With the Brown win in MA. Democrats are reeling. Their agenda is in danger of falling off a cliff due to the 41 seat minority the Republicans hold in the US Senate. I would like to suggest the following points for consideration:
We need to define our agenda before the Republicans define it for us. The health care bill was demonized without pushing back.
We need to stick to our principles and avoid compromising them for the elusive 60th vote.
We need to write letters to our local newspapers letting people know about how our agenda is one that can positively affect our lives
We need to continue to fight for the middle class and the poor. We can not let the Republicans charge us with "class warfare". They have been practicing their own brand of class warfare for along time, only it is against the middle class and the poor.
We need to fight back against republican framing. How many amongst us support the estate tax but not the death tax when it is the same thing.
We need to stay involved at the local level.
We need to get out and vote. Scott Brown won the Senate race for many reasons. One of them was turnout. The towns turned out in greater percentages than the cities. If the cities turns out with the same percentage Coakley may have won.
We need to contest every race and not take any for granted. This is another reason for Coakley's loss. At a critical time Coakley was on vacation while Brown was driving from town to town defining the Coakley campaign in negative terms.
Above all we need to fight for what we believe to be right. We took a passive approach to health care and we are worse off for it.
November will be painful for Democrats but if we stand up and fight for our core values it will not be the disaster predicted.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
I was just thinking............
Why are supporters of the health care bill called "Union Thugs" and opponents referred to as "people who work?"
Why is Rush Limbaugh so heartless, imagine, to call for less charity in the face of the Haiti tragedy.
Why does anyone care about what Pat Robertson says any longer.
Will the Republicans say yes to anything? What are they for anyway?
Why has Boston radio turned into a 24hr commercial for Scott Brown?
Is Martha Coakley the worst possible candidate?
Why would Barack Obama bother talking to the republican congressional retreat?
Why is it wrong to mention George Bush now when it was right to mention Bill Clinton for all 8 years of the Bush White House.
Why try to be bi-partisan when the other side just will not let you.
Why would anyone think that Fox News is fair?
Or balanced?
Why would anyone think that Glenn Beck is telling you the truth most of the time but the New York Times is lying to you all of the time? Or the Boston Globe or the Washington Post?
I was just thinking.
Why is Rush Limbaugh so heartless, imagine, to call for less charity in the face of the Haiti tragedy.
Why does anyone care about what Pat Robertson says any longer.
Will the Republicans say yes to anything? What are they for anyway?
Why has Boston radio turned into a 24hr commercial for Scott Brown?
Is Martha Coakley the worst possible candidate?
Why would Barack Obama bother talking to the republican congressional retreat?
Why is it wrong to mention George Bush now when it was right to mention Bill Clinton for all 8 years of the Bush White House.
Why try to be bi-partisan when the other side just will not let you.
Why would anyone think that Fox News is fair?
Or balanced?
Why would anyone think that Glenn Beck is telling you the truth most of the time but the New York Times is lying to you all of the time? Or the Boston Globe or the Washington Post?
I was just thinking.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Coddling Terrorists
Someone has boarded a plane heading for the United States and has attempted to blow the it up while in flight. The attempt fails as the terrorist on board can not light the bomb he has planted on him. Quick thinking passengers and flight attendants subdue the terrorist until the plane lands and the authorities can take over the situation. The now captured perpetrator gets a lawyer and is to be tried through the American Justice system. The Republican party is up in arms. "Why are we coddling terrorists" they shout. "Our system of constitutional protections should not be allowed to protect the rights of people that we are at war with" they scream. "The President just does not get it!" "He is coddling terrorists!"
Does this sound familiar to you? It should since this is the line of attack the Republican party is using against the White House since the failed Christmas day bombing attempt. Yet, if we turned the clock back to the day before Christmas would this sound familiar to you? Possibly not, unless you recall the December 2001 failed bombing attempt by Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.
Richard Reid was arrested, allowed to "lawyer up" and go to court. He pled guilty and will spend the rest of his life in prison.
This happened while George Bush was in the White House. Where was the outcry then? Where was the accusation that he was soft on terrorism or that he was coddling terrorists. You would be hard pressed to find much criticism from that time for the White House because Congress and the American people rallied around the President in 2001 in a show of solidarity against the purveyors of terror.
Today the Republican party is not rallying around anyone or anything except the effort to paint the President as weak and ineffectual. This is the same President who has ordered the escalation of the Afghan war and the same President who ordered the take down of the Somali pirates. These are not the actions of a President who can be defined as a coddler.
Try to imagine where would would be if the Republican Party ceased the baseless accusation that Democrats are weak is respects to security. One can only hope that the GOP tones down the rhetoric so we, as a country, can face our foes with a single voice in order secure the safety of all Americans now and in the future.
Does this sound familiar to you? It should since this is the line of attack the Republican party is using against the White House since the failed Christmas day bombing attempt. Yet, if we turned the clock back to the day before Christmas would this sound familiar to you? Possibly not, unless you recall the December 2001 failed bombing attempt by Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.
Richard Reid was arrested, allowed to "lawyer up" and go to court. He pled guilty and will spend the rest of his life in prison.
This happened while George Bush was in the White House. Where was the outcry then? Where was the accusation that he was soft on terrorism or that he was coddling terrorists. You would be hard pressed to find much criticism from that time for the White House because Congress and the American people rallied around the President in 2001 in a show of solidarity against the purveyors of terror.
Today the Republican party is not rallying around anyone or anything except the effort to paint the President as weak and ineffectual. This is the same President who has ordered the escalation of the Afghan war and the same President who ordered the take down of the Somali pirates. These are not the actions of a President who can be defined as a coddler.
Try to imagine where would would be if the Republican Party ceased the baseless accusation that Democrats are weak is respects to security. One can only hope that the GOP tones down the rhetoric so we, as a country, can face our foes with a single voice in order secure the safety of all Americans now and in the future.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Regressive Tax
I have to admit disappointment in President Obama's support for a tax on Cadillac health plans. Why disappointed? Because the tax is a regressive tax that will effect lower paid workers with good company health benefits more than people with high paying jobs. So if this tax is passed onto us, and I am sure it will, it will constitute a tax increase that is greater in percentage in relation to income than for higher paid workers. For example:
Worker A makes 100,000 per year and has a health plan worth 10,000. This would add up to 800 in taxes based on what I have been reading on this. This would equal a % rate of 0.8. Now if worker B was making 50,000 with the same health plan their tax rate would be 1.6% for their high end health plan. Very disappointing approach. I would have preferred the house version that taxed incomes over, I believe, 500,000 dollars.
Of course there is another possibility to this potential high end tax. That is companies, especially if it is the company being taxed, water down their offered health plans so that they fall under the threshold to avoid the tax all together. Either way we lose on this one.
I still believe that the overall bill is worthy of support for all of the good it does, preexisting conditions, expanded coverage etc... but the funding provision that is in the Senate bill and is currently being supported by President Obama makes this reform a harder pill to swallow.
Worker A makes 100,000 per year and has a health plan worth 10,000. This would add up to 800 in taxes based on what I have been reading on this. This would equal a % rate of 0.8. Now if worker B was making 50,000 with the same health plan their tax rate would be 1.6% for their high end health plan. Very disappointing approach. I would have preferred the house version that taxed incomes over, I believe, 500,000 dollars.
Of course there is another possibility to this potential high end tax. That is companies, especially if it is the company being taxed, water down their offered health plans so that they fall under the threshold to avoid the tax all together. Either way we lose on this one.
I still believe that the overall bill is worthy of support for all of the good it does, preexisting conditions, expanded coverage etc... but the funding provision that is in the Senate bill and is currently being supported by President Obama makes this reform a harder pill to swallow.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Upcoming Senate Election
Who would ever imagined that the special senate election to replace Ted Kennedy, between Martha Coakley (D) and Scott Brown (R), would have even been close. Well, it is closer than I would have ever thought it could be. Rasmussen has Coakley up by 9 points. I recently heard that it is even closer than that. Regardless of the current spread it is obvious that Brown currently has the momentum; but does he have the time?
Do you know what the saddest thing is about this? The fact that, if Scott Brown is elected to replace Ted Kennedy, his vote will be the vote that could kill health care reform.
Do you know what the saddest thing is about this? The fact that, if Scott Brown is elected to replace Ted Kennedy, his vote will be the vote that could kill health care reform.
Terror Attacks - Myths and Facts
So now we know! President Obama and his administration does not have the ability to keep us safe from Islamic extremists. This is obviously true since it is a fact that the previous administration has prevented all terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. Well, it is true, isn't it?
This is what we are being told by various republican operatives and politicians. Rudy Gulianni just the other day stated that George Bush kept us safe and terror free since 9/11. Joining him in that chorus over the past few days has been Hayley Barbour. Prior to the Christmas day attempt Mary Matlin implied the George Bush inherited the 9/11 attack and Dana Perino has stated that there had been no terrorist attacks while Bush was in office.
This brings up a couple of questions that should be answered. First and foremost why are each of the persons mentioned above so wrong. Secondly, why are they allowed to repeat this line without being called on it?
With just a brief scan of the Internet I have found the following instances of what can / should be remembered as terror attacks on American soil.
1: Richard Reid the "shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane in December of 2001.
2: The unsolved Anthrax attacks
3: The attack on the El AL ticket counter at LAX
4: The beltway snipers
5: In 2006 someone drove his SUV onto a college campus hitting 9 people. The driver has been quoted as stating that he wanted to follow in the footsteps of Mohammed Atta.
It did not take me long to come up with these events. If I can come up with these events sitting at home why can't news organizations prepping for these various interviews do the same thing?
The bottom line with this story is this: George Bush did not prevent all terrorist attacks from happening during his tenure post 9/11. To say that he did is either a lie or an act of willful ignorance.
This is what we are being told by various republican operatives and politicians. Rudy Gulianni just the other day stated that George Bush kept us safe and terror free since 9/11. Joining him in that chorus over the past few days has been Hayley Barbour. Prior to the Christmas day attempt Mary Matlin implied the George Bush inherited the 9/11 attack and Dana Perino has stated that there had been no terrorist attacks while Bush was in office.
This brings up a couple of questions that should be answered. First and foremost why are each of the persons mentioned above so wrong. Secondly, why are they allowed to repeat this line without being called on it?
With just a brief scan of the Internet I have found the following instances of what can / should be remembered as terror attacks on American soil.
1: Richard Reid the "shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane in December of 2001.
2: The unsolved Anthrax attacks
3: The attack on the El AL ticket counter at LAX
4: The beltway snipers
5: In 2006 someone drove his SUV onto a college campus hitting 9 people. The driver has been quoted as stating that he wanted to follow in the footsteps of Mohammed Atta.
It did not take me long to come up with these events. If I can come up with these events sitting at home why can't news organizations prepping for these various interviews do the same thing?
The bottom line with this story is this: George Bush did not prevent all terrorist attacks from happening during his tenure post 9/11. To say that he did is either a lie or an act of willful ignorance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)