Despite a rocky rollout, Obamacare seems to be rapidly gaining momentum. (At this point, I'm going to follow journalist E.J. Dionne's advice and refer to it by its formal name, the Affordable Care Act [ACA]). Unfortunately, many of its opponents are willing to lie about the ACA in ways that have a profound influence on the public.
Among the most notable Obama/ACA-haters is Cathy McMorris Rogers, a Republican congresswoman from Washington State. Not exactly a household name, Ms. Rogers was chosen by mainline Repubs to provide the officially sanctioned rebuttal to the president's recent State of the Union message. She spoke of a letter she received from a constituent she referred to as "Bette from Spokane".
According to The Good Congresslady, "Ms. Spokane" lamented the cancellation of her existing health insurance, blaming the ACA and stating that she'd have to pay $700 per month more for a replacement policy. However, the ACA, via its state-coordinated exchange, actually had comparable options available at cheaper rates. But "Ms. Bette from Spokane" (a.k.a. Bette Grenier) readily admitted that, "I wouldn't go on that Obama website at all." Ms. Rogers conveniently omitted that last statement from her rebuttal.
This next example really boggles my mind! A Michigan woman undergoing cancer treatment seems all too willing to deny fellow cancer-sufferers --- who happen to be less financially fortunate --- the same access. Her name is Julie Boonstra, an ironbound Republican married to a party functionary in the Metro Detroit area. She has insisted that the ACA would deny her the treatment she requires. Well, a conscientious Detroit journalist discovered that the ACA would indeed provide the needed treatment. When the reporter furnished Ms. Boonstra the documentation to back up his assertion, she stated that she didn't believe it! Just like that!
I wish Ms. Boonstra a full recovery, but I don't understand how she and others who share her views could be so callous and stone-hearted toward people with modest resources:
--- especially fellow cancer-sufferers!
However, despite significant misfires during the ACA rollout, legions and legions of folks are clamoring to sign up for it. What they're discovering is proving to be a godsend.
More on this in a few days. (Part 2)
Friday, March 28, 2014
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Chairman Issa, Champion of Free Discourse, Sets a Precedent
Congressman Darrell Issa, chairman of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee likes to have his way. Who doesn't? But most of us learn while we're still li'l kiddos, that we can't always get what we want. It's a maxim that applies to nearly all of us who happen not to be named Darrell Issa.
From time to time, the Good Chairman likes to resurrect the IRS non-scandal; an agency administrator named Lois Lerner was accused of flagging Tea Party groups for special scrutiny. But such charges were proven baseless when it became evident that organizations spanning the political spectrum were probed with the same degree of intensity.
Once it became apparent that Ms. Lerner wasn't going to co-operate with the ongoing charade, Mr. Issa ground the proceedings to a screeching halt. When Congressman Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, questioned this unprecedented action, the chairman ordered that his mike be shut off. Darrell Issa's glorious tantrum has been captured on video for all the world to see: preserved in visual amber! Here it is: Chairman Issa, Parliamentarian Extrordinaire!
Get a load of Mr. Issa's body language. Check out that scowl! The contempt he has for his congressional colleague is evident. He later apologized to Mr. Cummings who, being the gentleman that he is, graciously accepted. What else could he do?
But the chairman's Joe-McCarthy-like antics are starting to grow a tad overripe. House Speaker John Boehner (a.k.a., His Orangeness) has rejected requests to have him censured. Still, even some of his Republican buddies think it's time for him to cool his jets.
From time to time, the Good Chairman likes to resurrect the IRS non-scandal; an agency administrator named Lois Lerner was accused of flagging Tea Party groups for special scrutiny. But such charges were proven baseless when it became evident that organizations spanning the political spectrum were probed with the same degree of intensity.
Once it became apparent that Ms. Lerner wasn't going to co-operate with the ongoing charade, Mr. Issa ground the proceedings to a screeching halt. When Congressman Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, questioned this unprecedented action, the chairman ordered that his mike be shut off. Darrell Issa's glorious tantrum has been captured on video for all the world to see: preserved in visual amber! Here it is: Chairman Issa, Parliamentarian Extrordinaire!
Get a load of Mr. Issa's body language. Check out that scowl! The contempt he has for his congressional colleague is evident. He later apologized to Mr. Cummings who, being the gentleman that he is, graciously accepted. What else could he do?
But the chairman's Joe-McCarthy-like antics are starting to grow a tad overripe. House Speaker John Boehner (a.k.a., His Orangeness) has rejected requests to have him censured. Still, even some of his Republican buddies think it's time for him to cool his jets.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Chairman Issa Leaves No Dead Horse Unbeaten
Recent charges that the Internal Revenue Service had singled out Tea Party-affiliated groups for vetting had seemingly been debunked. But Congressman Darrell Issa (R - CA) is a Man With a Mission, by crackey! As chairman of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee, he'll leave no stone unturned, even if it entails beating a dead horse, burying it, then digging it up and beating it some more.
Yes, it may be true --- to an extent --- that the IRS office in Cincinnati had singled out Tea Party organizations for special scrutiny at the behest of Lois Lerner, the since-retired head of the Exemptions Department. And why not? In the wake of the 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, a mass of such groups materialized within a short period of time. Many were financed by extremely generous benefactors such as the Koch brothers.
But over time, the entire vetting effort included 298 groups overall, spanning the entire political spectrum. Does 96 out of 298 seem out of proportion? If so, maybe it's because of the Tea Party donors' bottomless pockets.
What was to be gained by subpoenaing Ms. Lerner? The fact that she invoked the Fifth Amendment became an issue. I can only assume that that's what her counsel advised her to do. Chairman Issa has been known to play loosey-goosey with such inconveniences as facts, mainly by presenting evidence out of context, as he had done in the past with this IRS affair.
I can well understand Ms. Lerner's desire to avoid having to face undue stress brought on by Chairman Issa's spurious accusations. It shouldn't always be assumed that pleading the Fifth automatically implies guilt.
Once it became painfully apparent to the Good Chairman that he wasn't going to have his way with Ms. Lerner, he staged a magnificent tantrum and ground the proceedings to a shrieking halt. But Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee would have none of it.
More on this saga in a day or two.
Yes, it may be true --- to an extent --- that the IRS office in Cincinnati had singled out Tea Party organizations for special scrutiny at the behest of Lois Lerner, the since-retired head of the Exemptions Department. And why not? In the wake of the 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, a mass of such groups materialized within a short period of time. Many were financed by extremely generous benefactors such as the Koch brothers.
But over time, the entire vetting effort included 298 groups overall, spanning the entire political spectrum. Does 96 out of 298 seem out of proportion? If so, maybe it's because of the Tea Party donors' bottomless pockets.
What was to be gained by subpoenaing Ms. Lerner? The fact that she invoked the Fifth Amendment became an issue. I can only assume that that's what her counsel advised her to do. Chairman Issa has been known to play loosey-goosey with such inconveniences as facts, mainly by presenting evidence out of context, as he had done in the past with this IRS affair.
I can well understand Ms. Lerner's desire to avoid having to face undue stress brought on by Chairman Issa's spurious accusations. It shouldn't always be assumed that pleading the Fifth automatically implies guilt.
Once it became painfully apparent to the Good Chairman that he wasn't going to have his way with Ms. Lerner, he staged a magnificent tantrum and ground the proceedings to a shrieking halt. But Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee would have none of it.
More on this saga in a day or two.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Does Arizona Really Care About Gay Men & Women? Or Do They Just Want Their Business?
It was gratifying to learn that Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer
vetoed a toxic antigay piece of legislation known as Senate Bill 1062. This proposed measure would have allowed businesses to choose not to serve gay clientele so that their proprietors could honor their religious beliefs. A similar bill was recently vetoed in Kansas.
Apparently, the same dynamic is repeating itself in several states that have created similarly abhorrent bills. Antigay measures, justified by "defense of religious freedom" are being advanced, but then they crash, often by dint of a gubernatorial veto. Why? Because such legislation is bad for business.
It's good to know that legalized gay-bashing isn't going to see the light of day, even in the reddest of the red states. Yet I can't help being cynical. Non-Tea Party Republicans like Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake both declared their opposition to SB 1062. Good for them. But I don't get the sense that they or any other prominent Republicans opposed such legislation because they thought that it was morally repugnant and inhuman. Just bad for business!
Am I being too harsh?
vetoed a toxic antigay piece of legislation known as Senate Bill 1062. This proposed measure would have allowed businesses to choose not to serve gay clientele so that their proprietors could honor their religious beliefs. A similar bill was recently vetoed in Kansas.
Apparently, the same dynamic is repeating itself in several states that have created similarly abhorrent bills. Antigay measures, justified by "defense of religious freedom" are being advanced, but then they crash, often by dint of a gubernatorial veto. Why? Because such legislation is bad for business.
It's good to know that legalized gay-bashing isn't going to see the light of day, even in the reddest of the red states. Yet I can't help being cynical. Non-Tea Party Republicans like Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake both declared their opposition to SB 1062. Good for them. But I don't get the sense that they or any other prominent Republicans opposed such legislation because they thought that it was morally repugnant and inhuman. Just bad for business!
Am I being too harsh?
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Union Drive in Chattanooga: Tennessee Republicans Didn't Do Their Homework
A recent attempt by the United Auto Workers (UAW) to unionize a Volkswagen assembly plant in Chattanooga fell a tad short. The UAW is considering court action, citing undue meddling in the election effort by various Tennessee public officials, all Republican. (One GOP heavy, feeling his oats, growled a message at VW to this effect: "Nice tax break ya got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.")
Among other things, the workers were told that Volkswagen's plans to expand the Chattanooga plant might be jeopardized if they voted for the union. Seems plausible except for one bothersome li'l detail: Senator Tom Corker, Governor Bill Haslam (the former Chattanooga mayor, by the way) and other Republican poobahs, evidently failed to communicate with the corporate folks at VW before making such brash --- and untrue --- statements.
It seems as if it never occurred to Corker and Company, that VW's European style corporate culture wasn't in synch with their own values. Among VW's 106 assembly plants world-wide, the Tennessee factory --- the only one in the US --- also happens to be their only facility without a Euro-style works council. The works council is an arrangement of regularly scheduled meetings between labor and management that encourages a free flow of ideas. A union provides the structure for the works council.
Officially, VW maintained a neutral stance prior to the election. But it seems as if they really wanted the union to succeed. In the wake of the defeat, VW has announced that they're reconsidering any plans they may have had for expansion in the South. It's a blatant contradiction to the Republicans' anti-union message. So it looks as if Mr. Corker's fibs are coming back to bite him, his fellow Republicans and all the good people of Tennessee.
What did he say again in the wake of the union's defeat? Oh yeah. "I am thrilled for the employees at Volkswagen and for our community and its future". It's probably true that some of the workers who voted nay are reflexively opposed to unions. But in light of widespread pro-union sentiments expressed among the rank and file before the election, many believe that some folks may have flipped their votes as a reaction to the Republicans' fear-mongering; perhaps enough to alter the outcome.
I think the union's challenge effort will sprout legs. Stay tuned!
Among other things, the workers were told that Volkswagen's plans to expand the Chattanooga plant might be jeopardized if they voted for the union. Seems plausible except for one bothersome li'l detail: Senator Tom Corker, Governor Bill Haslam (the former Chattanooga mayor, by the way) and other Republican poobahs, evidently failed to communicate with the corporate folks at VW before making such brash --- and untrue --- statements.
It seems as if it never occurred to Corker and Company, that VW's European style corporate culture wasn't in synch with their own values. Among VW's 106 assembly plants world-wide, the Tennessee factory --- the only one in the US --- also happens to be their only facility without a Euro-style works council. The works council is an arrangement of regularly scheduled meetings between labor and management that encourages a free flow of ideas. A union provides the structure for the works council.
Officially, VW maintained a neutral stance prior to the election. But it seems as if they really wanted the union to succeed. In the wake of the defeat, VW has announced that they're reconsidering any plans they may have had for expansion in the South. It's a blatant contradiction to the Republicans' anti-union message. So it looks as if Mr. Corker's fibs are coming back to bite him, his fellow Republicans and all the good people of Tennessee.
What did he say again in the wake of the union's defeat? Oh yeah. "I am thrilled for the employees at Volkswagen and for our community and its future". It's probably true that some of the workers who voted nay are reflexively opposed to unions. But in light of widespread pro-union sentiments expressed among the rank and file before the election, many believe that some folks may have flipped their votes as a reaction to the Republicans' fear-mongering; perhaps enough to alter the outcome.
I think the union's challenge effort will sprout legs. Stay tuned!
Friday, February 21, 2014
Harrumphing Old White Dudes Love Their Porn: An Opportunity for Democrats to Take Back the House
A 2009 survey commissioned by the Harvard Business school has revealed that the greatest demand for pornographic ogling per capita is in red states --- particularly ones with heavy concentrations of evangelicals.
The state at the very pinnacle of the list? Blood-red Utah!
Other top contenders consist of the following states, all playpens of lust featuring a deep scarlet pigment: Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
My gut hunch* is that the most prolific consumers of on-line porn consist of a cohort I refer to as "Harrumphing Old White Dudes". These folks share some common traits; (1) they don't like unions, (2) they hate big government, and (3) they particularly detest That Socialist from Kenya Who Lives at the White House. (So you know how they're gonna vote). But they love their on-line porn! They simply can't ever get enough of that visual whoopie!**
Here's my proposal: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will need to get involved. Their task will be to marshal the resources of the eighty most popular premium pornography websites in the nation. Next on the agenda? Organize a Free Premium Porn Day. Arrange for pop-up ads on all major sites. Those Harrumphing Old White Dudes will get wind of it just as soon as you can say Tiffany and Her Barnyard Pals! The date? Tuesday, November 4th, of course --- which, by sheer coincidence, just happens to be the date of the midterm elections this year.
Here's what I envision. As soon as that calendar flips to the Fourth Day of November, all those porn-lovin', Obama-hatin' Harrumphing Old White Dudes will be hot to trot! At the crack o' dawn, they'll be glued to their computer screens. Remember now! --- Eighty premium websites! Free from dawn 'til dusk! They can have it all, and by gum, they will have it all!
Once all them Harrumphing Old White Dudes recover their poise long enough to take a break from their non-stop ogling, they'll look out the window. Dag-nab it, it's dark out! They'll check the time: Holy moley, it's seven o'clock! The polls have just closed! Thousand names of the devil! They've forgotten to cast their ballots!
The election results come pouring in. Fast forward to 11:03 PM, Eastern Standard Time. Every major network has declared victory for the Democrats. Seventeen Congressional seats needed to flip in order for the Democrats to regain a House majority: That's exactly what they got! All because thousands and thousands of porn-lovin', Obama-hatin', Harrumphing Old White Dudes couldn't tear themselves away from their pornographic whoopie long enough to vote. Mission accomplished!
Hey, it's worth a shot, don't ya think?
Here's what I envision. As soon as that calendar flips to the Fourth Day of November, all those porn-lovin', Obama-hatin' Harrumphing Old White Dudes will be hot to trot! At the crack o' dawn, they'll be glued to their computer screens. Remember now! --- Eighty premium websites! Free from dawn 'til dusk! They can have it all, and by gum, they will have it all!
Once all them Harrumphing Old White Dudes recover their poise long enough to take a break from their non-stop ogling, they'll look out the window. Dag-nab it, it's dark out! They'll check the time: Holy moley, it's seven o'clock! The polls have just closed! Thousand names of the devil! They've forgotten to cast their ballots!
The election results come pouring in. Fast forward to 11:03 PM, Eastern Standard Time. Every major network has declared victory for the Democrats. Seventeen Congressional seats needed to flip in order for the Democrats to regain a House majority: That's exactly what they got! All because thousands and thousands of porn-lovin', Obama-hatin', Harrumphing Old White Dudes couldn't tear themselves away from their pornographic whoopie long enough to vote. Mission accomplished!
Hey, it's worth a shot, don't ya think?
* If Congressman Darrell Issa can rely on his gut, I guess I can, too. (See the post on this blog dated 6/8/13: Chairman Issa's Digestive Tract is Working Overtime).
** Also eyeball an earlier post from 7/20/12: Repressed Feelings in Romneyland: Just Gotta Have It.
** Also eyeball an earlier post from 7/20/12: Repressed Feelings in Romneyland: Just Gotta Have It.
Friday, January 31, 2014
No Lunch for Deadbeats: So What If They ARE Kids?
Here's another one of those hand-collides-with-the-forehead moments.
Earlier this week, forty students at a Salt Lake City elementary school had their lunches snatched away from them by a district official. Her title? ---uh--- Child Nutrition Manager! They were then chucked in the garbage because once served, they couldn't be re-served. (The lunches that is, not the kiddos. Just thought I'd better clarify that).
The reason that these pupils lost their lunches was that their families' accounts were deemed delinquent. To make matters worse, these poor boys and girls were mortified in front of their classmates. Some cried. So did at least one cafeteria lady.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, which first ran the article, last Wednesday's lunch-snatching has been an ongoing policy. Apparently it's happened elsewhere too, including Texas. (Surprised)? Owing to the justified public outrage generated by this recent episode, the policy is at least now out in the open.
There are times that I can't help but believe that such abject cruelty and meanness can be contagious. These lunch-snatchers seem to be taking their cues right from the playbooks of two particular congressfolks (one former): Stephen Fincher and Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Fincher is the Western Tennessee congressman and self-anointed biblical scholar who cited a passage from the Bible indicating that "those who don't work, don't eat". (His words). (According to real scholars, the quote was taken grossly out of context). The congressman cited it as justification for his vote to cut food stamps. Yet he's never refused government aid for his own family's thriving four-square-mile cotton plantation.
Not to be forgotten is Mr. Gingrich: former Speaker of the House, presidential candidate, and serial hubby. Here's what he declared back in November, 2011:
Time to relax our truly stupid child labor laws.
Schools should fire their unionized janitors and
hire children as young as nine to do the work
instead.
That's a hard act to follow, folks. I'm absolutely sure that the vast majority of us are better than that. We need to elect more public officials who truly reflect our values.
Earlier this week, forty students at a Salt Lake City elementary school had their lunches snatched away from them by a district official. Her title? ---uh--- Child Nutrition Manager! They were then chucked in the garbage because once served, they couldn't be re-served. (The lunches that is, not the kiddos. Just thought I'd better clarify that).
The reason that these pupils lost their lunches was that their families' accounts were deemed delinquent. To make matters worse, these poor boys and girls were mortified in front of their classmates. Some cried. So did at least one cafeteria lady.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, which first ran the article, last Wednesday's lunch-snatching has been an ongoing policy. Apparently it's happened elsewhere too, including Texas. (Surprised)? Owing to the justified public outrage generated by this recent episode, the policy is at least now out in the open.
There are times that I can't help but believe that such abject cruelty and meanness can be contagious. These lunch-snatchers seem to be taking their cues right from the playbooks of two particular congressfolks (one former): Stephen Fincher and Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Fincher is the Western Tennessee congressman and self-anointed biblical scholar who cited a passage from the Bible indicating that "those who don't work, don't eat". (His words). (According to real scholars, the quote was taken grossly out of context). The congressman cited it as justification for his vote to cut food stamps. Yet he's never refused government aid for his own family's thriving four-square-mile cotton plantation.
Not to be forgotten is Mr. Gingrich: former Speaker of the House, presidential candidate, and serial hubby. Here's what he declared back in November, 2011:
Time to relax our truly stupid child labor laws.
Schools should fire their unionized janitors and
hire children as young as nine to do the work
instead.
That's a hard act to follow, folks. I'm absolutely sure that the vast majority of us are better than that. We need to elect more public officials who truly reflect our values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)