I must confess I’m having a tiny problem with this “Planned Parenthood” issue. Make no mistake, I’m well aware that federal money is not funding abortions there, and even if it were I’m not sure I would object to it doing so. I certainly have no objection to funding birth control.
But the arguments that “this is the only place that many disadvantaged women have for basic health care” confuses me. Why is an outfit named “Planned Parenthood” providing “basic health care" for women? What is Medicaid for? What was “health care reform” all about? This argument about “basic health care,” to me, weakens their argument because it sounds like Planned Parenthood may have lost sight of its basic mission.
And where do "disadvantaged" males go to get their basic health care?
One woman was speaking in defense of funding and spoke of a woman who was at risk of cancer and said that Planned Parenthood was the only place that she could get cancer screenings. Cancer screening? I realize that women have some risks that men do not, but do men not need health screenings? Isn’t this just a little bit of an issue of gender discrimination?
I emphatically do not think that Planned Parenthood should be defunded, the amount of money is miniscule in any case, but some of the arguments strike me as overreach. Some of the arguments, in fact, seem to me to weaken the case for continued funding. If government is indeed funding "basic health care" that is limited based on gender discrimination, then I would have a problem with that.
Upate: see Title X Family Planning, by all means continue funding.
It appears that the rhetoric about “this is the only place that many disadvantaged women have for basic health care” is, to say the least, overstatement, and that the "cancer screening" is not general, but is specifically screening for cervical cancer. That casts a different light on the subject, and clearly discrimination is not an issue here. Glad I heard the reference to "Title Ten" and looked it up.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Paul Ryan: Con Artist
The more I see of Paul Ryan the less impressed I am with this idiot. Perhaps I should say the less favorably impressed I am, because he is beginning to impress me strongly as a poisonous snake oil salesman. The adjective is intended to refer both to the product and the person selling it. He is slick, oily, sleazy and I not only would not buy a used car from him, I would probably try to run him over with the trade-in. I would give a year’s pay to be able to wipe that arrogant, self-satisfied smirk off of his face.
This thing he is selling is “courageous” is it? No, it is not. It is the seeded wallet in the street, put there by the con artist for you to add your money into and hold for him while he goes to get an envelope to put it in. After he’s gone you find it stuffed with newspaper, seed money and yours gone.
The con artist like Paul Ryan is not courageous, he is merely amoral and without the slightest trace of conscience or compassion. He is a thief dressed up in fancy words, taking by deception and dance step rather than by force or in the dark of night. But thief he is, and nothing more.
Paul Ryan has conned the punditry and his peers into the belief that he is intelligent, but he is merely glib and facile. His presentations are a mile wide and an inch deep, and his answers to questions flow like water from a fire hydrant and have just about as much meaning.
In the 1800’s Paul Ryan would be driving a carnival wagon, selling health tonics and running con games until some angry mob caught up with him and lynched him. We don’t do that to con men today, we elect them to higher office.
This thing he is selling is “courageous” is it? No, it is not. It is the seeded wallet in the street, put there by the con artist for you to add your money into and hold for him while he goes to get an envelope to put it in. After he’s gone you find it stuffed with newspaper, seed money and yours gone.
The con artist like Paul Ryan is not courageous, he is merely amoral and without the slightest trace of conscience or compassion. He is a thief dressed up in fancy words, taking by deception and dance step rather than by force or in the dark of night. But thief he is, and nothing more.
Paul Ryan has conned the punditry and his peers into the belief that he is intelligent, but he is merely glib and facile. His presentations are a mile wide and an inch deep, and his answers to questions flow like water from a fire hydrant and have just about as much meaning.
In the 1800’s Paul Ryan would be driving a carnival wagon, selling health tonics and running con games until some angry mob caught up with him and lynched him. We don’t do that to con men today, we elect them to higher office.
Where To From Here?
Politics has always been about preaching fear to some extent, but it accelerated to fever pitch after 9/11 and has never let up since then. It is almost entirely about making you afraid today. The Republicans have pretty much worn out making you afraid of terrorists, so now they are making you afraid of government; a pretty neat trick, since they want to be the government that they are making you afraid of.
Democrats are doing what they’ve been doing since I can remember, but now are just screaming at the top of their lungs to make you afraid of Republicans. You cannot let the Republicans get into control because they are absolute nutjobs and will just destroy everything in a heartbeat. And electing Democrats back into office won’t solve anything, because all of the bad things Republicans do are unrecoverable mistakes. Democrats are never able to undo any of the disasters that Republicans create.
Democrats were horrified that Medicare Part D was created with such a bloated cost because it specifically excluded the government being able to negotiate prices with the drug companies, but when they gained control of Congress they made no attempt to change that feature of Medicare Part D. Even in the process of passing the “most historic health care reform in several generations” they specifically excluded consideration of making that change to Medicare Part D.
Republicans passed the Patriot Act and Democrats have made not the slightest attempt to repeal that act. When a small minority in Congress tried to weaken the Patriot Act, they were challenged by the Democratic majority and by the Democratic President and the measure failed.
Republicans passed the Military Commissions Act and Democrats have made no effort to repeal any part of that act.
Democrats were appalled at the Bush tax cuts and the deficits that resulted from those cuts, and after four full years in control of Congress without making the slightest effort to reverse those tax cuts, they proceeded to extend those tax cuts for two more years.
Maybe Republicans put up roadblocks, and maybe they could have prevented Democrats from accomplishing some of these things, but we’ll never know because Democrats did not even give the voters who elected them the reward of making any attempt at those reforms.
There is certainly some validity to being concerned about electing Republicans, especially Republicans of the Tea Party variety, but I cannot see how much good it has done us to elect Democrats. We have the “health care reform” if and when it ever goes into effect and if it actually turns out to be beneficial, but meanwhile we have health insurance costs that have increased by half since that reform. We still have unending war, government spying on citizens, “too big to fail” hanging over our heads, an economy perched on the edge of a cliff, half measures toward economic regulation reform, and a government virtually unable to function.
So where do we go from here?
Democrats are doing what they’ve been doing since I can remember, but now are just screaming at the top of their lungs to make you afraid of Republicans. You cannot let the Republicans get into control because they are absolute nutjobs and will just destroy everything in a heartbeat. And electing Democrats back into office won’t solve anything, because all of the bad things Republicans do are unrecoverable mistakes. Democrats are never able to undo any of the disasters that Republicans create.
Democrats were horrified that Medicare Part D was created with such a bloated cost because it specifically excluded the government being able to negotiate prices with the drug companies, but when they gained control of Congress they made no attempt to change that feature of Medicare Part D. Even in the process of passing the “most historic health care reform in several generations” they specifically excluded consideration of making that change to Medicare Part D.
Republicans passed the Patriot Act and Democrats have made not the slightest attempt to repeal that act. When a small minority in Congress tried to weaken the Patriot Act, they were challenged by the Democratic majority and by the Democratic President and the measure failed.
Republicans passed the Military Commissions Act and Democrats have made no effort to repeal any part of that act.
Democrats were appalled at the Bush tax cuts and the deficits that resulted from those cuts, and after four full years in control of Congress without making the slightest effort to reverse those tax cuts, they proceeded to extend those tax cuts for two more years.
Maybe Republicans put up roadblocks, and maybe they could have prevented Democrats from accomplishing some of these things, but we’ll never know because Democrats did not even give the voters who elected them the reward of making any attempt at those reforms.
There is certainly some validity to being concerned about electing Republicans, especially Republicans of the Tea Party variety, but I cannot see how much good it has done us to elect Democrats. We have the “health care reform” if and when it ever goes into effect and if it actually turns out to be beneficial, but meanwhile we have health insurance costs that have increased by half since that reform. We still have unending war, government spying on citizens, “too big to fail” hanging over our heads, an economy perched on the edge of a cliff, half measures toward economic regulation reform, and a government virtually unable to function.
So where do we go from here?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The Danger of Sanity
Here’s why the Republicans want NPR defunded, out of business, gone. They show someone interviewing Paul Ryan, and they don’t edit out the parts which reveal that the interviewer is smarter than he is. I wish I had recorded it, because I can’t name names and give precise quotes, but I’ll give you the gist of it.
The topic is his plan “not to end Medicare but to save it,” by providing tomorrow’s seniors with subsidies, pieces of paper which are emphatically not “vouchers,” whereby they can go out on the wonderful insurance market and select from the infinite variety of offerings to purchase the dream policy that beautifully fits their own circumstances and desires rather than being constrained by the limited horror that is Medicare. I told you I’m going to be paraphrasing, here.
He throws in a reference to Medicare Advantage plans of today, but doesn’t mention that rates for those plans had to be raised in 2003 because they were failing, or that they were discontinued in most states under “health care reform” because they cost more than Medicare does. Anyway…
The interviewer then asks if the government is going to, in effect, be paying for private insurance, doesn’t that amount to “privatization”?
Ryan lights up. He is delighted, I think, not that she asked the question, but that he has such a wonderfully prepared answer for it. He goes into a smooth dissertation about how Medicare services are already provided by private firms and doctors and that the government pays them for those services, so if you want to look at it the way the interviewer has asked it then Medicare is already privatized.
He sits back and smiles, looking somewhat like a six-year-old who has just gotten away with licking the icing off of the cake.
The interviewer than asks if we are interjecting a third party, an insurance company, between the government and the service provider, how can that not add to the cost?
Ryan’s smile does not disappear, but it begins to look a bit pallid as he launches into a discussion of Congressional health care plans, "just like I have," and makes further reference to Medicare Advantage plans and utterly fails to answer her question.
The problem with Paul Ryan is that he does not scream and wave his arms and claim that Concord and Lexington are in New Hampshire. He doesn’t call Obama a Socialist, and chant slogans about wanting to “take back our country.” He doesn’t demand to see Obama’s birth certificate. In short, he doesn’t appear to be certifiably nuts.
And that is precisely what makes him very dangerous.
The topic is his plan “not to end Medicare but to save it,” by providing tomorrow’s seniors with subsidies, pieces of paper which are emphatically not “vouchers,” whereby they can go out on the wonderful insurance market and select from the infinite variety of offerings to purchase the dream policy that beautifully fits their own circumstances and desires rather than being constrained by the limited horror that is Medicare. I told you I’m going to be paraphrasing, here.
He throws in a reference to Medicare Advantage plans of today, but doesn’t mention that rates for those plans had to be raised in 2003 because they were failing, or that they were discontinued in most states under “health care reform” because they cost more than Medicare does. Anyway…
The interviewer then asks if the government is going to, in effect, be paying for private insurance, doesn’t that amount to “privatization”?
Ryan lights up. He is delighted, I think, not that she asked the question, but that he has such a wonderfully prepared answer for it. He goes into a smooth dissertation about how Medicare services are already provided by private firms and doctors and that the government pays them for those services, so if you want to look at it the way the interviewer has asked it then Medicare is already privatized.
He sits back and smiles, looking somewhat like a six-year-old who has just gotten away with licking the icing off of the cake.
The interviewer than asks if we are interjecting a third party, an insurance company, between the government and the service provider, how can that not add to the cost?
Ryan’s smile does not disappear, but it begins to look a bit pallid as he launches into a discussion of Congressional health care plans, "just like I have," and makes further reference to Medicare Advantage plans and utterly fails to answer her question.
The problem with Paul Ryan is that he does not scream and wave his arms and claim that Concord and Lexington are in New Hampshire. He doesn’t call Obama a Socialist, and chant slogans about wanting to “take back our country.” He doesn’t demand to see Obama’s birth certificate. In short, he doesn’t appear to be certifiably nuts.
And that is precisely what makes him very dangerous.
Democratic National Committee
President Obama named Debbie Wasserman Schultz as Chair of the Democratic National Committee yesterday. (There are certainly a superfluity of capital letters in that sentence.) Good choice. She is an excellent speaker and if anyone deserves reward it would be her. She doesn't indulge in the nonsensical babble that so many political leaders tend toward. I've always liked her cheerfulness and fighting spirit.
I do find it a tiny bit odd that the Republican Party, which rather tends toward authoritarianism and marching in lockstep, elects its committee chair, while the Democratic Party chair, the liberal party of free thinkers, allows its committee chair to be appointed by the President.
And, of course, you know how I feel about the reason being given that she was chosen due to "her strength as a fund raiser." Oh yeah, show me the money. Still; good choice regardless of reasons.
I do find it a tiny bit odd that the Republican Party, which rather tends toward authoritarianism and marching in lockstep, elects its committee chair, while the Democratic Party chair, the liberal party of free thinkers, allows its committee chair to be appointed by the President.
And, of course, you know how I feel about the reason being given that she was chosen due to "her strength as a fund raiser." Oh yeah, show me the money. Still; good choice regardless of reasons.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
And Welcome Back Chris
Chris Matthews is back, which is good news because Chuck Todd, who replaced him last week, is just excruciatingly boring. Matthews is usually an idiot, but at least he's entertaining.
He was declaiming on the Afghan reaction to the Koran-burning moron in Florida and mentioned the Taliban blowing up the giant Buddha carvings, which was sort of interesting. To his credit, he did not make a big deal out of it, nor did he claim equivalence to the tune of "you can't burn our book but we can blow up your Buddha." It's just an interesting sidelight without really proving much of anything, other than that religious fanatics don't tend to be particularly logical.
He then went into some bizarre discussion about how Republicans are going to lose the 2012 election because they chose Tampa as their convention site and Florida is really hot in August. That is apparently going to cause the Tea Party people to run amok and spout off with crazy rants, as if they aren't doing that now and weren't doing it in the freezing weather last winter. Good to have him back.
He was declaiming on the Afghan reaction to the Koran-burning moron in Florida and mentioned the Taliban blowing up the giant Buddha carvings, which was sort of interesting. To his credit, he did not make a big deal out of it, nor did he claim equivalence to the tune of "you can't burn our book but we can blow up your Buddha." It's just an interesting sidelight without really proving much of anything, other than that religious fanatics don't tend to be particularly logical.
He then went into some bizarre discussion about how Republicans are going to lose the 2012 election because they chose Tampa as their convention site and Florida is really hot in August. That is apparently going to cause the Tea Party people to run amok and spout off with crazy rants, as if they aren't doing that now and weren't doing it in the freezing weather last winter. Good to have him back.
Thank You Lawrence
Lawrence O’Donnell is giving me a break today and providing me with a chance to speak favorably of a liberal. Believe me, that is what I actually prefer to do.
His “Last Word” last night included a segment discussing Paul Ryan’s budget proposal for 2012 and beyond with somebody whose name I can’t recall. Both O’Donnell and his guest were entirely objective and balanced in their discussion of this nightmare of a proposal, and they had plenty of opportunity to go off the rails about it. This thing is an absolute horror.
One minor point with which I would take issue. O’Donnell said that proposing the idea was “courageous but stupid,” while I would suggest it was merely stupid. If the proposal had included cuts in defense spending then I might have agreed with the “courageous” part. His proposal does not address Social Security, which is in its favor since that program is not part of the federal budget; but I suspect that actually has more to do with the “this is not courageous” aspect of the proposal.
Ryan’s proposal does not address defense spending, which renders it unacceptable to me without further consideration. It includes privatizing Medicare, essentially eliminating Medicaid by simply issuing block grants to states and letting each state run its own program, and cutting “discretionary spending” back to “historic levels.”
Yes, don’t we all want to go back to the “good old days.” Not.
He also proposes to close tax loopholes which, on the face of it, would raise revenue; except that in return for doing that he wants to cut the top rate for both corporations and individuals to 25%. Sigh.
This is where O’Donnell and I tend to agree, but where I wish he would use different language. He wants to “raise taxes on the rich,” and I just dislike the stoking of class warfare. I think “our tax code should be more progressive.” We’re saying the same thing, although while he says that “those who can afford more should pay more,” I tend to phrase it “those who have benefited most from our framework of freedom should pay more.”
O’Donnell has suggested that our tax code, with all of its exceptions and deductions, be simplified and the rates be left exactly where they are, which would raise revenue and be more fair to boot, and I agree entirely with that. He has in the past suggested that we need a couple of new brackets. The highest bracket now is $373,651, above which the tax rate is 35%. He suggests that above, perhaps, $1 million one might pay 50% and perhaps above $10 million one might pay 70%. I happen to think that idea is highly progressive and is an excellent proposal.
Full disclosure, my income is below the current 28% bracket.
His “Last Word” last night included a segment discussing Paul Ryan’s budget proposal for 2012 and beyond with somebody whose name I can’t recall. Both O’Donnell and his guest were entirely objective and balanced in their discussion of this nightmare of a proposal, and they had plenty of opportunity to go off the rails about it. This thing is an absolute horror.
One minor point with which I would take issue. O’Donnell said that proposing the idea was “courageous but stupid,” while I would suggest it was merely stupid. If the proposal had included cuts in defense spending then I might have agreed with the “courageous” part. His proposal does not address Social Security, which is in its favor since that program is not part of the federal budget; but I suspect that actually has more to do with the “this is not courageous” aspect of the proposal.
Ryan’s proposal does not address defense spending, which renders it unacceptable to me without further consideration. It includes privatizing Medicare, essentially eliminating Medicaid by simply issuing block grants to states and letting each state run its own program, and cutting “discretionary spending” back to “historic levels.”
Yes, don’t we all want to go back to the “good old days.” Not.
He also proposes to close tax loopholes which, on the face of it, would raise revenue; except that in return for doing that he wants to cut the top rate for both corporations and individuals to 25%. Sigh.
This is where O’Donnell and I tend to agree, but where I wish he would use different language. He wants to “raise taxes on the rich,” and I just dislike the stoking of class warfare. I think “our tax code should be more progressive.” We’re saying the same thing, although while he says that “those who can afford more should pay more,” I tend to phrase it “those who have benefited most from our framework of freedom should pay more.”
O’Donnell has suggested that our tax code, with all of its exceptions and deductions, be simplified and the rates be left exactly where they are, which would raise revenue and be more fair to boot, and I agree entirely with that. He has in the past suggested that we need a couple of new brackets. The highest bracket now is $373,651, above which the tax rate is 35%. He suggests that above, perhaps, $1 million one might pay 50% and perhaps above $10 million one might pay 70%. I happen to think that idea is highly progressive and is an excellent proposal.
Full disclosure, my income is below the current 28% bracket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)