Would you have passed?

In his speech to the Tea Party Nation convention by former Representative Tom Tancredo, he advocated a civics literacy test as a means of qualifying voters.  Literacy tests were used for 70 years to keep African Americans from voting.  One can only wonder how many of those people attending the convention could have passed the purported literacy test given to black voters in Alabama as recently as 1965, the year the Voting Rights Act was passed.  Here are the questions.  Could you have passed?  I have a college degree in history, a minor in international relations, a teaching credential, and have completed additional graduate level work in Middle East studies.  I can’t answer all the questions.  Can you? Could Mr. Tancredo? Could many of those who cheered his suggestion? Don’t worry, the answers are at the end.

1965 Alabama Literacy Test
1. Which of the following is a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?
_____Public Education
_____Employment
_____Trial by Jury
_____Voting
2. The federal census of population is taken every five years.
_____True _____False
3. If a person is indicted for a crime, name two rights which he has.
______________________ ________________________
4. A U.S. senator elected at the general election in November takes office the following year
on what date?
_________________________________________________
5. A President elected at the general election in November takes office the following year
on what date?
______________________________________________________________________
6. Which definition applies to the word “amendment?”
_____Proposed change, as in a Constitution
_____Make of peace between nationals at war
_____A part of the government
7. A person appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court is appointed for a term of __________
8. When the Constitution was approved by the original colonies, how many states had to
ratify it in order for it to be in effect? _________________________________________
9. Does enumeration affect the income tax levied on citizens in various states? __________
10. Person opposed to swearing in an oath may say, instead:
(solemnly) ______________________________________________________________
11. To serve as President of the United States, a person must have attained:
_____25 years of age
_____35 years of age
_____40 years of age
_____45 years of age
12. What words are required by law to be on all coins and paper currency of the U.S.?
________________________________________________________________________
13. The Supreme Court is the chief lawmaking body of the state.
_____True _____False
14. If a law passed by a state is contrary to provisions of the U.S. Constitution, which law
prevails?
________________________________________________________________________
15. If a vacancy occurs in the U.S. Senate, the state must hold an election, but meanwhile the
place may be filled by a temporary appointment made by _________________________
________________________________________________________________________
16. A U.S. senator is elected for a term of _____ years.
17. Appropriation of money for the armed services can be only for a period limited to _____
years.
18. The chief executive and the administrative offices make up the ___________________
branch of government.
19. Who passes laws dealing with piracy?_________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
20. The number of representatives which a state is entitled to have in the House of
Representatives is based on _________________________________________________
21. The Constitution protects an individual against punishments which are _______________
and _______________________.
22. When a jury has heard and rendered a verdict in a case, and the judgment on the verdict
has become final, the defendant cannot again be brought to trial for the same cause.
_____True _____False
23. Name two levels of government which can levy taxes: ____________________________
________________________________________________________________________
24. Communism was the type of government in:
_____U.S.
_____Russia
_____England
25. Cases tried before a court of law are two types, civil and _________________________.
26. By a majority vote of the members of Congress, the Congress can change provisions of
the Constitution of the U.S.
_____True _____False
27. For security, each state has a right to form a _________________________________.
28. The electoral vote for President is counted in the presence of two bodies. Name them:
_____________________________________________________________________
29. If no candidate for President receives a majority of the electoral vote, who decides who
will become President?___________________________________________________
30. Of the original 13 states, the one with the largest representation in the first Congress was
______________________________________________________________________.
31. Of which branch of government is the Speaker of the House a part?
_____Executive
_____Legislative
_____Judicial
32. Capital punishment is the giving of a death sentence.
_____True _____False
33. In case the President is unable to perform the duties of his office, who assumes them?
___________________________________________________________________
34. “Involuntary servitude” is permitted in the U.S. upon conviction of a crime.
_____True _____False
35. If a state is a party to a case, the Constitution provides that original jurisdiction shall be in
______________________________________________________________________.
36. Congress passes laws regulating cases which are included in those over which the U.S.
Supreme Court has ____________________________________________ jurisdiction.
37. Which of the following is a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the U.S.
Constitution.
_____Public Housing
_____Education
_____Voting
_____Trial by Jury
38. The Legislatures of the states decide how presidential electors may be chosen.
_____True _____False
39. If it were proposed to join Alabama and Mississippi to form one state, what groups would
have to vote approval in order for this to be done?________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
40. The Vice President presides over ____________________________________________.
41. The Constitution limits the size of the District of Columbia to ____________________
______________________________________________________________________.
42. The only laws which can be passed to apply to an area in a federal arsenal are those
passed by ___________________________________________ provided consent for the
purchase of the land is given by the _________________________________________.
43. In which document or writing is the “Bill of Rights” found?______________________.
44. Of which branch of government is a Supreme Court justice a part?
_____Executive
_____Legislative
_____Judicial
45. If no person receives a majority of the electoral votes, the Vice President is chosen by the
Senate.
_____True _____False
46. Name two things which the states are forbidden to do by the U.S. Constitution.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
47. If election of the President becomes the duty of the U.S. House of Representatives and it
fails to act, who becomes President and when? _________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
48. How many votes must a person receive in order to become President if the election is
decided by the U.S. House of Representatives? _______________________________
49. How many states were required to approve the original Constitution in order for it to be
in effect? ______________________________________________________________
50. Check the offenses which, if you are convicted of them, disqualify you for voting:
_____Murder
_____Issuing worthless checks
_____Petty larceny
_____Manufacturing whiskey
51. The Congress decides in what manner states elect presidential electors.
_____True _____False
52. Name two of the purposes of the U.S. Constitution. _____________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
53. Congress is composed of __________________________________________________.
54. All legislative powers granted in the U.S. Constitution may legally be used only by
______________________________________________________________________.
55. The population census is required to be made very _____ years.
56. Impeachments of U.S. officials are tried by ___________________________________.
57. If an effort to impeach the President of the U.S. is made, who presides at the trial?
_____________________________________________________________________
58. On the impeachment of the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S., who tries the
case? ________________________________________________________________
59. Money is coined by order of:
_____U.S. Congress
_____The President’s Cabinet
_____State Legislatures
60. Persons elected to cast a state’s vote for U.S. President and Vice President are called
presidential _________________________________________________________.
61. Name one power which is exclusively legislative and is mentioned in one of the parts of
the U.S. Constitution above______________________________________________.
62. If a person flees from justice into another state, who has authority to ask for his return?
_____________________________________________________________________
63. Whose duty is it to keep Congress informed of the state of the union? _____________
_____________________________________________________________________
64. If the two houses of Congress cannot agree on adjournment, who sets the time?
_____________________________________________________________________
65. When presidential electors meet to cast ballots for President, must all electors in a state
vote for the same person for President or can they vote for different persons if they so
choose? ______________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
66. After the presidential electors have voted, to whom do they send the count of their votes?
_____________________________________________________________________
67. The power to declare war is vested in ________________________________________.
68. Any power and rights not given to the U.S. or prohibited to the states by the U.S.
Constitution are specified as belonging to whom? ______________________________
Answers to Alabama Literacy Test
1. Trial by Jury only
2. False (every 10 years)
3. Habeas Corpus (immediate presentation of charges); lawyer; speedy trial.
4. January 3
5. January 20
6. Proposed change, as in a Constitution
7. Life (with good behavior)
8. Nine
9. Yes
10. Affirm
11. 35
12. In God We Trust
13. False
14. U.S. Constitution
15. The governor
16. Six
17. Two
18. Executive
19. Congress
20. Population (as determined by census) less untaxed Indians
21. Cruel and unusual
22. True
23. State and local
24. Russia
25. Criminal
26. False
27. Militia
28. House of Representatives, Senate
29. House of Representatives
30. Virginia
31. Legislative
32. True
33. The Vice President
34. True
35. The Supreme Court
36. Co-appellate
37. Trial by Jury
38. True
39. Congress and the legislatures of both states
40. The Senate
41. 10 miles square
42. Congress; state legislatures
43. Constitution
44. Judicial
45. True
46. Coin money; make treaties
47. The Vice President, until the House acts
48. 26
49. 9
50. Murder
51. False
52. (Preamble statements) “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
53. House of Representatives and Senate
54. Congress
55. 10
56. The Senate
57. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
58. The Senate
59. The U.S. Congress
60. Electors
61. Pass laws, coin money, declare war
62. The Governor
63. The President
64. The President
65. They can vote for different people
66. Vice President (President of the Senate)
67. Congress
68. The states; the people

Now, if you think that one is too tough but you do support the concept of civic literacy as important in a democratic society, here’s the test that is given to people desiring to become citizens.  Sometimes I wonder if all our current members of Congress could pass it.  After all, some of them have stumbled when asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or the Star Spangled Banner. 

Are you feeling squeezed?

Many people in the middle class are feeling squeezed economically.  I know that the dollars just don’t seem to go as far as they used to.  The days of being able to run a household on $25 a week are long gone.  Why do I use $25 as the baseline number?  That was my household budget in the early years of my working life.  Twenty-five dollars that provided for food, laundry, dry cleaning, and prescriptions — for two of us.  And it was enough that we could even serve a rib roast for company occasionally.  I was working as was my husband, and my entire salary went into savings to fund the down payment on a house.   A reasonable, new, three-bedroom home in Orange County, California could be had for $30,000 or so.  Before the housing bubble burst, my old house, that sold new for $38,000 in 1968, was selling for nearly $800,000!

In late January, Professor Elizabeth Warren, the shining light of President Obama’s economic team, released some fascinating statistics that demonstrate just how hard the middle class has been squeezed over the past generation.  There are some costs that have gone down, but the preponderance of costs has gone up.  Between 1971 and 2007, take a look at the increases, adjusted for inflation.

• Housing costs, up 80%
• Health insurance premiums, up 75%
• Cost of a new car, up 60%

And the more telling statistic is the one that points to disposable income.  In 1971, families spent 50% of their income on fixed costs — food and shelter primarily, but also health insurance premiums, car payments and the like.  That left half of a family’s income to cover everything else — maintenance on house and cars, food, clothing, college tuition, out-of-pocket health care costs, vacations, etc..  By 2007, fixed expenses ate up 75% of a family’s income, despite a huge shift to two-income families.  Other costs relating to that second income include child care, more taxes, and in many cases higher food costs due to more meals eaten out, further cutting into disposable income.

Let’s look at what gets cut out as disposable income gets squeezed.  The short answer is consumer spending.  Ever stop to wonder just why the big box and discount stores have become so popular?  But consumer spending isn’t the only casualty.  As demand grows for more deeply discounted goods, quality of available goods suffers, and the demand for low prices puts more pressure on employers to keep wages and benefit costs down.  The vicious cycle has begun.  As people are further squeezed, the pressure on employers increases, leaving more people out of any real increases in wages and benefits.

But there is another, even more insidious cycle.  More families can no longer afford to pay for their children’s college educations, even knowing full well that education is the path to better paying jobs.  Those who can manage to cobble together  grants and loans leave school find themselves with debt that today’s salaries are insufficient to repay, in turn dashing hopes of home ownership for may of them.

Productivity of US workers has increased markedly during the past 30 years, but workers have seen precious little benefit.  Instead, the increased profits have gone almost exclusively to the executives and to the stock holders.

And in the midst of that squeeze, we learn that GDP grew by over 5% in the last quarter of 2009… despite an unemployment rate hovering at slightly under 10%.

It’s no wonder that the American people are angry.  Congress, especially the Senate, seems not only unwilling but incapable of taking action that most people see as benefiting them.  Banks walk away from loans they owe on properties that have declined in value, claiming that it is simply a good business decision on their part; meanwhile, homeowners who are underwater are expected to repay their loans in full.  Lobbyists and special interest groups play to people’s worst fears, and more and more, political discourse descends to name-calling rather than serious and rational discussion of the issues facing us.

How much speech can you afford?

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations and special interests can purchase as much campaign influence as they can afford… as can private citizens.  On the surface that sounds reasonable, but stop and consider how unequal that really makes the playing field.  We the People simply don’t have the nearly unlimited amounts of cash to try to match that available to corporate interests.  The net result of that is that political speech isn’t free but goes to the highest bidder because very few individuals can amass the cash needed to produce TV ads and then buy the air time.

The United States of American might as well be renamed The Corporate States of America.  I’m not surprised that the current court decided in favor of the corporations.  But I am bitterly disappointed.

Do read Ruth Marcus’ piece in the Washington Post.  She excoriates the justices on a number of fronts.  What fascinates me about the reaction to the ruling is the near glee of the very same conservatives who decry judicial activism when a decision isn’t to their liking.   This ruling is clearly an example of judicial activism in that it overturned both precedent and settled law — things that both Roberts and Alito claimed in their confirmation hearings to support.  And it turns on its head Chief Justice Roberts’ stated judicial philosophy of incrementalism — a preference for ruling narrowly whenever possible.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m a staunch supporter of free speech.  But with rights come responsibility.   Yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater is not protected speech.  I wonder how the justices can justify that their ruling protects the free speech rights of individuals whose megaphones cannot possibly match those of corporations with deep pockets.  Sure, there are a few individuals who can, but there are hundreds of millions who cannot.  And what in the ruling is to stop a multi-national corporation, let alone a wholly foreign owned one, to purchase air time in an attempt to sway American voters?  This ruling seems to be a case of unintended consequences writ large.  Do the Justices not have the responsibility to consider the implications of their rulings?

Haiti: Next Steps

Last week, there was a discussion on this blog between me and Joshua Trevino, communications director for Chuck DeVore.  Our discussion might be characterized as mutual chastisement.

However, he did raise an important point — that it’s easy for well-meaning countries and individuals unintentionally to slide into paternalism.  Over the weekend I’ve been reading Greg Mortenson’s new book “Stones into Schools.”  If you’re not familiar with him, Greg is the founder of the Central Asia Institute, an NGO whose mission is building schools in rural villages in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  His organization was active rebuilding rural schools after the earthquake in Kashmir as well as building schools in the midst of a war zone.  While other aid organizations tended to concentrate their efforts in the larger towns, CAI followed their usual pattern of beginning at the end of the road and working back towards the towns and cities.

But the point I want to make is an important one that applies equally to Haiti.  CAI doesn’t assume they know the needs of the people.  They ask the elders and make a point to talk to the people and even the children.  During the earthquake in 2005, schools were among the buildings that often collapsed, and girls’ schools even more frequently than boy’s schools.  The casualty rates for children of school age frequently reached 50% in these rural areas.  CAI brought in tents so that the schools could begin operating again sooner than if they waited until new buildings could be constructed.  But the students didn’t return immediately.  He asked one of the children who had returned what was keeping the others away.  He expected to hear that they were too afraid, but the answer surprised him.  They wanted desks because desks meant that even though the school was in a tent, a desk represented a return to normalcy.  As soon as desks were provided, the children flocked back.

I still believe that we have a moral obligation to help Haiti recover.  An obligation that extends far beyond “treating the wounded and burying the dead.”  They were making great strides before the earthquake, but all that is gone.  However, we also have the obligation, as Trevino pointed out, to treat them with respect.  Both goals can be accomplished if we listen to the Haitians.  If we ask them what they need in the way of help and then provide that.

Too often USAID has assumed what people need.  In Granada, after we invaded there, USAID supplied air conditioning units.  These in a country that lacked reliable electrical power supplies and that relied on trade winds to provide natural cooling!  That is paternalism writ large.  Or perhaps it’s simply indicative of a sweetheart contract that, like so many others, were of more benefit to the donors than to the intended recipients.  One wonders who, if anyone, bothered asking the Grenadians what they needed in the way of development aid.

I’m not sure who the aid organizations talk to when the infrastructure and even the government has been shattered.  But I am convinced that we need to listen to what the Haitians think they need rather than assuming.  In my experience the old saw about assumptions making an ass of u and me has a great deal of truth to it.  And it’s the same idea the Steven Covey expresses when he says “First seek to understand, then to be understood.”  Haiti is in for a very long recovery.  I heard this evening that the Jubilee Project favors grants rather than loans.  That echoes my concern in a question to Joshua wondering just where Haiti is to find the capital to rebuild.  Since it took them generations to pay off the reparations the French imposed upon them when Haiti gained its independence, more IMF loans don’t seem to be a viable answer.  If you’re wondering where the Jubilee Project got its name, check out the concept of jubilee in the Bible.

Haiti’s Catastrophe

I’ve lived in California most of my life, so earthquakes are a fact of life.  We pride ourselves on our aplomb when one hits — in fact, a quake generally needs to be at least a 5.0 even to get our attention.  Additionally, I live where sonic booms rattle the windows on a regular basis.  I know the basics of preparedness, and I have a level of security in knowing that our buildings are designed to withstand all but the most severe of quakes.

But the extent of damage in Haiti is almost beyond comprehension.  That beleaguered nation’s minimal infrastructure has been decimated.  Following major quakes in other countries, we’ve seen heavy equipment arrive within hours to assist in rescuing people trapped in the rubble, and while there have frequently been hundreds and even thousands of deaths, there has been a sense that the possibility exists for rescues.  Here it is, with the first 48 hours nearly gone, and the arrival of the needed heavy equipment has been stalled.  The good news is that the cause is too much air traffic — too much help on the way.  But that doesn’t bring any comfort to the thousands of people who may still be alive under the rubble.

Americans and others have opened their hearts and their wallets, donating millions of dollars to relief efforts.  The United States has, to our credit, taken a lead role in coordinating the international efforts and has pledged an ongoing effort in helping Haiti recover.

But against that backdrop, a few noteworthy sour notes have been heard.  First came Pat Robertson’s pronouncement that, in effect, the Haitians deserved their present suffering.  The irony in Robertson’s comments is that the Louisiana Purchase was a direct consequence of the Haitians’ rebellion against their French slave masters.  I can’t help but feel some sympathy for Don Imus’ suggestion that it might be time to put the good reverend to sleep.

Not to be outdone, Rush Limbaugh showed his understanding of Christian compassion and charity for those in need by suggesting that President Obama’s rapid commitment of US assistance was done to cement his standing with people of color.  As if that weren’t bad enough, he then claimed that the relative pittance of foreign aid we send to Haiti in foreign aid via our taxes was more than enough and that people shouldn’t bother to donate any more.

Limbaugh’s compassion was echoed by the communications director for Chuck DeVore, a GOP candidate here in California who announced that our efforts (and that of the world community) should be limited to burying the dead and tending the wounded before beating a rapid departure.

These people are certainly entitled to their opinions.  They’re even entitled to communicate them via whatever means at their disposal to as many people as possible.  That doesn’t mean, however, that they should be unanswered.  We’ve just lived through an administration that came to power initially on the claim of being compassionate conservatives.  Compassion and charity are hallmark Christian activities  — as they are of most religions.  Charity is one of the five pillars of Islam, for example.

If any readers are interested in showing the sort of compassion and charity that can help to relieve the suffering in Haiti, here are some opportunities:

• American Red Cross — how simple they’re making donations!  Text Haiti to 90999 to donate $10.  The charge will show up on your next cell phone bill.
• Similarly, Haitian-American musician has set up a relief fund.  To donate $5, text 501501.
• Oxfam is also accepting donations.  Go to www.oxfam.org.uk.  Just be aware that the amount is in pounds sterling not dollars.
• And here’s a link to long list of organizations accepting donations.

Give early and give often.  The need is staggering and will continue long after the initial rescue and recovery.  How about setting up an automatic contribution plan?

What to do with the filibuster…

After watching the number of filibusters, or more accurately filibuster threats, skyrocket in recent years, I can recommend some changes.

As aggravating as it has been to see it so mis-used this year, I’m not one to advocate eliminating that procedural measure.  It was designed to serve a purpose — that of minimizing the tyranny of the majority so that it cannot simply jam through legislation without regard to alternative views.  As the political winds change over time, today’s majority may become tomorrow’s minority.  But the filibuster shouldn’t be used as a weapon to provide tyranny of the minority, either.  Let’s face it.  The role of the minority party is to provide alternative solutions that may result in compromise, not simply to stomp their feet and say no to everything the majority attempts.

Neither am I in favor of reducing to a bare majority the number of votes needed to invoke cloture and cut off debate.  That would short-circuit its intended purpose.

Here’s what I propose:

• If a party or a person decides to filibuster, they should be required to conduct an actual filibuster, not simply threaten one. I can’t help but think that the burden of conducting an actual filibuster would reduce their number closer to their historical averages.
• The 60 vote threshold could be reduced to 55.  That would still give the minority party the ability to slow the process, but it would limit the effectiveness of abusing the tactic.
• A third mechanism merits further discussion to identify any unintended negative consequences.  The current system puts the onus on the majority to invoke cloture and end debate.  Bruce Bartlett, who served in both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, has proposed that for every bill, a specified number of hours of debate, say 40 hours, would be guaranteed.  Should any member request, an additional 10 hours would be granted by unanimous consent or by a vote of 40 senators.  The agreement to additional hours could be repeated as many times as senators could muster 40 votes or unanimous consent.  That reverses the burden and places it on the minority in order to keep debate open while still preserving their right to slow the process.  It might also prevent the majority from having to be beholden to a small number of senators to invoke cloture, thus limiting their ability to shape a bill to the needs or desires of a particular state.

What do you think?  Would this preserve the ability of the minority to slow legislation?  Would it reduce the number of filibusters and filibuster threats?  Would it help to remove the gridlock that currently exists while reducing the power of individual senators in the majority party to extract concessions or to shape legislation to suit their particular needs while ignoring or subverting the will of the rest of the body?

Holiday wishes

As we rush through the last few days before Christmas, it’s time to take stock.  Gifts purchased?  Check.  Wrapped? Check.  Shipped? Check.  Annual holiday letter written?  Check.  Cards mailed?  Check.  So far so good.

Tree decorated?  Check.  Outside lights up?  Check.  Lookin’ good.

But here’s where we hit a log jam.  There are no cookies baked, yet.  For me, that’s a big one.  My role model was my mother.  And she started baking the day after Thanksgiving.  A batch a day, and a different kind each day.  Whew!  That one went out the window long ago, although there are a few kinds that I really miss.  I did make a couple of batches of chocolate truffles.  And I did the grocery store run.  So in some ways, I’m in good shape.  A stitching day Tuesday while hubby runs errands and takes the dog to get her Christmas bath so she’ll be sweet smelling.

The rest of the indoor decorating remains to be done — garlands hung over the archways, wreaths, and the traditional do-dads placed about.  And then there are the ongoing picking up, dusting and vacuuming tasks that never seem to end, sort of like laundry.  If we get all that done on Wednesday, I’ll still have time on Thursday to make a few batches of cookies.

But those are the frills in the final analysis.  The important part of the holiday is to take time to appreciate (and hopefully spend time with) friends and family, relaxing and enjoying each others’ company.  There will be time next week to consider 2010 and the changes I want to make — personal goals as well as continuing to push for the kind of change I voted for in November 2008.  There will be time to bemoan the extent to which our government is broken on so many levels.  But not this week.  I read an article on Huffington Post that I commend to you all.  It is food for thought both this week when we celebrate the longed for peace on earth and as we set goals for next year.

For my Jewish and Muslim friends, I wish you Happy Holidays.  For those who celebrate Christmas, may it be merry.  And to all, the happiest of new years.

Half a loaf or kill the bill?

As many as 60 million Americans lacked health insurance at some time in 2009.  That staggering number represents 1 in 5.  As disappointed as I am that the public option and an expansion of Medicare have been compromised away, along with a single-payer system which was compromised away before negotiations began, I’m not willing to throw the entire bill out.  Yes, it benefits the health insurance cartel.  But it covers over 30 million people who are currently without coverage.  One argument has been missing from the debate — that 45,000 annual deaths due to lack of coverage is immoral.

As a nation, we concluded that 45,000 deaths each year from traffic accidents was unacceptable.  And in response we instituted improved safety requirements for our vehicles — side mirrors, safety belts, shoulder harnesses, driver side airbags, passenger side airbags, side impact airbags, anti-lock brakes.  That has reduced the total number of deaths annually to under 40,000, despite an increase of over half a billion miles driven.  Why aren’t we similarly concerned about 45,000 deaths each and every year that result from lack of health care?  We know that the safety mechanisms that have contributed to fewer traffic deaths have increased the cost of vehicles.

Liberals and progressives are understandably angry at how much we have had to compromise, and yet a final bill remains in doubt at this late date.  In fact, some prominent progressives are playing right into the GOP’s hands by suggesting the right course of action is to kill the bill.  I’m reminded of what the late Sen. Kennedy identified as one of his greatest professional regrets — his unwillingness to compromise on a health care bill early in his career.  Are we ready to let the search for the perfect bill sidetrack us from any and all reform?

Thirty million more people insured.  Universal standards for preventive and wellness benefits.  People with pre-existing conditions will be covered.  Insurance companies will be required to spend 90% of premiums on patient care.  Exchanges will offer the opportunity for individuals to obtain group rates and will include some not-for-profit choices among them.  Lifetime caps will be eliminated.  The cost curve will begin to bend downwards.  Medicaid will be expanded to cover more people, and subsidies will be available to those in need but who do not qualify for Medicaid.  Excess payments made to insurance companies through Medicare Advantage will be cut.

Nate Silver posted a graph — the proverbial picture that’s worth 1000 words — using CBO figures to show how insurance will be made more affordable under the bill than by retaining the status quo.

If we can make health care more affordable and more accessible, we can then work to make our health care system better.  I for one am willing to take half a loaf at this moment.  But I will continue to press for more reforms.  For to do otherwise is immoral.  We must not forget those 45,000 people who die each year from a lack of health care.  We owe them no less.  They are human beings who love their families and who are loved by them.  And if we take seriously the words of the Declaration of Independence, that we are all created equal and that we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then we all have the right to health care.

John Podesta has a piece on Think Progress that defines in more detail why progressives should get on board with the bill.  Again, it’s not perfect.  Not by a long shot.  But in our frustration, let’s not forget that politics is the art of the possible.  There are lots of things that will become possible if the Senate bill passes.  Things that aren’t part of the status quo that killing the bill represents.

A gift for Joe?

It’s the season for giving, and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut may find that his gifts may be something less pleasant than he might like.  Since he announced yesterday that he will filibuster health care reform unless both the public option and the Medicare buy-in are dumped, an effort has begun to support an opponent for the senator.  Already over $1.5 million has been pledged by some 30,000 people via a Facebook page.  Here’s the press release.  This approach seems more productive, if less emotionally satisfying, that Huffington Post’s call for suggested Hannukah gifts for the senator.

As much as I’d like to see Sen. Lieberman dumped by the good people of Connecticut, I’d also like to see some more immediate pressure put on him.  Let’s not forget that as recently as 90 days ago, Joe Lieberman supported expanding the pool of Medicare recipients. His new line is that the Finance Committee bill already had reforms included in it that would help people in the 59-64 age group and the Medicare buy-in plan is therefore duplicative.  The fact that he opposed the Finance Committee bill seems to have been lost on him.  His office is trying to explain his sudden change of heart, but their reasons ring hollow.

Just last week he promised to wait until the Congressional Budget Office had come back with their scoring of the revised Senate bill.  Could it be that he has figured out that expanding Medicare won’t actually be a budget buster after all and that in order to placate his insurance company masters, he had to undercut the CBO report?  Unless he’s as petty as Chris Matthews suggests — that his stance is revenge served cold, payback for the Democratic Party’s failure to support him in his last Senate race — it’s about the only thing that makes sense.

I’d respect him a bit more if he just told the truth — the health insurance giants, many of whom are headquartered in Connecticut own him lock, stock and barrel.  No matter that 60% of the people in Connecticut support a public option.  He doesn’t care about that because he knows that the insurance companies will fund his next campaign.  And that brings me back to where I started.  We the people simply must support those who follow through on their promises to stand up for the people.  If they do not, we have the power of the ballot box.  We can vote them out.  It takes work to stay engaged, to keep track of what our legislators say when they talk to us and then how they vote.  We must hold them accountable.

President Obama wasn’t given much of a chance by the pundits when he began his campaign for the White House.  But he organized people.  And they, we, worked phone banks, gave money, rang door bells.  And we voted.  Let’s work to give Joe, and others like him the boot.

More uneasy thoughts about Afghanistan

A friend emailed me over the weekend asking, “Shouldn’t we just trust the president? We elected him.  Certainly he got the information from his military advisers to inform his Afghanistan policy.”  Of course.  But I wonder if he is relying too heavily on the advice of the military.  Hearing over the weekend that only 5% of the funding is focused on humanitarian efforts only added to my concern.  I don’t know if that’s a reliable number.  And I don’t know how it would be spent.  So I reserve judgment other than to say it concerns me.

The President, tacitly acknowledging the extent of corruption in the Karzai government, said that we will work with the village and provincial leadership.  Yet, I was struck by a comment by Greg Mortenson (Three Cups of Tea and Stones into Schools) where he observed that while the real power in Afghanistan resides with the village elders, their input into the US decision-making process was filtered through our military leadership.  And that assumes that the elders’ input actually made it into the Situation Room discussions.

Further adding to my discomfort, we watched Thirteen Days in October, a gripping dramatic account of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962.  Whether through a deliberate intent or a series of coincidences, one couldn’t help but wonder the extent to which the Joint Chiefs and other senior military staff sought to increase the drum-beat towards war with the Soviet Union.  And, knowing that there were a series of leaks that identified opposing views during the Afghan surge discussions, I wondered if the military was once again pushing a military solution above all other possibilities.

The job of the military is to fight.  It’s what they’re trained to do, and those in the officer corps who do it well are rewarded through promotions.  That reality just may push them to favor war as a means of personal advancement.  This may not be a conscious bias, but it would be understandable.  We all want to do things that advance us in our chosen efforts. I realize that there are distinct advantages to having an all volunteer military.  And I understand that the senior officers have a broader set of experiences and education than in many past generations.   But not all the personnel in Afghanistan will be officers.  And I’ve seen the video clips and news reports and documentaries and read books in which the grunts haven’t demonstrated much in the way of cultural understanding and sensitivity, to say the least.

I truly wish that I didn’t have these reservations.  It would be ever so much easier simply to believe that President Obama is receiving the best and the widest range of information to inform his decision.  I trust that he is making sound decisions based on the information he has.  What I worry about is whether he has all the relevant available information.  And I worry about the enlisted personnel who will be interacting with the local Afghanis.

And then there was Tom Friedman, writing an op-ed piece and appearing on Fareed Zakaria’s Global Public Square.  Friedman makes the argument that we need nation building here at home as his reason for opposing the Afghan surge.  I was very critical of President Bush funding wars on the national credit card.  So I would have preferred an approach that recognized the importance of a nation sharing in the sacrifice needed to wage war.  Instead, for the past 9 years, the only ones asked to sacrifice have been our nation’s military families as they endure repeated deployments in addition to high rates of PTSD, traumatic brain injury and suicide.  But we Americans too often want something for nothing.  It is that thinking that is at the root of the anti-tax sentiment while our roads and bridges, our public schools, and our other public services deteriorate at an alarming rate.  Can we really have it all?