The Only Practical Rea$on to Vote for Bernie

Tags

Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz

Yesterday, Jeff Winbush at Domino Theory raised possibly the most prevalent objection among Democrats and independents for casting a primary vote for Bernie Sanders, namely that a President Sanders’ agenda would be too extreme to ever be realized.

I wholeheartedly agree that if elected as President, Sanders would have an incredibly difficult time moving any of his agenda forward. However, anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton would have an easier time enacting liberal policies is greatly underestimating the odium the GOP has for her (as a female, as a symbol of her husband’s legacy, and as a symbol of Obama’s legacy). Also, noting the direction the GOP is moving with leading candidates like Trump and Cruz, a Democratic president in 2016 is sure to meet even more resistance than Obama has. But even if Hillary were to meet half the resistance that Obama did, nothing will get accomplished in Washington for another term—save the occasional government shutdown and Dr. Seuss themed fake filibuster.

As far as the extremism of Bernie’s platform (vs. Hillary’s), it is important to realize that Bernie has already pulled Hillary so far left on the campaign trail that their policy proposals are becoming almost indistinguishable. Hillary just said this weekend that her top domestic priority would be healthcare?!? Her debt free college proposal only came after Sander’s push for tuition free college. Their rhetoric on ISIS is nearly identical (although Clinton does have more credibility in the foreign policy arena). Outside of foreign policy leadership experience and differing votes on the war in Iraq, there are few major differences between the Democratic candidates, and only one that matters: money.

If you can accept the fact the neither candidate has a chance of magically changing the hearts of the GOP congress and moving them towards enacting even watered down progressive policy measures, then a Sanders’ presidency at least proves that political candidates do not have to prostitute themselves to big money donors that fund their campaigns. This substantive outcome is something that the obstructionist GOP cannot stop, and the lasting impact it would have on politics would be–to quote both Donald Trump and Bernie–“Uuuge.” This is the reason to vote for Sanders.

(For the record, Trump’s popularity on the right is, at least to some degree, based on the fact that, like Sanders, Trump doesn’t need big money donors to fund his campaign.)

This has to be the message from Sanders’ campaign: a vote for Sanders is a vote for a political system that restores at least some balance of power to people over money–as evidenced by a candidate who turns down donations from billionaires. A vote for Hillary is just a vote for Bernie’s lightly moderated policies–policies with no better chance of getting through a GOP congress and zero chance of pleasing her Wall Street benefactors who already have their sales receipts for less regulation. 

Advertisements

Obamacare: A Model of Compromise Opposed by the Uncompromising

Tags

compromise, free market, heritage Foundation, history, Individual Mandate, Obamacare, single payer system

As the government shutdown drags on and America creeps ever closer to yet another economic catastrophe, it is important to clarify a few things about the sole focus of House Republicans’ full-scale obstruction. Most realize that the government shutdown is a direct result of a desperate effort to stop the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, but it is worth explaining exactly what it is that extremist Republicans are trying to stop.

When the ACA was developed, Democrats knew that the liberal ideal of a single-payer (i.e. government controlled) health care system similar to those in Europe or Canada would not receive the political support from Republicans that was necessary for passage. Despite the fact that the single-payer systems in developed countries have been measurably cheaper and deliver better outcomes than America’s pre-ACA system, then-candidate Obama and his team decided to move ahead with a pragmatic plan instead of a politically hopeless idyllic proposal to win votes.

In order for health care reform to work, Obama’s strategists knew that it would need to draw on conservative philosophy, namely the unquestionable righteousness of the capitalist free market. Instead of restricting Americans’ choice when it came to their health care insurers, the Affordable Care Act would have to allow consumers to enter into a free market where competition would theoretically drive down costs. This was not a problem; Massachusetts’ plan had already done something similar under a Republican Governor, and it was proving to be successful.

An even more critical component to the success of the Affordable Care Act was the reality that it wouldn’t work at all unless everyone in the country participated by purchasing health insurance. (This is the same reason group plans offered by employers have always been cheaper than private individual plans; there is strength in numbers when it comes to purchasing power—especially with insurance.) Fortunately for Obama, conservative ideology had long valued individual responsibility. Since not carrying health insurance is irresponsible—because the high costs of emergency care are ultimately passed on to responsible people with insurance—conservative Republicans would have to agree with what would be known as the individual mandate. And in fact, they had been in agreement for years.

The most prominent conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, issued a report supporting the individual mandate in 1989. After that, a number of Republican politicians supported the individual mandate as an alternative to Clinton’s health care reform efforts in 1993. So the individual mandate should not have been a problem politically. And let’s not forget, Massachusetts’ plan had already done the exact same thing under a Republican Governor, and it was proving to be successful.

When the Affordable Care Act made it to Congress following Obama’s inaugural election, it was not exactly rammed down the country’s throat as many Republicans like to say. In fact, after many debates and committee hearings, “more than 160 Republican amendments were accepted” to the bill. The entirety of the Affordable Care Act was then passed by majority votes in both the Senate and the House. It is true that the bill had been created in the Senate via a controversial tactic which Republicans still denounce as illegitimate, but that aspect of legitimacy was never formally challenged, as it is without merit. The individual mandate was formally challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Now Republican members of an extremist faction have shutdown the entirety of the federal government (a government in which they don’t believe anyway) all in the name of defunding, delaying, and repealing the President’s signature achievement. An achievement they claim is unaffordable despite its self-funding nature. An achievement they claim is “as destructive to personal and individual liberty as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850” despite the fact it is disproportionately supported by black Americans. An achievement they claim is uncompromising tyranny despite the law’s lynchpins of Republican ideology.

It is painfully clear that certain members of today’s Republican Party wouldn’t be able to compromise even if someone did it for them, which happens to be exactly what President Obama did when he created the Affordable Care Act.

Shoot the hostage, then negotiate?

Tags

insanity, Jamie Dupree, John Boehner, negotiations, Obama, Obamacare, shutdown

Poor John Boehner. Now I know why he cries all the time. I would cry too if I were responsible for leading a group of governing officials who don’t believe in government.

The Republican-led House of Representatives has given new credibility to an old definition for the word insanity, you know, the one about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If you thought the 42 times that House Republicans voted unsuccessfully to repeal Obamacare may have taught the GOP a lesson regarding their party’s efficacy, you would be mistaken. Yesterday, the House submitted a budget proposal three times with the same stop-Obamacare clause. For the 43^rd, 44^th, and 45^th time, their tiresome efforts were rejected.

But this time the insanity is not symbolic and the consequences are not just fodder for John Stewart.

So what’s next? Try number 46? Sort of, according to Boehner.

Jamie Dupree gives an insightful run down of what’s next:

On Tuesday morning, the Senate is expected to reject the latest offer from the House, including that request for a joint House-Senate conference committee to work out differences on a stop gap budget.

“The best path forward right now is for both chambers to convene a formal conference committee where we can resolve our differences,” said House Speaker John Boehner.

The request for that committee amplifies the GOP talking point in recent days that Democrats and President Obama are refusing to negotiate on the Obama health law and other issues.

But it also served to remind reporters of something else, as Senate Democrats have repeatedly asked for House-Senate negotiations on the budget resolution, the non-binding document that sets out the parameters of the budget debate.

18 times since April, GOP Senators have objected to Democratic efforts to start negotiations on the budget resolution, while Speaker Boehner has refused to appoint conferees for those talks.

So the Democrats offered to negotiate a budget resolution 18 times as a measure to prevent a government shutdown, and they were denied each time. Perhaps this was the Democrats’ own version of insanity, hoping the GOP would negotiate without holding the entire federal government hostage.

Today, the hostage has been shot, and now Republicans want to negotiate. A new example of insanity, I suppose.

Ted Cruz: Try it, try it. You will see…

Tags

filibuster, Green Eggs and Ham, Obamacare, Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz performs a fake filibuster and defiles a classic piece of children’s literature in the process. What if Ted were the protagonist in a similar story…

“That President, that President, I do not like that President.”

“Do you like Obamacare?”

“I do not like Obamacare.”

“Would you like it for the poor?”

“I would not like it for the poor.”

“Would you repeal it on the Senate floor?”

“I would repeal it on the Senate floor.”

“Would you replace it with something good?”

“ I would. I would. For sure, I would. Something good like vouchers or pools. We must privatize health care and schools!”

“And leave the poor to do what then?”

“They aren’t poor no more with vouchers, friend.”

“But costs keep rising, will vouchers keep pace?”

“That is a discussion for another time, another place.”

“And these pools, you say, what is their price?”

“Less than Obamacare. Isn’t that nice?”

“I suppose it is if they cover the same, but your pools cover few, which the sick will find lame.The ACA seems like the way, to cover all and save the day. Try it, try it, and you may find, it heals all folks, leaves none behind.”

“I will not, will not fight for all. My dreams are big, poor people are small. I must show my party that I am a star. The election in three years isn’t too far. So on with my mission of making a stand, against something I think gives me upper-hand—over the weaklings my people despise: the ones inclined to compromise.”

An 8 minute crash course on American health care

Tags

health care costs, John Green, vlog brothers

This is a great breakdown of health care in America. Thanks to David at Punditocracy for sharing via twitter.

What to Expect from the New GOP

Tags

Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Meet the Press, Paul Ryan, Rachel Maddow, Reince Priebus, Republican strategy meetings

Watching Meet the Press yesterday, I almost choked on my breakfast when I heard Paul Ryan say with a straight face, “Immigration is a good thing.”

Those GOP strategy meetings last week must have simply encouraged Republicans to start saying the opposite of everything they have said for the past 20 years or so. Not a bad political strategy in my opinion, but America already has a party for liberals.

The Republican Party also seems to be distancing itself from the fringe elements that have been dictating its wayward course. After all, does anyone believe that Sarah Palin’s “separation” from Fox News the day after the strategy meetings was a coincidence?

The re-branding of the GOP now has me wondering what might be next for America’s fast-sinking political ship. Here are some things we might be able to look forward to:

Instead of tax breaks for the wealthy to “encourage growth,” Republicans will consider a plan to pay down the national debt by levying a new slander tax on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity every time one of them insults someone he disagrees with.

Instead of serving as a television surrogate for conservative Republicans, Ann Coulter will now be asked to do some community outreach in America’s Black Muslim communities.

To err is human…unless you’re a robot

Tags

47%, Individual Mandate, Presidential Debates, Romney

At times throughout the past year of campaigning, Mitt Romney has appeared to be an authentic human being, even a confident leader not afraid to speak his mind and willing to back his rhetoric with action. Unfortunately for Romney, these were some of the lowest points of his campaign.

Campaign Stumping or Campaign Stumped? Romney and Obama on 60 Minutes

Tags

60 Minutes, foreign policy, middle class, Obama, Romney, taxes

60 Minutes recently interviewed both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. The primetime telecast was an opportunity for both candidates to do some pre-debate posturing. Here are three takeaways from each candidate (analysis from the peanut gallery included at no extra charge).

Did I just agree with Bill O’Reilly?

Last night, in reference to the poor decision of many free-willed citizens to forego health insurance, Bill O’Reilly made the lucid argument that Americans are free to be morons. In O’Reilly’s opinion, any attempt by the government to require (or financially coerce) people to guard themselves against imminent illness or injury is outside the boundaries of what America’s founders intended.

First of all, I agree with O’Reilly that America is a great nation because we are free to be morons. Sometimes eating a pound of bacon for dinner, hitting the tanning bed for an hour, and watching some Fox News is just what I need after a long day of exercising my God-given reasoning powers. Most people would agree that no government regulation is critically necessary when it comes to such heart, skin, and brain damaging activities.  However, these actions do nothing to encroach upon the freedoms of anyone else.  The same cannot be said when it comes to the refusal to procure health insurance.