Reposted from the Office of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
Mike Schillawski is the President of the Cornell Democrats.
This blog is a project of the Cornell University College Democrats and the Cornell Progressive. The opinions represented herein are those of the individual posters and are not necessarily representive of their respective groups or the state or national Democratic Party.
How Health Care Reform Will Affect You
Filed under: Health Care, National — Tags: Health Care, Steny Hoyer — by Mike Schillawski on 06 November 2009 at 20:13Ankit Patel ‘04 Tells Glenn Beck What’s What
Filed under: Uncategorized — by Mike Schillawski on 28 October 2009 at 23:29Yet another horror story…
Filed under: Health Care, National — by Chris Frommann on 23 October 2009 at 15:08I don’t know how anyone can say that we don’t need health care reform and that private insurance companies aren’t a huge, overwhelming part of the problem. Health care is a human right.
“In 2003, William Koehler of Pittsburgh, Pa. lost his job as an electronics technician. He lost his health insurance, too, but he’d been lucky enough to have the defibrillator battery in his heart changed just the previous year. No insurer would cover him except for one company which refused to cover anything related to his arrhythmia, says his sister.“He survived as long as his battery did, dying on March 7, 2009 at 57. His sister, Georgeanne Koehler, has become an activist, telling the story about how her brother died to anyone who will listen.”
Read more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/without-insurance-mans-de_n_330635.html.
News round-up
Filed under: National — by Chris Frommann on 21 October 2009 at 22:18First, congratulations everyone! Thank you to the Cornell Libertarians and Cornell Republicans for debating with us!
A news round-up of things I found interesting over the last week or so…
- Commentary: A ‘congressional spouse’ breaks barriers. The interesting case of Rep. Jared Polis’s spouse, Marlon Reis. Rep Polis of Colorado is the first openly gay man elected to Congress as a freshman.
- More cognitive dissonance? Republicans don’t like polls that don’t show them winning (clearly, they must be fraudulent and rigged) and inadvertently point out that the number of self-identified Republicans is at the lowest level since 1983. Grechen, the poll was sampled properly, there just aren’t as many Republicans as Democrats nowadays.
- Apparently we’re not the only ones who are frustrated. Representative Earl Blumenauer and other liberals hoped a progressive agenda would move faster through Congress.
- The New York Times thinks everyone in Albany should be thrown out of office. I tend to agree. I’m sorry, a corrupt, inept Democrat is not really better than a corrupt, inept Republican. The situation of the New York State government is almost comical.
- Moving to New York after graduation? Better be careful you don’t date someone from a different borough.
- Republicansforrape.org. Because really, how can you justify voting against Senator Al Franken’s anti-rape amendment, which would allow rape victims to have to option of suing their employers (e.g. for negligence).
- How safe is the HPV vaccine? People get worked up over vaccines for reasons I don’t entirely understand. You’re actually 290 times more likely to die of cervical cancer than the vaccine and almost twice as likely to die from a lightening strike.
- WWII Veteran Makes Case For Gay Marriage. “‘Do you believe in equal, equality for gay and lesbian people?’ I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that. It made no sense to me. Finally I asked her, ‘What do you think our boys fought for at Omaha Beach?’ I haven’t seen much, so much blood and guts, so much suffering, much sacrifice. For what? For freedom and equality.”
- CBO finds Dem bill with public option reduces deficit. The public option reduces the cost of the package, the deficit and covers more people. And the arguments against are…?
- More venting against Republican inanity
There’s A Rep For That.
Filed under: National — Tags: House Republicans — by Mike Schillawski on 18 October 2009 at 13:57It would be funny if it weren’t true.
Shapeshifters & Flipfloppers
Filed under: Health Care, National — Tags: Bipartisanship, Chuck Grassley, Health Care, Mitch McConnell — by Mike Schillawski on 16 October 2009 at 17:44The possibilities of a bipartisan (insert issue) bill are slim. In fact, they never really existed. Yet the marginal Democrats (I’m looking at you, Senator Nelson) continue to go around and proclaim that new legislation that doesn’t have a super-duper supermajority, somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 votes in the Senate, is not legitimate.
Bipartisanship is a virtue to strive for, but at what cost? In my last post, I chastised Democrats for failing to get their acts together, defend their values, and stop arguing with themselves. This time, it’s something more malevolent in the system. The Republicans are trying to barter their way to favorable public policy outcomes. Note: I did not say palatable, I didn’t even say tolerable, nor did I say compromise-that-reflects-their-relative-strength; I said favorable.
How does this work? How do 40 GOP Senators and 178 GOP Congressmen barter their way to favorable policies? By pledging support for ideas, then moving the goal posts. In many ways, this is a Peanuts strip. Lucy tells Charlie Brown that she’ll hold the football for him to kick, and Charlie Brown’s been duped before and is reluctant to try try again. But, Lucy convinces him that “This time, she means it.” So, Charlie gives in and takes a run at the football. Lucy, true to form, pulls it away at the last second and Charlie careens by.
The Republicans make the right noises and say the right things, indicating that they would support a (insert issue) bill if it had certain provisions. Reasonable? Yes. It’s the art of compromising. Senators will transcend party, work ideas from both sides of the aisle into the bill, then a broad, bipartisan coalition will support the bill. Right?
Wrong. At the last minute, after the Democrats have agreed to incorporate Republican ideas, the Republicans pull the football away. They proclaim, “We never liked those ideas. We like these over here instead. If you give us those, we’ll support the bill.” Just like Lucy, the Republicans taunt Charlie Brown again, saying that THIS TIME, they’ll let him kick the football.
For example:
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa:
- Then: “I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.” Fox News Sunday, June 14, 2009
- Now: “[T]here are other points as well, but let me mention other points that you didn’t mention. And one would be the individual mandate, which for the first time would have a federal penalty against people who don’t have health insurance…. I’m very reluctant to go along with an individual mandate.”October 6, 2009.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky:
“But the core point is this: At the end of the day, if the government plan is either in the bill or out of the bill, whether they will be able to argue successfully or not whether tax funds are gonna be provided for abortion, whether or not they will be able to argue at the end that dollars for health care for illegals is in or out, what we do know is what the core of the bill is going to look like. We know that for sure,” he said.
And the bottom line, said McConnell, is that Republicans don’t like the bill at all.
“It’s going to be a trillion dollar bill,” said McConnell. President Obama has said he won’t sign any bill that exceeds $900 billion over ten years, but what’s a few billion?
“We know it’s going to have half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts. We know it’s going to raise taxes on individuals and business. So however these other issues are resolved, the core of the bill is a trillion dollar government attempt to take over one-sixth of the economy, which slashes Medicare by half a trillion dollars, and raises taxes on most Americans,” he said. September 30, 2009.
Sen. Grassey, again:
“Chuck Todd asked Grassley whether he’d vote for the bill if it was a good piece of policy that he’d crafted but that couldn’t attract more than a handful of Republican votes. “Certainly not,” replied Grassley. Todd tried again, clarifying that this was legislation Grassley liked, and thought would move the ball forward, but was getting bogged down due to partisanship. Grassley held firm. If a good bill cannot attract Republican support, then it is not a good bill, he argued.Grassley, in other words, is working backward from the votes. If the Gang of Six reaches a compromise that the Senate Republicans don’t support, Grassley will abandon that compromise, regardless of the fact that he’s the guy who built it. The Gang of Six, in other words, falls apart if it can’t assure a vote of 76. Since it seems virtually impossible that such a vote will manifest, it seems similarly unlikely that Grassley will sign his name to the final bill. And Grassley, remember, was willing to say all this publicly. His version of bipartisanship is strikingly partisan.” August 17, 2009.
And on the subject of individual mandates:
- “…When Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) asked committee members to air their disagreements with an individual mandate during a meeting on May 5, no one chimed in.” September 22, 2009.
- Senator Jon Kyl, R-Arizona: “This is a stunning assault on liberty” and Senator Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky: These provisions trample on the feedoms of Americans.” September 22, 2009. Both of these esteemed gentlemen ARE on the Finance Committee.
At the end of the day, what it comes down to is that the Republicans are (a) determined to water down and dilute any Democratic efforts at reform, (b) unwilling to lend support to any bill that does not completely reflect their views and any noises of bipartisan compromise are only misleading, ephemeral goalposts, and (c) going to vote no.
Senator Max Baucus comments on health care
Filed under: Health Care, National — Tags: Finance Committee, Health Care, Max Baucus — by Andrew Coleman on 16 October 2009 at 16:43Today, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, when asked about how the health care bill will fair in Congress, stated that every Democrat will vote for the bill and at least one Republican will vote for it as well. In the midst of negotiations to try to satisfy liberal Democrats without bothering moderates, these words of confidence give a reason for all people in this country to be happy. It appears that an overhaul of the current health care system is on the horizon.
With ongoing political drama, town hall debates that brought out thousands of far right lunatics (to put it mildly), and a health care system that continues to cost more for consumers and provide less care, this statement allows me to take a large sigh of relief. Whether there will be enough senators to support this bill has been a topic of discussion in recent weeks, despite the Democrats control of the senate. With moderate Democrats worried about the cost of the bill, a word of confidence from the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that these moderates will, in the end, support the bill, is a very relieving thought.
The need for an overhaul of the current health care system goes beyond simply becoming cost efficient and removing the astronomical profits that insurance companies make (although these are perfectly reasonable reasons as well…). It is my personal belief that health care, the act of protecting citizens from diseases and illnesses, is a moral responsibility that the government has. Just as it is the government’s responsibility to provide an army to defend the citizens of the United States, the act of protecting citizens from a fatal illness is something that the government must do as well. With at least 15% of the population in our country completely uninsured, and endless more not getting enough care for their specific medical conditions, the government is not carrying out their responsibility.
Simply put, the current health care system is acting in a way that is morally and ethically wrong. Millions of people today who do not have the necessary treatment for their illnesses will have it in the new system. Beyond all else, this is enough of a reason to change the way health care is run.
Andrew Coleman is a blogger for the Cornell Democrats.
A good story stays the same over two generations…
Filed under: Cornell, History — by Hallie Mitnick on 12 October 2009 at 16:33Last Thursday, I took my father to GOVT 3665: American Political Thought with Prof. Isaac Kramnick. My dad was a history major who graduated college in 1978. Luckily, nothing has changed about Orestes Brownson and Henry David Thoreau since then. As I fiercely took notes and flipped from my anthology and notebook, hanging on Prof. Kramnick’s every word, I tried to glance over at my father every so often, I could see his facial expression which mimicked the way I feel every time I am in Prof. Kramnick’s lecture. It’s a mixture of awe and reflection. When you’re in Prof. Kramnick’s lecture, it doesn’t matter if you’ve read the documents before. The way he lectures with such passion makes his lectures an almost spiritual experience. I feel that way every time I go to class, and I could see that same feeling in my dad’s facial expression. After class, my dad remarked how fantastic the lecture was and how attentive the students were. Sometimes we all forget how lucky we are to attend a university with lectures like that, and the look on my father’s face and his reactions to the class reminded me of this.
Hallie Mitnick is the Secretary of the Cornell Democrats.
Hail to the – Nobel Laureate?
Filed under: International — Tags: Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama — by Ben Schneider on 09 October 2009 at 17:13President Barack Obama – a Nobel Peace Prize winner? I was as shocked as anyone when I flipped open my phone this morning to see a text from my father saying that our President had been given the award. It raises a lot of questions, the most important of them being: what exactly has he done to deserve it? Past winners have done everything from providing care to wounded soldiers (the International Committee of the Red Cross), signing peace agreements in the Mideast (Arafat, Perez, Rabin, etc.), and campaigning for human rights (Lech Walesa, among others). So far, Obama’s achievements in promoting peace are limited to delivering a number of (admittedly very good) speeches, stating that he will utilize diplomatic channels more extensively than his predecessor, and a general, long-term commitment to draw down American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Therefore, it would seem that his actions, while valuable and commendable, do not merit receiving the most prestigious tangible prize in international affairs and diplomacy. However, I think it’s quite possible that the Nobel Committee did not award the Peace Prize to President Obama for the traditional reasons – that is, he did not receive it for any problems he has solved or any diplomatic breakthroughs he has engineered. Rather, they gave him the award for entirely different reasons – ones which are rather less clear, and probably much more questionable. First, adding the Nobel Peace Prize to the President’s mantelpiece of awards, titles, and honours is quite significant. Nobel Prize winners are given more consideration in discussions of international affairs, and being a Prize recipient will add to his clout at the bargaining table.
More important than that, the Nobel Committee may be hoping that the award will actually make a difference to American foreign policy as long as President Obama is our head of state. He is not only the president of the United States, with all of the expectations and obligations that go along with that office, but he is now a globally-recognized beacon for pacifically-oriented diplomacy. As such, there will be an expectation that he will pursue diplomacy even more vigorously than before – especially on the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme. The President is a man who is well aware of his place in history, and how he will be viewed in ten or fifteen years’ time. Because of this, he would likely not want to risk damaging his own image – as well as that of Nobel Peace Prize recipients as a group – by engaging in a bellicose foreign policy.
It seems to me, then, that the Nobel Committee gave him this award in order to shape his foreign policy and to give him a bit more moral authority to help him along the way. In some respects, it can be argued that this will hurt the reputation of the Peace Prize and its future recipients. However, it seems entirely reasonable that the Prize itself be used to promote peace, and not just to recognize those who have already done so. Therefore, while it is a break with tradition, giving the Nobel Prize to President Obama may turn out to have thoroughly positive and far-reaching effects on world politics and American diplomacy.
Ben Schneider is a blogger for the Cornell Democrats.
Beyond the pale: when sedition & nationalism threaten democracy
Filed under: National — Tags: Patriotism, Sedition — by Chris Frommann on 07 October 2009 at 04:12A republic requires at least two political parties to remain functionally democratic.* Even when they have little power, as is the case in the United Kingdom, for example, the opposition proves to be a vital check on the ambitions of the ruling majority. This is a good thing, because it ensures that if one party does something insane, their opponents will screech about it and presumably win the next election. Political parties go a long way in addressing Lord Acton’s adage on the corrupting nature of power. In a republic where other people covet your job, you’re less likely to do something illegal – or at least you’ll have to do a better job of hiding it – because you risk losing the power you already have.
This, of course, only works if everyone is more or less playing by the same rules.
Up until recently, I had assumed that with the notable exception of some reactionary and unhinged nutjobs, many – I’ll be generous – most Republicans who claimed to love their country were in fact not lying. Sure, they wrapped themselves in the flag and were so terribly misguided as to condone torture: all in the name of defending America and her values – the ultimate irony. Yes, they fear immigrants despite the United States being a nation of immigrants and they hate government ‘handouts’ even though Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare are the most popular government programs out there. Yes, they appear to value corporations over people. Yes, there is plenty of cognitive dissonance. Still, I could believe that there were in fact plenty of Republicans out there who loved their country (e.g. John McCain).
When I read about birthers, my faith was shaken. Still, I recognize that the majority of Republicans are not morons.
But when I saw multiple reports of conspiracy to commit sedition and treason, I had reached the end of my patience and understanding.
Last week, John Perry, a former senior editor at the reactionary Newsmax, wrote – I shit you not – that the president “is inviting” a military coup, which he shamelessly advocates: “Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars.” Newsmax subsequently removed the article and said they believe in the principles of constitutional government. Sure.
A few days earlier, when Thomas Friedman wrote about legitimate safety concerns for the president, pointing to a Facebook poll asking if President Obama should be killed and citing a similar right-wing build up of hate prior to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination, RNC Chairman Michael Steele called him a nut job.
Earlier this year, Chuck Norris showed his propensity for sedition by writing on WingNutDaily that he “may run for president of Texas,” referencing a comment he made earlier speaking with Glenn Beck. He calls the comment a quip before he deadpans and says that, the “need may be a reality sooner than we think.” In August, resident nutter Michael Savage said there will be “a revolution in this country if this keeps up” because “the white male … has nothing to lose.”
Clear Channel’s Jim Quinn said on his radio show, “The only reason you put military anywhere is to win and win as quickly as you can, as ruthlessly as you can, because mercifully it will be over quick, instead of turning it into a meat grinder. I’m looking at — guys, look, I love you all who go over there and serve, but I gotta tell you right now, run for your life, get out, this guy is gonna get you killed. Man, these people are scary.”
To top it off, a neo-Nazi named “Jim” Jim from Oklahoma called into Michelangelo Signorile’s radio show, “claiming he and 200 other Oklahomans were meeting weekly to stage a coup and that they had their ‘right to bear arms’ and that he wants to bring the country back to where it was 400 years ago, before slavery was abolished.”
It is time we call these people what they are. They are reactionary, racist, unpatriotic and seditious, and they make up an all too big and all too vocal part of the right wing in the United States. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone on the left who advocated killing President Bush or organizing a coup to overthrow him, but that’s exactly what these people are proposing. The ‘patriotism’ these people espouse is actually mindless nationalism, and has no place in a rational society. With protestors bringing guns to rallies and the government recognizing that the threat of right wing extremism is growing, this is a very real issue. Rather than stoke the flames of hatred, those in the Republican Party who love the United States, its Constitution and the ideals of freedom and liberty it represent should forcefully rebuke this type of disgusting and dangerous speech.
—-
* – Having more than two would do a better job of representing the various political views in the United States, but once we go down that road, we have to talk about presidential versus parliamentarian democracy and all of a sudden we’re debating the relative value of fairer representation and legislative expediency.
Chris Frommann is the director of public relations for the Cornell Democrats.