5 little dictators

I spent 6 hours this week listening to the entire Supreme Court oral arguments over the health care law. It was a chilling experience. The more these justices asked questions the more it became alarmingly clear that 5 of them are reaching for a justification to invalidate the entire law. I hope I am wrong, I really really do. But if this is what is happening, if five unelected judges are about to throw out the most important social legislation in 45 years, the implications for our society, our system of government, and for our most vulnerable citizens are staggering.

This is not a perfect piece of legislation by any means, but it was passed by both houses of Congress in a torturous process and signed by the President. It would insure 30 million people who right now have no access to quality health care. The expansion of medicaid alone would cover 15 million people. This offers some hope to the people in this country who suffer every day under a system of health care apartheid where what care you get is dependent not on your health condition but your economic condition.

It was clear from the arguments that the five conservatives are looking for a legal justification to throw out a law that they just don't like. If they can do this, if they basically say to congress, "you have no power to solve big problems", then what is the point of debating these issues at all? What is the point of elections? This has been the conservative critique of liberal "judicial activism". But for the most part, "liberal" decisions have not affected major economic legislation. The government cannot tell you who to pray to or that you must carry a pregnancy to term but it can tell you that you have to pay your workers minimum wage, you can't poison people with your food products, and you have to contribute to social security or in this instance national health care.

In a roundabout way, as Justice Ginsburg noted. The mandate is basically the federal government's way of providing health care while keeping a private system. There is no doubt the Federal Government could require a payroll tax for health care and then provide public insurance based on that. In this instance, the tax is basically the mandate (which is levied like a tax in a progressive manner through subsidies that mean the lower your income the lower your premium until you have no premium under expanded medicaid).

But none of this matters if the court decides to strike it down. And this problem will not be solved anytime soon if this happens. It practically took a nuclear war to get this modest legislation through the congress. In the meantime, more people will suffer and die.

As the solicitor general stated at the end of his argument yesterday ... One can only hope that a majority of these people who will never know what it is like to wonder if they will get the health care they need will listen.

15. "But if I may just say in conclusion that the provision, the Medicaid expansion that we're talking about this afternoon and the provisions we talked about yesterday, we've been talking about them in terms of their effect as measures that solve problems, problems in the economic marketplace, that have resulted in millions of people not having health care because they can't afford insurance. There is an important connection, a profound connection, between that problem and liberty. And I do think it's important that we not lose sight of that. That in this population of Medicaid eligible people who will receive health care that they cannot now afford under this Medicaid expansion, there will be millions of people with chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease, and as a result of the health care that they will get, they will be unshackled from the disabilities that those diseases put on them and have the opportunity to enjoy the blessings of liberty. And the same thing will be true for -- for a husband whose wife is diagnosed with breast cancer and who won't face the prospect of being forced into bankruptcy to try to get care for his wife and face the risk of having to raise his children alone. And I could multiply example after example after example. In a very fundamental way, this Medicaid expansion, as well as the provisions we discussed yesterday, secure of the blessings of liberty. And I think that that is important as the Court is considering these issues that that be kept in mind. The -- the Congress struggled with the issue of how to deal with this profound problem of 40 million people without health care for many years, and it made a judgment, and its judgment is one that is, I think, in conformity with lots of experts thought, was the best complex of options to handle this problem.

    Maybe they were right; maybe they weren't. But this is something about which the people of the United States can deliberate and they can vote, and if they think it needs to be changed, they can change it. And I would suggest to the Court, with profound respect for the Court's obligation to ensure that the Federal Government remains a government of enumerated powers, that this is not a case in any of its aspects that calls that into question. That this was a judgment of policy, that democratically accountable branches of this government made by their best lights.And I would urge this Court to respect that judgment and ask that the Affordable Care Act, in itsentirety, be upheld. Thank you."

    
    

    
    

the left in the USA

So here we are, President Obama has just signed a debt deal that does nothing but, at the very best, ignores progressive priorities. Is it time to pile on him? Attack him as a weak stooge for the ruling class. Honestly, I think that is beside the point. If I had my way, we would have single payer health care, much higher taxes on the wealthy, expanded rights for labor unions, tougher environmental rules and on and on. We're not going to get most of that, unfortunately. We could, at some point, but we surely wont ever get that by focusing solely on the failings of a Democratic President to deliver on the agenda of the left. This is not a zero sum game, it's about the playing field we have to fight under. The Democratic Party is not a monolith and it's neither the savior of progressive values or the sole instrument of Capitalists. This party includes conservative Ben Nelson and Socialist Barbara Lee. The left needs to come to grips with the fact that, while we can elect many good progressives to Congressional seats and in local races, The Presidency is always going to be tough. If we can get a center left President for a few years, we can accomplish some things, while we accomplish more on the local level.

No one should have been under any illusion that Obama was a movement progressive, or a social democrat or any of the things the right has said he is. I wish he was. Well actually, if he really was, he never would have been elected in the first place. But it's not about him. Again, it's about the playing field we live under while we, as progressives, Socialists etc, fight for a more just society.

Do we want to have these struggles under an actively hostile regime ala George Bush and Tom Delay in 2005 when they were actively trying to turn Social Security into a private accounts, appointing Sam Alito to the Supreme Court and on and on or under an infuriatingly moderate President where we have at least been able to achieve.......

Health Reform : raising medicaid eligibility to %133 of poverty and providing subsidies to people under %400 of poverty, giving 30 million people access to health coverage. No, it's not single payer or even a public option but it will dramatically affect the ability of millions of people to have access to care. Even without a public option, it's a miracle this ever got passed, and if it is repealed, it could be decades before there is another chance to do anything. In the meantime, while we wait for the perfect solution, people will suffer and die.

repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell

Hate Crimes Legislation

Consumer Protection Bureo created

pro labor members appointed to the National Labor Relations Board as recess appointments

over Republican fillibuster threats (this is huge and everyone seems to forget it or not know about it)

Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagen

the list goes on. But now for the bad news. Obama has not been able to raise taxes on high earners and has just now agreed to a debt bill that will pull money out of the economy when we need it most to spur growth. Additionally, the stimulus was far too small. It did save us from a worse depression, but it's drying up now and the economy is stalling. In many cases, it's easy to see how this could have been avoided, but could it? Olympia Snowe demanded a smaller stimulus in exchange for her vote to break a filibuster and I can't see how they were going to get any better of a deal to raise the debt ceiling through congress without risking economic catastrophe. Even if The President had invoked the 14th Amendment, that would have sparked it's own crisis. As far as the tax cuts. The smart thing would have been for Democrats to pass an extension of the Bush tax cuts early on when they were in control that would have decoupled them, so that the tax cuts for the wealthy expired say this year while those for the middle class were extended much further, allowing Obama to simply veto an extension of high end tax cuts this year.

They didn't do that and here we are. The prospects for Obama's re-election look very shaky at this point. The prospect of total Republican control of government in 2013 is too terrifying to really wrap ones mind around. The GOP of today makes the GOP of Bush look reasonable in comparison. In the event of Obama's defeat, we will be looking at the repeal of Health Reform, the privatization of Medicare, total destruction of labor rights, the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a Scalia type on the Supreme Court, renewed attacks on LGBT rights, the list goes on.

That is not the playing field the left wants to be fighting on in 2013. So let's work to elect more progressives to congress who will challenge Obama, let's defeat Scott Walkers union busting state Senators in Wisconsin next week, let's fight for single payer legislation in states, and let's do everything we can to see that Obama is re elected next year so we have his administration to push and protest for the things we want as opposed to seeing everything progressives have fought for in the last 50 years decimated.

why it matters

I have to admit, marriage equality has not been at the top of my list of issues to strive for. I've been much more concerned with issues of economic justice like single payer healthcare, union organizing and tenants rights. I was for marriage rights, but it paled in comparison with keeping people in their homes, fighting for dignity for low wage workers and ending the holocaust that is our profit driven health care system of apartheid based on income.

But when the vote was announced last night that made New York State the latest to allow same sex marriage, I felt something I hadn't expected. A flood of memories, being pushed up against lockers as a kid and attacked at school so many times, all the friends who died, the geniuses in New York who made this all possible and so many of them died 20 or 30 years ago. Tom Duane, on the Senate floor spoke of so many gay men, widowed by their partners death of AIDS in the 80's and then evicted from their apartments shortly after.

There was this unfamiliar sense that we are stronger now. When I walked home from my gig on Friday night and walked passed the tourists, debutant girls and frat boys who invade the East Village on weekends, the usual feeling of despair at what this once amazing neighborhood has become, vanished for a bit and was replaced by the realization that I was standing just a bit taller that night.

New York Democratic Primary Endorsements

Hi there. Here is who I am voting for and/or endorsing in the Democratic Primary on September 14th.

STATEWIDE

Senator - Kirsten Gillibrand - I was unsure about her but she fought hard for a strong public option in the health care reform bill. She is a strong supporter of same sex marriage and I was particularly pleased to find out that she opposes the death penalty. She's no Sherrod Brown or Bernie Sanders, but she is certainly not objectionable from a progressive point of view.

Attorney General- Eric Schneiderman - I can't say enough good things about him. Schneiderman has been a progressive hero in the State Senate, fighting for tenants rights, marriage equality, and bucking the corrupt leadership at every turn. There are some other good candidates but none with the track record of fighting for social justice that Schneiderman has.

LOCAL

Congress - 14th District - Carolyn Maloney - Maloney is a solid progressive. She supports single payer health care, opposes the death penalty and has worked to reign in credit card company abuses. Her challenger, Reshma Saujani is a wall street hack who was just eviscerated in a piece by Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice.

State Senate - 30th district - Bill Perkins - Perkins is being challenged for re election by an opponent who says Bill hasn't been supportive of charter schools. Perkins voted to raise the charter cap but only after important reforms were included that ban for-profit charters and address "co-location" issues when a charter school shares space with a regular public school. Perkins has been a fighter for tenants rights, marriage equality, labor rights and social justice. He deserves to be re-elected.

State Senate - 33 district - Gustavo Rivera - Rivera is challenging the most embarrassing and corrupt fool in NYS government, Pedro Espada. Espada threw the state into chaos when he switched to the Republican Party and then demanded to be made majority leader for the Dems to get his vote back. He is bought and paid for by real estate interests and has single handedly blocked legislation that would strengthen tenant protections. Gustavo Rivera is a strong progressive who will be a team player and work to represent this low income district as opposed to the wealthy developers Espada sells his vote to.

State Senate - 32 district - Charlie Ramos - Ramos is challenging, Ruben Diaz Sr, a sickening bigot who has been the main reason marriage equality has failed in the State Senate. Diaz is a despicable blowhard who is an embarrassment to the state. It is critical to the credibility of the Democratic Party that Diaz and Espada are defeated in this primary. These districts are in the Bronx but they are probably the most important elections in the whole state on Tuesday. If you can contribute or volunteer, please do..

http://gustavoforstatesenate.com/

http://www.charlieramos2010.com/

Identity Politics #fail

In the wake of Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle's decision to veto a bill that would have granted same-sex couples most of the rights of marriage there has been an understandably ferocious response online. There have been many calls to "hate straight people". Really? Do we really want to go there now? Are we going to divide the world into "LGBT" and "straight" and judge everyone according to this duality? This on the same week a Federal Judge in Massachusetts struck down the "Defense of Marriage Act"? Identity Politics pretty much destroyed the left in the 90's and here it is again to distract us and help fuck up everything again.

Let's take a step back for a minute. Dolores Huerta, founder of the United Farm Workers and member of Democratic Socialists of America is straight and has fought tirelessly for decades against oppression of all kinds including GLBT oppression. Andrew Sullivan is gay and was a big supporter of the Iraq war as well as Thatcherite economic policies that hurt the working class. I'll stand with Dolores over Andrew any day.

In 2006, openly gay Sean Patrick Maloney was running for Attorney General of New York against Andrew Cuomo. Both supported marriage equality. But while Cuomo opposes the death penalty, Maloney highlighted his support of executions. I voted for Cuomo. I didn't have to think about it for a minute. I don't care who you fuck, if you are in favor of state killing and preemptive war, you are not a part of the movement for social justice. I'd vote against an openly gay candidate who opposed universal health care or was against increasing the minimum wage no matter their position on marriage. There is a very wealthy and powerful element of the gay rights movement that would gladly ignore economic and social injustice as long as they have the right to marry. There are many working class straight people facing physical violence at this moment trying to organize low wage workers in dangerous parts of the country. This makes dividing the world into LGBT=good, straight=bad exceedingly problematic.

And that's the thing. These labels are simplistic. Sure I have felt oppression as a Queer person. But people of all shapes, sizes, orientations, colors, and genders are hurting all over the place right now and we are more powerful together than apart. A single straight woman working a back breaking job 60 hours a week at subsistence wages with no health insurance and no Union to advocate for her dignity. I dare say she has a harder life than David Geffen who can't get married. Is she indulging in straight privilege? Many of us in the fabulous ghetto of Manhattan with our iphones and open bars know nothing of this kind of economic deprivation and humiliation. But it's not a contest.

We must fight for marriage equality, yes. But, for me, this issue is one of many. The right to join a union, the right to quality health care, the right to earn a living wage if you have a job. These are fundamental to human dignity. The gap between rich and poor continues to grow and there is so much suffering. This suffering, these humiliations hit every gender, race, and orientation. I refuse to be a "one issue voter" seeing everything only through the lens in which it affects me. Mayor Bloomberg supports marriage equality but he opposes a living wage bill for low wage workers, supports a racist "stop and frisk" policy by the NYPD that detains and humiliates thousands of New Yorkers a year (90% of whom are charged with nothing) So I did not vote for Bloomberg. I wasn't willing to throw other people under the bus so my community can get what we deserve (especially considering the other candidate supported marriage rights also) If we are to achieve anything approaching a just society, it has to be a group effort. We need to work together to make sure everyone has the right to get married, to have quality health care, to be paid a living wage and to be treated with respect and dignity. Of course, all this overlaps, Class is the real dividing line in this country and millions of LGBT people are denied health care and the right to collective bargaining just like their straight brothers and sisters. You can't get married if you're dead from lack of insurance.

So if you want marriage equality, volunteer to elect candidates to the New York State Senate who support the cause. There are many straight members who stood up and voted yes last time. But let's also be there in solidarity with everyone, whatever their orientation, who fights for justice and human dignity in our society. Divided we fail.

Health Care Meltdown

Again today I searched blogs, news sites and anything I could for news on the progress of Health Care Reform. Some days the news seems good, like the other day when Obama spoke to Senate Democrats and implored them not to abandon comprehensive reform. Today it didn't look good, when he seemed passive and spoke of Congress dropping the ball. Al Franken is pissed the white house hasn't offered more leadership. All of this is confusing and leaves me more and more worried nothing is going to get done.

The consequences of inaction are devastating in every respect. Devastating for millions of people who are living in fear that any illness will destroy them financially and it will be rightly devastating for the Democratic Party. If Democrats fail to use the largest majorities they have had in a generation to enact their signature legislative proposal, one that they have fought for since the days of FDR, I don't know what the purpose of the Party is at this point.

The way forward is clear. The Senate needs to pass a reconciliation fix to their earlier bill and the House then needs to pass that and the original Senate bill. I have been a strong supporter of single payer or a strong public option. I was incredibly disappointed by the Senate bill. But there are simply too many lives on the line right now to hold out for a perfect bill. The recriminations can come later. What is important is that the bill on the table raises medicaid eligibility to 133% of the poverty level and subsidizes insurance for anyone up to 400% of the poverty line. It's not enough in the long run but it is a vast improvement over the status quo.

There are people, right now as I write this who are delaying getting a lump checked out, or ignoring other potentially life threatening conditions because they can't even pay for a check up. The ugly truth is that in the United States, the first thing we have to think about if we get sick, is money. It's a form of cruelty we inflict on each other by not taking care of this.

This congress may be the last chance for decades that we have to even make the limited step forward that is the Senate bill. Please, call your Senators, and your Representatives and make it clear, that failure on this issue is not acceptable.

(202) 224-3121 House and Senate switchboard.

The Tragedy of the Senate

This post is a fantasy. I'll explain that later. Let's start with the reality. The reality is that The House of Representatives, legislative body that actually represents the people of the united states (except those unfortunate enough to live in the District of Columbia) passed a comprehensive health reform bill two weeks ago. This bill is not even close to the single payer system I would have wanted and it's a retreat from a robust public option set to medicare rates, but it is a step forward. It includes a national public option that can be built on later. It does include the horrible anti-choice Stupack Amendment, but hopefully that can be dealt with later in the process.

Now debate might possibly begin in the Senate, the legislative body that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the 21st century. In the House, every member represents roughly the same amount of people, whether you are Barbara Lee from Berkley CA or Michelle Bachman from MN, you know you have the same mandate. Each representative carries the weight of about 700,ooo people. (We can talk about the pitfalls of winner take all systems vs proportional representation as well of course). Not so in the Senate. Barbara Boxer of CA represents 30 million people. Mike Enzi of Wyoming represents about 500,000. They each have ONE vote. If I was Barbara, any time Mike Enzi questioned me on, let's say global warming, I'd laugh heartily and say "girl, I represent 30 MILLION people", and then run through the halls demanding that Mike Enzi produce 60 of himself before he dared to question me again. That just shows why Ms. Boxer is a way better Senator than I would be. She manages to hold her tongue most of the time.

Not only is the Senate unrepresentative, favoring rural areas over urban and conservative over liberal (The Democratic Party actually won 50% of votes case in 2004 to the Republicans 45% but the Republicans picked up 5 seats). It's undemocratic within itself. It takes 3/5 (60 out of 100) of the membership to even allow a vote on anything. The fillibuster (as it is known) has been a favorite trick of reactionary forces in the US, most famously during the civil rights era, when "unlimited debate" was used to block racial justice.

So here we are, The health bill is about to maybe, kind of, let's hope be debated in the Senate and 41 Senators representing 25 percent of the population can kill it if they want by not even allowing a vote. The fate of millions of people who worry about just being able to see a doctor rest in the hands of such dubious characters as Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. The tragedy here is that, because of the structure and rules of the Senate, far reaching progressive legislation is almost impossible in this country. It's built into our system. Forget health care, just try passing the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize.

Now here's why this is all a fantasy. Let's say you wanted to pass a constitutional amendment, making the Senate truly representative. You know, you still want an upper house made up of members who have longer terms and represent larger constituencies to temper the occasional Stupack Amendment that comes out of the House. I would be cool with having 50 Senators elected from districts representing regions of the country of equal population.

Well, that's impossible. Even if todays Senate would actually approve such an amendment, the constitution forbids it. Congress may propose amendments except that... "no state, without it's consent, shall be deprived of it's equal suffrage in the Senate". So we're stuck with a system devised when Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were almost different nations. In 2009, the 500,000 people of Alaska have much more say about what happens to health care than the 30 million of California.

The one thing we can do is get rid of the filibuster. Progressives might worry that this could come back to haunt us when Republicans are back in power. Well that's a risk I'm willing to take. We're taking a larger risk by keeping it. Without the filibuster we could have a national public option, expanded labor rights, and a climate bill. With it, we make it almost impossible to get progressive legislation through the congress, even with massive majorities. We tie our hands forever and allow a reactionary minority to block the will of the people.

This is probably a fantasy as well, it will be very difficult to get rid of the filibuster, but it's something that we should be fighting for.