HCR in da House: Step Forward; Step Backward

Last night I watched the electronic vote tally for health care reform in the House.  The vote was hailed as historic, and indeed as I watched the vote tally for the bill stall at about 196 and then again stall at about 215, knowing that 218 votes were needed, I felt the anxiety and excitement that I felt election night ‘08 as Obama neared the 270 electoral vote count. The House let out a cheer as the 218th vote appeared, and then a gasp as a single republican vote registered as the 219th or 220th vote for the Bill.

Speaker Pelosi let out a giggle as she announced the vote tally and then banged the gavel.  And so it was. The House voted for health reform by a 220-215 count.

And then with a whoosh, the giddiness of learning that another 36 million Americans indeed might received health insurance, disappeared as I heard that the House’s passage of health reform came with a caveat, the Stupak Amendment, which goes out of its way to be punitive against women and marginalize their rights to reproductive freedom. And so it is another night in the discomforting journey of progressive reform in the Obama era.  In order to win passage of health reform, Speaker Pelosi and the Obama Administration horse traded away reproductive rights, moving the country ever closer to the dark pre Roe V Wade days of back ally abortions, needless health risks and overt discrimination against 51% of the population.

I am most intrigued by the horse trading of rights for reform, and the fact that Know Nothing conservatives continue to lead the country down the Bush Administration’s back ally days of rights retrenchment while lambasting Democrats for restricting basic freedom in America.

I’m amused and scared for the future especially considering that 2009 marks the likely high water mark of democratic control in the house and senate, at least for this era.  What other rights concessions might be embedded in the next progressive reforms for climate change, immigration and regulating wall street?

Post mortem ‘09 (part 3)

a couple additional things to add, which suggests things not as bad for the Dems. as many are reporting.  The congressional special election victories for dems not only give Obama 2 more votes on health care reform. They also point to the effectiveness of the democratic party organization to win its 4th and 5th special election in its last 5 attempts. The win in the conservative NY 23rd is a neat pick-up for so many reasons.

And, aside from the Maine (yes) vote which defeated same sex marriage, most ballot issue results favored the dems. It is worth mentioning that voters did not turn away from “big government;” they did not defeat tax cutting measures (tho tax cuts was a big part of the Christie campaign platform).  This is another strike against the GOP Know Nothings and perhaps, along with the Hoffman defeat, will lessen the urgency of the Obama/socialism meme.

and what it all means for 2010?  Well, that’ll depend on what happens in 2010.

the morning after election ‘09

with all the post-mortems let me just suggest that  the election was not so much about Obama, –tho it was a little– as it was about responsiveness. Chris Hayes is correct in saying that incumbents lose in bad economic times. (government–incumbents– seen as not being responsive to needs of every day voters) It is kind of that easy. In addition, Virginia rejected four years of weak democratic leadership– Tim Kaine– and in NJ, the disliked and ineffectual Jon Corzine lost.

It should be noted that in two congressional races, Obama gained two more votes for health care reform, that is unless the legislation is enacted before January.  This is good news for the Dems and for the President.

Further, while Michael Steele is gloating this morning about GOP victories in NJ and Virginia, he has got to be one of the least competent national party leaders in a long time (verdict still out on Kaine). The guy endorsed both losing candidates in NY’s 23rd district (Scozzafava and Hoffman). There is also a civil war going on in the GOP, tho it now remains to be seen whether the Now-Nothing Hoffman-Palin wing needs to regroup and come on stronger or whether their clout is now on the wane. A Hoffman win actually would have been better for the Dems because it would have increased the clout of the Know Nothings, which makes the GOP less credible as a national level. o well.

In my opinion the perception of Obama weakness at this early stage in his presidency owes to his unwillingness to follow his own better judgment  on issues from health care to afghanistan.  His better judgment as I see it tells him that Afghanistan is a no win quagmire and that health care needs a strong public option. His narrative has disappeared into his post partisanship narrative, which has him obsessing over token Republican support for his policy agenda. This obsession is delusional b/c it is never going to happen and only waters down Obama’s own agenda (making him less responsive).  (If the pres and his team cannot learn from this and if this obsession has psychological roots, i think we’re screwed.)

In sum, i think the election results come down to a case of (ir)responsiveness. Obama needs to be more responsive to the constituencies and messages that elected him. Dems need to be more responsive their progressive voices and to their campaign messages. VA. and NJ governors  (and in VA– the candidate Deeds) were not responsive. And just hoping the GOP will follow their KNow Nothing fringe.

election returns 2009. Nothing much to feel good about

it’s 10:30 election eve 2009. The networks just called NJ governor for the Republican Christie, and VA governor for Republican McDonnell. Commentators are already sounding Obama mojo demise.  Some say its turnout, others point to the independents. still to see how post mortums will shake out.

I’m personally disappointed by the NJ outcome. I expected Deeds to lose in Virgina. For weeks I have been saying the first verdict on the Obama presidency will be seen in NJ, not VA. Obama put skin into the NJ race, standing with Corzine on 3-4 occasions.  And as someone who came of age in NJ, I’m personally disappointed.

But I was raised an equal number of years in New York, and things there are somewhat different. Bill Thompson remains only a point behind Bloomberg for NYC mayor. The networks have called it for Bloomberg, but Thompson exceeded expectations.

The real issue, and the most telling in this election cycle falls to upstate NY’s 23rd district. Quite an obscene coup by the Tea Party faction of the GOP who put their bet behind Doug Hoffman, somone who knows nothing about local issues and, if elected would not be a responsive delegate to the 23rd’s interests.   Hoffman, who brags that he is a mentee of Glenn Beck, would be yet another uninformed voice of the Palin-Calhaun faction.

But, I’m looking to see how the dems might take some solace from this disappointing night. And in that regard, the hope sor even a hint of solace came down to  a Hoffman win.why?  A Hoffman win in the 23rd, would push the GOP further to the right. It would stoke right wing primary challenges in 2010, pushing the party further into their black hole of a core and oblivion. at least that’s how i see it.

Paradoxically, an Owens win in the 23rd sends a diferent message, will discourage the right wing to use Rubio to overtake Crist in Fla. and challenge other mainstream conservatives elsewhere.  If the extremist loses tonight, the GOP becomes more credible as a national party.  Neither Christie nor McDonnell are wingnuts.   If Owens wins the 23rd, other than his single victory, the Dems have very little be be happy about this off year election night.

Obama’s ‘Post-Racial” Social Health Care Policy

When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980 it was written somewhere that America’s post-civil rights era had arrived.  Gone were  the civil rights days when minorities and poor people held the government to task for having systematically excluded them in employment, housing,education and so forth

Suddenly, individuals were instructed to assume responsibility for their own exclusion.  The culture of poverty replaced government as the problem’s source which led to a solipsistic and defeatist self referencing to individual helplessness. People in need were stuck.

Almost three decades later, we are experiencing a similar disequilibrium in Obama’s America. As a candidate for president, and during his first year in office, Obama– himself the product and exemplar of  MLK’s I have a dream speech– has ushered in a post-racial discourse, which bears some similarly to Reagan’s post civil rights politics.

Obama downplays the relevance of rights when he discusses the pressing problems of his day. Consider health care.  Obama’s emphasis is on forging more effective and efficient systems. He downplays social justice in health care, for example, by focusing on health care costs for the middle class rather than on the basis needs of the uninsured for health insurance.

Obama’s post racial social policy envisions the assets he associates with consensus building and balancing of competing interests.  Along the way Obama perpetuates the privatization of risk paradigm first popularized under Reagan and institutionalized under W Bush, albeit in a manner that is more inclusive.  Under this paradigm, disenfranchised, poor, minorities continue to lose out.  The alternative human rights paradigm would consider the stark realities of people forced to abide a life without health insurance and in the shadows of law, and would compel the government to assume responsibility for affording all people with basic human dignity.

Obama’s Nobel

It was just announced that President Obama has won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. I offer my congratulations while trying to keep my well earned cynicism in check.  My wife, Steph Flores-Koulish, saw the Dalai Lama yesterday in DC and came home last evening filled with his hope and compassion.  She says he made people in the room feel bigger, more hopeful and other-committed. It’s not about the small stuff; it’s about acting as if this were your last day on earth…  without the anxiety that might deservedly accompany such thoughts.

A facebook friend this morning posted his thoughts (thanks Jeff Levin) about Obama’s Nobel and he reminded why many of us voted for Obama. It was about hope and about having a leader that appeals to our better angels. Yep. Obama does this. My friend also says we haven’t seen the best of Obama yet, and I think I agree. At least I want to.

Just a few minutes ago I heard a member of the Oslo committee tell BBC that  Obama won the prize beause he has shifted the dialogue, replaced cynicism with hope and a commitment to having words replace guns and bombs as the more effective way of resolving international disputes. He referred to Obama’s commitment to nuclear disarmament as well as to some not yet conversations Obama led at the UN last week, which he says should lead the global community in a new direction.

Well I hope so, and for this moment, am willing to put aside my thoughts that there exists tens of thousands of epople who work for peace everyday who are also qualified to win a Nobel peace prize.

I’m willing to imagine that with the moral capital that accompanies a Nobel prize, President Obama will now be more inclined to getting the US out of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and leading (as opposed to compromising) the country towards real universal health care reform.

Congratulations Mr President. Enjoy the day. In the mean time, many of us shall continue to urge your better angels and ours to lead you and us towards a stronger and more peaceful future.

Tom Carper/ Olympia Snow Race to the Bottom of Health Care Debate

Tom Carper just announced a compromise plan on health care that would make a public option or co-ops a voluntary choice of the individual states. It is increasingly likely that some mix between carper’s plan and Olympia Snowe’s plan for triggers– creating a non-profit corp that would offer low cost insurance at the state level will end up in a final bill on the president’s desk.

I think either option may be better than what currently exists but probably not a whole lot better. Like other national programs left to the states, either of these plans is likely to result in a race to the bottom in terms of access/costs and quality coverage. with states increasingly holding going out of business sales (like in california), giving states an opt out clause on health coverage mitigates any incentive for them to provide coverage to all their residents.

I support the public option as a comprise, but continue to believe that if the country is going to establish some new mechanism for providing health insurance– triggers– why not go back to considering singler payer, which is more cost effective and comprehensive, and far less bureaucracy than offered by these current hybrid plans.

Obama and the Race/Violence Divide

In recent weeks Nancy Pelosi and former President Jimmy Carter made much needed meta-comments about the increasingly violent tenor of the current political discourse in this country.

Pelosi reflected upon the violent language not experienced in this country since the 1960s, and Carter observed the racist motivations behind a lot of the anti Obama attacks. Both Pelosi’s and Carter’s comments were dismissed by a good many in the mainstream press, to my chagrin.

It’s an important discussion to have, particularly since in my opinion both Carter and Pelosi are correct in their observations.  (see Politico)

But let me temper that a bit with the following context. All Obama agonists are not Racist and race is not the root of much of the anti Obama criticism. During the early Clinton years, the right made a similar effort to delegitimize his presidency. These were the days Rush Limbaugh started a count on the number of days left in the new president’s term, and Clinton agonists discredited his health reform efforts by jiggling shiny trinkets in front of the media about alleged mistresses and Whitewater land deals in Arkansas.  Taylor Branch’s new bio of Clinton, the Clinton Tapes reminds us of how the right came quite close to delegitimizing the Clinton presidency.   Clinton’s opponents may have been racist (some of them), but the germane point is that they hated the Clintonian commitment to relying on government to solve complex social problems.

Same thing Obama faces.

Race is being used as a tool to bring Obama down,  but it is not the source of (all) the animosity. I think the more comprehensive source is ideological.  The big divide between red states and blue states, and between people who believe government has a positive role to play and people who would rather rely on unaccountable market forces that  are structured to exclude millions of have nots in society.  To the extent that opponents of a strong federal government historically back to Antibellum days have also been racist is part of the story now playing out.

It’s an ideology  thing about the role government.  Difficult to see how the president’s commitment to post partisanship abides such a tectonic divide.  And race fuels the animosity. It makes for a less communicative divide, and potentially more violent future.

In the meantime, it is time to heed Pelosi’s and Carter’s comments.

Politico

Immigration reform, but at what cost?

(my Oped in today’s Baltimore Sun)

When South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilsonbarked out the words “You lie!” to President Barack Obamaduring the president’s address to both houses of Congress, he previewed the tone of the coming immigration debate that Sen.Harry Reid and the White House promise will follow health care reform.

It is going to get ugly.

When Senate Democrats quickly responded to Mr. Wilson’s impertinent comments by “drilling deeper” into their proposals to make sure that undocumented immigrants are even more explicitly excluded from proposed health care exchanges, the die was cast, it seems, for the continued demonization of undocumented immigrants.

As optimistic as I was several months ago for a more progressive immigration policy, I now fear that the Obama White House may be looking in the rear-view mirror for direction on immigration reform.

Consider that President Obama committed to completing the 700-mile colossus of a border wall (at $3.9 million dollars per mile) and extended the government’s commitment to Boeing Inc. to build and oversee construction of a virtual border fence.

Mr. Obama will also extend the abusive 287(g) program – used by authorities in 23 states, including the Frederick County Sheriff’s Department – that gives state and local police permission to enforce federal immigration laws and has resulted in racial profiling as well as the destruction of families through the removal of undocumented immigrants who had been picked up for minor infractions.

It gets worse: The administration has committed $195 million to the “Secure Communities Initiative,” which sends the fingerprints of every immigrant booked at a local jail to federal immigration authorities. This includes immigrants who have never been convicted of anything and may nonetheless find themselves in removal proceedings as a result.

It also continued the much-criticized Real ID program under a new name (Pass ID); the program still turns state-issued driver’s licenses into national identification cards. Finally, it supports an electronic verification system that screens job applicants but has a high error rate and cannot account for fraud and identity theft.

Mr. Obama has doubled down on former President George W. Bush’s enforcement agenda for two reasons. First, he believes that state and local police, along with state-of-the-art enforcement technology, can serve an effective immigration-control purpose. Second, his early support for Bush policies serves a strategic political agenda: appeasing political opponents who insist on securing the border as a precursor to “regularization” (establishing a path to legalization), which is the core of his comprehensive reform.

The problem is that “securing the border” is an undefinable, unmeasurable and thus unachievable goal. The only measurable thread here has to do with deterring undocumented immigration, which these measures fail to do. The cause of the recent decrease in undocumented immigration is the recession, not the pilot virtual fence in Arizona. The only winners are military and surveillance contractors – and Mr. Obama’s political enemies.

If Joe Wilson and the health care debate provide a clue, the coming immigration debate is likely to be a mean-spirited political circus. The spectacle is likely to play down to society’s most primal fears about immigrants and force additional compromises on what is regrettably an already compromised approach.

It is also likely to embolden Mr. Obama’s enemies to force upon him irrational demands and even more punitive enforcement measures as the trade-off for a watered-down comprehensive overhaul of immigration policy.

The president may eventually get immigration reform that has a more rational visa quota system and family reunification, perhaps even a path toward regularizing the status of undocumented immigrants – but at what cost? The victory may be undermined by further concessions to conservatives in Congress and the border militarization and surveillance contractors who support them.

Robert Koulish is an associate professor of law and society at Philadelphia University and author of the forthcoming book “Immigration and American Democracy: Subverting the Rule of Law.” His e-mail isrkoulish@gmail.com.

Copyright © 2009, The Baltimore Sun

Joe Wilson’s War against ‘illegal aliens’

South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson interrupted President Obama’s speech on health care reform the other night shouting, “you lie.” In last night’s show, Rachel Maddow led her broadcast with the Wilson fallout.

Since Wilson interrupted Obama’s speech, this back bencher has become a cause celebre among right wingnuts. Among other things has received plaudits from Operation Rescue’s Randall Terry;  Tea-Party Patriots; Palmetto Scoop gave away “I’m with Joe Wilson” T-shirts, others urging folks to open their wallets. Wilson himself issued a YouTube video trying to raise money from those who think Obama “want’s to give health care to illegals.”

What I found most alarming about Wilson’s verbal attack during Obama’s speech and this aftermath is how this wingnut extreme now drives the debate.  Such lunatic outbursts get instant legitimacy by the media and then become fodder for fund raising .

Simply does not matter, I guess, that fact checkers show that Wilson’s outburst, however rude,  is also simply not supported by the facts. Obama is not a liar. Obama’s plan does not provide health care for undocumented immigrants, and neither did the Dem. House bill issued in August. See for example,  ABC news fact check

In my opinion it is more alarming that so few people have the courage to criticize the House bill and Obama proposal for not covering undocumented immigrants. These human beings still seem politic ally expendable even by proprogressive dems.

This morning it was reported that max baucus and Kent Conrad are drilling back into the Senate bill to add further and more explicit exclusions regarding ‘illegal aliens’ and access to the health care ‘exchange.’

This is plain stupid from either a public health, or a budgetary point of view. Like it or not undoucmented immigrants by the millions are our neighbors and coworkers. When they get sick, we are a doorknob away from the same illness.  And who pays for emergency medical services for the uninsured? we all do.

Health care coverage ought to cover persons in the country regardless of legal status. plain and simple.  Sadly, today’s political climate that make the Joe Wilson’s among us into heroes and instant celebs, will not allow for a rational dialogue about undocumented immigrants, which offers up important info regarding the upcoming immigration reform debate. It is going to be a circus.

Wilson’s outburst should ring alarm bells for anyone who hopes the coming immigration reform debate in this country does not turn into a complete circus where rational dialogue is drowned out by distortions and untrue statements driven by hate.