Michelle Obama On Food, Health, Nutrition
by tristero
Don’t be misled, either by the occasion – an address at the White House to fifth graders – or the charm of the person speaking. Michelle Obama has just launched a major campaign for healthy eating, a campaign that will rile deeply moneyed vested interests.
Great stuff. And considering the detailed content of the speech, those are mighty smart fifth graders!
Private Dancers
by digby
Feel the bipartisan thrill up your leg (and hope like hell it isn’t an aneurysm because your chances of having good health care are diminishing as we speak):
Centrist House lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are working together privately on healthcare reform.
The talks have been so secretive and politically sensitive that some members interviewed by The Hill refused to name other legislators involved in the bipartisan effort.
Members of the centrist GOP “Tuesday Group,” the New Democrat Coalition and the 52-member Blue Dog Coalition have been discussing both the policies and politics of moving their middle-of-the-road ideas in a body of Congress usually dominated by liberal or conservative ideology.
Those centrist factions are wary of the proposals their respective leaders will introduce this month. Blue Dogs are leery of the so-called public option in the healthcare reform bill that is expected to hit the House floor this summer. Meanwhile, GOP centrists opted to release their own healthcare plan a day before House GOP leaders are scheduled to unveil their reform package.
Noting that some members could be retaliated against by their leaders, some lawmakers declined to mention to whom they were talking. Rep. Patrick Tiberi (R-Ohio) said that he wouldn’t “throw [Blue Dogs] under the bus” by revealing the identities of his Democratic colleagues.
They are so proud of their handiwork they are keeping their names secret. What are they afraid of exactly? The House leadership? Since when? I’m assuming they must be worried about the White House, which would really be good news if true.
The Tuesday Group bill contains a number of policies that are similar to those being discussed by Blue Dogs, including the option of forming insurance cooperatives. The coalition’s measure does not contain a government-run public option, an essential healthcare reform ingredient for liberals.
Like the Tuesday Group, Senate Democrats have publicly embraced the so-called co-op option, which calls for the formation of privately operated nonprofit health-insurance groups to administer a new healthcare system.
Castle confirmed that he has had talks with a number of conservative Democrats, including Rep. Ron Kind (Wis.).
Kind said that a number of conservative Democrats are working with Republicans but would name only Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) for fear of “getting the other members in trouble with leadership.”
Their goal is to find common ground on a number of the outstanding issues, Kind said, because the likelihood of the Senate passing healthcare reform is low.
Both Castle and Tiberi were part of a small group of Republicans that visited the White House earlier this year to discuss areas of compromise on healthcare reform with President Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.
According to Tiberi, the president and Emanuel said they want bipartisan support and “are open to new ideas.” The centrist GOP members said they told Obama and Emanuel that they have ideas but that Democratic leaders in the House won’t listen.
Boo hoo hoo.
It seems pretty clear that this silly co-op idea that Kent Conrad and the boys just “came up with” while sitting around shooting the shit one night a week or so ago is the latest fad among those who really don’t want to rock the Medical Industry boat. It means they can all pretend to vote for health care reform that forces everyone to buys insurance with the promise that prices will stay down. But, of course, that part of the “reform” won’t work, the insurance companies will get tens of millions of new customers, mostly through taxpayer subsidies, make huge profits and Republicans will run against the health care system saying that the Democrats failed to rein in costs.
I do not think the White House is this stupid. They know that the cost and efficiency element is essential and they know that this co-op kumbaaya, while a worthy idea in and of itself, will not accomplish that goal. This health care sausage is in grave danger of being poisoned with e coli conservatism if they don’t push back hard.
If you haven’t donated a couple of bucks to our campaign to persuade Senator Blanche Lincoln to vote for a quality public plan choice in health care reform, you can do so here. The campaign has been the number one “hot page” on Act Blue for two days now. Keep up the good work.
Update: Also be sure to sign up for Open Left’s innovative crowd sourcing initiative to get our Senator to get off the fence and on the record about what they specifically support in health care reform. And Change Congress got Ben Nelson to sputter and now is hitting Mary Landrieu where it hurts.
The netroots are coming at them from all angles. We’re going to try to keep this train on track…
.
No Bailout, No Thanks
by dday
I have about 30 posts I want to write about the developments of the past week and a half here in California, but I want to start by addressing the confusion over that Washington Post article stating that the Obama Administration spurned a request for aid for the state. Outside of Zoe Lofgren, a Congresswoman, nobody is named in this request, nor is the request defined. It refers late in the article to one letter from Bill Lockyer to Tim Geithner that appears to reference federal loan guarantees, which is, again, not a bailout. And the Governor has tried to rule out borrowing to deal with the cash crisis anyway. So I question whether anyone has discussed any kind of dollar transfer from the federal government to California at all. I think this article hangs on an extremely thin reed.
Now, I do think the government should consider offering loan guarantees, to stop the gouging of California going on from Wall Street. But unlike Digby, I do not think that California progressives should WANT a “bailout” in the more traditional sense. It sounds like it would be a nice and tidy solution, and maybe the strings attached could make it easier for the state to get its business done. But that’s very speculative, and so we have to consider who such a solution would actually bail out. Clearly, it would bail out the failed Democratic legislature for refusing to lead and take a long-term view on reforming the state governmental process.
First of all, we know that, with revenues dropping like a rock and and the housing bust continuing without end, in six months the budget projections will fall short again. They have fallen short for about 15 straight months. Which means what, another bailout? That simply isn’t a long-term, sustainable solution. Some may say that it would keep the poor from dying, but it seems to me it would only delay such an outcome. Heck, we know that California last issued IOUs during a budget crisis in 1992, during a MILD recession. The structure of state finances, with Prop. 13, the absurd 2/3 requirement for raising taxes, and all the rest, simply means that we will lurch from crisis to crisis forever without a permanent fix.
We have solutions and we know what they are; there’s really no mystery, other than the fact that legislative Democrats refuse to dare speak their name. A federal band-aid would delay those solutions once again, as they have been delayed for 30 years. We simply will never fix this if we keep deferring the California dream and persuading others to mop up the mess caused by failed leadership.
More generally, if you want to bail out states that didn’t cause the recession and have to go about punishing their citizens for it, argue for a permanent federal fiscal stabilization fund that could be tapped if deficits hit a certain percentage and economic contraction hits a certain level. We have counter-cyclical cuts in the states because they can’t print their own money, and as a result, we actually harm the possibility for a quick economic recovery by cutting public spending at the time it ought to be raised. We need to permanently end the paradox of state budget cuts during an economic downturn, and so if people want the federal government to help, it should be mechanized and durable, and enhance economic recovery by kicking in when recovery is needed.
This may be a contrarian view, but I think a bailout would delay the changes desperately needed, nor would it even help the most vulnerable in society over the long-term or even the short-term. We need to deal with the problem at hand.
.
The Unbearable Rightness Of Being Wrong
by tristero
Ever wonder why this country is in the shape it’s in? Wonder no more, dear friends.
Here are excerpts from an LA Times op-ed from March 16, 2003 written by one Jonathan Tepperman:
… the American left has steadfastly — and irresponsibly — refused to admit the need to oust the dictator, end Iraqi suffering and (one hopes) stabilize the region.
Not that it’s been entirely silent. The radical left, at least, has condemned President Bush and rejected military means for resolving the crisis of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
I’m rather gobsmacked by that “irresponsibly,” considering that, you know, it was people like Bush and Tepperman whose behavior and enthusiasm directly led to the deaths of some 100,000 plus Iraqis, over 4000 Americans, and exacerbated the chaos, misery, and instability of one of the most politically volatile areas in the world. Not to mention that there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in ’03. Oops.
Tepperman then digs in ever deeper.
Only a few Democrats — former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, most prominently — have articulated a clear case against going to war in Iraq, or highlighted the real problems in the Bush administration’s approach: its clumsy unilateralism, its needlessly bellicose talk about preemption and its uncertain commitment to postwar democratic reconstruction. [Note what’s missing in this list: the fact that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks on 9/11. Later, neatly buried in a subordinate clause, Tepperman will admit that the arguments linking Al Qaeda to Iraq are “unconvincing,” which – to a sensible pundit, would point to a careful examination of why on earth Bush was so hellbent on invading Iraq. Alas, Tepperman shows not an inkling of common sense. ]
The unfortunate effect of this silence on the left is that American liberals have virtually ceded the case for war, and thus the moral high ground, to the administration. This retreat has left progressives sounding like pacifists, hand-wringers or, worst of all, Europeans.
And the all-too-predictable finish, accusing liberals of cynicism by not supporting the war:
if they were truly interested in principle, liberals would overlook Washington’s rhetorical overkill. Americans on the left should recognize that even a war fought for the wrong reasons can still wind up contributing to democracy and reducing suffering. If it does, then whatever the real motivation for it, it’s worth supporting.
To stay silent instead is irresponsible — to the progressive cause, to Americans and, above all, to the Iraqi people. American liberals and the Democratic Party will pay the price for such an ignominious abdication.
So what were the costs to Jonathan Tepperman’s career for being so stupid, so willfully blind to reality, such a toady to the damn fools and scoundrels that wrecked this country in more ways than most of us could ever imagine back in ’03? Why, a regular gig at Newsweek , along with cameo appearances at the New York Times.
This is the caliber of far too many people who are permitted to report the news, and opine, in the mainstream media. Guaranteed, they will be doing so for a long time to come. A very long time.
Any questions how Bush/Iraq happened? How Enron happened? The subprime crisis happened? Madoff? Torture? Warrantless wiretapping? And more generally, the mainstreaming of right extremism?
It is simply sickening that the Teppermans of the world have national access while responsible voices on the blogs are ignored and sneered at.
There’s a discussion going on right now that back in ’02/’03, being for the war was, for many journalists and aspiring journalists, less a matter of conviction and more of a career choice. No shit. I mean, this is news? Most of us in the blogosphere back then – when the term “blogosphere” was used not so much descriptively, as ironically – had that pegged by the time the war began.
[Slightly revised after original posting.]
Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Republican
by tristero
The issue is not that Republican Senator John Ensign had an extra-marital affair. That’s between he and his wife. It’s that he made a big deal out of the fact he promised not to:
Mr. Ensign, 51, is married and has three children. During college at Colorado State University, he became a born-again Christian and he and his wife, Darlene, were active in the Promise Keepers, an evangelical group.
Again, to be clear: I don’t expect, or even want, politicians to adhere to Puritan moral standards. I truly don’t care who they fuck, or don’t. What matters is whether a politician is honest in his/her work life. Furthermore, it is vitally important that our politicians be sane, something that would go without saying in a different era, one not overrun with rightwing nuts who have a tenuous grasp on consensual reality.
What’s annoying, however, is when politicians flaunt their adherence to Puritanism, as if the unimportant fact that they only fuck their spouse makes them some kind of moral exemplar (see, eg, Nixon, Richard). And what is truly galling is when politicians who claim to be Puritans turn out to be the most cynical of hypocrites. It really is high time this country grew up, stopped expecting its politicians to be paragons of “virtue,” AND stopped holding up the moral code of superstitious witch-hunters as the gold standard for American personal behavior.
It’s The Democrats’ War Now
by digby
And they’re congratulating themselves for it. That whole Vietnam thing evidently didn’t really make an impression …
Still, kudos to FDL, Democrats.com and After Downing Street and all the others for their hard work trying to remind the Democrats why they won the last two elections.
.
Exceptionally Sorry
by digby
It’s tiresome to have to constantly battle back the ridiculous wingnut memes, but there are some worth taking on if for no other reason than that they illuminate certain right wing noise machine tropes that never seem to die.
Over at HuffPo, Howard Rodman discusses one of the biggies: the apology meme, wherein the wingnuts insist that a liberal politician is apologizing for America and making us look weak as a bunch of mewling kittens.
Rodman writes:
Sorry to say, the world can be divided into two kinds of people–those who apologize, and those who don’t. Among the former are David Letterman, a man so sorry he apologized to Sarah Palin twice; and Harry Whittington, above, who made a public mea culpa for placing his face in the path of Dick Cheney’s buckshot and thus detracting from his relaxation.
In the meanwhile, for real men, love means never having to say you’re sorry. As Donald Rumsfeld once said, “Stuff happens.” This is the crowd that delights in referring to other people as apologizers. Confessers. Admitters. Every name in the sorry black book.
Hence Obama’s mid-East trip became “an apology tour.” WSJ says so. American Spectator says so. Mitt Romney says so.
So pervasive is this meme, so viral, that even the good gray New York Times has gotten into the act. Today David Sanger frontpaged, “[1953] was the same year that the C.I.A. organized a coup that deposed Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and installed the Shah — a cold war operation for which Mr. Obama just publicly apologized during his speech at Cairo University last month.”
I apologize in advance for having to disagree with Mr. Sanger–but Obama didn’t apologize for the 1953 coup. Instead, the President simply stated a fact: “In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.”
Now “played a role” is in this context a wild understatement. Still: Obama’s not apologizing for it. He’s acknowledging it.read on
Complaining about liberal apologists (also known as unpatriotic traitors) has long been one of the primary tools of the tools, going all the way back to “who lost China” and the sellout at Yalta. This is nothing new. But at a time when the entire world is waiting with bated breath to see if the US is going to continue to operate like a rogue superpower or calm down and be a semi-sober leader in world affairs, it woulod probably be helpful if they could keep their limp little meme inside their pants.
But it really goes beyond simply lying about the apology. Whatever the Greatest Country The World Has Ever Known Or Ever Will Know does is, by definition, Good and therefore even acknowledging that we could have even played a role in something as distasteful as toppling a democratically elected government is impossible. We are … perfect. To say otherwise is traitorous, (even though it is indisputably factually correct.)
These people really believe that the way to keep America on top is to behave like a crazed, hysterical bully lashing out at every slight and insisting that everyone acknowledge our moral superiority even though it is patently untrue. Exceptionalism means never having to say you’re sorry.
.
The Man Who Destroyed California
by digby
Perlstein is deep into researching the 1970s these days and sent me this perfect little tidbit from TIME Magazine May 7, 1973:
During his two terms as Governor of California, Ronald Reagan has never quite lived up to his billing of “Mr. Conservative.” A Democratic-controlled legislature has forced him to compromise. Though he has pared welfare rolls and held down property taxes, he has had to raise income taxes. Since he took office, the state budget has doubled, reaching $9.3 billion for fiscal 1974. But to wind up his governorship with a conservative flourish, Reagan has concocted a scheme that would put a constitutional limit on the percentage of personal income tax that Californians must pay to the state.
His plan would take away much of the legislature’s power to tax. The personal income tax rate would be set at a probable maximum of 8.75%—the average rate that people in the state now pay. Then there would be a rollback: Each year the rate would drop one-tenth of 1% until a ceiling of 7.5% was reached in 1989. That ceiling could be raised only by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature, with the concurrence of the Governor and the approval of the voters at the next election. Reagan estimates that if income taxes increase at their present rate, state revenues will amount to $47 billion in 15 years. Under his plan, revenues would be $27 billion in 15 years, a substantial enough increase, he feels, to meet state needs.
The Governor first took his proposal to the legislature, where it needed a two-thirds vote in both houses to be put on the ballot in November. The bill ran into opposition from Democrats and bogged down in committee. Prepared for that rebuff, Reagan took his proposal to the public. He started a campaign to round up some 521,000 signatures needed to put the proposition on the ballot. To make the plan more palatable, he combined it with a 20% income tax credit designed to refund to the taxpayers $415 million of this fiscal year’s $850 million budget surplus. A citizens’ group called Californians for Lower Taxes sprang up on command. On its first mailing of 120,000 letters, the group received 11,130 contributions, amounting to $140,000. So popular is the scheme that liberal Democrats are reluctant to attack it. As Reagan says with a smile: “If you’re for it, you’ve got a lot going for you. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.”
Reagan, in fact, has bigger fish to fry. Before his second term expires in 1974, he plans to “hit the mashed potato circuit” and make speeches around the country supporting his plan. “There’s missionary work to be done out there,” he explains. Beyond that, he still wants to be President. He doubtless believes he will be running on the kind of platform that others cannot match: who likes taxes?
In other news, the administration has decided that they just can’t help California. After all, if you start handing out government money to one state, you’ll have to give it to all of them. And they don’t have it. They’ve given it all to the banks and Wall Street fat cats. (And there are promises to wealthy European banks that must be met.) It’s a damned shame.
And down in the seventh circle of hell, Reagan is certainly smiling today. His “missionary” work is paying off in spades.
.
The Aristocrats
by digby
Atrios wondered earlier why I had taken to calling William Saletan “Lord Saletan” years ago and his memory is correct. It was particularly for his snuff-sniffing, aristocratic attitude toward messy partisanship, which he often characterized as some sort of lower activity fit only for the lower orders. If you’re interested, this rather long winded post is the one that coined the name, (I think.)
.
Am I Hallucinating?
by digby
Jonathan Alter went on MSNBC and spoke village heresy today. It started off with a typical snotty observation from one of the interchangeable hostesses:
Snotty Hostess: The first question I have is, is this the worst thing that could happen to Obama politically? To have folks on the left grousing that he’s not liberal enough? I mean isn’t that kind of his dream come true in terms of the general election?
Alter: Well, It always helps to be positioned in the center when you’re in politics. But he doesn’t have an election coming up right now. I think it’s very helpful for him to be pushed a little bit from the left so that he doesn’t cave too quickly in the hurly burly of making a deal on health care. The big issue for the left is the so-called public option. Will he fulfill his campaign promise and allow Americans to buy into a government health care program similar to medicare, the kind of thing that congressmen are able to get? Should all all Americans be entitled to buy into that?
That’s a big liberal priority and it’s very, very important, not just for getting a good bill Savannah, but for cutting costs in the long run because only with some competition will the insurance companies restrict costs. So that’s a point that the president has been making in the last few days, but it’s important for liberals to hold his feet to the fire with it.
transcript by me — d