------------ New ------------

Shifting Sands: Jewish Women Confront the Israeli Occupation

Shifting Sands: Jewish Women Confront the Israeli Occupation (Paperback)

~ Osie Gabriel Adelfang (Editor), Cindy Sheehan (Foreword), Amira Hass (Foreword)

    Progressive Partners





United Progressives does not necessarily endorse the views of our contributors.

Search

Books by Anna Baltzer

Banner

Rethink Afghanistan

Order the complete Rethink Afghanistan documentary on DVD
Banner

Books by Members

Banner
Refresh page to see more titles.

Endorsements

Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney Endorses United Progressives Platform

Endorsements

Tennessee Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate Chris Lugo endorses our platform

From FPIF

FPIF Latest Content
FPIF Latest Content
Will Health Bill Allow States to Do Better? PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Swanson   
Monday, 08 March 2010 20:52

David SwansonThe health insurance bill currently under consideration in Congress would forbid states from providing their residents with healthcare.  An amendment correcting that problem was passed in committee last July and then quietly removed.  A new campaign is asking the Democrats who voted for that amendment to withhold their votes on the bill until it is reinstated.

Several states' legislatures are close to enacting single-payer healthcare bills. This is a complete healthcare solution that eliminates the for-profit insurance industry, lowers the cost of pharmaceuticals, reduces bureaucracy, and provides universal coverage. As President Obama explains: "Now, the truth is that, unless you have a — what's called a single-payer system, in which everybody is automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual."

We're not creating such a system in Washington. We're creating something far more limited and compromised, expensive and wasteful. The healthcare bill now in play in Congress may constitute a tremendous step forward, or a tiny one, or a public bailout of the sickness industry that will do more harm than good. The bill includes some good measures but

empowers profiteers who are crafting most of the details and whose stocks rise every time passage appears possible.

One good measure that is no longer included was the so-called public option, which -- in its final form -- was to be controlled by privately determined rates and reach fewer than 5 percent of Americans, according to the President, or less than that , according to the Congressional Budget Office. With that fight now lost, should the more progressive members of Congress simply vote for a bill that may do more harm than good, and allow the pattern of ignoring progressive demands to be more firmly established?

What if there were something far less controversial than the public option that could bring healthcare to far more people? And what if this something had already passed in committee and been unceremoniously stripped out of the bill without a fight? Would it be worth a winnable fight right now to put this measure back in?

When the first state passes single-payer healthcare, none of the other 49 states will lose anything they've gained through Congress. But the lucky state whose legislature tries to do something more won't see any immediate benefit, because the insurance companies will sue. And there are federal laws that may allow such suits to prevail and deny states the right to provide their residents with healthcare.

Last July the House Committee on Education and Labor voted 25 to 19 , with bipartisan support, to pass an amendment proposed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich to waive federal restrictions and allow states to provide healthcare if they choose. Nothing in any other versions of the healthcare bill from other committees conflicted with this language, but it was quietly removed nonetheless. (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the White House told her to remove it.) And the Senate bill added language forbidding state healthcare solutions through 2017, and not - despite what the President told Kucinich - including the waivers that had been in Kucinich's amendment.

Republicans can be expected to vote No on any healthcare bill, no matter how limited or corrupt. But these 14 Democrats voted yes in committee on the Kucinich Amendment:

Dennis J. Kucinich (OH-10) phone (202)225-5871, fax (202)225-5745, Email . Facebook . Twitter .
Donald M. Payne (NJ-10) phone (202)225-3436, fax (202)225-4160, Email . Email for constituents .
Robert C. Scott (VA-03) phone (202)225-8351, fax (202)225-8354, Email . Email for constituents .
Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-06) phone (202)225-5161, fax (202)225-5163, Email for constituents . Twitter .
Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07) phone (202)225-2435, fax (202)225-1541, Email . Email for constituents . Twitter .
CPC Email for Woolsey and Grijalva: Email form . Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text97751 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //-->\n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
John F. Tierney (MA-06) phone (202)225-8020, fax (202)225-5915, Email . Facebook .
David Wu (OR-01) phone (202)225-0855, fax (202)225-9497, Email . Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text72285 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //-->\n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Email for constituents .
Rush D. Holt (NJ-12) phone (202)225-5801, fax (202)225-6025, Email . Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text51958 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //-->\n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Email for constituents . Facebook .
Dave Loebsack (IA-02) phone (202)225-6576, fax (202)226-0757, Email . Facebook .
Yvette Clarke (NY-11) phone (202)225-6231, fax (202)226-0112, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text63344 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //-->\n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Email for constituents .
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01) phone (202)225-5456, fax (202)225-5822, Email .
Marcia Fudge (OH-11) phone (202)225-7032, fax (202)225-1339, Facebook .
Jared Polis (CO-2) phone (202)225-2161, fax (202)226-7840, Email for constituents . Facebook . Twitter . Legislative Director Rosalyn Kumar.
Paul Tonko (NY-21) phone (202)225-5076, fax (202)225-5077, Email for constituents . Facebook . Twitter .

Their work was rudely ignored. If they could be moved to withhold their support for a healthcare bill until it reinstates the missing amendment, progressives would find a voice and a lever of power, and the campaign for healthcare reform would be energized in those areas where it has a chance of truly transformational change, namely in the states.

What we are asking for:
Please oppose the health insurance reform bill unless the amendment you voted for and passed in committee last July 17th is reinstated, permitting states to enact healthcare reforms if they choose to.

Tweetable version:
Please oppose hcr bill unless amendment you passed on July 17th is reinstated permitting states to enact hcr reforms.

More information:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/letstatesdoit

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press.   You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book .  
 

Artwork by Nohad Nassif

Free Membership

By joining, it is understood that you support progressive values, as generally defined by our platform. Notice: We are currently having difficulties with attempts to log in using Internet Explorer v.6. For the moment we recommend using a different browser.

Members Online

None

Smart Bookmarker

Banner

Hiyam Noir Poetry

Hiyam Noir Avatar

"In the Toxic Garden"
those dead uncountable


The impossibilities
of my dreams
did not discourage me
from continuing to believe

so I am returning

as in my worst nightmares

more

Books We Recommend

The Bush dynasty, the powerful forces that put it in the White House, and what their influence means for America
Banner

News & Opinion

Think Progress
  • Vitter: ‘I Don’t Think We Have To Quote Unquote Pay For’ Tax Cuts For The Rich

    Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) postures as a deficit hawk, attacking efforts to inject recovery spending into the economy because he fears “borrowing another dime from China.” In reality, Vitter is really a deficit peacock who is currently fighting vigorously to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans, a $678 billion dollar give away and one of the largest structural causes of the deficit.

    Explaining his support for tax cuts for the rich on Wednesday, Vitter told a crowd at the Crowley city Chamber of Commerce that “virtually everybody” in the audience would be characterized as wealthy. As TPM notes, although the top tax cut set to expire applies to people earning over $250,000 a year, “the average household income in Louisiana was $43,635 in 2008.”

    Earlier this week, Vitter doubled down on his deficit hypocrisy and told WorldNetDaily radio that paying for the Bush tax cuts for the rich would be a “recipe for disaster.” He added, “I don’t think we have to quote unquote pay for” the tax cuts:

    VITTER: We aren’t talking about any additional cuts, we’re talking about keeping the present tax cuts in place. If we have to pay for keeping the present tax cuts in place, every year, every other year, that’s a recipe for disaster. That’s a recipe for significant tax increases, so I don’t think we have to quote unquote pay for that because it’s about Americans keeping their own money and our simply keeping the present tax rates in place.

    Listen here:

    Allowing the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire would simply restore Clinton-era rates and help pay down the deficit — a move supported by even former Bush administration officials. For some reason, Vitter sees no problem borrowing more money from China to finance giveaways to the wealthy.

  • Obama Slams GOP For ‘Playing Games’ With His Nominees

    During a White House press conference this morning, President Obama responded to a question about whether he believes Elizabeth Warren could survive a Senate confirmation process. Warren has been rumored to be Obama’s leading nominee to head the Consumer Finance Protection Agency. In responding to the prospects of a Senate confirmation fight, Obama slammed the GOP for “playing games” with his nominees:

    QUESTION: Are you unofficially concerned about a Senate confirmation?

    OBAMA: [...] I am concerned about all Senate nominations these days.

    QUESTION: But with respect to Elizabeth Warren, are you –

    OBAMA: Hans, I wasn’t trying to be funny. I am concerned about all Senate nominations these days. I’ve got people who have been waiting for six months to get confirmed who nobody has an official objection to and who were voted out of committee unanimously, and I can’t get a vote on them.

    We’ve got judges who are pending. We’ve got people who are waiting to help us on critical issues like homeland security. And it’s very hard when you’ve got a determined minority in the Senate that insists on a 60-vote filibuster on every single person that we’re trying to confirm, even if after we break the filibuster, it turns out that they get 90 votes. They’re just playing games. And as I think Senator Voinovich said very well, it’s time to stop playing games.

    Watch it:

    The President is right. Since he took office, Republicans have abused a Senate rule which prevents the Senate from confirming more than a tiny fraction of Obama’s nominees unless its members unanimously consent to allowing the nomination to move forward.  Specifically, even the majority breaks a filibuster, the minority can force up to 30 hours of additional debate on the nominee before a final vote can be held. Thirty hours may not seem like a lot, but when you multiply it across the hundreds of judges, ambassadors and other officials that require Senate confirmation, there is literally not enough time to confirm more than a fraction of these nominees.  In other words, the Republicans are engaged in unprecedented use of this obscure loophole to hollow out the government and the federal bench — leaving the nation without essential judges, financial regulators and even national security officials in the process.

  • Majority Of Americans Support Letting Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Expire

    Despite the fact that Republicans in Congress have made reducing the deficit one if their signature issues this election season, they also have been arguing — without addressing the $700 billion cost — that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should not be allowed to expire. Yet a new USA Today/Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans see it differently. “While 37% support keeping the tax cuts for all Americans, 44% want them extended only for those making less than $250,000 and 15% think they should expire for all taxpayers”:

    wdsu3hwahukzxi-aabfdga

    Gallup notes the bottom line: “Democrats may not be putting themselves at great political risk by allowing the tax cuts to expire for wealthy Americans. In fact, the middle ground of extending tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans but allowing them to expire for wealthy Americans — the Democrats’ most likely proposal — is the specific option the public prefers most.”

CB Workflows

Favorite Quotations

"We have to be willing to tell the hard truth about the power we have to corrupt the most pure, most sublime recognition of truth.

You can't finally tell the truth through the mind, because the mental process is busy with damage control. But there are a few questions you can ask to support truth telling, and you can deeply examine and ruthlessly, often painfully, answer them.

The questions are, 'What is my life standing for?' What has it stood for?' 'What is the deepest call for my life to stand for?' All you have to do is be really willing to look very carefully and see." - Gangaji