Debating Universal Public Health Care With A Conservative

I try to avoid getting into debates with conservatives, not because I am afraid to stand up for what I believe in, but, rather, because I tend to be "long-winded" when the debate takes place online which is very time-consuming and I don't have a lot of time to spend. Plus, time spent doing such things is usually wasted because, as this study shows, conservatives don't deal well with change, so it is a waste of time if you expect to change their minds (not that it's impossible, just don't expect it to happen).

As a side note, I think this might explain why conservatives are so hopelessly devoted (like the song from the movie Grease) to the Republican Party. Or as Al Franken puts it, Republicans love their party the way a child loves its parent: uncritically and blindly. (How else could we explain the many conservatives who willingly would sacrifice American ideals, human rights, and freedom in exchange for authoritarian ideals, torture, and a law-breaking presidential administration.) Democrats, on the other hand, love their party like an adult loves its parent: critically and analytically.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I recently succumbed to the temptation to engage in a debate with a conservative (who was not my father for once), and I spent enough time on it that I wanted to post what I wrote so that it might not have been a complete waste of time.

I won't post what the conservative in the debate wrote because I haven't asked for his permission to do so (nor do I plan to), but my responses should be sufficient to help you guess at what was written by him.

The topic was health care, and here was my first response to what the conservative initially wrote (edited to ensure anonymity and proper grammar):

[...][I]t really infuriates me when conservatives accuse Democratic (with a capitol 'D') voters of "pretzel logic."

Pretzel logic is voting for Republicans who campaign on their belief that government doesn't work and then, when elected, ensure that the government doesn't work by bankrupting it (which is what Bush is doing). If they actually tried to make government work, then they would negate their entire belief system. It makes better sense to put your trust in someone who has trust in the American government and is willing to make it work. Democratic voters don't distrust the government; we distrust Bush and the people like him who are trying to destroy our government to
"prove" their self-fulfilling belief that government doesn't work.

Pretzel logic is wanting to continue a for-profit health care system with greedy private insurance companies who's goals are to make money, not keep their customers healthy. It makes more sense to have a health care system that is health-driven, not profit-driven.

Pretzel logic is believing the lie that our profit-driven health care system is somehow better than the universal health care system that EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION has that produces better results, a healthier general public, longer life expectancies, and lower overall cost. I don't understand conservatives who claim they want fiscal responsibility, but then ignore the BETTER results for a LOWER price
that public health care systems in other countries get.

Pretzel logic is saying other countries have long wait times. The long wait times thing is a myth. It exaggerates the wait times in other countries and ignores the wait times in our own country. My dad had to wait a month to see a specialist after having a transient ischemic attack (a mini-stroke), so don't believe the hype on wait times. Other countries have a sensible triage system that treats patients according to the urgency of their health needs. It's not like they have thousands of people dying because they can't see a doctor in time. That is what happens in OUR country. We have thousands of people dying each year because they can't afford to see a doctor at all. So I never want to hear another lie about the wait times in other countries when people in our own country our dying from waiting until it is too late because they have no insurance. The lack of compassion for those in our country without health insurance makes me physically ill and makes those people
without health insurance physically dead. There are serious consequences for our lack of universal public health care, and we need to take them seriously.

Pretzel logic is thinking it is okay for our government to be in charge of public roads, public schools, public police, public fire departments, public military, and so on, but somehow public medicine is the most evil concept ever conceived by mankind (despite the fact that we already have public medicine for some people through Medicare and Medicaid). If the government does such a good job with all these other public needs, why is it so hard to believe that a universal health care system run by our government would be desirable by the MAJORITY of Americans (55-65%, depending on what poll you look at)?

I wrote a post about this topic and Sen. Clinton's health care plan (which is a government mandate for everyone to buy health insurance (like how we have to buy car insurance), not a government run health care system, and not a good idea, in my opinion) on my blog. You can tell from the title (Worst Universal Health Care Plan Ever) that I am not a fan of her health care plan: http://the-liberal-media.blogspot.com/2007/09/worst-universal-health-care-plan-ever.html

-Bryan

Of course, that response elicited a response from the conservative, and here is my response to the response to the response (again, edited for blah blah blah):

[...]Anyway, since you asked, I feel compelled to answer your questions.

1. How much am I willing to pay out of my paycheck for public health care?

Well, looking at my paycheck, I already pay about 7% on health and dental insurance, so 5% sounds like a bargain.

Note: I recently recalculated that percentage. I pay over 8%.

But this is before I account for deductibles and co-pays. Some people pay more than they make if they have serious medical issues like cancer. So, if you gave them a choice between paying, say, 300% of their paycheck and paying 5% or 10% or even 20%, I am certain they would not choose 300%.

According to an article from The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829fa_fact):

"Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world’s median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year."

Wow! Americans spend more than DOUBLE the world's median on health care. But wait there's more:

"What does that extra spending buy us? Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries. We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries. American life expectancy is lower than the Western average. Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average. Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations. Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita. Nor is our system more efficient. The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year—or close to four hundred billion dollars—on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita. And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any insurance."

You ask me if I would be okay with more of my paycheck going to taxes. The answer is yes, if it meant we spent less overall. Public health care would save money for our country and for all Americans. The question I would ask you is: why don't you want to save money?

Other countries spend less on universal health care, but we spend more and more every year. From The Raw Story (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_health_insurance_costs_rise_near_09122007.html):

"US Health Insurance Costs Rise Nearly Twice As Fast As Pay: Survey

The cost of health insurance in the United States climbed nearly twice as fast as wages in the first half of 2007, with family coverage costing employers around 1,000 dollars (714 euros) a month, a poll showed Wednesday.

Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose an average of 6.1 percent in 2007, while wages went up by 3.7 percent, the Employer Health Benefits Survey released by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust showed.

The 6.1 percent rise in health insurance premiums marked a slowdown from the rate of increase last year, but also strongly outpaced inflation, running at 2.6 percent.

'In 2007, the increase in health insurance premiums was about twice the rate of inflation and not quite twice the increase in workers' pay,' Kaiser vice-president Gary Claxton said in a webcast.

Premiums for family coverage have surged by 78 percent since 2001, while wages have gone up 19 percent."

That is what happens when health care is PROFIT-DRIVEN rather than HEALTH-DRIVEN. Costs spiral out of control. So much for free market competition keeping prices low for consumers, huh? This is what happens with deregulation of public needs. Right now, I'm listening to a report on the radio about how pro-energy deregulation people are now regretting their stance in Ohio. I lived in California when deregulation of power companies caused energy prices to sky rocket and numerous brownouts. That was in the good old days of Enron. Now they REALLY knew how to exploit deregulation.

I am all for strongly-regulated free market capitalism, but not when it comes to public needs like utilities, roads, schools, police, fire departments, judicial system, et cetera.

2. Do statistics exist for people dying in the U.S. from lack of insurance?

I'm glad you asked because the cost of human life is way more important than the cost of money. Yes, statistics exist, and they are harrowing.

From USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm):

"18,000 Deaths Blamed On Lack Of Insurance

By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.

The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.

About 10 million children lack insurance; elderly Americans are covered by Medicare.

It is the second in a planned series of six reports by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examining the impact of the nation's fragmented health system. The IOM is a non-profit organization of experts that advises Congress on health issues.

Overall, the researchers say, 18,314 people die in the USA each year because they lack preventive services, a timely diagnosis or appropriate care."

18,314 people die YEARLY from lack of health insurance. That is horrific. It is disgusting. It is wrong. I don't know about you, but that is not something that I am willing to live with in the greatest country in the world.

Many people like to claim that this is a Christian country. Well, if that is the case, then how are over 18,000 people dying each year from a lack of medical care. From what I remember in Sunday school, Christ was pretty concerned with taking care of the sick. As a Christian, I think that we should be taking care of the least of our brethren and making sure everyone has health care coverage.

So far, I've shown that other industrialized nations get BETTER health care for LESS money. From what I can tell, conservatives want WORSE health care for MORE money. It defies logic.

3. Your concerns about giving health care to the lowest bidder is moot. That is not at issue here. We don't have contractors bid on running public schools, fire departments, or our law enforcement. Why would we have contractors bid on public health care?

Also, the reason why public schools, public police, public fire departments, and other public services are public is because we need those services to focus on their jobs and not on maintaining profit margins for stock holders.

As an example, it would not make sense to have privatized fire departments because if people couldn't afford to pay the fire department when their house is on fire, then their house would burn down. And yet, this is what is happening to people without health insurance, only it is their lives instead of their houses that are being destroyed.

4. Competition does not belong in the health care industry, at least not in the way that you mean. Competition in our current health care system is driven by profits. With health care providers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies, a significant portion of that money goes to advertising, not to Research & Development, because they are in competition with other entities. Other countries don't have this problem. Competition in other countries are driven by health. For example, doctors in England are given paycheck bonuses when they get their patients to quit smoking. If you want competition, it should be for health, not greed.

Your idea that health care would plateau or decline is false. That has not happened in other countries because they don't let that happen. Their governments support scientific research, as opposed to this country where we can't even get our government to support stem-cell research.

5. You say that you don't want the government running our health care system and that we should let the insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals figure it out. Well, they already have it figured out. They figured out how to squeeze more money out of the American people. Every other industrialized nation has already figured out how to solve the problems we have today. They solved those problems with public health care.

6. As for people that cannot pay for health care, gratis and payment plans are short-term and expensive. Do you know who ends up paying the difference? We do. When doctors and hospitals are required to perform expensive services for people who can't afford them, it drives up medical costs and insurance premiums.

Here is what happens. Billy has no health insurance. Billy gets sick, but doesn't go to the doctor because Billy has no insurance. Billy gets sicker. Billy still doesn't go to the doctor. Billy gets really sick and passes out. Billy's family calls an ambulance. The ambulance takes Billy to the emergency room. Doctors at the hospital try to save Billy's life with expensive procedures and machines and tests. Billy dies. Who pays the ambulance? Who pays the doctors and nurses? Who pays the hospital? Not Billy. Not Billy's family, they have no money. The hospital has to make up the difference so they raise their prices on customers who HAVE health insurance. The health insurance companies don't want to lose their profit, so they raise their premiums and their co-pays and their deductibles. Americans lose more of their hard-earned paychecks.

Now here is what would happen if we had public health care. Billy is covered by public health care. Billy gets sick. Billy goes to the doctor. Billy gets cheap medicine and cheap preventative care. Billy gets better. Hospitals don't need to raise their prices. Private health insurance companies don't have to worry about profit margins because they don't exist. Americans get to keep more of their money for themselves. They spend money on other things. The economy grows.

Now what conservative could be against Americans saving money and a growing economy? And what human being could be against preventing Billy's death?

Well, take a look at the White House. That's who is against all that. Take a look at the Republicans and in Congress. They're against all that too. These so called fiscal conservatives are against saving money. These hypocrites are against saving human lives. No, they want US, the hard-working American public, to keep paying more money while their stock portfolios increase and they get more campaign contributions from insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and health care provider groups.

And the Democrats are not much better because they say they want universal health care coverage for all Americans, but some of them, like Hillary Clinton, want to continue to give all our hard-earned money to greedy insurance companies through mandating that we all buy health insurance, and the other ones are too spineless to provide public health care which is what the majority of Americans (55%-65%) want. The majority of Americans want it, but some Democrats are afraid some mean conservative talk show host will call them names like "socialist" or "commie." What they don't realize is that conservatives will call them those names regardless. At least if they provided public health care for all Americans, the majority of Americans would be on their side and be inspired to continue to vote for them. As it is, Americans are frustrated with the lack of action on this issue.

This is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and if the majority of Americans want public health care, then we should have it. Instead, we get a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, and a very small minority in power (the politicians) is willing to do the bidding of the corporate lobbyists because of all the money they donate to political campaigns.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I would argue that we need public health care if we are going to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. We need public health care to live up to the ideal that all men are created equal. If we want to uphold the standards that this nation was founded on, we need to remove corporate influence from our government, and remove profiteering from our health care system. Because this is America, and Americans deserve better.

-Bryan

P.s. I am sorry for the length of the e-mail, but this is a topic that I am very passionate about. I've had to live without health care before. I know how scary it can be.

That e-mail was probably my best contribution to the debate (and obviously influenced by Michael Moore's SiCKO), so if you feel satiated, now is a good time to stop reading this post.

The conservative did respond again, but the response was more of a friendly farewell. He did concede that I made some good points, but he was ultimately not convinced that the U.S. should have a universal public health care system.

So, maybe the whole debate was a waste of time, maybe not. I don't know. Anyway, here was my final response (once more, edited for blah blah blah):

Well, right, I didn't mean to imply that Democratic politicians don't have stock portfolios. They can be just as easily influenced by campaign contributions and stock portfolio increases. That's why I dislike Hillary Clinton's health care plan. She receives a lot campaign contributions from the health insurance companies, which explains why her plan mandates that everyone buy health insurance from them. However, I still tend to be in opposition to Democrats much less than I am to Republicans.

Also, I appreciate that Al Gore is working to fight global warming, but carbon offsets are not a good solution in my opinion. If you ask me, buying carbon offsets while using fossil fuels is like if I bought some bullet-proof vests for some people and then went around shooting other people. That wouldn't make sense.

It is not uncommon for people to do what Al Gore is doing, pushing something that he is financially invested in. Everyone does that. That's business. The problem I have is when people in charge of our government push things they're financially invested in through legislation or executive order, like how Cheney pushes Halliburton. It's unethical.

In any case, you and I probably won't end up agreeing on much, but at least we agree that politicians in power need to spend more time working for the American people rather than themselves. You should hear my rant on why we need publicly-financed elections to oust corporate influence from government. :) However, you would probably rather talk to my father. You and he have a lot in common politically, and you would probably find more agreement with him. He's been the unfortunate recipient of most of my rants, and would probably be glad to know that he's not alone anymore.

-Bryan

THE END

(for now)

Outrage Overload

There is too much to be outraged about these days, and today is no exception.

I am feeling a little overwhelmed by it all, which makes me just want to take a break from it all, but there are some things I feel the need to mention.

First on my mind are the Democratic presidential candidates who have decided that they are against democracy:

Five Democratic hopefuls pull names off Michigan ballot

By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff

October 10, 2007

WASHINGTON - Five Democratic presidential contenders yesterday yanked their names off the Michigan ballot, delivering a group snub to a state feuding with the national Democratic Party over its decision to move its primary to mid-January in violation of party rules.

The removals reinforce the authority of the Democratic National Committee to impose order on a tumultuous campaign in which dozens of states have pushed up their nominating contests in hopes of attracting more money and attention from the presidential candidates. The DNC has threatened to unseat the delegates of states that defy the primary rules set by the party.

The candidates' decisions provide a symbolic boost for New Hampshire, which is anxiously trying to protect its historic status as host of the first-in-the-nation primary. DNC rules allow for early contests in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada, but Michigan and Florida defied the DNC by scheduling their primaries for Jan. 15 and Jan. 29, respectively.

[...]Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware - joined by John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio - declared yesterday that they would not be candidates in the state's primary. Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Chris Dodd of Connecticut - who, like all of the Democratic candidates, have pledged not to actively campaign in the state - chose to remain on the ballot.

Congratulations to these losers: Obama, Biden, Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich. Their stance against democracy has effectively made it much easier for me to decide who I will be voting for in the primary election because I won't be voting for any ot them.

I am not happy that Clinton and Dodd have stated that they won't campaign in Michigan, but their stance is the much lesser of two evils in this case. As an Ohioan, I will show my solidarity with Michigan (a rare thing for an Ohioan to do) by not voting for anyone who Michigan voters can't vote for.

The DNC and their anti-democratic rules can rot for all I care. They won't be getting a dime from me. My money is much better spent elsewhere like MoveOn.org or some other entity that is willing to fight for democracy and fight against an archaic and unfair system that places Iowa and New Hampshire above all other states.

By the way, before I move onto another topic, there's this article about Kucinich:

Kucinich remains on Michigan ballot after trying to withdraw

By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN
The Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan voters will have a choice of four candidates in the Democratic presidential primary, even though Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich tried to join four other Democrats who have decided not to be on the ballot.

[...]But Kucinich twice filed incorrect paperwork with the Michigan secretary of state's office, and had not filed a notice of withdrawal with his notarized signature by Tuesday's 4 p.m. deadline, said the office's spokesman, Ken Silfven.

A campaign manager first signed the paperwork, then the campaign sent in another withdrawal notice signed by Kucinich. But the signature had not been notarized as required.

Either Kucinich's staff is absent-minded or they are being very crafty by pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire while still remaining on Michigan's ballot. Either way, I am still not voting for him.

So it guess it is down to Dodd, Clinton, and Gravel for me. At this point, I am leaning towards Dodd, but Clinton or even Gravel could steal that away by coming out against the anti-democratic Iowa-and-New-Hampshire-always-go-first nomination process. (C'mon, Gravel! What have you got to lose?)

We need a national primary. Period. Anything else is a crime against democracy.

Quickly, (because I don't have a lot of time right now) here are the other things that have recently caused me to be outraged:

Dems Fail Litmus Test

The Washington Post reported today that Sen. Harry Reid ☼ has informed private-equity funds that the Senate will not be closing the obscenely inequitable tax loophole that allows mega-billionaires to be taxed at 15 percent – lower than most working Americans. Harry says there simply isn't time in the busy Senate schedule. Seriously. And the Post points out that if there isn't time in 2007, there almost certainly won't be in 2008 either – "Congress tends to be leery of tax increases in election years."

I'm sure this has nothing whatsoever to do with the private-equity firms and hedge funders putting "more than 20 lobbying firms" to work for them in the Halls of Congress. Nor is Reid's about face a sign of the Wall Street Execs "increasing their campaign donations to members of Congress." It's simply a jam-packed schedule – who has time to address the shafting of revenues for public infrastructure investment? Rebuilding the shredded social contract? funding health care, education, or new sustainable energy programs? Making up for lost revenues due to insane Bush tax cuts?

As I posted previously, this was a litmus test for Democrats – to see whether the party > is capable of truly taking a stand for working people. They have failed it. Rick Perlstein blogged today of Democratic capitulations on this issue and FISA.

Steamier Earth Likely, Due to Global Warming

John Roach
for National Geographic News

October 10, 2007

[...]Scientists expect the rising humidity to cause heavier rains, stronger hurricanes, and increased human heat stress.

[...]Climate scientists have long predicted that a warmer world will allow more water to evaporate, thus making the planet more humid.

Indeed, several studies have shown trends of increasing surface humidity around the planet, but until now scientists were uncertain what was driving the trend.

The new study combined a fresh data set of surface humidity with climate models, "and actually attribute[s] those trends to human influence," said study co-author Nathan Gillett, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England.

Partisanship Accusation Expanded in Alabama

By PHILIP SHENON WASHINGTON, Oct. 10

The son of Alabama’s current Republican governor boasted that a Republican judge would “hang Don Siegelman,”

Sorry, I don't have more of a quote for that last one. I can't access the link right now.

One more thing before I go, this last subject I am outraged about not because former President Carter said these things, but because not enough people are saying it with him:

Carter: US has abandoned 'basic principles of human rights'

Associated Press
Thursday October 11, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Former US president Jimmy Carter last night told CNN the US tortured prisoners in violation of international law, following an assertion last week from George Bush that the US "does not torture".
The 2002 winner of the Nobel peace prize accused Mr Bush of making up his own definition of torture and the hawkish vice president, Dick Cheney, of being a "militant".

"Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," Mr Carter told CNN.

Democrats Need To Make A Stand

I just want to echo what Kos wrote:

Sort out post

[...]Who cares if Bush vetoes? Let him. Don't worry about 66. Don't even worry about 60. If Republicans want to filibuster, let them. Turn it into a real one -- where Republicans have to hold the podium and read from the phone book for days. Let people see who is filibustering funding for the troops and legislation mandating a withdrawal.

If Bush vetoes? Send it back to him. Again and again. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, at least theoretically. There's no reason to capitulate to Mr. 25% on a war that even fewer want. Show the public that the Democrats have fight in them. Give David Broder the middle finger. Hang up on Joe Klein. And start paying attention to what the masses are demanding outside of D.C.

I couldn't agree more.

The reason why Congress' approval ratings are lower than the historic lows of Bush's approval ratings are because of the Democrats' refusal to stand strong, hold the line, and do what we elected them to do: get us out of Iraq.

If they listened to what the people are saying, we would have a better opinion of them. Our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, but if our government refuses the even listen to the people, then it has failed to live up to the ideals of a democracy.

Director of National Intelligence Lied To Congress

He the Director of National Intelligence, but I don't think that lying to Congress is a very intelligent idea. Plus, it's against the law.

Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report wrote about it:

When the Director of National Intelligence lies to the Senate

On Monday, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on recent changes to the FISA law, which the Bush administration has insisted were necessary to keep Americans safe. In defending the law, McConnell seems to have lied to the Senate. Badly.

Steve Benen links to the Newsweek article about McConnell's violation of the law and public trust:

Spy Master Admits Error

In a new embarrassment for the Bush administration top spymaster, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is withdrawing an assertion he made to Congress this week that a recently passed electronic-surveillance law helped U.S. authorities foil a major terror plot in Germany.

Benen also asks some good questions:

[...]At this point, I have a few questions. First, how does anyone expect lawmakers to negotiate policy matters with the White House in good faith when administration officials lie with impunity? Second, will there be any consequences for McConnell in light of these revelations?

And third, isn’t it against the law to lie to Congress?

To answer his last question, yes, it is against the law to lie to Congress. However, there never seems to be any consequences for breaking that law. So there seems to be no reason to stop lying to Congress.

Alberto Gonzales lied just about everytime he spoke before Congress. Gen. Petraeus lied to Congress earlier this week. Karl Rove just skips the whole process by refusing to go in the first place. It doesn't make a difference. The results are the same: no consequences.

Congress needs to start acting like an equal branch of government and put a stop to this. I know it's a cliche, but the Democrats need to grow a spine. (At least, more of them need to grow a spine. There are some tough Democrats like Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), et cetera. We need more like them.) Democrats need to stop giving their milk money to the White House bullies, and stand up for our country, our Constitution, and all Americans. That's why we voted them into power. Now, it's time for them to keep their end of the bargain and use that power.

Not One More!

Not one more American should die in Iraq. Not one more soldier or marine should die for Bush's lies. Not one more parent, spouse, or child should lose a loved one in an occupation that never should have been started.

I am sick of all the stupid slogans from the Right that debase the argument and deny the truth. I am sick of "cut and run" and "defeatist." I'm sick of all their lies and propaganda. They want to fight with simple slogans and demogoguery? Fine. Here's my stupid slogan: "Not one more!"

I am tired of Democrats not willing to stand up for what the American people elected them to do. I am tired of Democrats being frightened by a presidential administration with 25%-30% approval ratings with insipid claims that they "support the troops" or "we're winning in Iraq." Democrats act like they don't have the support of 70% of the country and they have nothing to fight back with. Well, Democrats, fight back with this: "Not one more!"

I don't want to have to see any more news like this:

U.S. military reports seven troops killed in Anbar, northern Iraq

BAGHDAD (AP) — Four U.S. marines were killed in fighting in Anbar province, and three were killed by a roadside bomb in northern Iraq, the military said Friday.

Not one more!

I don't want any more capitulation from the Democrats:

Democratically Controlled Congress Stands on the Brink of Irrelevance on Iraq

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted September 6, 2007.

[...]The Democrats are reacting to this charade by conceding the battle before it begins, with Michigan's Carl Levin offering to remove a deadline from the amendment he and Jack Reed, D-R.I., co-sponsored (the deadline was already riddled with loopholes) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offering to "compromise" with Senate Republicans by dropping his already watered-down demand for a spring "withdrawal."

As Dick Durbin, the senate majority whip, told the Chicago Tribune, "When it comes to the budget, I face a dilemma that some of my colleagues do." He opposes the war, but "felt that I should always provide the resources for the troops in the field."

Not one more!

Not one more American should have to die for Democratic cowardice. Not one more should have to die for Republican deceit. Not one more should have to die for Bush's lies and war crimes:

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

By Sidney Blumenthal

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Not one more!

I am really far beyond fed up with this. I impatiently waited for Magic September, and the thought of the Democratic-controlled Congress giving more money to allow troops to continue to die in Iraq for lies and more lies has put me over the edge.

Not one more!

Tell your Representatives and Senators: Not one more!

And if they don't support "Not one more!", tell them you will support someone else who does (or run against them yourself).

Tell the presidential candidates: Not one more!

Tell the traditional media: Not one more!

Tell everyone: Not one more!

Repeat it over and over again until it becomes entrenched in the mind of every American like all those stupid slogans from the Right that we have to endure daily.

Repeat it until every American troop is safe at home with their families.

NOT ONE MORE!

Culture Of Corruption Continues

The 2006 elections didn't end the Republican culture of corruption. The investigations continue:

Doolittle Aides Subpoenaed in Probe

By ERICA WERNER – 17 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two of GOP Rep. John Doolittle's top aides have been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury investigating ties between Doolittle, his wife and jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The grand jury subpoenas from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia were issued to Chief of Staff Ron Rogers and Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Blankenburg. They were announced on the House floor as Congress returned from its August recess Tuesday after the aides informed the House speaker about the subpoenas, as required under House rules.

Doolittle is under investigation. As is Ted Stevens (R-AK):

Contracts, ties to Stevens probed

By Erika Bolstad and Greg Gordon
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The FBI is investigating the National Science Foundation's award of $170 million in contracts to the oil-field-services company that oversaw renovations on Sen. Ted Stevens' home, an NSF spokesman said Wednesday.

Veco won a five-year NSF contract in 1999 to provide logistics and support for polar research, although it had no previous experience in that field. During the same time period, Veco's top executive managed renovations that doubled the size of the longtime Republican senator's Girdwood, Alaska, home — the scene of a July 30 FBI search.

Then there is Sen. Vitter's (R-LA) ties to the DC Madam, and Sen. Craig's (R-ID) ties to soliciting an undercover police officer for sex. Other GOP Senators are demanding Craig's resignation, but are pretty quiet about Vitter. That hypocrisy is due to the homosexual nature of Craig's crime. Both Vitter and Craig have admitted to doing something illegal, but the GOP wants Craig to resign because of their wanton bigotry and blatant hypocrisy. I can't figure out if they are too stupid to realize this absurd double standard or too amoral to care.

Regardless, there you have it. The culture of corruption continues, and now that the Democrats are in control of Congress they appear to be too spineless to do anything about it... or about our occupation of Iraq... or about global warming... or about illegal, warrant-less wiretapping... or about a presidential administration usurping power and increasing corruption more than any administration before it... or about much of anything.

I'm glad the Democrats are in control because at least they aren't as bad as the Republicans were for the past decade, but the Dems are still allowing too much to slip by in the form of inaction or caving to pressure. That they allowed the Bush FISA bill to pass is unforgivable. That they allowed the Leslie Southwick nomination past the Senate Judiciary committee is horrific and awful.

The culture of corruption continues, and whether the politicians are guilty of being directly involved with it or guilty of inaction toward shutting it down, the fight goes on. It was a big feat getting the Democrats in control of Congress, but it has become clear to me that it was not enough. We need to continue to set goals that improve upon past accomplishments.

Jonathan Singer at MyDD.com set a goal to elect More, Better Democrats. I would like to set a similar goal to elect more liberals and progressives who have the resolve to end the culture of corruption, stand up for their beliefs, counter the neo-con insanity, get our troops out of Iraq, fight global warming, and work toward single-payer universal healthcare for this country.

I had some hope that when the Democrats took control of congress in January 2007, that there would be some relief from the constant barrage of reasons to fight for a better America. I was wrong.

The Democrats Betray Us

Capitulation.

Capitulation and betrayal, that is what the Democrats have given us, capitualion to the Bush administration and betrayal to the American people.

I really had hope for the first time in a long time when the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress in last year's elections.

Now that hope is gone:

U.S. Congress yields to Bush to pass spying bill

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic-led U.S. Congress yielded to President George W. Bush on Saturday and approved legislation to temporarily expand the government's power to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order in tracking foreign suspects.

Civil liberties groups charged the measure would create a broad net that would sweep up law-abiding U.S. citizens. But the House of Representatives gave its concurrence to the bill, 227-183, a day after it won Senate approval, 60-28.

What was all our work for? Why did we work so hard to elect Democrats into power? I worked to get friends and family members to vote for Democrats, to get them majority control of Congress, because I believed that surely the Democrats would fight to protect the Constitution and our civil rights.

I was wrong.

I feel so hurt and betrayed by this traitorous action. I don't know if I will get over it by the next election. The problem is: if neither Republicans nor Democrats will stand up for the Constitution and our civil rights, who will?

I thought that after the 2006 elections, that this long, national nightmare of rule under the Bush regime would soon be over. I thought that the Bush administration would have to pay for their crimes, and America would see a rebirth of the idea that no man, not even the president, is above the law.

Now, Congress has moved to legalize the crimes of the Bush administration. I have lost all hope. I have lost hope that I will see Bush and Cheney in prison. I have lost hope in my country. I have lost hope in the "Democratic-controlled" Congress. I have lost hope in humanity.

If we cannot even prevent the regression of American idealism, how can we possibly hope to be progressive? How can we possibly hope to stop global warming? How can we hope to gain universal healthcare? How can we hope to eradicate poverty? How can we hope to end pollution? How can we hope to bring peace to the Middle East? How can we hope to restore our good reputation in the world? How can we hope to end the causes of terrorism? How can we hope to restore the rule of law? How can we hope to restore the Constitution?

I'm so sick of this. I feel so sick. I am sick of myself that I dared to have any hope. I am sick that I put my trust in the Democrats to do the right thing and stand up to the evil Bush administration. Sick, sick, sick.

Capitulation

I don't really have anything to say that hasn't already been said, and I am so weighed down by my disappointment with the Democrats in Congress that I don't have the will to say much anyway.

I will, at least, reinforce some points with which I agree:

We voted the Democrats into power in Congress to end the war in Iraq, and their capitulation to Bush and his desire to continue the occupation in Iraq yesterday goes beyond betrayal. What kind of democracy do we have when 70% of the public wants to end our occupation in Iraq and our President and our Congress act in opposition to the will of that 70%?

For all our politicians' claims of supporting "democracy," they sure have a hypocritical way of showing it.