But it's what the Founding Fathers wanted!

I really don't want to talk about health care reform anymore. The case for reform surely still needs to be made clearly and pointedly, as the seven and a half-hour health care summit highlighted yesterday. That said, until something happens in response to all the talk, it's useless to continue pondering the outcome- at least for someone who has no effect on legislature and legislation. So I'm done specifically ranting about health care reform for now.

I don't even really want to get into yesterday's summit, as I came away from it impressed by certain parts but still largely unsurprised and disappointed. The Democrats were pretty solid, some of the Republicans even made good points, but most of all there was Obama at the front- taking all ideas into account, generally not bothering to separate the good ideas from the bad, and not bringing up the progressive points of the health care bill that had already been trashed. Disappointing on his account, but unsurprising. The same can be said of the Democrats who, while solid on what they said, also didn't raise the issue of the Senate bill being way too watered down and lacking in progressive ideas. They didn't challenge Obama that there needed to be a stronger bill- while the Repubs continued to say the bill was too strong. All in all, I felt the whole thing was okay- but not nearly pointed enough (largely thanks to Obama)- but what matters is what happens now that the summit is over. So we're back to hypothetical situations until Congress makes their move. I'll continue watching the scene in case anything interesting happens, but right now, I'm counting on more of a rerun.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Some important points that I want to bring up that aren't specific to current legislation but still play a role in the health care talks are those that deal with Republican claims on the American health care system. There are a few key talking points that get repeated no matter how they're discussed and rebutted. They include:

• The US has the best health care system in the world.

Jesus, how many times do we have to keep coming back to this one? Health care is great in the US for those that can afford the best care. Republican politicians keep touting stories of foreign heads of state coming to the US for health care as if it doesn't matter that many Americans don't have access to those same services; and their answer to the fact that the World Health Organization ranked the US 37th in overall health care performance is just repetition of their previous claim. The reason this pesky little talking point won't go away is because people are taking fools who use it as a basis to oppose health care reform seriously.

• The health insurance industry should stay private in order to preserve free markets.

This is a double-headed claim that seeks to preserve the status quo of private insurance and beat down any attempt to provide competition to it through a government option for the American people. When pressed to explain the validity of this position, proponents often go on to say that the private insurance industry has few problems, generally with reference to the first talking point above, and that with a few tweaks, private insurance needs no other competition than itself. That could be true, but it hasn't proven itself to be so yet, especially with current skyrocketing increases in private insurance premiums. So what's the problem with having the government offer an alternative? Of course you've probably heard this by now, but giving the government the power to offer another option would be a government takeover! You as an American citizen deserve the right to not have an option for cheaper health care!

• A government option for health insurance offered to the American people is not only an encroachment on the free market, it's against what the Founding Fathers and the Constitution stand for.

A more general point, taken up by Libertarians and Republicans alike, and used in a number of cases outside of just health care. Not only is it a vague claim to make, it also gets used in so many situations where it doesn't make sense. This essay explains what a lot of people seem to be missing: the Founding Fathers were wealthy land speculators and slave-owners intent on furthering their own interests and tamping down democracy. Democratic ideals arose through the will of the people more as a whole, because it was they as American citizens that were largely getting left out of the governing process in the first place.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Other more general prevailing sentiments of the opponents to current health care reform legislation are spread out through many of the arguments: the current system works, government takeover, freedom, free markets, and billowing costs are common themes found. The majority of the arguments from these premises are straight BS for one reason or another (or many)- the problem with Obama is that he has a problem with flat-out calling out the lies and worthless arguments and focusing on the important issues. Republicans hear "philosophical disagreement" and continue repeating inanities that should be slapped down and not taken seriously from then on. How else are you going to move forward on anything?

And I've been stuck on this for way too long myself. Okay, I'm done. For now. Moving forward...

You see that, Senate?

This is what real bipartisanship looks like.

Unfortunately, Senate Democrats also took yet another opportunity yesterday to show they have no spine.

The House bill almost undoubtedly won't get the media coverage it deserves, and the Republicans will definitely continue to whine about not getting their way. Obama can't disappoint me enough, so I'm not expecting anything productive from his televised meeting with Congress members today, but if he brings up the House bill, I'll be a little less pessimistic. If he pays it more than lip service, I'll be thrilled.

My forecast: Obama makes more appeals to bipartisanship while mostly/completely ignoring this prime example of how to make progress in Congress. I think he's made clear from his actions, if not his words, that he doesn't want real reform.

Congrats, House Democrats, on making something happen on your part. With the rest of the Senate and this Administration against you, it's more than an uphill battle- it's scaling one hell of a cliff.

Valentine's Day Special: Seeing red with the Republican Party (with special comment on Tea Party)

If you pay any attention to American politics these days, it's hard to see the Republican Party as anything but the Party of Obstructionism and Opposition. Far from defending the freedoms of the American people by limiting the reach of government, they seem to have a few other goals in mind by halting almost all legislature and Congressional decision-making: keep the status quo on policy and governmental establishment, and make Obama look bad for having accomplished nothing. So far, their plans appear to be working all too well.

Obama's continued call for bipartisanship, which I commented on in my last post, is to blame for much of the hold-up on anything getting accomplished. It's ironic, given Obama's purported claim of wanting so badly to get things done with health care and financial reform. He really wishes he could do something, but those Republicans keep twisting his arm! If only they could all work together... My response is, if Dubya could make things happen, so can you, Obama.

With a barely-held majority (if that) in the Senate, George W. Bush passed insane amounts of policy changes that threw the country for a loop- trust me, I'm not saying just because Bush was effective in changing policy that he took it in the right direction. But Obama's griping that he only (sic) has 60 (now 59) Democratic Senators?! It's crazy, and if Obama was serious on health care reform, he would have passed a much stronger bill than is currently being presented through the legislative process of reconciliation. Bush did it all the time, sometimes even when he had persuaded countless Democrats to join his side (in fear of losing their seats for being against popular opinion), and no one argued that he was abusing the process- even in the instances that he was. Now, reconciliation is linked to abuse of power any time it's brought up- the mainstream media outlets (purportedly outrageously liberal) have done a great job of reiterating this Republican talking point.

It's also been claimed by Republican politicians (and again, the media picking it up) that the American people are fearful of some kind of government takeover, an overreaching of government authority, and that's why Obama's approval numbers are dropping. That's complete crock. A vast number of Republicans were never on Obama's side and therefore never contributed to his approval numbers. He's losing support from the people that voted him in and more specifically from the progressive liberal base that has been ignored and alienated by this administration the entire time Obama's been in office. It should be no surprise when the President doesn't do the things he promised to do.

So the President should get tough on the Republicans, not plead with them to no end. I think I've gone on long enough with that rant. That said... on to the Tea Party!

Various Tea Parties and Liberty Movements of one stripe or another have popped up around the country over the last few years. The beginning to this recent phenomena came with Ron Paul's campaign for President, and it was largely based around grassroots organizing and appeals to the college-student age group. Since Paul's campaign, the Tea Party platform has been picked up by Republicans and Independents alike, and the message of liberty, limited government, and the Constitution has been used to represent different ideals. While the Tea Party continues to show growth and excite people nationwide, it's become rather difficult to say just what it stands for now. And with some Tea Party candidates winning in polls over Democratic and Republican candidates throughout the nation, it appears that ambiguity is somewhat of a winning strategy here (the same polls asked how many knew what the Tea Party stood for, with 75% totally in the dark). Reassuring, much?

Hit Harder!: Views on Obama

So, I didn't know how I wanted to write this, since I'm generally pretty scatterbrained, and a stream-of-consciousness type blog post doesn't seem like a great way to do it. Still, I have a feeling that I'll be able to get more of my thoughts down like this- and faster- than if I were to set my arguments up into some kind of report. With that said, I'll carry on...

My view of Obama has not always been the easiest for me to articulate over the last year of his presidency. I voted for him, so of course I hoped that he would make good on many of his campaign promises and drive this country in a better direction than it had been going for the eight years of Bush presidency prior. Throughout the last year, I've been encouraged by some of the steps Obama has taken to reform government and policy. I've also been sorely disappointed many, many times over, which sullies much of anything that has been accomplished- which comes to my main point. More often than not, I've been frustrated at Obama for NOT DOING ANYTHING- not owning up to his promises, not fighting the establishment, and not helping the American people. The good things that he does do are frequently undone, often by his own hands or words. It's frustrating to see Congress at a standstill on policy decisions, the Democrats looking to Obama for leadership, and him refusing to give any. When it comes to the main points of policy that Obama says are most important to him (health care reform, government regulations on banks and big businesses, etc.), he simply hasn't fought hard for his purported positions. "Bipartisanship" is the single most aggravating term used by Obama during his presidency, and where has it gotten him to date? Zero cooperation in making things happen. No ideas brought to the floor that everyone can agree on. Bupkis.

My exasperation sometimes escapes me in the form of long strings of profanity-laced statements of discontent. This is often times met with responses from my friends and peers. I've received both words of agreement and disagreement to varying degrees- some critical, some not- but the responses that I want to focus on specifically are those that go along the lines of, "I'm shocked that you'd say anything negative about Obama, and with such harsh language, too. " This is generally the end of any communication with the person(s) on the topic, since they would generally be too put-off by the offensiveness of my manner by this time to consider the substance of what I was saying. That's fine, I can understand if someone's uncomfortable talking to anyone with a fierce opinion on anything, but these cases leave me with a lack of understanding as to whether the conversation just had was worth having. It's seems that some people are okay voicing and listening to beliefs, however objectionable others or themselves find them in substance, so long as they're said in a nice way and not too loudly. Fighting for beliefs you believe strongly in becomes bad behavior in all circumstances.

Which comes back to Obama, because I believe that's the position he's taken on almost everything. In a way, it's more than that, because he's caved in and conceded points on many of the key issues he brings up. He won't fight for anything, even what he says is most important. Yes, some legislation has passed during his presidency- usually the non-objectionable material and Republican-favored stuff. On the main issues, nothing! On February 24, when he meets with Congress, it looks like he might be ready to concede even more points to the Republicans on a health care bill that's already so weak it looks to help health insurance companies screw their customers further. Obama isn't making his case and hasn't been the whole time, which raises the question: Is Obama that weak on his convictions, or does he want health care reform to fail? Those are the options as I see them.

Then there's the question of whether Obama is for the people. This question can go a lot of ways (a lot of wrong or irresponsible ways, I might add), but there is a valid argument in whether Obama has the interests of the American public in mind over those of big business corporations. Depending on who you talk to, Obama is intent on protecting Wall Street and the interests of the rich and powerful. He hasn't done a great job of refuting that, especially just recently in his interview to Bloomberg News in which he defended the taxpayer-funded bonuses of CEOs from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs in the name of the "free-market system". If Obama wants to get on the side of the people, going on record saying big businesses getting bailed out by taxpayers is part of the free-market system is not the way to do it. Obama has made some suggestions for regulations of these companies, and some of it has found its way into Congress- before getting struck down, unsurprisingly- but the President is simply not making his case well at all. It's the rough reality of things, but if you want to talk big, you've got to play hard and fight for the things you promise to do. Strong leadership is not possible without this principle. I'm not convinced so far that Obama has such strength, and until I see differently, I'm going to keep calling him out on it.

EDIT: I forgot to mention to anyone who comes across this, I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter!

So it begins...

And to set the right mood of tortured agony from the start, I give you...

The Persecution, Struggle, and Inevitable Liberation of John Mayer. Feel his pain.