Congressman Kucinich (D-Ohio) was just one of several democrat who voted no on the proposition. Although the bill still had a public option, Kucinich argued that this option was crippled and that provisions for removing preexisting conditions combined with requiring Americans to purchase health care would place more funding into the existing private health insurance industry.

“…instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies – a bailout under a blue cross¹.” -Dennis Kucinich

From Kucinich’s standpoint, H.R. 3962 is a boon for insurance companies at the expense of the consumer. Insurance companies seem to support that assessment as various companies² and advocacy groups³ are in favor of guaranteed coverage and eliminating denial based on preexisting conditions, but are still disappointed that the new bill has a public option claiming that a government-run plan will cause many to lose their existing coverage.

Health insurance companies aren’t satisfied with simply weakening the public option. The lobbying efforts of the industry are nothing short of monumental. There are over 3,000 registered lobbyists for the health care industry; that’s six for every member of congress⁴.

Their efforts don’t stop with lawmakers either. The website gethealthreformright.org is funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, Healthcare Leadership Council, America’s Health Insurance Plans and other companies and lobbies. It attempts to portray itself as a pro-consumer website, emphasizing the advantages of privately run care over a public run option⁵.

Another contentious issue is restrictions within the bill for using public funding on abortions. Public funds for abortions have all ready been limited for decades by the Hyde Amendment, which some believe specifically and unfailingly targets low income women, hindering their options when it comes to their own health⁶. However H.R. 3962 goes further by stating that subsidized plans cannot cover abortions. This will cause many people with existing private yet subsidized plans to lose abortion coverage⁷.

Even with the republicans in dominance for the past eight years under the Bush administration, abortion is still legal. Obama’s administration has all ready made considerable changes in concern to abortions by striking down a rule that prohibited aid to family planning clinics that offered abortion referrals or services in low income countries; a rule imposed by the Bush administration⁸. Still, this very recent change to H.R. 3962 is a large step backwards in terms of abortion rights. If pro-life activists are truly wanting to make a stand for the sanctity of life, they should write a provision that bans any Federal money to be used to end a life, and then attach it to a defense authorization bill⁹.

So public funds cannot be used for abortions, but they can go to reimburse prayer thanks to a provision added by Senator Hatch of Utah. Although the plan doesn’t mention anything explicitly, it is though these provisions are to provide funding to faith based groups that do not believe in doctors or medical care such as Christian Scientists¹⁰.

The final bill that made it past the House is now in the hands of the Senate. It’s been stripped of some comprehensive options that would have pleased health care advocates while it still includes provisions that are favored by major insurance companies. What’s coming is a plan where everyone is required to buy insurance from the same industry that has been responsible for inflating cost. The fact that no one is happy in this outcome is probably the best example of a compromise where everyone loses.

The Senate bill will most likely have its share of slashing, rewording and amending. With the House version of the bill consuming 1990 pages, the Senate version will assuredly be longer. The only thing people can be assured of is that no matter what bill is passed, no Congressman or Senator will actually read it before voting on it.

¹ Congressman Kucinich addresses vote on H.R. 3962 Dennis Kucinich. November 8, 2009.

² Tennessee Blue Cross Blue Shield Comment on House Healthcare Vote. WDEF News 12. November 9, 2009.

³ AHIP Statement on House Passage of H.R. 3962 Karen Ignagni. November 7, 2009.

⁴ Health Care Lobbyists’ Rise to Power Sharyl Attkisson. October 20, 2009

⁵ Trust us, we’re your friendly, neighborhood insurance giant Adam Linker. The Progressive Pulse. July 24, 2009.

⁶ Public Funding for Abortion ACLU. July 21, 2004.

⁷ Last Change Drops Abortion Coverage. Janet Adamy. The Wall Street Journal. November 9, 2009

⁸ Obama reverses abortion-funding policy. Suzanne Malveaux. CNN. January 24, 2009.

⁹ If We Really Had ‘Pro-Life’ Legislators. August J Pollak. November 16, 2009.

¹⁰ Paying for Prayer in Health Care. Neurological Blog. Steven Novella. November 5, 2009

During his confirmation hearing, Holder unequivocally held that the interrogation technique of “waterboarding” is illegal. Furthermore, Holder refused to accept the premise that torture could be acceptable if there is an impending attack (known as the “Ticking Time Bomb” scenario). Holder is also against the policy of “rendition,” the practice of handing detainees over to countries where they could be subject to torture¹.

This is a huge departure from the previous administration that so desperately sought to make questionable interrogation techniques and clear human right’s violations the subject of ambiguity. Richard Armitage, former Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005, was subject to waterboarding as part of his training in the Navy during the late 60’s. “Of course waterboarding is torture. I can’t believe we’re even debating it,” Armitage said in a 2007 BBC interview. Torture is also a federal crime as well. 18 U.S.C | 2340 makes it a crime for any “person acting under the color of law” to “inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” Bush’s Office of Legal Counsel noted in a 2003 memo that the penalty for this crime is up to twenty years in federal prison².

Bart Gellman, a reporter for the Washington Post, talks about the role of Vice President Cheney in his book Angler. Cheney crafted an administration that attempted to convince others that their unique position in the executive meant their decisions and orders could not be questioned. In the case of warrantless wiretapping, Cheney even kept Bush in the dark that the Justice Department viewed the program as illegal³.

The breaking moment came from the famous incident in which White House officials went to see Attorney General John Ashcroft who was critically ill in the hospital after Acting Attorney General Comey refused to reauthorize the surveillance program. It was at this time Bush came to know that several dozen people in the justice department, FBI and CIA, including FBI director Robert Mueller, were prepared to resign over this program. This was the beginning of Bush’s change of course and when Cheney’s influence over the president started to diminish. Many of Bush’s top aids believed that if he hadn’t changed course, he would have surely been impeached³.

The acts of the Bush administration, specifically the ones that can be quantified and placed under the microscope of a trial such as torture and illegal surveillance, are crimes which can not be allowed to go unpunished. Bush’s ignorance is no salvation for the President of the United States to be so ambivalent in the day to day operations of his administration is nothing other than criminally negligent.

The new Obama administration must not only undo the damage Bush and Cheney have made to the executive office, but in order to restore the image of America of being a just nation to the rest of the world, the previous administration must stand for their crimes. It will be a hardship in an administration focused on unity and change, but the blatant and overt nature of the abuse of power and disregard for the rule of law is a stain that can not stand in order for this country to move forward together as a nation that cherishes human rights and abhors all forms of torture.

Many American’s now question what should not be questioned: that violation of humans rights is wrong, that torture is unequivocally illegal for any reason and in any form. Eric Holder’s confirmation hearing was a first sign and a symbol of what will hopefully be a coming time of justice. The means by which Holder and the Obama administration handle their predecessors will decide which way our nation will grown.

“No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it.” -Theodore Roosevelt

“Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.” -Richard Nixon

“If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” -George W. Bush

¹ Holder Says He’ll Jettison Bush-Era Practices Halloran. NPR. January 15, 2009.

² Justice After Bush. Horton. Harper’s. December 2008. p49-60

³ Cheney: A VP With Unprecedented Power Totenberg. NPR. January 15, 2009.

Dear Sumit:

Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to any more bailouts of private institutions, including the automakers. Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke and the rest of the Bush administration have been slow and ineffective at implementing their financial rescue plan signed into law October 3. While members of both parties made it clear that approval of the plan was contingent on congressional oversight, there has not been a free flow of information between the administration and Congress.

The continued instability of our financial markets has left many Americans questioning the decisions made by Treasury and doubting that this plan will ultimately succeed. To earn back the trust of Americans, our government must stop spending money we do not have, implement needed reforms and let competition determine success or failure in the market place.

Warmest Regards,
Zach Wamp
Member of Congress

The proposal of the massive bailout package for large corporations back in late September caused massive unrest for most Americans. Many wrote their representatives in such mass numbers that the congressional e-mail system suffered congestion and downtime. I’m assuming the above is a general response to many of Wamp’s constituents who commented on the bill.

It is important to note that although Wamp voted no on the first economic package¹, he did vote yes to the second one². Furthermore, all these packages have done is allow large banks to consume small ones, removing competition. Through the use of TARP funds and tax breaks, large banks can do this at no cost, sometimes even turning a multimillion dollar profit, while small banks are allowed to fail with no possibility of a bailout; effectively letting the Treasury and the Federal Reserve chose which banks live and which ones die³.

National City Bank is the 11th largest bank in the country⁴. This 168 year old Cleveland bank, the largest bank in Ohio, was denied an application for TARP funds, although it is unclear exactly which agency denied their application⁵. They may now have to be consumed by PNC which expects to purchase them for $5 billion.

The treasury has rewritten tax law, without knowledge of Congress, so that PNC would get a $5 billion tax credit for the purchase, essentially allowed them to buy National City for free. In similar fashion earlier this year, Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia for $15 billion, but will receive $20 billion in tax credits causing the merger to result in a $5 billion profit for Wells Fargo³.

¹ Project Vote Smart – Representative Wamp on HR 3997 – First Economic Package

² Project Vote Smart – Representative Wamp on HR 1424 – Second Economic Package

³ Bank Eat Bank: Bailout Encourages Mergers Ivory. American News Project. November 21, 2008.

⁴ Nations Largest Banks Retrieved on December 4, 2008.

⁵ GAO report suggests regulators played biggest role in National City’s demise Koff and Murray. Cleveland.com. December 2, 2008.

During AIG’s bailout, a congressional hearing put AIG executives on the hot seat for being in economic turmoil yet still finding the capital to host a week long conference in southern California where they spent $200,000 for hotel rooms, almost $150,000 for catered banquets, $23,000 at the hotel spa and $1,400 at the hotel salon¹. GM stands in the same boat with their executives flying to DC in their corporate jets at a cost of approximately $15,000 per flight to ask congress to fund their failing industry².

With gas prices starting to hit the ceiling of what consumers are willing to pay, demand for smaller more fuel efficient cars has risen as well as demand for alternative fully electric and hybrid vehicles. In March 2008, the total amount of miles traveled in the US dropped by 4.3%; the first drop in number of miles driven since the early 80’s³. Even though gas prices have dropped considerably during the past few weeks, the vehicle and lifestyle changes made by many Americans is less likely to change.

The small Silicon valley startup Tesla Motors gave hope of restoring viable electric cars with their all electric sports roadster. However even they have hit hard times with a recent layoff cutting over half of the companies staff⁴. GM, Toyota and others gave up on electric vehicles (EVs) in the early part of this decade in what still remains a controversial move⁵. Now GM hopes to reenter the electric market in 2010 with its Chevy Volt. Even with falling gas prices, the emphasis GM and Ford put onto their lines of large trucks and SUVs has cost them significantly. Electric and hybrid vehicles may be too little and too late. Now the big US auto makers are asking the government for a bailout, similar to the package given to the banking industry earlier this fall.

Meanwhile Toyota, BMW, Honda and Volkswagen, although they are by no means immune to the economic downturn, are still keeping above water. These companies have domestic factories and, although they are held by foreign owners, contribute significantly to the American market. The argument that the loss of GM, Ford and Chrysler would bring massive job loss to all the intermediate jobs in the US that depend on these large companies, such as parts manufacturing and sales dealerships, is ridiculous. After all there are other auto makers, and these small companies must adapt to new customers in order to stay viable.

The idea that the auto industry names are too relevant; that they would damage the American psyche if they were to disappear is just as irrelevant an argument. Does anyone remember RCA? What about Zenith? The American industry for consumer grade entertainment electronics is a fraction of what it use to be. Years ago Panasonic and Sony took a market that had been dominated by US industry by offering a higher quality product for a lower price.

If a business can not innovate and prepare for a new era, then that company must be allowed to fail in order to allow for new and innovative ideas to flourish. Propping up massively inefficient companies who have made poor business decisions, such as major investment banks and auto manufactures, will only lead to a stifling of potential new small business, startups and innovators.

Yes there will be economic hardship and turmoil as people shift jobs and are reorganized, but out of such a mess there is the potential for growth. People with massive amounts of stockpiled invested assets may lose those savings, but they’ll see it trickle down into a new economy that is more sustainable. Those without much money may be on a more even playing field. There is no need to redistribute wealth by means of taxes and government mandates when, if allowed to, the market can do so on its own.

Taken to the extreme the government must be prepared to do something if absolutely necessary. President Hoover was ambivalent to he plight of the American people during the great depression believing that market forces would eventually right everything. But we are in a dramatically different time and we are nowhere near the depravity of the great depression. However if we continue to prop up bad debt, inefficient industry and the various other old rotting branches on a tree that is otherwise healthy at its core, those branches: that bad industry, will eventually collapse the economy under its own weight and take most of the middle class with it.

¹ Flogging of AIG Execs American News Project. October 7, 2008.

² Auto execs fly private jets to beg for $25B bailout Puzzanghera and Simon. Chicago Tribune. November 20, 2008.

³ Traffic Volume Trends US Department of Transportation. March 2008.

⁴ Credit Crunch Slowing Electric Cars Kestenbaum. NPR. November 3, 2008.

⁵ Who Killed the Electric Car (Film 2006)

This morning I attended a Veterans Day memorial service. A crowd of people gathered in a somber mood for a ceremony of patriotic hymns and praise of all the soldiers who have served the United States. Yet as singers and speakers praised those who “Fight for our freedom,” in an emotional tidal wave that sent tears around the crowd, I couldn’t help but think to myself that these troops do not fight for my freedom.

Major Brian Borek with the US Army spoke to the audience. A distinguished officer who has served in various capacities gave homage to friends; fellow soldiers he had lost in Iraq. His words chocked and he held back tears as he spoke their names. His speech felt real in a sea of clichés. And even as he spoke about the friends he had lost I couldn’t help but think, keeping the utmost of respect, they did not need to die.

US Soldiers have fought for our freedom, and the freedoms of others during the American Revolution and World War II. The American Civil War could possibly be considered a fight for freedom, although some would consider that a stretch. Although we did intervene during the Kosovo Conflict in 1999 to help other NATO allies in stopping mass genocide, other recent examples are not as plentiful.

Vietnam cost the lives of over 50,000 troops and the resolution that led us into that war was based on attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin, attacks which a 2005 declassified NSA report proves never actually happened¹. Who today will say that war in Vietnam was right and justified and ensured our freedom?

In 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was the democratically elected president of Iran. In an effort to bring more of the nation’s wealth to his own people, he nationalized oil reserves that had been previously held by the British. Admits fears of communism President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in conjunction with the British, started Operation Ajax which succeeded in a coup d‘état against the democratically elected president and lead to the installation of the Shah who would come to be known as a tyrannical dictator².

On September 11th, 1973, Chile’s president Salvadore Allende, a democratically elected official, was overthrown leading the country into an era of horrible war and bloodshed³. Documents declassified during the Clinton administration show that US black operations were the direct cause of the coup d’état and were ordered to carry out Allende’s deposition by President Nixson, leading to the US participating in what can only be described as state terrorism⁴.

Today we have yet to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Ambassador Barbara Bodine, General Jay Garner and several others involved in initial reconstruction of Iraq have come out publicly to denounce the massive failures in the Bush administration to plan and manage the reconstruction effort⁵. Alan Greenspan, in his recently publish memior, states that the war was mostly about oil⁶.

And the list does not end there. As time passes and more information becomes declassified, it is very clear that the US has on many occasions removed elected officials and replaced them with kings, so long as it suits US interests. In many cases this has been done covertly using operatives and not direct military involvement. Still it is important to note that our great country, our home of the brave, has and continues to do very questionable things to ensure a US friendly version of order in the world. In an increasing number of deployments in the past few decades, our soldiers have not fought for our freedom, they have only fought for our standard of living.

Those who fight for freedom today are very different from the freedom fighters of old. They do not carry guns. In a nation where we have stability and security, the enemy of those freedoms is our own complaisance. Those who fight for our freedoms include the American Civil Liberties Union, Lawyers without Borders, Iraqi Veterans Against the War, Drug Policy Alliance and the many other groups large and small who work diligently to defend freedoms that politicians attempt to take from us in the name of ensuring our security.

Do our troops prevent the government from acts of domestic surveillance against its own citizens? Do they prevent people from being captured and locked away in secrete prisons, tortured and held without any charge or being accused of any crime? Joshua Key fled to Canada and sought asylum claiming that while in the US Army he was ordered to commit war crimes⁷. We label him a deserter, but isn’t his defiance to an unjust war a staple of the foundation of America?

Recently Bush authorized the deployment of the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, to be deployed domestically on American soil, striking down Posse Comitatus⁸. There is no reason to deploy troops domestically, and there is a reason why Posse Comitatus existed to keep such events from happening. The purpose of the police force is to serve and protect the people. The purpose of a standing army is to protect the state from its enemies. When soldiers are deployed domestically and take the role of the police, the people tend to become the enemy.

I stood at the memorial service and listened to the speakers and the people around me with tears filling their eyes. I did not clap with others. I instead began to understand how so many people could be carried emotionally into blind patriotism; how they praised soldiers that our own government has neglected. We are taught to praise these soldiers for their sacrifices, and although I do acknowledge many of them made sacrifices, I do no accept that all of their sacrifices were in the name of freedom.

“Mom, I killed two hundred and twelve people and some of them didn’t deserve to die.” -Said by Corporal James Jenkins to his mother before he took his own life⁹

What is worse than soldiers dieing in vain for causes that aren’t just? It is a people that refuses to stand up for our troops and demand an end to reckless wars which cost soldiers their lives needlessly. We can not truly honor our veterans or the freedom they are told to fight for unless we use that freedom to bring them home.

¹ Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2-August 4, 1964

² A Very British Coup BBC. 2005 (Radio Show)

³ Remembering Chile’s 9/11 Street. September 10, 2003.

⁴ United States Senate Report (1975) “Covert Action in Chile, 1963-1973” U.S. Government Printing Office Washington. D.C.

⁵ No End in Sight. (Film 2007)

⁶ Greenspan memoir links Iraq war to US thirst for oil Associated Press. September 15, 2007.

⁷ Seeking asylum in Canada LA Times. July 14, 2008.

⁸ Thousands of Troops Are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry Out Crowd Control Wolf. Alternet. October 8, 2008.

⁹ One Soldier’s Suicide: James Jenkins McLaurin. American News Project. July 21, 2008. (Video)

On November 4th, I found myself at a Chattup Election Party in downtown Chattanooga. We were a room full of mostly liberals and a few conservatives; an island with an endless sea of red outside the windows. A projector and a monitor displayed two news coverage feeds. There was beer, pizza, camaraderie, mobile social networking devices, constant twittering and a large roar as several networks declared Barack Obama the winner of the 2008 US presidential elections.

As everyone cheered, I simply smiled. I saw a crowd both on TV and in that room that was completely enamored with Obama, his campaign and legacy. I am a liberal and deep down, I did want Obama to win. Still in recent weeks I’ve come to understand why people look up to and support McCain, even if I did not think he would make a good president in these times. Still, waving a marking slogan of Change and Hope seemed cliche and trite and made me question if even Obama would be able to turn this country around.

“Changes means nothing. It’s just the word. And it’s a cliche. Just to repeat it has no meaning. You have to say, ‘What are you going to change?’ and I would argue, ‘You offer no change. You have the same foreign policy, you want more troops in Afghanistan, you’re not talking about only going to war with a declaration. You don’t want to deal with the monetary financial crisis in this country. You want to keep, you know, the system together for the benefit of the banks and the big corporations and politicians¹…” —Ron Paul

McCain’s concession speech came rather quickly after the announcement. His crowd seemed bitter, but had the election going differently, most likely the Obama would have been equally so. Obama waited a bit longer to give his victory speech keeping those of us in the Eastern timezone up past our bedtimes. It started with the traditional stump which I had heard the day before followed by thanks to specific supporters and family members and so forth.

One of the concerns I’ve heard about Obama is that he promises a lot, and with the condition of our world both economically and militarily, there is a chance his promises may not be fulfilled causing an generation to become disenchanted with the policies of progressive liberalism. At one point during his victory speech he said the following:

“…understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime — two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century…The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term, but America I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you we as a people will get there…”

He did two things with those words. First, he set the standard for success as a realistic one; far from the epic folds of hope and change that flowed from the river of his advertising campaign. Second, he prepared himself and all ready began to campaign for the following election by making a promise he could keep to his constituents.

As I listened to Obama and looked upon the crowds who cheered “Yes, we can” as well as the hopeful people around the room, I couldn’t help but hope myself that Obama would be able to live up to the expectations that, for him, have been set so very high. I saw a man who limited his attacks and tried desperately to run a clean campaign; a man who in doing so, showed that seeking peace was not something to be seen as a weakness, but that in that calm comes strength. I believe that strength is what helped him win the election; strength and a very strong youth campaign. Sarah Palin being grotesquely unqualified didn’t hurt either.

I hesitate to fall in line with those who are following his cult of personality, but part of me does want to believe his words are genuine. I think his desire for peace and equality and his ability to stay collected in extraneous circumstances may be a strong start. He may not be about real radical change, but he is a strong moderate that seeks to bring us back to an era of stability.

In the previous administration that has often said to the public, “Hands off, let us handle this,” Obama may have the personality necessary to bring American back to the point of believing its citizens have a vested interest in their nation. Again, from his victory speech:

“…This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It can’t happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice…”

Will Obama be able to move people to care for one another and work for the country in the way Franklin D Roosevelt asked Americans for “meat-less Tuesdays?” What real change will he accomplish within his first one-hundred days in office? At the very least he has captured the belief of more than half the nation and now we will see how that belief will play out.

But now is not the time for American to relax and think everything is going to be all right. There should be no false sense of security that the war will be over, that the economy will right itself and that justice will be served to those who have led our nation astray for so many years. No is the time for all people to stay just as politically active as they did during the election and to hold the new democratic majority government accountable to the people that they represent.

“I want young men and young women who are alive today to know and see that these new privileges and opportunities did not come without somebody suffering and sacrificing for them” —Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

The complete Obama Victory Speech:

Full Transcript

¹ Ron Paul’s Message to Obama Ron Paul Speaking at The Future of Freedom Foundation. C-Span. (Video)