With the 2007 budget being released Monday, more bits are being revealed to the press. This one concerns Bush’s latest attempts to hurt Medicare. They involve cutting $30 – $35 billion from the program. So cuts, which are achieved through higher premiums, are morally acceptable. They include raising rates on Medicare beneficiaries with income above $80,000 a year. My only concern is for those with massive medical expenses, as some people will see rates double in 2007.

These concerns are nothing compared to part of this plan. The plan involves cutting payments to doctors and hospitals, not raising rates. Raising rates would hurt millions of people directly, causing a public outcry. By hurting the doctors and hospitals, care goes down, and the system itself is hurt. If payments are frozen or reduced, doctors and hospitals will complain about the system to the government. This outcry can than be used against the system, which takes the blame instead of the administration. Also, there will be a freeze in payments to nursing homes, resulting in worse care or higher rates, which some simply cannot afford.

This plan is horrible for doctors, nursing homes, hospitals, and in the end, for patients. The political effects can play out one of two ways. As described above, the system can come under attack, causing it to be scaled back even further, or even more privatized. Or, it could work to the Democrats advantage. If people get into hard times with healthcare, Democrats can have increased attention when outlining a public healthcare system. I hope it works out in the Democrats favor, so the negative effects of this budget proposal at least lead to good.

Note: Internet isn't working right, so for now, heres the address. Hope to fix this later
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-02-04T064854Z_01_N04329785_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-MEDICARE.xml&archived=False

Big Bucks

The military budget, one of the main reasons I dislike Republicans, is set for another huge increase in the 2007 budget. It will increase 5% to $439.3 billion. This does not include costs for war, which in 2006 will cost $120 billion. I’d expect similar figures for 2007, but probably/hopefully lower. Reason I say probably is that we recently replaced something like 3000 troops in Afghanistan with European troops, and there have been persistent calls for lowering troop levels in Iraq. There should at least be a decrease able to bring down the total. If we’re spending $560 Billion in 2007 on military and war, that’s an average of $1931 per person on military. And surely you have better uses for $1100 of that, which is what you’d get back if we were at the Clinton military budget. I should point out, we were doing just fine during that time, and could have brought it down further.

Despite all this money, Rumsfeld admits that terror threats are on the rise. Either that means Bush’s poll numbers are down, or the Bush administration policy is failing. How could bully people into our lifestyle not create more friends?

Climate Change

Heeding the President's call, a bipartisan climate change bill will be introduced this spring in congress. No details have been revealed, but pessimism already exists. Regardless, at least some Republicans will be involved here. The article mentions a large group in the House that is opposed.

The bill, from what is known, appears to target businesses. It will set credit systems based on emissions. As pointed out, no one industry really emits a disproportionate amount, so there are no easy targets. Personally, I like the system employed in the Northeastern states, one of Gov. Pataki's best moments in my opinion. There is a deal to cut utilities emissions by 10% over the course of 10 years, starting in 2009. I'm hoping this can be employed on a national scale, combined with higher CAFE standards, which increase gas mileage requirements. Also, the president pushes the hydrogen car idea. Hopefully, we'll increase funding to reasonable levels and get some uses of the technology, starting with public buses, taxis, police, and fire vehicles. This will all be possible, if not now, in the next 5-10 years, at my guess. I base this on a quote I heard, saying that if car companies knew they could sell 500,000 hydrogen cars a year, they would cost the same as regular cars do now. While I can't find the quote,

He already lied

With the headline worthy "America is addicted to oil" line of the State of the Union address, Bush gave hope to those who still manage to trust him. Personally, I don't believe he'll do anything, but it is advanced in the public spotlight. Democratic Underground points out that only 20% of our imports come from the Middle East, where Bush wants to cut 75% of our imports by 2025. Hillary Clinton on the other hand wants oil independence by 2020.

Apparently, the administration is backing off of their goals already. We will hope to do that, it is a possible target, but we'll leave it to the market to see how much oil they will buy. Because the market will do this only is they run out of 75% of capacity, without any government intervention. It was a good try. Two things good can come from this. People lose even more trust in Bush and the Republicans, and as mentioned, it pushed oil dependency to the spotlight.

Update: No, I didn't read the article I originally posted. I read one at Democratic Underground, which did not yet have its own page (the article only appeared on the main page, which would then be pushed down as newer articles come). In my haste I put up a related article. Heres the article my post came from.

Spying Scandal

In another blow to my concerns over the Democratic Party and Sam Alito, Daily Kos reports that Democrats are going to grill administration officials over the NSA illegal spying scandal. Because this charge is grounds for impeachment, and could, if spun correctly, push many away from the Republican party. If this fails to happen though, then this just clouds over more incriminating news, such as the Republican corruption scandal. Do they put all their terrible news at once on purpose? Oh well, we’ll have the stories as they come in next week.

Alito Saves Lives

Well, one life really. A late night decision last night blocked Missouri’s last minute request to execute a prisoner. He sided with a 6-3 majority. The 3 that pushed for the execution were ultra-conservative Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts. Perhaps Alito is capable of parting with his conservative philosophy; a very good sign. Despite what may come, Alito is off to a good start.

State of the Union

After watching the State of the Union, I left very happy with the speech. The President pushed bi-partisanship. While he doesn't have too much credibility, he backed up this initiative by not pushing any extreme measures in his speech. What he did push were health savings accounts, which are a baby step in healthcare improvement. They don't give anything to the uninsured, but what I liked about it was that health care is brought to the front of debate. Afterwards, on one of the networks, Senator Obama spoke of Illinois' own healthcare program (although fought from the administration), which gave health insurance to all kids. With HSAs coming to congress, public debate for further legislation can come.

Another surprising aspect of the speech was an educational initiative. The president outlined a plan for more math and science teachers, including 70,000 new AP teachers. This is a great idea that will, if implemented correctly, improve our education.

What I didn't like was the president's "stay the course" rhetoric on the war. It's realism to see that there are problems in Iraq, and helps to reform our effort, lay out clear goals, and eventually end this destructive war. Dampening criticism is not a way to improve our situation, but only gives an arrogant image that creates terrorism. Also, out of the blue it would seem, he mentioned free trade vs. isolationism. I agree with this move to keep our trade open. The jobs leaving the country are not because American jobs are more expensive than Chinese jobs, but because Chinese jobs are cheaper than mechanized jobs. The machinery that replaces autoworkers, for example, is more expensive than hiring a Chinese worker. This is the thinking of Robert Reich, in his book Reason, which I found very convincing.

The worst part of the speech was the defense of warrantless spying on Americans. He claimed constitutional authorities, and mentioned previous president's doing this. Unless they haven't been disclosed, this is a pure lie. All of the things he said about the scandal were lies. No other president has done this without a warrant. Also, there are not tens of thousands of Al Qaeda operatives in America, representing those we've spied on. Most of our spying has been "dead ends", as reported in the NY Times.

My favorite part of the speech was his line about social security. Although it is one of the best funded programs in government, with a huge surplus, he mentioned the problem 25 years away when we spend more money than we receive. Then again, we have a regressive tax that only taxes the first $87,000 of income. If expanded to $120,000-we've got another 50 years. If we lower the rate from 6.2% of income, and eliminate the cap, it'll truly be social security. As it stands, it is mostly forced savings. People get essentially what they give. But, to get to the great part, the President acknowledged that congress didn't pass his social security reforms. This created an eruption of applause from the Democrats, and a standing ovation. That’s the Democratic unity I expect on all major choices.

Clarifying

I just want to quickly clarify what I meant in my last two posts. I was angry, and a little rash. But my anger was more in the Democrats than Alito. Republicans are always going to propose conservative laws, nominate conservative judges, etc. I was upset that the Democrats didn't put a defense up against this. In the past, like with Alaska drilling and budget cuts, the Democrats have banded together and blocked or reformed conservative legislation. I hoped that the same could happen here. It could have either ended the nomination, or sent a message that the Democrats are a viable force in congress. The lack of this show was very disheartening.

I love to read the comments you've left; they've been the most gratifying part of the blogs short life. Thanks, and keep them up. Hope this has cleared up where I stand.

Alito Confirmed

Alito was confirmed as the 110th member of the Supreme Court. My frustration yesterday stems from the lack of any effort to block Alito. Everyone knew that if a vote came on Alito, 50 were needed to confirm him (Cheney would break a tie), and the only way to block him was a filibuster.

Despite this, more people voted against Alito than voted against cloture yesterday. This is surprising. Did those Democrats who voted for cloture, but against Alito, not understand the situation as fully as everyone else in the world? Or do they want Alito to serve, but are trying to appeal to their right wing constituency? Either way, it shows the Democrats are either clueless about politics, or did not care if Alito was confirmed. We had John Kerry and Ted Kennedy calling for a filibuster, while the Democratic leader of the Senate- Harry Reid, publicly said it had no chance. We had 41 Democrats vote against Alito, precisely the amount needed to maintain a filibuster. If 4 members of the caucus defect, that is alright. But there was a possibility for a filibuster.

This shakes my confidence in the party. If Democrats are in a majority, does it mean they will work together to pass liberal bills? I'm not so sure. The only way I'll be alright with the party is if I can get a response from Chuck Schumer (as chairman of the DSCC), Harry Reid, and/or Howard Dean. I'll be calling tomorrow, hoping to get a press secretary or something, who can explain what happened. It’s either bad leadership, or we only have 25 liberal democrats. If it’s bad leadership, then in the long term I'll be with the Democrats, helping to get new ones elected to reshape the party. If the Democrats just don't care about liberal values, then I no longer have a party that represents me and is capable of liberal change. Hence the anger and talk of emigration yesterday; if I'm not accurately represented in congress, there is very little reason to stay, since the problem is deep rooted and will be long lasting.

PS: When you comment, I'd appreciate a name given, or at least age or location, just to give me an idea where you're coming from.

We lost the Judiciary

Well, Alito is to be confirmed, as Democrats failed to maintain a filibuster. It amazes me that 45 Democrats can't get 41 votes to keep a filibuster open. Regardless, the judiciary was impartial prior to Alito joining. Congress is radically to the Right, so is the Presidency. Now, the Judiciary will be 5-4 right wing. That takes away the last protection of our civil liberties and livelihoods. I lost a lot of faith in this country to do what’s best. It'll push me to disregard government, emigrate, or increase my passion to join congress and fight to move our country forward, not backward. It’s really discouraging to know that this man will serve for 20 to 30 years. What a sad day for America.

Here are the votes for cloture. I don't understand how only 25 Dems can get together to oppose Alito. They know that if cloture happens, Alito gets confirmed. I have serious doubts in the Democratic Party, which has undermined my determination for action in politics. This leaves me to petition the Democratic party to the left (a theme in "Crashing the Gate," coming soon), or give up on politics because no party represents me. The book and my studies in England will help me decide.

Top Ten Conservative Idiots

Another weekly installment is in at Democratic Underground-check it out. If my site is too much info to read, this is a great rundown of the news, all delivered with humor. #1 on their list is the Bush Administration, that was warned about Katrina, and then displayed dismay/inaction after it happened. Just like 9/11. Check it out, there’s plenty more.

NSA Illegal Searches

Georgia10 at Daily Kos wrote a great peace about debating the NSA spying scandal. According to polls, over 50% of people have no problem giving up their civil liberties for terror hunts. So, change the debate:

Every time a Democrat speaks of this program, let them speak of how it weakens the War on Terror. Every time the phrase "domestic spying" is uttered, let it be followed by "and this program is a grave danger to our national security." Why? Why does Bush's order hinder the War on Terrorism?

It's simple, really. First and foremost, any terror conviction can now be challenged under a "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine (See Andrew C. White's diary here). Bush acting outside the law has actually made it easier for those charged with terrorism to suppress evidence against them.

Second, the program is a distraction which wastes critical manpower. FBI agents who are supposed to be chasing down terrorists are, because of this far-reaching scope of this program, investigating ordinary Americans. Under Bush's program, thousands of FBI officers are chasing calls to Pizza Hut rather than chasing sleeper cells who may be planning to attack us.

Finally--and this is the point the Democrats need to hit, hard--Bush's spying program has not resulted in a single terror lead in the four years it has been implemented. Not one single lead.

Thus, we have changed the debate from "would you give up civil liberties to be more secure" to "would you give up your civil liberties to be less secure"? The answer to that question, I assure you, will be a resounding "no".

Ineffectiveness. That is the key to winning this debate and getting the truth to the American people.

So, remember your talking points: wasted agents, no leads, and they know if you like pepperoni or not, but haven't ordered you a pizza yet. And you like pizza.

I came across this hilarious quote from Senator Bill Frist today, said on "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

"The United States Congress will not be giving money to a government that supports terrorism, that refuses to disarm its militias, that has as its goal in its charter the destruction of Israel," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on NBC television's "Meet the Press."

This is quite a turnaround from our 20th century foreign policy. Just thought I'd post this for when something like the Iraqi National Congress we supported becomes a terrorist group. We probably have supported, directly or indirectly, more terrorist activity than any other entity; and surely more war and military action that any other group. It’s funny to see that our past is the complete opposite of our supposedly current stance.

More calls for Abramoff records

We've seen recent calls by Democrats for Bush to release information about his meetings with Jack Abramoff. Now, Republicans believe this is the best course of action. They believe that by putting it out in the open, it will take the steam out of media coverage and leave the Republican corruption scandals in the past. Republicans have given great compliment to Bush, including recent remarks by Mike Pence of Indiana: "I think this president is a man of unimpeachable integrity. The American people have profound confidence in him, Pence said." That’s about as complimentary as a professor calling me an "un-expellable student." Also notable is Howard Dean's comments today, "People really don't believe him (Bush) any more and that's a real problem for him." I love pushing this saying, I think it really empowers Democrats and puts Bush on the defensive. Plus, this statement can be made without explanation, as his war in Iraq has put his lies into unquestionable certainty.

Personally, I think the release of this information will hurt Republicans. It'll add another major headline to the papers, especially notable if it includes one of the many pictures of Abramoff and Bush together. Also notable; this is an ongoing investigation, and plenty more dirt on Republican corruption is coming out. Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, and Conrad Burns are going to be the first to go under. All of them are up for reelection this year, and all will lose. The only hope for Republicans is that they're arrested before they can run, allowing a challenger of integrity to go against a Democrat. But, as I said, these are two guaranteed Democratic senate seats in 06, and also kick out former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Justice will be served in November.

It's going to be a long war

The other day I reported that ex-army and defense department officials claimed the army to be overstretched. Well, today the government told 50,000 people they need to stay up to an extra 18 months past their expected leave. I hope this is a start to an expansion of the anti-war movement. A lot of the Vietnam War resistance came from soldiers who refused to go or return. This situation could arise today.

There’s more than just bad news today though. Apparently, nationwide, people would vote for a Democrats over a Republicans by 54% to 38%, one of the largest margins in the last two decades. Thank Kos for this lovely news.