive branch has been very busy this year starting initiatives and issuing new rules and threatening regulations. This is the latest in that series of actions.

Two projects in Colorado are receiving investment money. More on them below…

Dubya: Popularity Is Fleeting

And he should know.  Can anyone point out another leader that had garnered 90% approval rating from Americans, only to fall to 23% by the time he left office?  I don’t think so.  It wasn’t because he wasn’t affable.  It was because he demonstrated how little he and his cronies cared about American values and priorities.  He occupied a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.  He put the final set of nails on the economic catastrophe that Reagan started.  He lied about anything and everything that Americans cared about.  Then he tells a crowd that they shouldn’t waste energy chasing popularity.  Well, he should know.  He never did.  He did what he set out to do, what leading conservative “thinkers” told him to do.  And the results were disastrous.

Oh, and to CNN’s Alexander Moody, this is a flat-out lie:

The president himself saw wild popularity swings during his eight years in the White House.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.  He had a clear, steady decrease through 7 years, all of his own doing.  You could argue that Truman saw wild popularity swings during his Presidency.  Maybe even Reagan or H.W. had “wild” swings.  But not the Boy King.  He did exactly what he wanted to do, regardless of what people thought of him.  The only question left for him is whether those attending the motivational speaker meeting should follow Bush’s advice.  My advice is stay as far away from Bush’s as possible, lest you end up like he did: among the worst ever.

By the way, this clown obviously learned nothing about being used:

“We are safer than we were before 9-11 because of President Bush,” Powell said.

Not according to any intelligence analyst currently employed, Mr. Powell, and you know it.  To say otherwise reinforces the disgrace you set upon yourself by lying for Cheney.

Sen. Inouye (D) to Gut Sen. Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment?!

Republicans obviously don’t have a lock on immoral legislative maneuvers to satisfy war contractors.  Here’s what you need to know:

An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who denied victims of assault the right to bring their case to court is in danger of being watered down or stripped entirely from a larger defense appropriations bill.

The Senate is considering taking out a provision known as the Title VII claim, which (if removed) would allow victims of assault or rape to bring suit against the individual perpetrator but not the contractor who employed him or her.

In what world is preventing someone who was raped the right to a court case a bad thing?  There’s being a war contractor lackey and then there’s this.  This defies explanation or excuse.  It’s sickening.

WeatherDem: Shut Up Already, Cheney

Dick “Puppet-Master” Cheney is one of the most immoral persons on this planet.  It appears he has more in common with Balloon Boy’s dad than I had previously imagined: he just can’t stand being out of the spotlight.  Seriously, what happened in this guy’s childhood home that he has to invade foreign nations, destroy economies and societies, then feels it necessary to lecture other Presidents when they don’t do the same?

Cheney wants President Obama to stop ‘dithering’ on Afghanistan.

Well I want Cheney to shut up.  He has no credibility with this nation or with any other nation on this planet.

“Make no mistake. Signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries,” Cheney said.

No, dumbass, our adversaries are emboldened because we’re occupying two Muslim nations with no plans to get out completely of either.  They’re emboldened because we continue to bomb residents of those countries who aren’t fighting us.  I know for a fact that Cheney’s daughter Liz would take up arms against a country that occupied the U.S. and bombed her father’s house.  It’s the same thing.  And the fact that he isn’t man enough to admit that to this country tells you all you need to know about his so-called “patriotism”.  Which is why he continues to make a fool of himself.

Good Thing Harsanyi Is An Op-Ed Columnist and Not a Journalist

If there’s one thing the Cons have demonstrated perfectly for years, it’s that one doesn’t have to think to have an opinion. One should be able to think to form a news story, but this is too often not the case in today’s media world where entertainment corrupts journalism.

Some snippets of what has become standard drivel from Harsanyi:

Dunn went on to assert that when the president “goes on Fox, he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point. He is going on it to debate the opposition.” Who knew debating the future of the nation was such a ghastly thought?

In this opinion piece, Harsanyi asks many questions that he should have asked of the Bush “administration” (they weren’t a legitimate administration any more than Fox is a legitimate news source). What about Bush’s policy of establishing invite-only events that were funded by taxpayers? Democrats, Unaffiliateds and Cons alike paid for these events, but only people who agreed not to debate Bush were invited. Bush definitely thought debate was ghastly. Crickets from the right-wingers’ bench.

Just like every other Con whining and gnashing about the obvious unfairness of the Obama administration labeling Fox as opinion-based, Harsanyi wastes plenty of pixels (ink, too) on how anyone could possibly think that the executive branch should be able to decide who’s legitimate and who’s not. Just like every other Con, Harsanyi tries to hide his hypocrisy from public view. Where was his concern when Bush did the exact same thing to MSNBC? More crickets.