Friday Mashup (7/31/09)

First of all, best wishes to Sen. Chris Dodd for a full recovery from upcoming prostate cancer surgery (here).

Also in a medical vein, the Bucks County Courier Times tells us the following from its “Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down” segment today…

(Thumbs Up) to Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, who’s lobbying City Council for a law that would require bars to report fights to 911. The proposal follows the beating death of a Lansdale man who was pummeled and kicked outside a sports bar at Citizens Bank Park.

Oh sure – this is great. Pass a law obligating the police to call 911 and divert precious, comparatively scarce resources that could be used to save lives to break up tend to the victims of bar fights started by a bunch of drunks.

You want a more constructive idea? Well then, as noted here by Philadelphia City Controller Alan Butkovitz…

“Tele-nursing allows better prioritization of emergency responses,” said (Butkovitz). “Our fire commissioner says that 80 percent of the city’s 220,000 emergency calls each year should not be getting rescue squad response. With tele-nurses handling non-emergency 911 calls, those who have ‘drop-everything’ emergencies will have more rapid responses.”

“It is possible that the use of tele-nurses could save the city as much as $2.5 million per year and save lives,” Butkovitz reported.

Memo to the Courier-Times editorial board: stick to opining on matters “closer to home” in your typically provincial manner, since that seems to resonate better with your predominantly-right-wing audience.

Also, I’m still waiting for the howls of outrage from our corporate media punditocracy over the recent comment from departing Repug Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio that the downfall of the Republican Party has occurred because, as noted here…

“We got too many Jim DeMints and Tom Coburns,” Voinovich told the Columbus Dispatch. “It’s the southerners.”

That is easily one of the most astute remarks I’ve heard from a politician of either major party affiliation in a loooong time.

And yes, while it’s true that there are some random blog posts I found out there on the subject, I have yet to hear Messrs. Krauthammer, Kristol, Will, Cohen and their brethren weigh in (a few Google searches produced nothing).

This is typical, though; as Media Matters notes here, it is much easier for the news organizations with initials for names to focus on real or alleged Democratic missteps than it is for the Repugs.

Also, as long as we’re talking about the South, this post from kos tells us that they are primarily the individuals comprising the Obama “birthers” out there (the life forms who still agitate themselves over the fantasy that our president was not born in this country).

I would give Voinovich credit for interjecting some much-needed reality into the political discussion, but since he’s leaving, what he says really isn’t going to matter. Now saying it and then defending his words in Congress in the midst of a re-election campaign – that would be truly admirable.

I must point out the following amusing item from The National Review Online pertaining to Repug Tennessee Senator Bob Corker (here)…

Corker says President Obama recently met with him, something he appreciates. But Corker doesn’t think Obama “has his feet on the ground with regard to what appropriate health reform is.” He adds, “And he personalizes everything, it’s all, ‘I, I, I.'” Corker suspects that for Obama “doing this with some massive bill is about politics…To him, it’s about a political victory, not about doing what’s in the long-term interest of citizens.”

Here is Corker’s statement on the matter of whether or not he will vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court…

“Judge Sotomayor has an impressive background and an inspiring American story. I enjoyed meeting with her in June and let her know I would reserve judgment on her nomination until the conclusion of a fair and thorough hearings process,” said Corker. “After much deliberation and careful review, I have determined that Judge Sotomayor’s record and many of her past statements reflect a view of the Supreme Court that is different from my own. I view the Supreme Court as a body charged with impartially deciding what the law means as it is applied to a specific case. I believe Judge Sotomayor views the Supreme Court as more of a policy-making body where laws are shaped based on the personal views of the justices. Unfortunately, nothing I heard during Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings or in my meeting with her in June sufficiently allayed this concern. For this reason, I’m disappointed to say, I will not be able to support Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.”

And we’re supposed to deal seriously with these people on matters of legislation critical to our economy, our health care, and our planet in general…

And finally, I must communicate this even-more-absurd item from former Laura Bush employee Andrew Malcolm at the LA Times…

According to a new Washington Post survey, a clear majority of Americans (55%) approve of the job (Vice President Joe) Biden’s doing, perhaps because thanks to schedules like today’s, they can’t know much about what that job he’s doing actually is.

Biden’s numbers are tied closely to Americans’ belief in the economic efficacy of President Obama’s stimulus package. Those who think it’ll work, like him; those who don’t, don’t.

Those Biden approval numbers still aren’t quite as good as Dick Cheney’s April approval of 64% from a 2001 Post poll.

Oh mah gawd…

To communicate a more up-to-date approval rating on “Deadeye Dick” that actually isn’t AT LEAST EIGHT YEARS OLD, this tells us that the former veep is only slightly less popular than Cuba and Venezuela (though, as Matt Yglesias points out, “China and Russia are kicking his ass”).

Well, as least “Big Time” can look on the bright side; he’s bound to be more popular than Iran and North Korea.

On Sotomayor, It’s “Lock And Load” Time For The NRA

In an example of still more gun-related cowardice by the Democratic Party, Think Progress tells the following from here…

Noting Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment, Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) told Roll Call that that he is “undecided” on her nomination to the Supreme Court (although he added that he is “leaning toward voting in favor”). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) expressed similar uncertainty:

…

Both senators’ equivocal statements come in the wake of the NRA’s decision to “score” the Sotomayor vote in determining where each lawmaker stands on the NRA’s pro-gun agenda. The NRA claims, falsely, that because Sotomayor once upheld a New York law against a Second Amendment challenge this somehow proves that she is hostile to gun rights. That decision, however, did nothing more than apply well-established law.

Because lower-court judges are required by law to follow the commands of the Supreme Court, Sotomayor once joined an opinion which followed a Supreme Court case holding that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states. Nevertheless, the NRA launched a smear campaign against Sotomayor this month, claiming that she “deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view” in this case.

(It’s pretty sad when a Repug shows more courage than a Dem on the gun issue, by the way, as Lamar Alexander does in the Think Progress post.)

Also, as noted here, conservative judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner, both appointed by The Sainted Ronnie R, also held that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states in accordance with a prior ruling from Judge Sotomayor.

All of this comes in the wake of the vote on an amendment sponsored by Senate Repug John Thune of South Dakota here which basically would have allowed an individual who owned a firearm in a state with looser gun laws to transport it to a state and use it – and thus supersede what could be tougher laws in the state where the gun is transported – as he or she saw fit (or, as Think Progress explained, “31 states currently prohibit ‘habitual drunkards’ from carrying guns. The Thune amendment would render these provisions useless.”).

As the prior posted linked to above also tells us, the Thune Amendment was barely defeated in the Senate by a vote of 58-39; as noted here, Colorado Democratic Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet voted Yes, as well as PA’s own Bob Casey.

To me, this prompts the following question: with “Democrats” like these, who needs Republicans?

I realize that such laws pertain primarily to smaller caliber weapons, but I cannot help but wonder whether or not such an amendment by Thune or anyone else (assuming the dark day ever comes when it passes and is signed into law, thus ensuring my political opposition to any person responsible for such an atrocity, be they a Dem or a Repug) could somehow make it easier for someone to sneak a decidedly more lethal weapon (such as an assault rifle) into a public place.

And with that in mind, I should note that last July 18th marked the 25th anniversary of the San Ysidro, CA McDonald’s massacre, in which James Oliver Huberty murdered 22 people (including himself) and injured 19 with a 9 mm Uzi semi-automatic (the primary weapon fired in the massacre), a Winchester pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, and a 9 mm Browning HP (as noted here by Wikipedia).

I tried really hard to find some principled Democratic opposition to the NRA and the pro-gun forces in this country, but unfortunately, aside from Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York, I couldn’t. However, I was able to find the following from columnist Mark Shields here from last April, in which a legendary Repug with whom I frequently disagreed spoke what I would call “truth to power” on assault weapons…

Washington and the leadership of both political parties in the city need a collective vertebrae transplant. Just listen to what one of the country’s great conservative leaders, the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., said about these assault weapons in 1990: “I am completely opposed to selling automatic weapons. I don’t see any reason why they ever made semi-automatics. I’ve been a member of the NRA. I collect, make and shoot guns. I’ve never used an automatic or a semi-automatic for hunting. There’s no need to. They have no place in anybody’s arsenal.”

So much for the sportsman’s argument for assault rifles of the kind that the Binghamton (NY) killer used to fire, according to police, 98 shots in one minute.

Shortly before Goldwater made his position so abundantly clear, the then-California Attorney General John Van de Kamp, a Democrat, stood on the floor of the Assembly in Sacramento holding in his hands an AK-47 semi-automatic weapon and said to the legislative body’s 80 members: “Ladies and gentlemen, take a look at your watches and start counting. You are lucky that I am the attorney general and not some nut. Because if I had the ammunition, I could shoot every member of the Assembly by the time I finish this sentence — about 20 seconds.”

But 1994 will forever be remembered as the year when Democrats lost their heart for standing up to the gun lobby. The Democratic-controlled Congress and President Bill Clinton had enacted a ban on 19 types of automatic weapons. That ban had passed the House on a 216-214 vote, guided by the then-Clinton White House adviser (and now Obama White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel — and it was blamed by many Democrats for their party’s November loss, for the first time in 40 years, of House control.

(By the way, I read the comments to Shields’ column, one of which chided him for not knowing the difference – as far as the commenter was concerned – between a fully-automatic machine gun and a semi-automatic rifle…as if that would have made any of the victims described by Shields “less dead” as a result.)

And on the matter of the Dems’ ’94 loss of Congress owing to the assault weapons ban, I thought New York Times editorialist Dorothy Samuels made the following good points last May here…

It is hard to make a case that the assault weapons ban was decisive in 1994.

The law certainly enraged many N.R.A. members and might explain the loss of certain Democratic seats. However, there were other major factors in the Democrats’ 1994 loss, starting with perceived Democratic arrogance and corruption (overdrafts at the House bank came to symbolize that).

Add to that voter unhappiness with Mr. Clinton’s budget, his health care fiasco, the Republican Party’s success in recruiting appealing candidates, and that ingenious Republican vehicle for nationalizing the elections known as the “Contract With America.” The contract, by the way, did not mention guns.

Mr. Clinton’s successful 1996 re-election campaign actually stressed his gun control achievements. James and Sarah Brady spoke in prime time at the ’96 Democratic convention, and Clinton campaign ads trumpeted his role in enacting the assault weapons ban and the ’93 Brady law requiring background checks for gun buyers.

And returning to the Shields column once more, I would advise Casey, Udall, Bennet and the other “chicken Dems” on this issue to read the following…

President Obama has long been on record for a permanent ban on assault weapons. But one respected Capitol Hill Democrat, a longtime champion of gun control, despairs: “These (recent) killings have, unfortunately, not moved the needle.”

What would be required to get this Congress to act? “It would take at least a major massacre of kindergarteners.”

I can think of no more damning indictment of our politicians – and really, our country’s collective retreat on this issue – than that.

Some “Stugots” By The Murdoch Street Journal On Corzine (updates)

I have to tell you that William McGurn’s editorial rant today about the New Jersey governor’s campaign conjures up some odious ethnic stereotyping, so be prepared; God forbid that you criticize the rich as far as Rupert and his minions are concerned, though, lest you engage in “class warfare.”

And the timing of such propaganda definitely favors McGurn, given the recent revelations here about the 44 individuals swept up in a corruption probe centered in Brooklyn, N.Y.; Deal, N.J. (how apropos); and Israel (they include three mayors, two state lawmakers and several rabbis…and apparently, a whole bunch of black market kidneys hawking $160G apiece – Gail Collins of the New York Times had an uproarious column about this last Saturday…and yes, I know it really isn’t funny).

Here is some of what McGurn said ostensibly about New Jersey (in a column written in Rome, thus giving him an excuse to compare the “Garden State” machinations to that which currently embroil Italian Prime Minister “Uh Oh” Silvio Berlusconi…note: I used to track the “ups and downs” of Italy’s most famous – and probably most notorious – politician, but my time grew short and his excesses grew too large, so I gave up).

Much depends on (Corzine’s Repug Gubernatorial challenger Chris) Christie. As a U.S. Attorney, Mr. Christie put scores of dirty New Jersey officials behind bars. And his lead in the polls—one of them puts it at 12 points—is bound to widen with the indictment of so many officials from his opponent’s political party in an investigation he initiated.

Really? Christie supposedly got this ball rolling, as they say? Well then, he should have been featured prominently in the MSNBC story (if you search for his name in the story, though, you’ll find Christie isn’t featured – or even mentioned – at all).

And by the way, as noted here, the Christie Campaign a Christie ally is facing bribery allegations; we also learn the following…

You may recall that the corpulent Christie recently hit some head winds with revelations of his authorizing tracking people through their cell phones without first obtaining a warrant when he was district attorney (as the ACLU charges), the $50 million no-bid contract he gave to John Ashcroft (John Ashcroft was the U.S. Attorney General in 2003 when the decision not to prosecute Chris Christie’s brother Todd Christie for insider trading was made, though everyone else in the scandal was prosecuted), and the no bid contract he gave to David Kelley, also on the Todd Christie case.

And that doesn’t even mention Christie’s treatment of Essex County executive James Treffinger, a popular Republican who spent more than six hours in handcuffs and leg shackles allegedly because he made a comment about Christie’s “hulking frame,” as noted here.

Back to McGurn…

But even harder than winning an election will be transforming the New Jersey political culture. If he is to succeed as governor, (Christie) will need to use the remaining time in the campaign to build public support for a radical reform agenda. Primarily this requires bringing home to Garden State voters something he does not yet seem to recognize himself: the link between his program to fight corruption and his program to revive the state’s economy.

And we all know the reason, don’t we, according to McGurn (wait for it)…

That link has to do with reducing Big Government. Big Government is why New Jersey created only 6,800 private sector jobs from 2000 to 2007—while public sector jobs grew by more than 55,800. Big Government is the reason New Jersey ranks as the worst of 50 states on the Small Business Survival Index. And Big Government is a leading reason New Jersey has a “corruption problem” that an FBI agent at Friday’s press conference characterized as “one of the worst, if not the worst, in the nation.”

See, as far as McGurn is concerned, Big Government = Fewer Private Sector Jobs = More Crime. Got that?

However, I think the following should be considered (from here)…

Adjusted for population, New Jersey’s in the middle of the pack (in terms of private sector job losses). Twenty-six states have had larger declines in private-sector employment than New Jersey’s 3.82% drop over the last 15 months. Twenty-three states and Washington, D.C., are faring better, including three – Alaska, North Dakota, D.C., Wyoming and Louisiana — that have added jobs in that time.

Since the Democrats took control of the New Jersey governor’s office in 2002 (including the tenures of Jim McGreevey and Dick Codey), the state is down 86,900 private-sector jobs. Only three states have lost more. Six states have had bigger declines than the state’s 2.56% drop since January ‘02.

Actually, at this point, I very reluctantly have to give McGurn a bit of a nod here, particularly since the bottom line is that only eight states have lost more private sector jobs than New Jersey because the line about only six states losing more private sector jobs is telling indeed.

I try to avoid posting on the Garden State since it has its own – how shall I put it – peculiar political environment, and what inevitably happens is that voters, probably out of abject disgust more than any other reason, “return to the fold” and vote Democratic come election time.

However, that is entirely problematic this time around (particularly with Christie leading Corzine here by 12 points, as noted here; again, I have to “give the devil his due” and point out that McGurn is right on that number). Also, Corzine recently signed a stimulus bill of sorts for New Jersey which, as noted here, is opposed by New Jersey Policy Perspective, a Trenton-based liberal think tank, and the Sierra Club of New Jersey (if you’re a Dem seeking re-election, those definitely are NOT groups that you want opposing you instead of supporting you).

In short, there are legitimate reasons to criticize the job performance of Governor Jon Corzine (who, like all governors, has to deal with the worst economic climate this country has seen in about 70 years – Dubya’s “gift that keeps on giving”…and by the way, I admire the hell out of him for this). However, you’d have to be a real “mook” to blame it solely on some stereotypical, and rather cartoonish, criminal (in all likelihood) behavior.

Update 8/12/09: Hmmm, Christie and Turd Blossom, huh?

Update 8/18/09: Christie’s bad week continues.

Update 8/19/09: Somehow I don’t quite think “oops” covers this on Christie.

Update 8/22/09: Is it just me, or is Christie’s whole “law and order” facade starting to crumble (here)?

Update 8/24/09: Is the Christie juggernaut “off the rails” (here)?

Update 9/5/09: Christie is nothing but a bully and a thug (here – h/t The Daily Kos).

Update 9/6/09: It’s getting harder to keep up with all of the Christie revelations (here and here…this guy shouldn’t be running for dog catcher, let alone governor of New Jersey).

Update 9/12/09: And it sounds like Christie’s running mate has a case of foot-in-mouth disease herself (here).

Update 9/24/09: Not an appearance of wrongdoing by Christie on this, but interesting anyway,

Jimbo “Hits The Showers” For Good

Via Mark Halperin at The Page (and USA Today here), it seems that longtime Repug Senator Jim “High And Tight” Bunning has taken the hint from John Cornyn, Sen. Mr. Elaine Chao and his other “peeps” and, at long last, decided to fade into the GOP sunset.

(Hey, Bunning looks absolutely honorable compared to his fellow Repug Sen. John Ensign and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who would have long since given up their respective public lives had they a shred of decency.)

However, since we are talking about Jim Bunning here, you can be sure that his departure will not be graceful; according to the statement published in USA Today, he blamed “some of the leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate (who) have done everything in their power to dry up my fundraising” (tee hee). Also, according to Bunning, “Kentuckians should know that I will continue to be a strong voice against the domestic policies pushed by the White House and Congress that – if enacted – will put this country on the path to socialism.”

The mantra of The Party of No, my fellow prisoners…

Actually, the Repugs are getting off a bit lucky, considering that Bunning threatened to quit here in March, promising he “would get the last laugh. Don’t forget Kentucky has a Democrat governor,” one of the sources quoted Bunning as saying (meaning that, if Bunning walked, his replacement would surely have been a Dem).

Classy all the way, Jim…

And I’m sure his fellow party members didn’t want to see a repeat of the behavior described here from his 2004 campaign, which looked like a walk until Jim started “hearing voices,” thus trimming his once-insurmountable lead to a mere six percentage points…

First, (Bunning) compared (Democratic long-shot challenger Daniel) Mongiardo’s appearance to one of Saddam Hussein’s sons. Then he made an unsubstantiated claim that opposition staffers beat his wife “black and blue” at a political picnic.

… Bunning (also) backed out of a televised debate with Mongiardo, giving the relatively unknown Democrat 30 minutes of air time. Bunning joined another debate via a satellite hookup from Washington, where he read his opening and closing statements from a teleprompter. An executive of the TV station that broadcast the debate called Bunning’s use of a teleprompter “despicable,” according to the Washington Post.

And as noted here (from December ’08)…

Bunning was invited to a sports card show in Taylor, Michigan to sign autographs. “But Bunning was kicked off the schedule after he helped derail an auto-industry loan package in the Senate”

At least he was consistent in opposing both that and the TARP bailout, as noted here…consistently wrong, but consistent.

And as noted here, Bunning also held up the appointment of R. David Paulison as the head of FEMA in 2006 a month or two before the beginning of hurricane season (with the horrors of Katrina and Rita still fresh in everyone’s minds, to say nothing of the people whose lives were ruined in the process).

And who can forget, upon Senate passage of the so-called Patriot Act despite the brave, valiant opposition of Russ Feingold, Bunning’s remark that “civil liberties don’t mean much when you’re dead” here?

The Repugs could afford Bunning’s antics when they rode high and mightily roughshod over our political discourse and our national institutions of government, and many statehouses as well. They can ill afford them at this moment as our country marches in the opposite direction, leaving their precious coalition of “values voters,” government do-nothings and greed head capitalists hopelessly fractured.

As Bunning knows full well, all successful major league baseball pitchers (which he definitely was for a time) have to rely on guile (an effective curveball or slider) and power (the fastball) to be effective.

Well, there really wasn’t much craft in the positions he advocated or the government policies and legislation he supported (the subtle part, if you will). And considering that that left him with only one weapon, it was only a matter of time before he “ran out of heat.”

(And by the way, my compliments to another of Bunning’s departing Repug peers, Sen. George Voinovich, for echoing what I’ve pretty much been saying all along here.)

Sometimes You Feel Like A Nut

There are times when I just give up trying to engage those on “the right,” particularly when video is readily available to make the case for me instead. And this is one of those times.

What appears below shows a supposed clash between some teabaggers in Long Island, New York and a large, angry African American male who may or may not be affiliated with ACORN (background here). Then, you see one of the teabaggers telling a reporter that “this isn’t racial,” or words to that effect, even though the African American male is not identified, and a clip is shown a few seconds later of some African American women in a slightly agitated state (again, they are not identified as members of ACORN, and it is not at all clear who they are arguing with).

Though I categorically disagree with the teabaggers as much as you can imagine, I do not begrudge them the right to carry out their antics as long as no one is getting hurt; actually, it just further dramatizes how much of a radical fringe they truly are. But as is usually the case, they claim once to be “oppressed” as they “triumph” against those with whom they disagree.

Also, I have a feeling that even posting about this will generate the same response that I endured over that gun post a month or so ago (wasn’t even much work on my part, which is one of the reasons why I didn’t care about deleting it). And I wish to emphasize that I do not claim to know everything and have no issue whatsoever with a lively discussion with people telling me that they think I’m wrong. However, if I have to shut down the comments again, it is because I have neither the time nor the desire to try and refute personal attacks, as well as deal with remarks about assassinating the president (which is what happened last time).

All I will say is that, somehow, we are supposed to achieve something approximating “bipartisanship” with these people. If you have a clue as to how I’m supposed to do that without total capitulation to them, please let me know.

Finally, I wonder if anyone asked Midnight Oil if it was OK to use their song?

White Like Them

This video goes out to Pat Buchanan, Sgt. Joe Crowley, firefighter Frank Ricci and the Valley Swim Club.

And in other non-news for Caucasians, today was Just Plan Folks Sarah Palin’s Last Day As Governor Dontcha Know; even though she confirmed and denied nothing and did the same for the occasion, this “story” was the headline everywhere I went online today.

Update 8/1/09: More from Bob Herbert here…

A “Remedy” For An Obama AP Health Care Harangue?

I read a good portion of this “analysis” of the efforts of the Obama Administration to address the pivotal crises it inherited from Bushco, and I found myself wondering how long it took writer Tom Raum to recycle what he’d discovered in other reports, link to some other sympathetic quotes or sources, press ENTER, and then subsequently retire to a watering hole of his choosing.

(And to think, these jokers are creating a registry to track unauthorized use of their laughable content, as noted here.)

Yes, I will grant you that there is anxiety out there concerning how our president (who has been in office for all of six months and three days, let’s not forget) is managing the economy and the Dems’ attempts at health care reform (to say nothing of two other wars and coordinating with Congress on cap-and-trade legislation, among other matters), but I will attempt to provide the detail in this post concerning those issues that Raum, for whatever reason, did not.

To begin, this recent Gallup Poll tells us that about three quarters of those Dems polled approve of Obama’s handling of health care policy, though he is down 50-44 with independent voters (and do you really need to ask what Repug voters think?). Basically, the Dem and Repug numbers are a wash, and the independent numbers are representative of everyone as a whole.

And Bob Cesca tells us the following from here…

In a July 14 Gallup Poll, 86 percent of Americans think it’s “extremely important” for healthcare reform to include allowing them to get insurance regardless of employment or medical status. 58 percent support taxing the rich to pay for healthcare. And we all know about the super-majority support for the public option.

In a June Gallup poll, only 34 percent of Americans are confident in the Republicans to make the right decisions on healthcare policy. In fact, Americans are one percent less confident in Republicans than they are in the health insurance companies. That’s pretty crappy.

So one thing’s for sure, we don’t want what the Republicans are offering. And we broadly support significant changes in the healthcare system. The fact that the president is upside-down only indicates that, while on the right track, he isn’t pushing this with the ferocity it demands.

Well, I would say that that changed this week with his press conference (no other reason to give an idiot like Jim DeMint the time of day), setting the stage for what is described here in August as a “month even more heated and critical in the reform process” (and another media appearance followed, as noted here in the New York Times, from Reuters).

I believe, though, that the issue that is really preventing Obama and the congressional Dems from taking charge on this is the cost (yes, a “master of the obvious” realization, I know). And in an effort to get as much of an understanding of the numbers as I could (truly a daunting task), I navigated here to the OMB site listing the projected fiscal year numbers, and discovered the following:

The United States spends over $2.2 trillion on health care each year—almost $8,000 per person. That number represents approximately 16 percent of the total economy and is growing rapidly. If we do not act soon, by 2017, almost 20 percent of the economy—more than $4 trillion—will be spent on health care.

To help physicians get the information they need to provide the highest quality care for patients, the Recovery Act of 2009 devotes $1.1 billion to comparative effectiveness research—the reviews of evidence on competing medical interventions and new head-to-head trials. The information from this research will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system.

The President has devoted in the Recovery Act an unprecedented $1 billion for prevention and wellness interventions. This will dramatically expand community-based interventions proven to reduce chronic diseases.

… the Budget sets aside a reserve fund of more than $630 billion over 10 years that will be dedicated towards financing reforms to our health care system.

The reserve fund is financed by a combination of rebalancing the tax code so that the wealthiest pay more as well as specific health care savings in three areas: promoting efficiency and accountability, aligning incentives towards quality and better care, and encouraging shared responsibility. Taken together, the health care savings would total $316 billion over 10 years while improving the quality and efficiency of health care, without negatively affecting the care Americans receive.

This is good stuff (and let’s not take for granted the fact that this administration has really made the effort to crunch out the numbers on its proposals perhaps more thoroughly than any other in my memory with the exception of the Clintonites…I don’t have an exact number on how many are now working for Obama, but I’m sure it’s more than a few).

However, I have two observations:

1) I sincerely hope the President has a backup plan for financing the reserve fund if the one he proposes here goes up in smoke. As far as I’m concerned, there should be a sliding scale of individual payment rates based on earned income for all workers in this country, not just “the rich” (they should pay more, but to me, that doesn’t mean that anyone under, say, $250G a year, should get off with nothing).

And please understand that the last thing I want to do here is pay more in taxes, but I think we need to be realistic. I’d propose a three-year tax which would be the equivalent of a nice, healthy round of “V.C.” funding for a startup enterprise, and then the reserve fund should be forced to manage itself based on what would likely be employer payments when companies realize it costs less to pay into the public plan – a public plan is most definitely assumed here, people – than to negotiate health insurance with private carriers on its own.

(Also, the one person here who has been virtually silent in all of this is Max Baucus, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee. I’m quite sure that he is leading the effort to crunch out some of the numbers I’m noting here, and with any luck, he’ll present them first to his own party before the Repugs, as noted here.)

2) I navigated to the administration’s healthreform.gov site, and I should point out that there is a pretty cool interactive map of this country by state telling you about current and projected health care costs for those working and unemployed, and it’s sourced pretty thoroughly also. However (and I know this is tough), what I think this site should contain are links with some “ballpark” estimates of, again, how much all of this will cost (for employed and unemployed workers, for families, small and large business owners, etc., as well as the cost of doing nothing). And those numbers should be presented graphically in chart form (preferably pie charts or bar graphs – that seems to be the easiest format to digest).

I think the Obama Administration is relying too much here on the president’s oratorical skills and his commendable efforts to communicate the misery suffered by those who lost their health insurance through their employers. That is certainly a big part of the story, but the “numbers” piece that I believe is largely missing (despite the command of this information by President Obama, as Paul Krugman noted here today) is what’s causing some of the approval numbers to skew downward.

And as a result, this gives the Party of No more reason to scream in protest, thus obscuring once more the impact the health care crisis is having on our economy (here and here).

And speaking of the economy, the AP’s Raum tells us the following in his column…

Job losses have now wiped out all the job gains since the last recession in 2001, the first time that has happened since the 1930s.

Pretty funny that Raum points that out actually, given the fact that, if you search on “Bush” in his article, you find out that the word doesn’t exist (as all good Repugs know, the economy is all Obama’s fault).

(Oh yes, I’ll be sooo hurt if the AP tells me that I’m not authorized to use their content; not linking to them will do wonders for the cause of informed dialogue.)

Update 1: Hat tip to profmarcus at TakeItPersonally for this (it makes me gag that some of these people profess to believe the same things I do).

Update 2: Potty mouth Jane H. articulates how I feel about the “Bush Dogs” perfectly on all issues (particularly, though, on health care) at the end here (h/t Atrios).

A Health Care Reminder

Just to make sure we don’t end up “taking our eye off the ball” on this (it was around this time in the whole “development cycle,” if you will, when the Clinton health plan went up in smoke, and I’m sure that isn’t lost on the Dems who now claim to be bewildered by how Obama is acting – not sure what else they could expect from him, though).

Try Driving To Stay Alive Instead

Over the last few days, the New York Times has provided extensive coverage on the issue of driving while talking on a cell phone (hands-on or hands-free) and texting (Matt Richtel is the author of the thorough reporting on this issue, particularly last Sunday but today also).

Last Sunday’s report featured the following information…

A 2003 Harvard study estimated that cell phone distractions caused 2,600 traffic deaths every year, and 330,000 accidents that result in moderate or severe injuries.

Yet Americans have largely ignored that research. Instead, they increasingly use phones, navigation devices and even laptops to turn their cars into mobile offices, chat rooms and entertainment centers, making roads more dangerous.

A disconnect between perception and reality worsens the problem. New studies show that drivers overestimate their own ability to safely multitask, even as they worry about the dangers of others doing it.

Device makers and auto companies acknowledge the risks of multitasking behind the wheel, but they aggressively develop and market gadgets that cause distractions.

Police in almost half of all states make no attempt to gather data on the problem. They are not required to ask drivers who cause accidents whether they were distracted by a phone or other device. Even when officers do ask, some drivers are not forthcoming.

The federal government warns against talking on a cell phone while driving, but no state legislature has banned it. This year, state legislators introduced about 170 bills to address distracted driving, but passed fewer than 10.

Five states and the District of Columbia require drivers who talk on cell phones to use hands-free devices, but research shows that using headsets can be as dangerous as holding a phone because the conversation distracts drivers from focusing on the road.

Oh, and as noted here (and as Richtel tells us today), the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration recommended in 2002 and 2003 that cell phones not be used except in emergencies. However, as the story tells us, “that recommendation was kept from the public, partly over worries that members of Congress and other public officials would consider the proposal a move by the NHTSA that ‘crossed the line into lobbying,’” The New York Times reported, according to MSNBC (as noted here, the NHTSA administrator at the time was Dr. Jeffrey Runge).

(Bushco, working to screw you over, as always – even though they’re gone, their wretched legacy lives on).

The Times’ Sunday story began with the tale of Christopher Hill, a good driver and a good person by all appearances who experienced a horrendous lapse in judgment when talking on a cell phone; he ran a red light in his Ford Ranger pickup truck and didn’t notice Linda Doyle, a driver in a small sport utility vehicle, until the last second. As the story tells us, Hill hit her going 45 miles per hour (and) she was pronounced dead shortly after the accident.

The story also tells us that David Strayer, a psychology professor at the University of Utah and a leading researcher in the field of distracted driving, said “we’ve spent billions on air bags, antilock brakes, better steering, safer cars and roads, but the number of fatalities has remained constant…Our return on investment for those billions is zero (because) we’re using devices in our cars.”

And the story also tells us that that goes for hands-free phones also (echoing today’s findings), which also demands more of our time behind the wheel than we can spare when trying to avoid accidents on the road.

Also…

Some states have overcome opposition to pass restrictions. Joe Simitian, a state senator in California, managed to get his hands-free legislation, an effort he began in 2001, passed in 2006. He argued, based on data collected by the California Highway Patrol, that drivers using cell phones caused more fatalities than all the drivers distracted by eating, children, pets or personal hygiene.

In each previous year, the bill was killed — after lobbying by cell phone carriers, including Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile. Mr. Simitian said that in the first two years, he would visit the offices of his colleagues on the Transportation Committee on the day of the vote and “find three cell phone industry lobbyists sitting in the legislator’s office,” Mr. Simitian said. “They’d just smile.”

He said they fought him even though their brochures said that distracted driving was dangerous. The exception was Verizon Wireless, which supported his efforts from the start.

Opposition gradually eased, and his bill requiring use of headsets while driving took effect in July 2008. In the first six months the California law was in effect, a preliminary California Highway Patrol estimate showed that fatalities dropped 12.5 percent — saving 200 lives. Mr. Simitian said it was too soon to determine whether the law or other factors caused the drop.

Mr. Simitian said one reason political opposition eased was that fellow legislators saw the dangers firsthand. “They’d come to me and say: ‘You may be bringing me around. I almost got creamed at the corner,’ ” he recalled.

For its part, the cell phone industry trade group said it had dropped its objection to restricting cell phone use by drivers — it now is neutral on the subject — because it decided the industry should play no role in trying to shape public policy on the issue. “The change came after we had an epiphany that, if you will, we’re in the business of providing service, and how they use that service is at their discretion,” said Mr. Walls, the industry spokesman.

But Mr. Windsor from Nationwide Mutual and others are skeptical of the cell phone industry’s explanation. They believe its position changed because its business has changed to rely less on total minutes that people spend talking. Cell phone companies’ growth is coming more from customers surfing the Internet, downloading games and using other data services — things that people typically do less of behind the wheel.

Mr. Simitian believes that a ban on talking on cell phones while driving would save even more lives. But he hasn’t proposed one, and has no plans to. “It’s a political nonstarter,” he said. “It’ll be a cold day in hell before people give up their phones altogether in cars.”

At this point, I need to share the following observation. We recently drove the Doomsymobile to the Jersey shore and back as well as to the Phillies game and back on Monday and counted about half a dozen people playing with their cell phones looking to retrieve messages, check a contact list, or God knows what else. And they were doing this both while stuck in traffic and trying to maintain their speed on the highway (and I’ve lost count of the number of distracted drivers I have to share the road with who are engrossed in cell phone conversations).

(I don’t know if anyone else out there besides me is old enough to remember this, but back when high schools offered driver education – I don’t know whether that has been chopped from school budgets or not, but if it has, it should be reinstituted – a requirement of the training was to watch this horrendously scary short film called “Signal 30” I believe, which shows the aftermath of an auto accident. As far as I’m concerned, this should be required viewing for anyone attempting to receive a driver’s license.)

Now that I’m finished with my rant on this subject, I’ll provide this link to a post with extensive information on PA cell phone legislation, and this tells us of a cell phone driving bill that was recently defeated in the PA State House by a narrow margin (and yes, people do a whole host of nutty things behind the wheel, and I’ll admit that I haven’t exactly been a “saint” either at times, but the amendment offered by Rep Chris Ross concerning “changing the CD in a car, eating or drinking while driving, shaving, putting on makeup and driving with your pet animal on your lap” is just a bit of overkill).

I realize that, ultimately, what we are trying to do here is legislate good behavior (a quixotic effort at best, I know), particularly given that the whole “gadgets” biz cares only about feeding our perceived need to endanger our lives while we entertain ourselves (and a spot-on column by MoDo today amplifies that point also).

What we need, however, is a “push back” of common sense in response (and let us all hope and pray for no more lost lives before that day finally arrives).

Tuesday Mashup Part 1 (7/21/09)

I guess I shouldn’t when all is said and done, but I feel sorry for PA Governor Ed Rendell.

As noted in this Wikipedia article, Pennsylvania’s minority and women owned business participation rate quadrupled under his administration. He also managed to save $180 million by fixing PA’s antiquated procurement system (“antiquated” is an apt term for much of our state government, by the way). Also under his watch, gaming legislation was passed in an effort to reduce property tax revenue, which, despite some of my reservations, is a good thing on balance. Also, as noted here from a year ago, he presciently called for the development of an infrastructure bank, and as noted here, he has been a steadfast force in the Herculean effort of trying to enact common sense gun legislation in this state (though he was a bit too kind to the life forms who wanted to hang Philadelphia state rep Angel Cruz here).

However, Rendell now holds a 39 percent approval rating largely due to the budget wrangling going on in Harrisburg, as noted here (hey, it could be worse – we could be “Gullyvornia” here, people), and he is now reduced to the role of running interference for fellow “Democrat” Arlen Specter as the latter tries desperately to hang onto his Senate seat in the face of a challenge from Joe Sestak, among others, as noted here.

All of this leads me to believe that there will be a backlash of sorts next year when the Dems have to play defense in the 2010 elections, including in the Pennsylvania state house. And though I’m not sure what else Rendell could have done to avoid it, I have this unpleasant suspicion that he will end up marking off his remaining days while the Repug faithful await the gubernatorial coronation of Tom Corbett next year (please let me be wrong…).

And speaking of Corbett, it seems that Bucks County’s own commissioner Jim Cawley is making noises as if he wants to be Lieutenant Governor in a Corbett administration, according to this story in the Bucks County Courier Times, which has gone “the full wingnut” lately, with stories such as “Conservative Activism On The Rise” and “Conservatives Decry Obama Policies” by Gary Weckselblatt as well as a spread devoted to a Pat Toomey/Simon Campbell/Kathleen Zawacki fundraiser at Shady Brook Farm.

(Yes, I understand these are coverage-worthy topics, but I don’t recall so much column space EVER devoted to Democratic/progressive causes or meetings leading up to the 2006 or 2008 presidential or congressional elections.)

Well, as it turns out, Cawley and his fellow commissioner playmate, Charley “I Have A Semi-Open Mind” Martin, worked in concert with fellow poobah (and county operations officer) Dave Sanko to “(hire) two employees without publicly advertising those open positions or interviewing anyone other than those who got the nod for the jobs,” as the Courier Times tells us here (one position was a $30,992-a-year job as an administrative assistant for the public information office, and the other was a $19-an-hour position for a legal secretary – the whole matter was aptly summed up by the other commissioner, Dem Diane Marseglia, as “policy as usual”).

By the way, the same “Thumbs Down” editorial criticizing Cawley and Martin also criticizes Rendell for saying that “one year” of incarceration for disgraced PA Dem Senator Vince Fumo would have been enough (he ended up with a 55-month sentence). I didn’t like Fumo’s creation of phantom jobs and other acts of taxpayer malfeasance, as well as hiring someone to spy for him on our dime (I should object to his shaking down of Exelon Energy also, though it’s hard to work up sympathy for them as well). However, I thought reporter Dave Davies of the Philadelphia Daily News made the following good points in a July 15th story (link expired on me – another genius Tierney move to combat those dastardly search sites stealing his precious circulation, or so he believes)…

We should remember that Fumo isn’t getting away clean. He’s lost his office, his reputation and his law license, and will be ravaged by multimillion-dollar legal fees and restitution payments.

Indeed, the sight of Fumo in court yesterday was pitiful. He sat between his fiancée and daughter, often clutching the hands of both. His expression was vacant, and a facial tremor became more acute as the day wore on. His lawyers say he’s now dependent on tranquilizers.

When he rose to speak with Buckwalter, his voice was soft and he began to weep almost immediately. For those who remember Fumo in his blustering and confident prime, it was shocking to behold.

And Fumo will serve four years in prison, a significant term for a 66-year-old man in poor health.

Just sayin’, that’s all…

And finally, I should note that while I was away, Repug U.S. House Rep of PA-16 Joe Pitts actually showed a pulse and did something besides vote No; he concocted this screed full of “values voter” red meat about how the coming health care legislation from Obama and the congressional Dems is going to (wait for it…) MANDATE ABORTION ON DEMAND!! OMIGOD!!!

Well, for the reality-based point of view, here is the following from Judy Berman of Salon.com…

In the depressingly titled piece “Could Abortion Coverage Sink Health-Care Reform?” Time’s Karen Tumulty reminds us that, since 1976, The Hyde Amendment has prohibited Medicaid from using federal funding for abortion. But now that massive healthcare reform is on the agenda once again, lawmakers will have a chance to tackle the issue anew.

…

What’s truly chilling about Tumulty’s piece is its warning about the widespread effects of banning federal funding for abortion under Obama’s healthcare plan. While The Hyde Amendment was only concerned with Medicaid, the new legislation may also affect women who use government subsidies to buy private health plans. “[I]f the antiabortion legislators get their way, those subsidies would have a big string attached; they could not be used to purchase a policy that has abortion coverage,” Tumulty writes. “For many women, that would mean giving up a benefit they now have under their private insurance policies. And it would raise all sorts of other questions if insurers were allowed to discriminate among their customers based on whether or not they are using federal dollars to pay for their policies.”

And as Berman notes, any legislation banning federal funding for abortion will impact poor women significantly more than women who already have this benefit from private coverage.

So, as usual, Pitts, being the dutiful Repug cipher that he is, claims oppression while he and his brethren maneuver out of the spotlight to actually expand Hyde and take away a right already guaranteed to women with coverage they already have.

All of which is part and parcel of following the marching orders noted here.