Obama voters increasingly frustrated with Obama

Drew Weston has captured my frustration with Obama:

I happen to be one of the lucky ones. I don't carry a balance on my credit cards, my home is still worth more than my mortgage, and I still have a job. But if Americans are starting to turn populist anger toward a White House that has doggedly refused to focus that anger where it belongs -- toward the banks, the mortgage brokers, the regulators who failed to regulate, the oil companies that have blocked energy reform for decades while racking up record profits, the health insurance companies that make their profits by denying coverage and discriminating against the ill, the pharmaceutical companies whose lobbyists have negotiated away the right to negotiate, and the Republicans who bankrupted the treasury during the eight long years of the Bush Presidency and crashed the economy on their way out -- I can understand why.
We are not seeing major change where we most need them. I'm increasingly thinking that Obama is way over his head. I do think Obama is a good and decent man, but it's becoming increasingly clear that large corporations completely own and run Congress. It will remain this way unless the people get mad enough to get up from watching movies on their big screen TVs and take to the streets. But anger is not enough. First, the people have to take the time to understand how bad things are and how they are having their way of life stolen by plutocrats. This is unlikely to happen on a mass scale given that so many of us can't or won't take the time to self-critically study complex situations.

Continue ReadingObama voters increasingly frustrated with Obama

Fixing health care under the table

At Common Dreams, Bill Moyers and Michael Winslip explain that you won't see the way the health care debate is being resolved if you only spent time on Capitol Hill. No, it's much slimier than that:

Katharine Weymouth, the publisher of The Washington Post -- one of the most powerful people in DC -- invited top officials from the White House, the Cabinet and Congress to her home for an intimate, off-the-record dinner to discuss health care reform with some of her reporters and editors covering the story.

But CEO's and lobbyists from the health care industry were invited, too, provided they forked over $25,000 a head -- or up to a quarter of a million if they want to sponsor a whole series of these cozy get-togethers. And what is the inducement offered? Nothing less, the invitation read, than "an exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will get it done."

If you are not one of the highly-monied invitees or the "select few," forget about the debate because, politically speaking, you amount to nothing at all. That's the process. Go tell that to all the grade school students who are being taught lies in their civics classes. They are being taught that this is a democracy, and that our government is ultimately responsible to all of those people who were not invited to that fancy dinner. As the authors, explain, this particular dinner was canceled only after a copy of the invite was leaked to the web site Politico.com. It was, after all, a big misunderstanding. This peak at how important bills are passed is not an isolated case. It reminds you that when Congress passed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, "the select few made sure it no longer contained the cramdown provision that would have allowed judges to readjust mortgages." Here's another example:

Everyone knows the credit ratings agencies were co-conspirators with Wall Street in the shameful wilding that brought on the financial meltdown. But when the Obama administration came up with new reforms to prevent another crisis, the credit ratings agencies were given a pass. They'd been excused by "the select few who actually get it done."

Shame on us. Shame on our leaders for following big business instead of leading.

Continue ReadingFixing health care under the table

Bravo, NPR, for keeping an eye on the lobbyists

While others were photographing the senators at the front of the room, NPR turned its camera on all of those people sitting in the back of the room, in an attempt to identify all of the health care lobbyists in the room. What ARE the names of all of those people trying to subvert our political process? NPR has invited an interested parties to review their photos and to help them nail these bastards figure things out.

Continue ReadingBravo, NPR, for keeping an eye on the lobbyists

Tobacco money at work at Congress

When a product kills 450,000 Americans every year, don't you think it deserves a high level of scrutiny and regulation? I mean, aren't you a bit surprised that it's even illegal, given that marijuana, which kills nobody (except due to insanely reactionary law enforcement), is completely outlawed? Consider that the bodies of the people killed by tobacco every year would stretch more than 500 miles, if laid end to end. Every one of those dead people were using tobacco products exactly as anticipated by the manufacturers. Those dead bodies could stretch from New York City to Charlotte, North Carolina (or pick your own 500 mile radius). Can you imagine the tobacco executives walking along one of those 500 mile lines of dead bodies, justifying the carnage? Walking, whistling and thinking, "Just look at all of those people who were dumb enough to buy that highly addictive product that I promoted and sold . . ." And now consider the morals of some of our politicians. Step forward, Senators who oppose the new law that subjects tobacco to FDA regulation. Thanks to McClatchy Newspapers, we know that many of you are tobacco whores:

Among the 17 senators who voted against allowing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco are some of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the tobacco industry, which has donated millions of dollars to lawmakers in the past several campaign cycles.

If you want more details who which tobacco whore has received how much money, visit OpenSecrets.org. Consider, too, that the corruption that exists with regard to tobacco, also exists with regard to any major industry. For instance, consider health care, defense contracting, farming (including wasteful corn ethanol subsidies), and last but not least, the financial "services" industries. Serving themselves to our tax-dollars. Now I'm not for outlawing tobacco. But I am for unleashing a torrent of high-profile prime-time advertising that would show the death and destruction caused by tobacco up close and in nauseating detail. And I am for allowing the FDA to join in the war against smoking. Why? Consider this comment from Dick Durbin from a report by MSNBC:

"This is a bill that will protect children and will protect America," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a leading supporter. "Every day that we don't act, 3,500 American kids — children — will light up for the first time. That is enough to fill 70 school buses."

Continue ReadingTobacco money at work at Congress

Republican Justice: blindness to conflicts of interest

The United States Supreme Court was barely able to hold that it's wrong to spend $3,000,000 electing a judge and than be able to have your newly purchased judge decide a big case in your favor. Decided June 8, 2009, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company Inc. was a 5-4 decision, with dissents by John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The defendant in the West Virginia case was a coal company that had been accused of fraud, and the jury had awarded $50 M in damages against defendant. It was A.T. Massey's Chairman and Chief Officer Don Blankenship who stepped in to buy the judgship for Brent Benjamin for $3 M after the verdict, knowing that this case would be considered by the West Virginia Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts frets that he can't criticize this obviously wrong case of a $3,000,000 judge because there are less obvious cases that would be more difficult to decide. Think about it: Roberts is urging that the Court can't decide the easy cases because there are also some other cases that aren't so easy. Why not just hang up your robes and give it up? Tell me a situation where that isn't true. Roberts goes even further, suggesting that hammering the $3,000,000 judge will undermine our fair, independent, and impartial judiciary. Good grief. Scalia had previously shown that he is completely obtuse to the idea of a conflict of interest when he decided a case favoring his duck-hunting buddy, Dick Cheney.

Continue ReadingRepublican Justice: blindness to conflicts of interest