What no one explains is that this "shut up and sit down" Senate model is based on the not-unreasonable idea that new senators should develop some expertise in their area before they start making waves. But since Warren is one of the nation's leading experts on banking and financial services, it's absolutely silly to expect she wouldn't use her expertise from Day One. And, as Sirota points out, it's a double standard for progressives. Anyone telling Marco Rubio not to make waves? Via Raw Story:

Appearing with “The Young Turks” host Cenk Uygur on Tuesday, author David Sirota critiqued Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) recent grilling of the nation’s top financial regulators, saying it’s the first evidence we’ve seen that Warren is showing no interest in “the Hillary Clinton model” of sitting down and shutting in hopes of earning the right to be taken seriously.

“What’s un-serious is the notion that a senator shouldn’t ask serious questions about the biggest financial meltdown in contemporary history,” he said.

“When it comes to Democratic senators, what you hear is, ‘Please follow the Hillary Clinton model,’ that’s what it’s basically called,” Sirota said. “Hillary Clinton came in and she had star power and she laid low and didn’t do very much. Same thing for Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate. The expectation, if not the mandate for liberal senators is, only can you be taken seriously if you follow this model that says essentially, sit down and shut up.”

I think most of us are already aware that the new healthcare law is a piece of Swiss cheese, and now David Sirota points out where some of the biggest holes are:

With 60 percent of all bankruptcies related to medical costs; with manyof those medical-related bankruptcies occurring among those who have private insurance; and with the fear of medical bankruptcy encouraging the insured to unduly skimp on medical services, the Obama healthcare bill did purport to address the issue via caps on out-of-pocket expenses. But those weak caps -- and the bill's failure to achieve universal coverage -- promise to allow the medical debt problem to continue, just as they have in the state whose "reforms" most closely mimic Obama's bill.

As the Los Angeles Times recently reported:

Studying medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts, whose recent healthcare reform was a model for national reform, researchers found that while new insurance rules increased the number of people who had coverage, those rules did not improve coverage -- leaving many still struggling with medical debt... Proponents of the national healthcare reform passed into law last year have claimed that it would reduce medical bankruptcy in the United States by helping more Americans get insurance. This new study, which was published Tuesday in the American Journal of Medicine, suggests that a reduction in bankruptcies is unlikely.

Add to all of this a new Center for Public Integrity report about how American wages are still being eaten up by private health insurance premium increases, and the trajectory is clear: Events are proving that "real reform" and strengthening insurance industry power are mutually exclusive goals. That is, they are proving the veracity of progressives' original criticism of President Obama's healthcare legislation.

This is, to be sure, a politically inconvenient truth to both parties and their insurance industry benefactors -- but alas, it is the truth. The longer we simply stare at it -- or pretend it doesn't exist -- the longer the healthcare crisis will continue.

DOWNLOADS: (2005)

PLAYS: (5251)

Embed

Before U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles began to rain down on Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses, the only conversation that President Obama had to have was with his senior advisers.

They, and they alone would decide whether a country founded as a democratic republic would engage in what George Washington would have likely viewed as a "foreign entanglement" – using 21st-century ordinance against a sociopath with a history of violence and a worse hat fetish than Sammy Davis Jr.

Obviously, in 200 years the United States has evolved from a rebel-with-a-cause into a world power, and additional involvement in world affairs has become part of the cost of doing business.

There is also a good argument to be made that after the terrible mistake of the Iraq invasion, the US can do some good by putting an end to the murderous Gaddafi in Libya, as part of an international coalition made up of Arab and African countries, blessed by the United Nations.

Yet, that does not change the fact that congressional support for this operation was as important as an appendix or a Newt Gingrich marriage vow.

Obama and his people simply knew they could ignore the people's representatives and safely rely upon a militarized culture primed to support an attack on an Arab nation. Particularly one the US had already thrown down with only a generation ago.

It is this fact that makes author, syndicated columnist and talk radio host David Sirota's new book, Back To Our Future, not only a fascinating read about the culture of the 1980s, but a manifestly important work in helping explain why the United States does the things it does today.

From involvement in a civil war in Libya to allowing a madman sans background check to saunter into his local arms bazaar and purchase a high-powered firearm for an attempted assassination of a congresswoman.

The latter being easier than say, finding plutonium for your DeLorean in 1955.

Continue reading »

During the ultimate scene of betrayal in the movie Wall Street, a young stockbroker named Bud Fox learns that his idol, the golden-calf worshipping Gordon Gekko, has not only lied to him but left his father’s company exposed to the whims and hunger of the wolves of Wall Street. In a climactic moment, Fox asks Gekko: “How much is enough? How many yachts can you water ski behind?”

Even though this film was mid-1980s fare, well, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Perhaps not for the actor who played Bud Fox, Charlie Sheen, who should share Natalie Portman’s Oscar for real-time transformation into the Black Swan. But for the rest of us, who have watched as greed has become the foundational structure upon which much of our modern economy is built, it is often difficult to see how we might close the Pandora’s Box and return to saner times. You know, back when being Donald Trump wasn’t considered an asset in a hair-club-for-men commercial, much less a race to be President of the United States.

There is nowhere this greed is more pervasive than among those companies responsible for the health of roughly 300 million of Americans - Big Pharma. You know, the guys who got a better sweetheart deal from George Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit than Ana Nicole Smith did from that old rich guy.

Later, re-importation from Canada and bulk negotiation for Medicare prescription drugs were written out of any Obama health-care plan, even though each was at the heart of Democratic Party campaign promises in 2006 and 2008.

Maybe money can not buy you love - but the halls of Congress have a more Heidi-Fleiss-kind-of ethic to them.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (4799)

PLAYS: (14329)

Embed

David Sirota observes in his column this week the really ugly nature of Glenn Beck's express hatred of progressives, embodied in his CPAC speech:

To wild applause, he labeled this alleged tumor of "community" the supposedly evil "progressivism" -- and he told disciples to "eradicate it" from the nation.

The lesson was eminently clear, coming in no less than the keynote address to one of America's most important political conventions. Beck taught us that a once-principled conservative movement of reasoned activists has turned into a mob -- one that does not engage in civilized battles of ideas. Instead, these torch-carriers, gun-brandishers and tea partiers follow an anti-government terrorist attack by cheering a demagogue's demand for the physical annihilation of those with whom he disagrees -- namely anyone, but particularly progressives, who value "community."

No doubt, some conservatives will parse, insisting Beck was only endorsing the "eradication" of progressivism but not of progressives. These same willful ignoramuses will also likely say that the Nazis' beef was with Judaism but not Jews, and that white supremacists dislike African-American culture but have no problem with black people.

Other conservatives will surely depict Beck's "eradication" line as just the jest of a self-described "rodeo clown" -- merely the "fusion of entertainment and enlightenment," as his radio motto intones. But if Beck is half as smart as he incessantly tells listeners he is, then he knows it's no joke.

What he's describing, of course, is the very subject of my last book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right:

What motivates this kind of talk and behavior is called eliminationism: a politics and a culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas in favor of the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through suppression, exile, and ejection, or extermination.

Rhetorically, eliminationism takes on certain distinctive shapes. It always depicts its opposition as beyond the pale, the embodiment of evil itself, unfit for participation in their vision of society, and thus worthy of elimination. It often further depicts its designated Enemy as vermin (especially rats and cockroaches) or diseases, and disease-like cancers on the body politic. A close corollary—but not as nakedly eliminationist—are claims that opponents are traitors or criminals and that they pose a threat to our national security.

Eliminationism is often voiced as crude "jokes," a sense of humor inevitably predicated on venomous hatred. And such rhetoric—we know as surely as we know that night follows day—eventually begets action, with inevitably tragic results.

Beck actually has been engaging in eliminationist rhetoric in attacking progressives since June of last year, though he's been recently ratcheting it down to new depths.

I compiled the video above with a sampling from the past nine months. In it, you can see Beck call progressives a "cancer" (multiple times), "the disease that's killing us," a "virus," a "parasite," "vampires" who will "suck the life out" of the Democratic Party, and claim that progressives intend the "destruction of the Constitution" and will strike it a "death blow".

As Sirota notes, Beck is taking us down a certain path with this kind of rhetoric, and it always, as Beck himself puts it, "ends badly."

David Sirota with a really insightful piece on the forces opposing progressive reform. Please note: as he points out, Blue Dogs are not actually constrained by their constituents. It's all about the money!

The health care debate has reminded us that there really are three separate but coordinated armies that defend the status quo in Washington - and will defend that status quo, whether on health care or any other economic issue. In my newspaper column today, I look at who these factions are, and what their motives are. You can read the column here.

In a nutshell, you have the Land Rover Liberals, many coming from the 14 out of 25 wealthiest congressional districts that Democrats now represent. Right now, their opposition to health care and tax reform is being led by Boulder, Colorado Rep. Jared Polis (D).

You also have the Corrupt Cowboys - those lawmakers from very poor, mostly Southern and Western parts of the country. These people give themselves Americana sounding nicknames like "Blue Dog Democrats" or "Main Street Republicans" so as to pretend their opposition to health care comes from their being down home guys "representin' the folks back home." Of course, these same lawmakers are among the most rapacious corporate fundraisers and lobbyist-connected insiders in Congress. And as I pointed out yesterday, there's no evidence that the districts and states the Corrupt Cowboys represent despise health reform by virtue of the fact that they are culturally conservative bastions. In fact, Nate Silver says there's exactly the opposite evidence:

There's not really any evidence that health care reform is unpopular in the Blue Dog districts. Although there are exceptions, most of the Blue Dog districts are fairly poor. A Quinnipiac poll released earlier this month suggested that while 53 percent of voters overall think "think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health care", 61 percent of voters making under $50,000 do. Also, while Quinnipaic did not break out the results for moderate and conservative Democrats, which are plentiful in these Districts, one can reasonably infer them. In this poll, 79 percent of liberals agreed with the statement as did 77 percent of Democrats -- not a very big difference. Since almost all liberals are Democrats and about half of all Democrats are liberals, that suggests that support for health care reform among non-liberal Democrats is something like 75 percent.

Thus, the story about the honest, god-fearing, good ol' boy cowboys opposing health care reform out of representational obligation has only been able to become conventional wisdom through the Millionaire Media - the elite national press corps, chock full of very wealthy people, that disseminates the most pernicious kind of anti-reform propaganda. These are the same people who insisted we should immediately rush $12 trillion in bailout cash out to Wall Street speculators, and who now insist that 64 years of debates over a $1 trillion health care proposal is inappropriately "rushing" health care reform. They are also the voices who are actually deriding health care reform as an inhumane proposal to legislatively waterboard the poor, persecuted richest one percent.

In the column, I look at the motives of all these groups, and give President Obama huge props for taking them on. As a sometime critic of Obama, I really think he's doing a fantastic job right now, and the news this morning from the New York Times that "the president planning trips across the country" to campaign for health care reform is just fantastic. He's going to have to take on the three groups I discuss in my column - and if he can beat them, we're going to get universal health care.

Obama will appear on the teevee tonight, further ramping up his push for healthcare reform. In the meantime, the Blue Dogs are sharpening their teeth in hopes of further weakening the bill. I'm trying to remember if they ever expressed similar concerns over funding Mr. Bush's little Middle East adventure, but I seem to be drawing a blank. Hmm.

(CNN) -- As President Obama prepares to address the nation in a primetime news conference, some sources say Democratic grumbling about his plan for health care is growing louder.

One Democratic senator told CNN that some congressional Democrats are "baffled," and another senior Democratic source told CNN that those members are frustrated that that they're not getting more specific direction from him on health care.

"We appreciate the rhetoric and his willingness to ratchet up the pressure but what most Democrats on the Hill are looking for is for the president to weigh in and make decisions on outstanding issues," the senior Democratic congressional source said.

"Instead of sending out his people and saying the president isn't ruling anything out, members would like a little bit of clarity on what he would support -- especially on how to pay for his health reform bill," the source added.

Yeah, I talked to one of the reform staffers last night, who told me the real battle now is over how to pay for it. My source tells me a lot of these "reasonable" proposals being floated in this phase have the potential to inflict long-term damage on the bill, that the work being done on the bill is so arcane and complicated that showboating congressmen don't have a clue - and don't bother to inform themselves.

The Democratic leadership had hoped the work going on behind closed doors for months could bear fruit in time for the president's news conference Wednesday night.

But multiple Democratic sources told CNN that's looking very unlikely, and one senior Democratic source said some Democratic leaders are frustrated that Senate negotiators have, "repeatedly missed deadlines."

The fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition of Democrats said Tuesday night that they reached one breakthrough on controlling the cost of health care at a meeting with Obama, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and other House Democrats.

Blue Dog Rep. Mike Ross, D-Arkansas, told reporters after the meeting that the group came to a "verbal agreement," to add a "some type of hybrid of an independent Medicare advisory council " that would set reimbursement rates for health care providers to the House Democrats' bill. He referred to the agreement as a "breakthrough."

But Ross cautioned it was only one of 10 items that the Blue Dogs wanted changed.

I read this really interesting piece on Blue Dogs by David Sirota that pretty much sums up the problem:

Continue reading »

David Sirota at Open Left:

A few weeks back, I wrote a New York Times magazine article about the populist uprising against unbridled oil and gas drilling in the Mountain West. The article highlighted a major theme in my new book, THE UPRISING. In the article, I discussed how the Bush Bureau of Land Management has thrown the principle of environmental caution overboard by opening up a huge amount of federal land to drilling. So it is with more than a little bit absurd to read this New York Times story today:

"Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years. The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states."

Do you love it? We're facing gas prices that necessitate drilling in environmentally sensitive and heretofore protected land right now, despite absolutely no evidence that it would ease current prices. Yet the Bush administration sees no dichotomy in insisting that we need to take a slow, measured approach to building solar plants, lest we don't take into account the long term environmental impact.

Pacific Views: What do the military junta in Myanmar and the Bush/Cheney regime have in common?

Discourse.net: US accused of operating secret, floating prisons.

U.S. Diplomacy: 111 countries sign a cluster bomb ban...but not the United States.

Consortiumblog: Among the many lobbyists McCain won't fire.

Intrepid Liberal Journal: Chronicling the uprising: An interview with David Sirota

Boing Boing: Screengrab from donut sleeper cell training video surfaces

Talk To Action: McSame-backer John Hagee lies to Jewish bloggers on his motives for supporting Israel. Meanwhile, the wandering maverick discovered New Orleans!

David Sirota: Congressional Democrats are now saying they will effectively thwart any effort to create a national health care program.

Threat Level: A federal court in Illinois has ruled that citizens will be able to learn if they are on the government's sprawling and error-prone terrorist watch list.

The Pump Handle: The Union of Concerned Scientists surveyed 1,586 scientists at the EPA. Unsurprisingly--if you've been paying attention-- they found that 889 of those scientists (60%) personally experienced at least one incident of political interference during the past five years

Thought Theater: Yes to tax cuts and loopholes - No to Fair Pay legislation

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: RaceWire. happening-here?, Bad Attitudes, Senate Guru