Healthcare

President Obama: Don't Lecture China on Censorship

dlindorff — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:22:53 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

President Obama, in his visit to China, held a “town meeting” with
Chinese students in which he praised openness and lectured them on the
value of freedom of information, saying that he is a “supporter of
non-censorship” and that open access to information was a “source of
strength.”

And yet America is hardly free of censorship. Heck, the president
himself has gone to court to prevent the release of photographs of US
troops torturing captives in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo. Talk
about censorship! But it goes way beyond just such crude, totalitarian
style control over information.

Let’s just take the issue of depleted uranium weapons, over 1000
tons of which have been expended in the US invasion of Iraq, most of it
in populated areas where millions remain exposed to the radioactive
dust of the burned material. There is almost no reporting on this topic
in the US media. The Pentagon has for years lied about and hidden the
effects of this deadly substance, used in shells, bombs and bullets
because of its unique ability to penetrate hard steel armor and
concrete bunker walls. It has refused to disclose where the weapons
were fired, and has denied US troops the tests that would show if they
have been contaminated. It has even resorted to having paid Pentagon
hacks surreptitiously libel, slander and otherwise undermine those
military sources and journalists who have tried to expose this scourge
(this reporter has been the target of such disinformation attacks).

But censorship in the US goes beyond these crude efforts at
government-directed control of information. In America, some of the
most potent censorship is done by the privately owned media—supposedly
a bastion of freedom of expression.

There is no reason why the US media cannot report on depleted
uranium and its deadly legacy in places where it has been used, such as
Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Kosovo, or on and around American
military bases from Maryland to Hawaii. And yet it does not. Just
recently, stories have appeared both on Britain’s SkyTV and in the Guardian newspaper,
reporting on an alarming rise in unusual birth defects and infant
cancers in Fallujah as well as in other Iraqi cities like Basra, Najaf,
Baghdad and Samara—all urban areas where there were major assaults by
US forces both in the initial invasion, when most of the DU weapons
were used, and later during fights against holed-up insurgent groups.

In Fallujah, the Guardian reports that birth defects are up by a
staggering 15 times normal—an increase of 1400%! While the article
doesn’t mention depleted uranium specifically, and says that doctors in
Fallujah have been "reluctant to attribute" the astonishing number of
birth defects to the massive assault on that city by US forces in late
2004, they do say those doctors cite “radiation and chemicals” which
were dumped on the city.

There is no such report about this in the US media.

Is that censorship? Of course it is.

The American government doesn’t tell CBS News or CNN not to report
this story, which amounts to a US war crime. It does not (at least
generally), contact the editors at the New York Times or the Washington
Post and say, “Don’t report on the infant mortality crisis in Iraq, or
on the possible connection to US weaponry” (Though the government did
ask and successfully get the Times to hold a story about the National
Security Agency's massive electronic spying program for a year, and
managed to pressure the Times' editors to kill a Times reporter's story
about President Bush's likely use of a hidden cueing device during the
2004 presidential debates). The editors of those news organizations
themselves most of the time simply decide that either the story is of
no importance to readers or they worry that they may be criticized
either by the government or by other media organizations for being
unpatriotic, or biased.

The end result of such a process of self-censorship, however, is
that the American public is as ignorant about certain things as someone
in China.

More ignorant in fact.

One thing I learned from living and working as a journalist and
journalism teacher in China back in the 1990s is that the Chinese
people, with their long experience of living in a totalitarian
dictatorship in which all media are owned and tightly controlled by the
state and the ruling Communist Party, are acutely aware that they are
being lied to and that the truth is being hidden from them.
Accordingly, they have learned to read between the lines, to pick up
subtle hints in news articles which honest journalists have learned how
to slip into their carefully controlled reports. They have also
developed a sophisticated private system of person-to-person reporting
called xiaodao xiaoxi or, literally, “back-alley news.” This
system used to be word-of-mouth between neighbors and friends. As
telephones became ubiquitous, it was done by phone, allowing
transmission over long distances quickly. Now there is the internet,
which, while it is systematically controlled via what has become known
as China’s “Great Firewall”—effectively all of China is like a vast
corporate “intranet” which blocks access to outside websites—still
allows the flow of email. This is nearly impossible to monitor,
particularly when the messages are not bulk mailed to large numbers of
addressees.

So in China, reports of corruption, of local rebellions or strikes,
of internal struggles within the government or party, or of important
news about the outside world that the government wants to keep at bay,
manage to circulate widely inside China despite a huge state censorship
apparatus.

This alternative highly-personal news network works because the
Chinese people know they are being lied to and kept in the dark, and
they want to break through that official shroud of secrecy and control.

In the US, in contrast, we have a public that for the most part is
blissfully unaware of the extent to which our news is being censored,
filtered and controlled. Like the President (who knows better), we
boast of our “free press,” and our open society, and indeed, as a
journalist, I am free to write what I want to write.

But given that most people get their news either from corporately
owned newspapers or from corporate radio and TV stations, it doesn’t
really matter what I or other journalists critical of the Establishment
write because it won’t appear in the corporate media. Since most
Americans, unlike most Chinese people, assume that they live in a
society with a free press and no censorship or control of information,
they don’t even bother to look beyond the information that is spoon-fed
to them by corporate media sources.

The result is that in my experience I have found peasants in rural
Jiangsu or Anhwei Province to in many cases be better informed about
their own country and the world than are typical American suburbanites.
Certainly if an American wants to be informed, all the information she
or he could want is available, but one has to be first of all aware
that one isn't getting certain information via the obvious sources, and
then one has to want to get it, and make the effort to find it. For
most Americans, all three of these elements are missing.

The list of censored stories and issues in the US, about which the
American public knows almost nothing is staggering, going well beyond
just the use of nasty weapons.

Do Americans know, for instance, that all the other modern western
Democracies in the world have some form of national health care—either
a state-run system like that in the UK or a single-payer model like
that in Canada, or some hybrid like they have in France or
Switzerland—and that in all those countries, the systems are so popular
that they have survived decades of conservative governments? No. Our
corporate media instead report on the crank critics of those systems
and allow us to believe they are hated by their citizens.

Do Americans know that the US no longer boasts the best standard of
living in the world—or even close? No. Because the American media
continue to portray the US as “number one.”

Do Americans know that Al Qaeda was actually a creation of the CIA?
No. This important bit of information doesn’t get mentioned in the US
media, which always starts the organization’s history at 1988, when it
got its name, when actually, its early origins date to the arming of
the mujahadeen by the CIA and the CIA-linked Pakistani intelligence
service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, in the late 1970s and
early 1980s, when the US wanted to create and support resistance to the
Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

And of course, we rarely get to see the slaughter of women and
children that our beloved soldier “heroes” are conducting in Iraq and
Afghanistan in our name.

No censorship in America?

Mr. President, please. You may fool us, but at least don’t insult the intelligence of your Chinese audience.
____________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. He spent seven
years in China and Hong Kong and Taiwan as a Fulbright journalism
professor and a correspondent for Businessweek magazine. He is author,
most recently, of "The Case for Impeachment (St. Martin's Press, 2006)
and is the winner of a Project Censored award. His work is available at
www.thiscantbehappening.net

If the Congressional Progressive Caucus Were Progressive

davidswanson — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:02:26 -0500

By David Swanson

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has 82 members, 81 in the House and 1 in the Senate, but has taken the anti-progressive onslaught of recent years lying down. The CPC can be counted on to say some pleasant things, but in the end 1 or 2 or 8 or 14 of its members will vote a progressive position. Almost never will the CPC attempt to organize its members to all take a stand. When it did organize 90 members to sign a letter to President Bush "opposing" war funding, virtually all of them turned around and voted for the funding.

Some observers held out hope that change might be on the way when Congressman Raul Grijalva this year took over one of the caucus's two Co-Chair positions. But change hasn't arrived yet, and Grijalva has made clear that he will sit by and wait for the president to deliver it. This is disconcerting, to put it mildly, for citizens who thought the role of a caucus of congress members might involve action as well as commentary.

Here's an audio clip of an interview that Congressman Grijalva just did with Air America radio host Nicole Sandler. In it he blames the "leadership and the White House" for "prematurely" deciding to "take single-payer off the table." He does not mention the fact that the CPC obediently fell in line, that the CPC agreed to not say a word about what most of its members and most Americans support. Astroturfing activist groups and labor unions took their lead from the CPC in self-censoring single-payer talk and pretending that the "public option" was not only something they would settle for, but their ideal. Of course, this was premature. Of course, it transformed a miserable compromise -- the "public option" -- from a center-right "middle-ground" to the extreme left side of the debate. Of course, this resulted in a further compromise rightward from there. But what good does it do us to have someone in a key position of responsibility talk as if he is one of us on the outside looking in?

Well, to Grijalva's credit, with help from other CPC members like Donna Edwards, and with a lot of pushing by activists and bloggers, the CPC -- together with other caucuses -- took a stand for the miserable compromise. In July, 57 congress members signed a letter saying that they would "regard as unacceptable" any healthcare bill without a public option tied to Medicare rates. This month 55 of them voted for such a bill, whether or not they "regarded it as unacceptable." And progressives in Congress wonder why nobody pays any attention to what they say.

Grijalva tells Sandler that he was not "satisfied" with the bill but wanted it to "move on." The bill was already worse than what he and 56 others had said they could not accept, and everyone knew the Senate would only worsen it further. But Grijalva offers his pessimistic expectations of the Senate as precisely the reason he backed a bill he "opposed." Since he expects a Senate bill to include no public option at all, or one with triggers and opt-out clauses that, in his words, "effectively kill" the public option, he chose to back a House bill that at least contained some pathetic semblance of a public option, albeit one designed to reach 2 percent of Americans without even its rates publicly determined.

Grijalva says he wanted to "have a dog in the fight." Well, it's a dog for sure, but what sense can be made of this strategy? The Senate cannot legislate without the House. Either the House has a dog in the fight or there is no fight. You can claim to have changed your view and to have determined that a lousy bill is really the best bill possible, and you can claim that such a bill is better than nothing. I happen to disagree in this case, but let’s allow those claims. None of that alters the fact that when you take a stand on something, and the whole world expects you to roll over, and you do so, the result is to make yourself a dog without any fight in him, a dog unworthy of even a passing kick from the people who run the country.

Adding insult to injury, the Democratic "leadership" made a major last-minute concession to those Democrats who do take stands, passing an amendment restricting women's right to abortion, and the CPC went happily along with it. Grijalva tells Sandler that his own daughter told him he had sacrificed women's rights, and he "didn't have a good answer for that." Let me give you a suggestion for next time, Congressman, VOTE NO and whip your caucus to do the same. If you only want to be a spectator, get off the damn field.

Grijalva tries, in this interview, to grab a little credit for Congressman Dennis Kucinich's short-lived amendment that would have made it more feasible for states to solve the healthcare crisis without Washington. "I have nothing but admiration for Dennis' stand on that," Grijalva says. But what if he'd had more than admiration? What if he'd done something? For the past four months, the CPC has refused to support keeping that amendment in the bill. When they held a press conference in July to announce their 57-member letter (which 55 of them would go back on, the two exceptions being Eric Massa and -- in fact -- Dennis Kucinich) the CPC refused to include Kucinich or mention of his amendment in the event.

Grijalva says that he understands why Democratic voters stay home in elections, but does he? He has the unmitigated imperialistic gall to complain that the president has failed to draw a line on progressive issues or to take a stand for majority positions. Well, what in the name of all that is decent and good, is the purpose of a Congressional Progressive Caucus if not to draw a line and take a stand for progressive legislation? Even when they disagree with the president, the Blue Dogs still fight for their destructive proposals. What is Raul waiting for?

If it's a written invitation, here's one. Congressman, you have 57 names committed to voting No on any bill as bad as the current House one, and the Senate is going to make it worse. There is reportedly a letter with at least 41 House members' names swearing they'll vote no on a bill (like the one they just voted yes on) that includes the abortion amendment. You have a pledge from a dozen members committed to opposing any bill in which the public option is reduced by triggers or opt-outs, much less both. You may only need a dozen votes to block this bill when it comes back to the House.

If you do so, then for the first time progressives will have to be listened to. The next attempt to reform healthcare will have to include progressive ideas. Legislation on any other issue will have to include progressive ideas. Commitments to vote No on war funding will have to be treated as if those making them might actually be serious. Washington and the world will change for the better if for once you take a stand on something and follow through.

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book.

Obama's War and Remembrance Day

dlindorff — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:12:43 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

With word being leaked out over the weekend that our Nobel Peace
Prize President is close to announcing plans to escalate the US troop
level in the Afghanistan War by 50%, we are about to have perhaps the
ultimate of ironies—a president announcing a big step-up in American
war-making on November 11, the day known around much of the Western
world as Armistice Day.

While modern Americans might not know it, with all the boom and
bombast and mindless flag-waving featured in the military parades
popular in today’s warrior culture, November 11 was originally
established by Congress back in 1919, a year after the day the guns of
World War I finally went silent over the blood-drenched fields of
Europe in what was once, in a naïve spasm of optimism, referred to as
the War to End All Wars. In declaring the national holiday Armistice
Day, Congress said it was to be “a day dedicated to the cause of world
peace.”

It’s hard to see how President Obama, who has yet to actually
receive his Nobel Prize as a peacemaker from Norway’s King Harald, is
contributing to peace with the addition of another 34,000 US soldiers
and Marines to the 68,000 already fighting, killing and dying on Afghan
soil. Maybe he thinks holding this escalation to 34,000 instead of
accommodating Afghanistan Theater Commander Gen. Stanley McCrystal’s
request for 80,000 more troops is an act of pacificistic moderation.

I doubt it. (Incidentally, some Pentagon and White House flaks are
referring to this escalation as another “surge,” but you can’t call a
50% increase in troop commitments a “surge.” It is what it is—a massive
expansion of the current war effort.)

No, sadly, Obama, who has declared the bloody assault on one of the
world’s most remote and impoverished lands to be a “necessary war,”
seems stubbornly and ignorantly and foolishly to be trying to emulate
the mistakes of an earlier Democratic president, Lyndon Baines Johnson,
who turned a minor conflict in Vietnam into the biggest war, and
biggest disaster, that the US has engaged in since World War II.

Of course, the difference between the two men, Johnson and Obama,
is still enormous. While Obama may be just as bone-headed as was
Johnson in caving to the will of his generals instead of leading them,
he doesn’t hold a candle to Johnson when it comes to leading the charge
for progressive domestic legislation. While Johnson was ginning up the
war in Vietnam, he was simultaneously dragging the racist Democrats of
the southern states kicking and screaming into the post-slavery world
with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which for the first time
enabled African Americans to actually participate in voting. He also
rammed through Congress a truly innovative single-payer health
program—Medicare--to provide health care for all Americans once they
reached 65, or became disabled, as well as a second
program--Medicaid--to care for the poor.

Against these great accomplishments, Obama hasn’t even shown the
resolve to end discrimination against gays and lesbians in the
military—something he could do with a phone call to the Joint Chiefs!
That is to say, while he’s willing to pointlessly, on the basis of some
bizarre political calculus, put another 34,000 young Americans in
harm’s way in Afghanistan, he’s not willing to ban discrimination
against those of them who may not be suitably heterosexual.

The signs are grimly clear that this silver-tongued but politically
gutless president is steering the country into yet another military
disaster—one that has killed 200 young men and women under his command,
but which could easily become as costly in blood and fortune as was
Johnson’s Vietnam War four decades ago. Making matters worse is the
fact that while the Vietnam War was fought at a time when America was
at its height as an economic power, today this country is an economic
basket case.

I predict that it will not be long before protesters will be
packing the Washington Mall and jamming the streets surrounding the
White House shouting chants of “Hey, Obama, What Do You Say? How Many
Kids Have You Killed Today?”(How’s he going to explain those shouts to
his daughters, Sasha and Malia?)

The sheen has already warn off this latest huckster for American
militarism and imperial adventure, and, with his increasingly
blood-stained hands tied by the Pentagon and military quagmire, he has
nothing to show domestically to earn him public support and affection.
The man had a chance, nine months ago, to come into office and smash
the criminal banking syndicate, to put Americans back to work with a
serious jobs program, and to finally expand Medicare to all, bringing
America into the modern world on health care. Instead he turned the
financial system completely over to the banksters, helping them to grow
even bigger, left the unemployed to fend for themselves, and fobbed off
the job of health care “reform” on Congress, which predictably did the
bidding of the Medical Establishment, and deep-sixed the whole thing.

It is, I would suggest, time for progressives to start searching
for a serious, gutsy, plain-speaking candidate to challenge Obama for
the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2012. This man needs
to have a new Gene McCarthy or George McGovern breathing down his neck
for the next three years.

Armistice Day would be a good day to launch that search.

______________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest
book is “The Case for Impeachment,” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). He can
be reached at www.thiscantbehappening.net

In America, Selfishness and Lack of Solidarity Know No Bounds

dlindorff — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:14:32 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

As the strike by transit workers in Philadelphia enters its fifth
day, it is clear why unions have such a tough time in the United
States, where fewer than one in eight workers is covered by a union
contract.

Although the average pay of transit workers is just $50,000 a year
(that represents take-home pay of less than $35000 take-home after
taxes or about $3000 a month to live on for a typical family of four),
the suburbanites who feel put out because they have to brave huge
traffic jams to get to and from work in the city are grousing that the
transit workers are greedy for holding out for a slightly-less-than 4%
per year pay increase over the three years of their contract.

I just got into a debate at the local YMCA gym with an older guy who
probably makes over $100,000 a year and whose children are already
grown, who was incensed that the "greedy bus and subway drivers" were
asking for a raise at this time "with the economy in such a mess."

But I also noticed, as I drove my son into school this week in the
traffic crush, that these same suburbanites are, for the most part,
continuing to drive to work one to a car. What a lack of creativity!

My wife, who frequently travels to Rome to do research, has on
several occasions landed in that city during one of its frequent
transit strikes. She reports that the people of this ancient city take
these job actions in stride, getting out their bicycles, taking
leisurely walks to school, or simply going on holiday for the duration.
People don't get mad at the workers. In Italy, it's understood that
when one group of workers fights for better pay or working conditions,
everyone benefits in the end.

This fellow I was arguing with about the Philly transit strike,
said, "It's not like this is the 1920s or '30s, when unions were really
needed because people were being exploited."

"Oh really?" I said. "You don't think the workers at Wal-Mart or in
your local supermarket are being exploited?" The truth is that working
conditions for American workers have been getting progressively worse
in recent years, while pay has actually been falling in real dollars,
because union representation has been falling for several decades from
a high of over 35% back in the early 1950s. Those unions, like the
transit workers union in Philadelphia, which are still fighting the
good fight, are really all that stands between ordinary American
workers and a truly nightmarish return to a Dickensian era.

Does anyone believe that the type of manager that we have seen
pillaging the economy on Wall Street, or stealing jobs and already
earned pay from workers at Republic Window & Door in Chicago, is an
exception to the rule? Hell no. American managers are congenitally
ruthless exploiters of human beings constrained only by unions or their
fear of unions, and by the protective legislation, such as minimum wage
laws, occupational safety and health laws, etc., which Congress has
grudgingly passed because of the pressure from unions and their workers.

We should all be cheering the workers of the Transport Workers Union
Local 234 in Philadelphia for their grit and determination in standing
up to the management of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority. Their fight is our fight. They like us are struggling to pay
rent or mortgage bills, to buy food for their families, and to pay
their medical bills.

Workers all around the Philadelphia area should be organizing
car-pools, getting their bikes out of the garage, and collectively
telling their own bosses to cut them some slack if they're late to work
or have to stay home for the day because of the strike.

We should also all be writing letters condemning the bias of the
local media in Philadelphia, which have as a group focused entirely on
the hardship to commuters caused by the strike, and not at all on the
issues confronted by the transit workers themselves.

Furthermore, it is not the fault of the SEPTA workers in
Philadelphia that bus and subway fares are too high. Nor is it their
responsibility to accept low wages to subsidize lower fares. It is the
responsibility of the state of Pennsylvania to keep those fares
affordable. Mass transit cannot and should not be self-financing. It is
a social good. It helps protect the environment by reducing air
pollution from cars, reduces wear and tear on roadways, and helps
reduce the nation's dependence upon oil imports.

Instead of complaining about the union for calling a strike, we
should all be cheering them on. America needs more labor militancy, not
less.
________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book
is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is
available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

No Vote on Single-Payer

davidswanson — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:37:21 -0500

By David Swanson

Congressman Weiner has agreed with Nancy Pelosi not to have a floor vote on his Medicare for All bill. A press release from Congressmen Kucinich and Conyers opposing it helped tip the scale. But Weiner did not ask Pelosi to include in her bill the Kucinich Amendment to allow states to create single-payer. Pelosi made clear that President Obama opposes that, and used the bogus excuse that providing everyone with comprehensive free healthcare would deprive them of the right to pay ever increasing rates for uncertain health "insurance."

The removal of the Weiner vote undoubtedly helps the effort to force some of the 57 congress members who wrote to Pelosi in July keep their word. They said they would not support a bill without a public option tied to Medicare rates. If even 40 of them keep their word, the current bill will fail. And we will have a second round, in which we can push for single-payer and achieve at least a better result than the rotten corpse of a bill being voted on this weekend.

If we could have had a second round AND a strong but failing vote for national single-payer, that would have been better. But the single-payer vote was going to be used as cover for voting for a bad bill. Depriving conniving congress critters of that cover is decidedly a good thing, assuming healthcare advocates can come to terms with it and not rip each other's throats out.

If congress members in favor of real helthcare reform were able to work with each other, or if activists were, other possibilities would open up. And if we have a round 2 in which advocates for a public option admit that single-payer would be better and include single-payer in all of their discussions as the ideal that Americans actually prefer, wonderful things might become possible. But unless single-payer advocates admit that winning in one state would be a good thing, rather than a loss of purity, we may not save any lives. Our most likely path to national single-payer is to get it in a state first.

And we could still facilitate that if we all got together and forced the conference committe to put the Kucinich Amendment back in, or if we forced House members to insist on voting No on Saturday unless the Kucinich Amendment is put back in.

Weiner Amendment Vote on Friday Will Fail and Serve as a Cover for Removing Kucinich Amendment

davidswanson — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:12:20 -0500

By David Swanson

Word is that the full House will vote on national single-payer Medicare for All on Friday. This vote is a cover for the removal of an amendment that was in the House "healthcare" bill until Pelosi stripped it out. That amendment would have made it easier for states to enact single-payer, and still would if a conference committee is persuaded to reinstate it.

Of course we want to see a vote on a real national healthcare plan like Medicare for All. of course we want it to pass or to come as close as possible. But this vote is not more a real effort than John Conyers' pseudo-impeachment hearing last July was a real effort to hold Bush accountable. This is a game and we are being played. There has been no debate, no discussion, no mark-up, no amendments. It's a throw-away vote.

And perhaps that hurts nothing. Perhaps a good showing advances the debate in round two. But that's if there is a round two. We have 57 Democrats who commited in a letter to Pelosi last July to not supporting a bill as lousy as the current one. If even 40 of them keep their word, the bill dies. If some Blue Dogs also vote no, then not even 30 are needed. But what if those members can go home to their constituents and brag about how they voted for single-payer before voting for the insurance corporation bailout? Not a bad deal, eh?

Meanwhile the best shot at real healthcare reform, at really saving lives in the near future, sits stewing in state capitals. Some advocates think they can get around restrictions in federal law without the Kucinich Amendment, some don't. Few have any doubt that insurance companies will sue to prevent any state from providing its residents with healthcare.

Canada created a civilized healthcare system in one province first. If California or Ohio or Pennsylvania takes the lead, the United States will follow. The insurance companies know that and fear it and have fought it. The president has fought it on their behalf. The "leadership" in Congress has fought it. Congressman Kucinich and a handful of courageous representatives have pushed back. But we have not had their backs. We need to have their backs right now. Right now. Call your congress member and tell them to tell the leadership to put the Kucinich Amendment back in.

2010 Looms: Democrats Crash and Burn in Virginia and New Jersey

dlindorff — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:58:27 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

It would be easy to read too much into the few statewide races that
were decided last night, but I think it’s fair to say that the results
in New Jersey and Virginia, where Republican gubernatorial candidates
won--in New Jersey’s case knocking off a well-funded Democratic
incumbent--that the results were a blow to the Barack Obama/Rahm
Emanuel strategy of playing to the right, of avoiding confrontation in
Congress and of ignoring the progressive voters whose enthusiasm and
effort back in the 2008 campaign put Obama in office.

Exit polls showed that many Obama voters sat out this election in
New Jersey and Virginia, with turnout low in both races. In part that
was because of local conditions, of course. In Virginia, Democrat R.
Creigh Deeds ran as a conservative, and was attacked by the Republican
candidate, former state attorney general Robert McDonnell, as a
tax-happy liberal. With liberal voters in Virginia unenthusiastic about
Deeds, and Republicans revved up, the loss was a foregone conclusion,
even with Obama making two visits to campaign for Deeds, and with the
national Democratic Party pumping in $6 million in campaign funding.

In New Jersey, incumbent Democrat John Corzine was wildly unpopular
for raising taxes, so that even with Democrats holding an almost 2:1
registration advantage in the state (half of all voters are
unaffiliated), he too had no enthusiastic backing from his former base.
No amount of money poured in by the former Goldman Sachs chief
executive could overcome the negative views of his record as governor.

But despite the lackluster candidates in both Virginia and New
Jersey, I think it’s safe to say that there was also clear evidence
that the losses, and the margins of the losses—huge in Virginia’s case,
and significant in normally safely Democratic New Jersey—provide
evidence that the Obama presidency, and the prevailing Democratic
strategy of minimalist legislative initiatives on health care reform,
global warming etc., expanded and unending war in Afghanistan, support
for Wall Street and neglect of the one-in-five Americans who are
unemployed or underemployed, are a political disaster in the making for
Democrats in general and Obama in particular.

The president came into office on a wave of populist enthusiasm and
high expectations for the “change” candidate Obama promised. No change
has been forthcoming now for over nine months, and with the president
now past the first-year anniversary of his historic election victory,
the latest election results suggest that his presidency could already
be headed for the rocks.

2010 is an election year that will see all seats in the House, and
a third of the seats in the Senate up for grabs. Typically, a
president’s party loses seats in that election even when things are
going well. When things are not going well, the losses can be
significant.

Obama had a chance, coming into Washington after a big rout of
Republicans last year, to set out an agenda of major progressive
change. He could have called for expanding Medicare to cover all
Americans. Instead he handed health reform over to Congress and
immediately put out the word that he was open to compromise with
Republicans, thus dooming reform from the outset. He could have
announced a thorough review of America’s two wars, and then set in
motion a withdrawal form both Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead he dithered
on Iraq, and added troops in Afghanistan, assuring that both these
disasters inherited from the Bush/Cheney administration became his own
disasters, which will now drag on through his whole term. He could have
declared a global climate emergency, and announced a job-creating crash
program to develop renewable energy in the US and to make the US a
leader in renewable energy R&D. Instead, he did almost nothing in
this critical area. As for the economic crisis, he could have taken a
progressive stand against the abuses of Wall Street, ordered a criminal
investigation of the banking class, broken up the big banks and
established a new regulatory system to put an end to the era of casino
capitalism. Instead, he put the bankers in charge of Treasury and
poured trillions of dollars into the largest banks, allowing them to
grow even bigger and more predatory.

Voters, their collective assets shrunken over the year by $14
trillion, understandably are left wondering how, aside from better
verbal skills, this president differs from the last one. As for the
Democratic Congress, with Democrats pretending that nothing can be done
unless they have not just 60 seats in Congress, but perhaps 70 or 75
(enough to be able to survive the inevitable defection of conservative
members of the party), they can’t do anything of consequence—a claim
that only is true if, as is the case, the party’s leadership and the
president are unwilling to punish those who break rank.

If Democratic and progressive independent voters feel the same way
about Obama and the Democratic Congress next fall, it will be curtains
for the Democrats and for Obama’s presidency, such as it is.

And you know what? It won’t matter much if that happens, because
what we’re seeing is that having Obama in the White House, and
Democrats “in control” of Congress doesn’t get you much in the way of
progressive change.
___________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest
book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work
is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Calif Dem Party Progressive Caucus Take Issue With George Miller on Healthcare

davidswanson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:01:06 -0500

The Honorable George Miller
2205 Rayburn House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Miller:

On behalf of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party, it is my painful duty to inform you of a motion and vote taken on a resolution this past August as it relates to the current national Healthcare debate. My name is Karen Bernal and I am the elected Chair of the caucus. We apologize for the lateness of the news; we feel however, that it couldn’t be more timely and germane than for you to learn of the action now. The Progressive Caucus, comprised of over 700 active members, is the largest caucus in the State Party. At a statewide two-day summit this past August, the Caucus met to discuss and organize around issues that are of concern to us, both inside and outside of the caucus and Party. As you can imagine, the issue of Healthcare was a dominant issue the entire weekend.

At the closing session of our meeting, a motion and vote was taken to adopt a resolution to express our profound dismay about the way the votes occurred in the House Committee on Education and Labor in July. You will find the resolution attached here. There was not one vote in opposition to the motion. We were very aware of the impolitic nature of such an action, but it was a truthful expression of where we stood. We want you to understand that we are hardworking Party activists who have given untold hours, both in treasure and sweat in helping to build a Party, in the hopes that we might undo some of the grave injuries we have suffered as a people, as a consequence of the policies of the last Administration. Looking back on it now, we cannot help but to have the view that your vote in July, in particular, was a signal that was not lost on other Democrats in the House, and against fading optimism, on all of us.

Still, it must be said without reservation, that we are collectively stunned by the sheer audacity on the part of our Democratic leadership in the matter-of-fact way H.R. 3962, the latest bill on the matter, has been presented. It has been completely devoid of any expression of regret or contrition for the fact that not only has a promise been reneged upon, but that a committee vote was completely ignored and jettisoned without so much of an explanation. That after visit upon visit, having heard expressions both explicit and implicit from you for the State Option (the Kucinich Amendment), that we could now find ourselves without that which we had made ourselves crystal clear on, is incomprehensible. It hurts even more to know that someone who we looked upon to help us is silent on the matter.

No one need tell you that Single-Payer Healthcare has been a part of the State Party platform since 2006, or that twice, our own State Legislature voted for it, only to have a Republican Governor veto it; so to say there’s no mystery of where our Party, your constituents, and the State of California stands, is an understatement. Yes, we understood early on as we watched what passed for a public discussion, that the American people would not likely see the kind of reform they so deserved on a national level, but at the end of the day, we could stake our hopes on the fact that we had good people as leaders, and they would fight for the inclusion of the State Option.

The word ‘good’ is most appropriate here, for we know in you we have had a champion and hero for the struggles of Labor. We say good, because as Californians mindful of the Machiavellian politics in Sacramento on the issue of water, we have watched and admired your courage and leadership when it’s come to standing up to corporate greed and howling teabaggers. We are aware of those things, having shown our appreciation in word and deed. And since we know that historically, you have been a supporter of Single-payer, there is nothing we can tell you that you don’t already know. We assumed that implicit in your support for the State Option, was the understanding that it meant you would resist the intense pressure from within the Beltway bubble to capitulate and instead, stand with your constituents.

Please, as a member of the California State Democratic Party’s Progressive Caucus, a CDP Executive Board member and someone recovering from cancer, I am asking that if the vote for the bill is postponed beyond next Thursday (November 8), that you will immediately request a re-insertion of the Kucinich amendment so that it may be voted upon on the floor. The times, being especially difficult as they are now, should remind you that there is no higher authority than that of the people who elected you to serve them. They, like all of us, need you now more than ever. On behalf of the Progressive Caucus and all Californians, we call on you to hear us and act.

Sincerely,

Karen Bernal
Chair, Progressive Caucus, CDP
24 Riverpebble Court
Sacramento, CA 95833

Single Payer Resolution of Censure, Disappointment & Applause for CA Congress Members

Whereas the California Democratic Party voted to support single payer healthcare for all, joining a statewide effort to successfully pass a single payer bill in both houses of the state legislature; and

Whereas Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced an amendment in committee to protect state's rights to enact single payer health care regardless of what federal health care reform bill is enacted; and

Whereas Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey voted for the Kucinich amendment, while Democratic Party Congress members Susan Davis and George Miller voted against the amendment and Congresswoman Judy Chu passed during the committee vote;

Therefore be it resolved that the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party censure Davis and Miller, express disappointment in Chu, and applaud Woolsey for courageously and loyally supporting the will of the people of California and for affirming the right for states to provide health care for all; and

Therefore be it further resolved that the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party call on all members of the California delegation to vote for the Kucinich states' rights single payer health care amendment when the amendment reaches the floor of Congress.

Adopted on August 16, 2009

Dennis Kucinich

Mike Stark — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:37:05 -0500

I asked Congressman Dennis Kucinich about the prospects for his health-care Amendment - a provision that would allow states to set up their own single-payer healthcare networks. Here's what he sent to Democrats.com:

David Swanson on health care debate, Bruce Dixon on the 'public option'

davidswanson — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:47:20 -0400

Listen: [mp3] [RealAudio]

Note: Please feel free to download the mp3 by right-clicking the mp3 link and choose the "Save Target As" function.

This week on CounterSpin: Making sense of the health care debate. In the past week we've supposedly seen the comeback of the public option, in some form or another. We're also told that Harry Reid must gather 60 votes to pass a bill. Is any of this right? And what about a true public health system like single-payer? Author and activist David Swanson will join us to try and untangle these story lines.

Also on the show: Progressives and others interested in truly universal healthcare, as in healthcare that would cover everyone, have been more or less prodded in recent months to give up the idea of a single payer system -- dismissed as it's been for years by a corporate press corps as not politically viable -- and to get behind the public option, presented as single payer's less ideal but more achievable variant. But does public option as it's now presented have anything at all to do with healthcare that covers everyone? We'll talk with Bruce Dixon, managing editor of Black Agenda Report, about that.

LINKS:

David Swanson
Black Agenda Report