BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
GOP Politicians OK With Tax-Funded Health Care---But Only For Themselves
By MARC McDONALD
Contrary to what you might have heard, GOP politicians aren't opposed to all taxpayer-funded health care. For example, they've got no problem with the lavish, taxpayer-funded health care that they themselves receive as members of Congress. They just don't want anyone else in America to enjoy these generous benefits.
In fact, members of Congress get the finest health care in America---and it's mostly paid for by taxpayers.
I don't have a problem with Democratic politicians getting taxpayer-funded health care. After all, many of them are trying to extend such benefits to the rest of us.
But for GOP politicians to receive such lavish, taxpayer-supported health care while loudly opposing it for everyone else is, of course, stinking hypocrisy.
Amazingly, no Republican politician to my knowledge has ever admitted this glaring contradiction. None of them have ever demanded that their own health-care coverage be the same as what ordinary working stiffs get, out in the private sector. And nobody in the MSM ever bothers to call them out on this blatant hypocrisy.
Members of Congress participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). They get a wide range of plans to choose from. They can also insure their spouses and dependents. There's no waiting period. And unlike the rest of us, no member of Congress has to worry about being denied coverage.
I've never heard of a member of Congress going bankrupt from medical bills. For the rest of us, the No. 1 cause of bankruptcy in America is caused by medical bills. In fact, medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually. And even as GOP politicians enjoy generous health care benefits, they seem genuinely surprised at the notion that there's any kind of "crisis" going on with health care in America.
And here's something that GOP politicians would rather you not know: the government (i.e. you, the U.S. taxpayer) pays up to 75 percent of Congress members' health-care premiums, according to the Office of Personnel Management.
And as the St. Petersburg Times pointed out last year, members of Congress get other health-care benefits, as well, (funded by millions in taxpayer dollars):
Members of Congress have their own pharmacy, right in the Capitol. They also have a team of doctors, technicians and nurses standing by in case something busts in a filibuster. They can get a physical exam, an X-ray or an electrocardiogram, without leaving work.
GOP politicians think it's fine to enjoy taxpayer-funded health-care benefits. They just don't want these benefits for anyone else in America. Keep this in mind the next time you hear a GOP politician ranting away about how the government has no business being involved in health care.
If you think it's important that Americans have a strong public health insurance option this year, then consider writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.
Contrary to what you might have heard, GOP politicians aren't opposed to all taxpayer-funded health care. For example, they've got no problem with the lavish, taxpayer-funded health care that they themselves receive as members of Congress. They just don't want anyone else in America to enjoy these generous benefits.
In fact, members of Congress get the finest health care in America---and it's mostly paid for by taxpayers.
I don't have a problem with Democratic politicians getting taxpayer-funded health care. After all, many of them are trying to extend such benefits to the rest of us.
But for GOP politicians to receive such lavish, taxpayer-supported health care while loudly opposing it for everyone else is, of course, stinking hypocrisy.
Amazingly, no Republican politician to my knowledge has ever admitted this glaring contradiction. None of them have ever demanded that their own health-care coverage be the same as what ordinary working stiffs get, out in the private sector. And nobody in the MSM ever bothers to call them out on this blatant hypocrisy.
Members of Congress participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). They get a wide range of plans to choose from. They can also insure their spouses and dependents. There's no waiting period. And unlike the rest of us, no member of Congress has to worry about being denied coverage.
I've never heard of a member of Congress going bankrupt from medical bills. For the rest of us, the No. 1 cause of bankruptcy in America is caused by medical bills. In fact, medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually. And even as GOP politicians enjoy generous health care benefits, they seem genuinely surprised at the notion that there's any kind of "crisis" going on with health care in America.
And here's something that GOP politicians would rather you not know: the government (i.e. you, the U.S. taxpayer) pays up to 75 percent of Congress members' health-care premiums, according to the Office of Personnel Management.
And as the St. Petersburg Times pointed out last year, members of Congress get other health-care benefits, as well, (funded by millions in taxpayer dollars):
Members of Congress have their own pharmacy, right in the Capitol. They also have a team of doctors, technicians and nurses standing by in case something busts in a filibuster. They can get a physical exam, an X-ray or an electrocardiogram, without leaving work.
GOP politicians think it's fine to enjoy taxpayer-funded health-care benefits. They just don't want these benefits for anyone else in America. Keep this in mind the next time you hear a GOP politician ranting away about how the government has no business being involved in health care.
If you think it's important that Americans have a strong public health insurance option this year, then consider writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.
Labels: Congress, health-care crisis, Republicans
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Bush Officials: Congress Irrelevant On Iraq
.
The following article, from today's Army Times newspaper, neatly sums up the Bush administration's "screw you" attitude toward working with Congress. One can only hope that this contempt toward Congress will finally give the Democrats the backbone to put the issue of impeachment back on the table:
Bush Officials: Congress Irrelevant On Iraq
By William H. McMichael
The Bush administration says the 2002 congressional authorization to go to war in Iraq gives it the authority to conduct combat operations in Iraq and negotiate far-reaching agreements with the current Iraqi government without consulting Congress.
The assertion, jointly made Tuesday by U.S. Ambassador David Satterfield and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Mary Beth Long, drew an incredulous reaction from Democrats on a Joint House committee during a hearing on future U.S. commitments to Iraq.
"It's the view of the administration that as long as there’s trouble in Iraq that you have authorization of this Congress to continue there in perpetuity and define trouble as you desire?" asked Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y.
"We have authorization to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq," Satterfield replied. "The situation in Iraq continues to present a threat to the United States."
The Bush administration also feels it does not need to seek the authorization of Congress to ratify two pending agreements with Iraq: a "Strategic Framework" that would govern "normalized" relations with the U.S., and a Status of Forces Agreement that would govern the "authorities and protections" of U.S. troops in Iraq past Dec. 31, the expiration of a U.N. resolution that the administration says authorizes their presence.
More here.
The following article, from today's Army Times newspaper, neatly sums up the Bush administration's "screw you" attitude toward working with Congress. One can only hope that this contempt toward Congress will finally give the Democrats the backbone to put the issue of impeachment back on the table:
Bush Officials: Congress Irrelevant On Iraq
By William H. McMichael
The Bush administration says the 2002 congressional authorization to go to war in Iraq gives it the authority to conduct combat operations in Iraq and negotiate far-reaching agreements with the current Iraqi government without consulting Congress.
The assertion, jointly made Tuesday by U.S. Ambassador David Satterfield and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Mary Beth Long, drew an incredulous reaction from Democrats on a Joint House committee during a hearing on future U.S. commitments to Iraq.
"It's the view of the administration that as long as there’s trouble in Iraq that you have authorization of this Congress to continue there in perpetuity and define trouble as you desire?" asked Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y.
"We have authorization to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq," Satterfield replied. "The situation in Iraq continues to present a threat to the United States."
The Bush administration also feels it does not need to seek the authorization of Congress to ratify two pending agreements with Iraq: a "Strategic Framework" that would govern "normalized" relations with the U.S., and a Status of Forces Agreement that would govern the "authorities and protections" of U.S. troops in Iraq past Dec. 31, the expiration of a U.N. resolution that the administration says authorizes their presence.
More here.
Labels: Congress, George W. Bush, Iraq War
Friday, December 07, 2007
Ban On AK-47 Assault Rifle Used In Omaha Mall Rampage Was Lifted By GOP Congress In 2004
By MARC MCDONALD
For 10 years, the AK-47 semiautomatic assault weapon used in the deadly Omaha mall shootings was illegal in America, after President Clinton signed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. On Sept. 13, 2004, that ban came to an end, thanks to the GOP-led Congress.
Thanks to this idiotic decision, lethal weapons such as AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s returned to store shelves in America.
The AK-47 is not used for hunting (as it isn't accurate for long-range shooting). However, it is a excellent weapon to have if you are a psychopath who wishes to go to his local shopping mall and slaughter a bunch of innocent people.
It was the weapon used by Robert Hawkins on Wednesday at a shopping mall in Omaha, Nebraska, where he shot and killed five women and three men and then turned the gun on himself.
If the GOP retains the White House, or regains the Congress, in 2008, we can be assured that Republicans will continue to weaken what few remaining gun restrictions there still are on the books in this country. For example, we can kiss the Brady Bill, signed into law by President Clinton in 1993, goodbye.
Indeed, the current crop of GOP presidential candidates all seem to be outdoing themselves on the campaign trail, depicting themselves as foes of any and all gun restrictions. And as long as our politicians are in the pocket of the powerful NRA, we can expect more gun tragedies in the years to come.
For 10 years, the AK-47 semiautomatic assault weapon used in the deadly Omaha mall shootings was illegal in America, after President Clinton signed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. On Sept. 13, 2004, that ban came to an end, thanks to the GOP-led Congress.
Thanks to this idiotic decision, lethal weapons such as AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s returned to store shelves in America.
The AK-47 is not used for hunting (as it isn't accurate for long-range shooting). However, it is a excellent weapon to have if you are a psychopath who wishes to go to his local shopping mall and slaughter a bunch of innocent people.
It was the weapon used by Robert Hawkins on Wednesday at a shopping mall in Omaha, Nebraska, where he shot and killed five women and three men and then turned the gun on himself.
If the GOP retains the White House, or regains the Congress, in 2008, we can be assured that Republicans will continue to weaken what few remaining gun restrictions there still are on the books in this country. For example, we can kiss the Brady Bill, signed into law by President Clinton in 1993, goodbye.
Indeed, the current crop of GOP presidential candidates all seem to be outdoing themselves on the campaign trail, depicting themselves as foes of any and all gun restrictions. And as long as our politicians are in the pocket of the powerful NRA, we can expect more gun tragedies in the years to come.
Labels: Congress, GOP, gun violence
Friday, July 27, 2007
Why Low Congress Approval Rating Isn't Good News For GOP
By MARC McDONALD
Lately, the Republicans have been gloating over the fact that the Democratically led Congress has a low approval rating.
But if you stop and think about it, the GOP really has little reason to celebrate.
First of all, as Gallup has pointed out, Congress' approval ratings have been consistently low for decades---with only two exceptions: the Watergate era and in 1986 (when Congress' approval rating was at 40 percent). Indeed, the mainstream media has been irresponsible in its lack of context for failing to mention this fact in reporting on Congress' recent low approval numbers.
The fact is, pollsters have long noted that the American public has a dim view of Congress as a whole (but they often have a much higher opinion of their own local lawmakers).
It's important to remember the reason that Congress has a low approval rating these days.
Is it because the public disapproves of the lawmakers' efforts in the Congress to raise minimum wage and other Democratic legislative initiatives?
Nope, that's not the reason. In fact, polls have consistently shown that the public supports raising the minimum wage.
In fact, as Michael Moore pointed out in his book, Dude, Where's My Country? the majority of the American public agrees with the Democrats on most of the top domestic issues of our time. These range from keeping abortion legal to promoting civil rights to protecting the environment to stronger controls on firearms. Indeed, polls consistently show that a majority of the American public is further to the left than most Democratic politicians on many issues, such as health care. For example, 80 percent of Americans believe that health insurance should be provided equally to everyone in the nation.
The bottom line is that, if the Republicans take a good, hard look at the reason why Americans are fed up with this Congress, it's actually bad news for the GOP, not the Democrats.
The reality is, Americans are sick and tired of the war in Iraq--and they're fed up with the stumbling efforts in Congress to bring an end to this fiasco.
And try as they may to distance themselves from George W. Bush, the Republicans are going to have a difficult time distancing themselves from the Iraq War. After all, the overwhelming majority of the remaining Iraq War supporters in this country are Republicans.
The bottom line is that Congress' current low approval ratings has nothing to do with the public turning away from the sort of progressive policies that Democrats favor. And it has everything to do with the extreme unpopularity of a war that will always be associated with GOP politicians, whether they like it or not.
Lately, the Republicans have been gloating over the fact that the Democratically led Congress has a low approval rating.
But if you stop and think about it, the GOP really has little reason to celebrate.
First of all, as Gallup has pointed out, Congress' approval ratings have been consistently low for decades---with only two exceptions: the Watergate era and in 1986 (when Congress' approval rating was at 40 percent). Indeed, the mainstream media has been irresponsible in its lack of context for failing to mention this fact in reporting on Congress' recent low approval numbers.
The fact is, pollsters have long noted that the American public has a dim view of Congress as a whole (but they often have a much higher opinion of their own local lawmakers).
It's important to remember the reason that Congress has a low approval rating these days.
Is it because the public disapproves of the lawmakers' efforts in the Congress to raise minimum wage and other Democratic legislative initiatives?
Nope, that's not the reason. In fact, polls have consistently shown that the public supports raising the minimum wage.
In fact, as Michael Moore pointed out in his book, Dude, Where's My Country? the majority of the American public agrees with the Democrats on most of the top domestic issues of our time. These range from keeping abortion legal to promoting civil rights to protecting the environment to stronger controls on firearms. Indeed, polls consistently show that a majority of the American public is further to the left than most Democratic politicians on many issues, such as health care. For example, 80 percent of Americans believe that health insurance should be provided equally to everyone in the nation.
The bottom line is that, if the Republicans take a good, hard look at the reason why Americans are fed up with this Congress, it's actually bad news for the GOP, not the Democrats.
The reality is, Americans are sick and tired of the war in Iraq--and they're fed up with the stumbling efforts in Congress to bring an end to this fiasco.
And try as they may to distance themselves from George W. Bush, the Republicans are going to have a difficult time distancing themselves from the Iraq War. After all, the overwhelming majority of the remaining Iraq War supporters in this country are Republicans.
The bottom line is that Congress' current low approval ratings has nothing to do with the public turning away from the sort of progressive policies that Democrats favor. And it has everything to do with the extreme unpopularity of a war that will always be associated with GOP politicians, whether they like it or not.
Labels: Congress, Democrats, GOP
Monday, January 15, 2007
Memo To Democrats: You Are No Longer Bush's Bitch
By MARC McDONALD
There was once a time when it was perhaps understandable that the Democrats cowered in fear of George W. Bush.
That would have been during the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when Bush's approval rating soared into the stratosphere. Any Democrat who dared speak out against Bush then would have been flayed alive---not just by the right-wing propaganda attack machine, but by the mainstream media, as well.
Over five years later, how times have changed. But you wouldn't know that by taking a look at how many Democrats today still cower in fear of Bush.
Here's a memo to all the Dems who do so: you are no longer Bush's bitch.
You are no longer facing the swaggering flight-suit-wearing "warrior" who strutted across the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, with such confidence and aplomb in May 2003.
Today, you are facing the lamest of lame duck presidents. A politician whose approval ratings are in the toilet.
I wish the Democrats would show one-thousandth the enthusiasm for impeaching Bush for his many serious crimes and acts of treason that the GOP showed for impeaching Clinton for lying about a blow job.
Perhaps the Dems believe that if they show some courtesy and restraint now, the GOP will reciprocate on down the road and stop bullying them (the way the Repukes did the entire eight years of Clinton's presidency).
If that's the case, then I think the Dems are fooling themselves. If Hillary gets elected in 2008, then we will see a repeat of the Bill Clinton years, with Rush, Fox, etc. viciously attacking Hillary every minute of every day.
Dems: you have the power these days. You control the House and Senate. What's more, America's voters sent you to Washington with a clear mandate. To end this fiasco of a war. Now.
What, exactly, are you afraid of these days, Democrats?
Bush has been exposed for what he is. A liar and a crook. A chickensh*t coward who refused to go to combat when his nation was at war in Vietnam. A spoiled, trust-fund-collecting frat boy who used his rich family's connections to get ahead.
To be sure, Bush still has appeal to the Kool-Aid drinking diehards who adore their hero and consider him a "warrior" president, bravely guiding America in the War on Terror. But the fact is, Bush really has more in common with Paris Hilton than he does with any real soldiers like John Murtha or Max Cleland.
In fact, it's not really any wonder that Bush has cut veterans' benefits, even as he's fought hard to give wealthy people like Hilton yet more tax cuts.
I really can't understand why the Dems still cower in fear of Bush these days. Maybe they're afraid of the Great Republican Slime Machine and how right-wing talk radio and Fox News will savage them if they attempt to stand up to Bush.
If that's the case, here's another memo for the Dems: the GOP propaganda machine is already attacking you, and will continue to do so, regardless of what you do. However, this isn't quite the threat that it once was. The GOP propaganda machine's diehard, fanatical base is starting to wither away these days, as ratings at Fox News continue to plummet.
Not only should you Dems stand up to Bush and end this war now, you have a duty to do so. The American people, who voted Democrats into power in November, could not have been clearer in their message.
Democrats: you have a mandate. By ending this war, not only are you doing the will of the people, you're doing the right thing for America.
Please, Dems: stop being afraid of a spoiled frat boy. Stop fearing a coward who was waving pompons as a cheerleader at Andover prep school while true heroes like John Murtha and Wesley Clark were getting shot at in the jungle by the Viet Cong.
End this evil war now.
There was once a time when it was perhaps understandable that the Democrats cowered in fear of George W. Bush.
That would have been during the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when Bush's approval rating soared into the stratosphere. Any Democrat who dared speak out against Bush then would have been flayed alive---not just by the right-wing propaganda attack machine, but by the mainstream media, as well.
Over five years later, how times have changed. But you wouldn't know that by taking a look at how many Democrats today still cower in fear of Bush.
Here's a memo to all the Dems who do so: you are no longer Bush's bitch.
You are no longer facing the swaggering flight-suit-wearing "warrior" who strutted across the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, with such confidence and aplomb in May 2003.
Today, you are facing the lamest of lame duck presidents. A politician whose approval ratings are in the toilet.
I wish the Democrats would show one-thousandth the enthusiasm for impeaching Bush for his many serious crimes and acts of treason that the GOP showed for impeaching Clinton for lying about a blow job.
Perhaps the Dems believe that if they show some courtesy and restraint now, the GOP will reciprocate on down the road and stop bullying them (the way the Repukes did the entire eight years of Clinton's presidency).
If that's the case, then I think the Dems are fooling themselves. If Hillary gets elected in 2008, then we will see a repeat of the Bill Clinton years, with Rush, Fox, etc. viciously attacking Hillary every minute of every day.
Dems: you have the power these days. You control the House and Senate. What's more, America's voters sent you to Washington with a clear mandate. To end this fiasco of a war. Now.
What, exactly, are you afraid of these days, Democrats?
Bush has been exposed for what he is. A liar and a crook. A chickensh*t coward who refused to go to combat when his nation was at war in Vietnam. A spoiled, trust-fund-collecting frat boy who used his rich family's connections to get ahead.
To be sure, Bush still has appeal to the Kool-Aid drinking diehards who adore their hero and consider him a "warrior" president, bravely guiding America in the War on Terror. But the fact is, Bush really has more in common with Paris Hilton than he does with any real soldiers like John Murtha or Max Cleland.
In fact, it's not really any wonder that Bush has cut veterans' benefits, even as he's fought hard to give wealthy people like Hilton yet more tax cuts.
I really can't understand why the Dems still cower in fear of Bush these days. Maybe they're afraid of the Great Republican Slime Machine and how right-wing talk radio and Fox News will savage them if they attempt to stand up to Bush.
If that's the case, here's another memo for the Dems: the GOP propaganda machine is already attacking you, and will continue to do so, regardless of what you do. However, this isn't quite the threat that it once was. The GOP propaganda machine's diehard, fanatical base is starting to wither away these days, as ratings at Fox News continue to plummet.
Not only should you Dems stand up to Bush and end this war now, you have a duty to do so. The American people, who voted Democrats into power in November, could not have been clearer in their message.
Democrats: you have a mandate. By ending this war, not only are you doing the will of the people, you're doing the right thing for America.
Please, Dems: stop being afraid of a spoiled frat boy. Stop fearing a coward who was waving pompons as a cheerleader at Andover prep school while true heroes like John Murtha and Wesley Clark were getting shot at in the jungle by the Viet Cong.
End this evil war now.
Labels: Bush, Congress, Democrats, Iraq War
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
