Friday, November 20, 2009

Mohammed criminal court trial-- right or wrong?


It's fitting. Two blocks away from where his diabolical plot killed 3,000 people, Kalid Shaikh Mohammed will be put on trial. Some find it fitting the self professed mastermind behind 9/11 will face the citizens of New York once again. Others find it sick and twisted that a person responsible for 3,000 deaths can be given the same rights as an American citizen. Personally, I am torn.
I do find it fitting that the trials, or whatever method used to bring Mohammed to justice, are being held in New York. Not only does it make sense from a logical standpoint, but it makes sense from an emotional standpoint as well. Logically speaking, the crimes committed by Mohammed were committed in New York City, hence 9/11. Therefore it is only logical that the trials be held in New York City as well. From a more emotional standpoint, it is only fitting that the city who suffered the most from the 9/11 attacks get the first taste of justice by eliciting a conviction in their own courts. That is of course, if there is a conviction.
For the most part I agree with liberals on matters like these. We should not think ourselves to be so high and mighty we are above the rule of law in our country. However, in this case justice is no longer a term to be thrown around lightly-- it is a necessity. If the self professed mastermind of 9/11 were to be let off the results would be nothing short of disastrous for the American people. Is that disastrous result worth the glorified and didactic moral justice the Obama Administration seeks to obtain?
Sure, it is some statement to make to world. It shows the world hat we no longer belive ourselves to be above the rule of law we expect other countries to abide by. After eight years of hypocrisy-- eight years of breaking international and U.S law in the name of justice-- it is always important portray ourselves in a different light. Trying Mohammed in a criminal court does just that. However, does a conviction, and all the glory that comes with it, really justify the risk we take of getting an acquittal? Shouldn't we be afraid of a modern version of an OJ Simpson trial? A highly publicized trial which leads to a high publicized acquittal. Shouldn't we try to avoid that scenario by all means?
Luckily for us, generally self confessed criminals don't do well in court. Furthermore, it is not like we have not tried terrorists before. Terrorists such as Omar Abdel-Rahman (Blind Shiek), Richard Reid (Shoe bomber), and Zacarias Moussavi , who was convicted of 9/11 conspiracy, were all successfully tried in criminal courts and face life sentences. Conservative pundits and politicians seem to think sending Mohammed to prison gives him a recruiting opportunity; that holding a trial in New York will put it at risk of another terrorist attack, that the trial will only motivate more terrorists. They are wrong. However, one point they make I can understand. Conservatives argue that Mohammed should be tried in military court. Despite all the evidence that Mohammed will be convicted the conservative point begs a question out of me: Why can't we try Mohammed in military tribunals? Technically, they are "enemy combatants" or even prisoners of war. It would be legal to try them in military tribunal.
The problem with trying Mohammed in a criminal court, despite the overwhelming evidence against him, is the very way the government obtained that evidence. Through illegal torture. It is a very huge possibility that the judges will not turn a blind eye to the methods used by the Bush Administration to collect information let alone the defense attorneys. Yet, despite this overwhelming possibility Attorney General Eric Holder claims he has the evidence necessary, without or without the judge noticing the "enhanced interrogation techniques" for a conviction.
Yet despite Mr. Holders comforting words, I still can't help but be reminded of trial in 1994 where a college football star gets a away with murder in a highly publicized trial despite overwhelming evidence which point to the contrary. Why take the risk? With the help of some suppressed evidence Khalid Shaikh Mohammed could very well be the next OJ Simpson. What would happen then? Hopefully, we won't ever have to answer that question.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Muslims in Military?


We came across this astonishing post. What do you think?



It it is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday's massacre is living proof. And yesterday's incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers.

Of course, most U.S. Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we'll go back to allowing them to serve. You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you're right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it's used, and we'll welcome you back with open arms.

This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism.

And don't give us reassurances about the oaths that Muslim soldiers take to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Hasan took that oath, and it proved meaningless. In fact, the more devout a Muslim is, the more likely he is to lie to you through his teeth, since lying to the infidel to advance the cause of Islam is commended, not just permitted, in the Koran.

It's time we all got over the nonsense that all cultures and religions are equally valid or worthy. They most certainly are not. While Christianity is a religion of peace, founded by the Prince of Peace, Islam is a religion of war and violence, founded by a man who routinely chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and made his wealth plundering merchant caravans.

And just as Christians are taught to imitate the life of Christ, so Muslims are taught to imitate the Prophet in all things. Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan was simply being a good Muslim.
What egregious generalizations. It is amazing how ignorant some of the Christian right is of their own past. Equally remarkable is how easy it is for the right to target a whole group of people. Good grief...

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Bill Maher and Ridiculous Republicans

I thought some people might enjoy this video...


Tuesday, October 13, 2009

SNOWE SET TO VOTES YES


From the Huff Post

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said Tuesday that she intends to vote for passage of the Senate Finance Committee's health care reform package. She cautioned that her vote should be seen as a sign of her faith in the process going forward and not as support for the final package that will arrive on the Senate floor.

"It doesn't forecast what my vote will be tomorrow," she said. Snowe's yes vote keeps her at the negotiating table and at the center of the health care reform debate.

Her vote, she said, comes amid knowledge that Democrats don't need Republicans to pass the landmark legislation.

"The majority has the votes. It has the votes in the House. It has the votes in the Senate," she said.

Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was thrilled at the news, complimenting Snowe for her "very thoughtful statement. It'll be well remembered and I thank you for it."

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), also a finance committee member, said that Snowe's vote bodes well for final passage. "It sets the stage," he said on MSNBC. "Susan Collins will likely come with her fellow Maine senator when this bill hits the floor."


This is closest we have come to good health care in a long, long time.


Friday, October 9, 2009

Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to American, Conservatives Go Crazy With Rage



Today President Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his extraordinary efforts to create diplomacy throughout the world. While many individuals question the award, only three groups outright objected to it: the Taliban, claiming he has done nothing to pursue peace in Afghanistan; Hamas, because the American government still does not recognize the nation of Palestine; and American Conservatives, because he is President Obama.

It is a stark, and possibly even radical, comparison to make of Conservatives and radical Muslim groups however their unwillingness to admit wrong or defeat and their eagerness to use radical means towards a goal is strikingly similar. Over the past year Conservatives have abandoned their unmatched patriotism that supported two wars for an unprecedented 'hate' for President Obama. After laughing and cheering when the United States of America loses the Olympics, and then throwing a fit of rage when he President of the United States of America wins the Nobel Peace Prize, some organizations such Media Matters are compelled to ask the question "If not America, then who are the Republicans rooting for?". It is a question that should be asked.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee their choice was one of confidence in Obama to gain global support for his diplomatic policies such as nuclear non-proliferation. They praised the President for creating " new climate in international politics.". This justification, although, is not enough for critics of the award who claim Obama has done nothing in office. However, just by taking a look at America alone, one can see that criticism is unfounded. Just in the time Obama took office until now, according to a poll of 25 countries from Pew Global Attitudes Project, America has found itself with double digit boosts to the percentage of people who view America favorably all across the world. In Germany , over 90 percent of people approve of America, compared to the 12 percent that approved America a little over a year ago. This is no minor accomplishment. Obama is being awarded for setting the stage for a most peaceful world in the history of the Earth--a world where America can recognized as an active leader and participant.

Take the word of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, "[The peace prize confirms, finally, America's return to the hearts of the people of the world...".

If the new approval ratings don't convince you of Obama's impact on international community, the praise he has received will. Upon receiving the prize Obama received praise from leaders all across the world including: Mikhail Gorbachev, the regime of Hamid Karzai, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, just to name a few.

However, to Republicans, overwhelming international praise and major feats not enough for the Nobel Peace Prize, and they are quick to offer their opinion on the issue-- even more proof that the GOP is disconnected with the rest of the nation. Glenn Beck said that Obama setting a new stage in the world for peace was not enough for the award, and that it really should have been awarded to a movement he started that featured posters and propaganda that depicted Obama as a Nazi and witchdoctor. RedState's Erick Erickson credited Obama's award towards affirmative action-- does that even make sense?

In the past week we have seen a peak into the conservative party that is shocking and disturbing. The Olympics and the Nobel Peace Prize have shown the world that this unparalleled patriotism conservatives claim to have was never for the United States of America, it was for a rich white America, and right-wing America, a Conservative America. Anything else is the enemy.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Shame on Max Baucus for killing the public option



(This article will be featured in the New University on Monday)


There was one a moment in the history of the health reform bill (H.R 3200) where passing reform through Congress seemed like an easy task--and it was. That was back in early August. That was before the health care bill met Sen. Max Baucus. Since the bill came in contact with Baucus it has been ripped, shredded, smeared--the works, and it is mostly because of Sen. Baucus.
On August 1st, H.R 3200 had passed through four out of five committees in the senate with relative ease. Ideally, the bill was supposed to pass through the fifth with the same grace. Obviously that was not the case. Why? Sen. Baucus called for a bi-partisan effort and stopped the bill dead in its tracks to make the infamous "gang of six", composed of conservative democrats and allegedly moderate republicans (if you can call Sen. Grassley a moderate). Since then the health reform bill has been cut down inch by inch and has been muddled with countless concessions and compromises--one of those compromises including the public option. Now, bi-partisanship is wonderful, however it has been more than evident the republicans are just looking to kill any bill that is proposed. So, here we are today, with a health care bill watered down with concessions Sen. Baucus has given away, still with no republican votes. Sen. Baucus is literally destroying proper health reform-- and now he is paying the price for it with his political career.
As of late, certain liberal organizations such as Progressive Campaign Change Committee and Democracy for America have retaliated against Sen. Baucas with ads that calls on the American public to hold Sen. Baucus responsible for watering down and stalling health reform and killing the public option. In the ads, set to air in Montana and Washington D.C, Baucus is slammed for receiving upwards of a million in campaign contributions from the health care industry, and is threatened with a loss in the primary elections in 2010. The ads features a man, named Bing Perrine, from Baucus' state, Montana, who has racked up $100,000 in debt from medical bills due to heart problems. Perrine closes the ad directing a rhetorical question towards Sen. Baucus, "who's side are you really on?".
Unfortunately, this type of hardball politics is what pro-reform activists need. It seems as if without them--without these ads--nothing productive will get done on the left side of the isle. This is not to say however, politicians should never make mistakes if they have a hope for getting re-elected. If Sen. Baucus created the "gang of six", realized the Republicans wanted no part of bi-partisanship and then fought to keep health care reform strong, that would have been appropriate. However, that is not what happened. Sen. Baucus continued to make the same stupid mistake of assuming, or allowing, the GOP was there to help pass reform. This level of ignorance at such a crucial time such as this one is utterly unacceptable, and Baucus should be held accountable for his disregard of proper reform. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Sen. Baucus has been fooled for two whole months. So shame on you Sen. Baucus--you do not deserve to be re-elected.
Of course it is important to note not all of the blame can be put on Sen. Baucus. A number of democrats have had this same attitude of appeasement; they too have been targeted. Sen. Mike Ross and independent Sen. Olympia Snowe have had similar ads run against them. While any democrat without a spine at this point deserves to have their political career put in jeopardy, the person who deserves the ads the most is Sen. Baucus. He had the most power to pass reform in the senate and he failed miserably. He watered down the bill for republican votes, but got none. The, when he realized he had no republican votes, he did not have the piece of mind to strengthen the bill again. Worst of all, he voted against adding a public option in the bill during the amendment process. He is the reason a public option becomes a less likely of an option every day. He deserves those ads against more than anyone else in the senate. He should have to reap what he sewed.

Friday, September 25, 2009

"War on Drugs" creates more battles




In the 1920's alcohol was banned from the United States in an attempt to reduce crime, poverty, and increase the overall living conditions of the United States. As a result of the ban, alcohol consumption skyrocketed, organized crime rates went through the roof, and caused severe corruption in certain law enforcement agencies. This prohibition of alcohol was without a doubt a failed policy that not only was incredibly ineffective but it was actually detrimental to its cause.

One would think after almost a century of studying these events in history books the United States would learn their lesson about prohibiting drugs. Unfortunately we haven't. For the better part of the century the United States of America has waged another prohibition campaign called the "War on Drugs". The result has been almost identical, if not worse, to what happened in the 1920's: an increase in organized violent crime, corruption on a global scale.

Just like in the 1920's the prohibition campaign on drugs is a failed cause that ultimately leaves the entire world, on a security level, an economic level, and moral level worse off.

It seems that most, but not all, proponents in favor of the war on drugs are conservative, so it is appropriate to identify first how our security as a nation, and a world, is ultimately threatened by the war on drugs. Just as in the prohibition of 1920, organized crime and ruthless gangs have surfaced that have posed a threat to the country they occupy--including any Americans abroad.

While most of these ruthless drug cartels occupy reside outside of America--that is not to say that in future years to come they will not spread back home as well. In fact, research trends indicate they will. The New York Times reports that markets have began to expand away from traditional markets such as Iran and Columbia to places who have been more or less void of drug problems such as China or Indonesia. The market has even spread to western nations such as the Netherlands and Britain; it has even taken root in neighboring countries Mexico and Canada. It is naive to think the market will not take a larger grip on America as well. That means all the repercussions that come along with the drug market--organized crime, corruption, increasing violence--will be right here in America.

As if that is not enough, the "War on Drugs" also funds terrorist organizations that are rather anti-American, to put it lightly. Opium's inflated value due to prohibition has given the Taliban a substantial income to fuel their battle against NATO in Afghanistan, and more critically allows them to purchase expensive weaponry each year. How expensive? Hundreds of millions of dollars.

Then there is the issue of increasing corruption in countries who are riddled with these drug markets. Again, like in the 1920's, the revenue accumulated from the lucrative narcotics trade funds the bribes that corrupt the morality of governments such the administrations in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea Bissau. The most alarming example of a corrupting government is Kabul, a government propped up by NATO itself. When NATO, and the government itself props up becomes corrupt due to a prohibition on drugs, there can be no question that the "War on Drugs" is a failed policy.

Finally there is the economic strain the "War on Drugs" provides, and the potential economic boom legalization is capable of. It is common sense that whenever a war is being waged, whether it is a literal war or a figurative one, money needs to be invested. Thus, this whole "War on Drugs" is being funded by taxpayer dollars. As if that is not bad enough, the problem compounds itself because prohibition fund terrorist organizations which we fight in a completely separate war, hence the "War on Terror". Thus, the "War on Drugs" eats up more tax dollars than people think, because it funds the very organizations that tax payers are fighting to contain. This is just on an international level. On a local level, the situation is not any better. According to drugwarfacts.org there were over 1.5 million arrests due to drug possession or drug trafficking--almost half of the 1.5 million based on marijuana possession alone. Why is this a problem? The average cost to incarcerate an inmate is $49,000 taxpayer dollars. If you do the math, that is more than 73 billion tax payer dollars we are losing due to the prohibition of drugs in this country alone.

The economic situation concerning drugs takes a complete 180 degree turn when considering decriminalization. If the drug war ends, whatever money we spend on fighting this "War on Drugs" goes right back into taxpayer pockets. Whatever money we are spending on incarcerating those who sell or have possession of drugs? Right back into tax payer pockets. Whatever extra money we spend on the "War on Terror" because of the funding the "War on Drugs" provides terrorists? Right back into taxpayer pockets. However, it doesn't stop there. Essentially what happens, is an entire new market is created which helps create jobs, new sources of revenue, and the best part, because drugs are a health factor, the government will impose a heavy tax on them which will provide even more capital. Where does all this money go? Right into the taxpayer pockets.

Common sense tells us the "War on Drugs" is a detriment to society. Outdated notions and morals tell us otherwise. It is time we follow common sense and actually begin to help the world. Stop the "War on Drugs".

Friday, September 18, 2009

Bill O'Reilly Backs Public Option





Now, I didn't see the entire segment, so correct me if I am wrong, but I just read in the Huffington Post that Bill O'Reilly supports the public option. This caught me off guard quite a bit. In previous posts I stated that until the Republican Party and its talking pundits comes off the far fetched notions they have been promoting the Republican party will continue to lose credibility. Is this the beginning of the move towards the middle from the Republican Party?

Transcript:

O'REILLY: The public option now is done. We discussed this, it's not going to happen. But you say that this little marketplace that they're going to set up, whereby the federal government would subsidize insurance for some Americans, that is, in your opinion, a public option?


OWCHARENKO: Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don't necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.

O'REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.







You are a jackass

We are back from Sea World--and did not feel like writing today. So here is cop out. Obama calling Kanye West a "jack ass" after the VMA's.




Q: Were your girls as hacked off as mine were that Kanye gave Taylor Swift the Joe Wilson treatment?


Obama: I thought that was really inappropriate. You know it was like she's getting an award -- why are you butting in? I, I hear you -- I agree with you.

Q: So does that count as the first question?

Obama: The young lady seems like a perfectly nice person. She's getting her award. What's he doing up there? He's a jackass. (Laughter) No, now -- this -- all this stuff -- I'm assuming all this stuff. Where's the pool? Come on guys. Cut the president some slack. I got a lot of other stuff on my plate. Yeah. Cause I remember last time it was the fly thing. Now that was the highlight of (trails off)

Q: No that worked out well for you. You were a ninja.

Obama: Except PETA... (laughter)



---We promise some more solid stuff tomorrow. Until then take care!

Monday, September 14, 2009

M.I.A


Hey Politically Correct is going M.I.A until Wednesday so bare with us here.


From Sea World...

Politically Correct

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Bill O'Reilly Says Liberals Want To Help Terrorists

View the whole segments here.

On the eight anniversary of 9/11 Bill O'Reilly went on his show and said Liberals want to help terrorists. It is one thing to say liberals are making America less safe. It's another to say liberals are unintentionally helping terrorist. It is a completely different notion to say liberals want to help and actively are helping terrorist. This is the rhetoric that turns the extreme right into extremist. Out of all the TV show hosts on Fox, Bill O'Reilly, never really expressed the extreme rhetoric Glenn Beck has, or even Sean Hannity has--despite being just as unreasonable as any of the other Fox hosts. But, two days ago, that all changed. Shame on you Bill O'Reilly.

Here is the transcript of his show:
"Cable news has been looking back eight years to the mass murder of September 11, 2001. Thankfully the Bush administration was aggressive in fighting Al Qaeda, which was badly damaged, and another 9/11 is far less likely than eight years ago. Some liberals will never admit that, and a few are actively helping the terrorists. Earlier this week we reported on The John Adams Project, whereby radicals are secretly photographing CIA agents and sending the pictures to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Unbelievable and despicable! The Justice Department is investigating The John Adams Project, which is affiliated with the insidious ACLU. The Obama administration has a responsibility to protect the intelligence community and must stop this atrocity. Looking at the terror landscape today, Iran emerges as the most dangerous enemy. But again, some liberal Americans don't want to confront Iran, and Europe has been weak on the issue. So the world has not learned much from the 9/11 murders. The USA continues to fight the good fight, but Islamic fascism is still dangerous. Somebody tell the liberal community."

The Factor asked two prominent liberals, radio host Leslie Marshall and FNC's Ellis Henican, to assess The John Adams Project. "I do not agree with outing any CIA agent," Marshall said. "However, if anyone in the CIA was a part of interrogating people with torture, that is a violation of international law and they must be held accountable." Henican agreed that rogue agents should be punished, but not by the methods employed by The John Adams Project. "I don't like unmasking CIA agents and the government needs to try and stop it." The Factor asked Henican what he would do, were he president, to halt Iran's nuclear program. "I would squeeze them," Henican replied, "and I would apply economic pressure to make them stop. But I wouldn't attack them because it would cause more problems than it solves." Marshall also condemned military action: "We may perceive their leaders as being lunatics, but they have not attacked us and we are not the boss of the world." The Factor concluded that "neither of you has a solution to stop Iran, which is going to get nuclear weapons."

I honestly couldn't believe what I was hearing. The first thing I couldn't believe is that the John Adams Project were taking covert pictures of the CIA and sending the to detainees. Now, I already knew the John Adams Project were affiliated with the ACLU to defend the constitutional rights of the detainees in Guantanamo, and prosecute those who violated international and US law through egregious acts of torture. However, I have never heard of the John Adams project taking covert pictures of CIA agents in Guantanamo Bay. It doesn't show it in the transcript, but the Factor interviews a member of the project Nina Ginsberg, and she said straight out, "That's not what we did". I didn't know who to believe, so I did search on it. Guess what I found? Nothing, absolutely nothing, but Bill O'Reilly segment and column on the issue, and Conservative blogs commenting on his segment. I am not saying he is lying, I am just saying Fox must be one hell of network to be the only on reporting covert pictures being taken of CIA agents.

Then there is the issue of prosecuting those who violated international and US laws by committing acts of torture. This is all I am going to say on the matter: Violating international laws is one thing, because the line of sovereignty becomes fuzzy; however, US law is completely another. If we don't prosecute those who violate US torture laws, why do we have them in place. Turning a blind eye to those who violated US torture laws compromise the integrity US torture laws and US laws in general.

Then of course there is the issue of Iran. O'Reilly suggested two things. The first is that America is the only country in the world acting appropriately in the Middle East. Essentially, he was furthering the idea of American infallibility. We may be the only country willing to fight the "good fight" but we have payed the consequences. International scorn, lost lives, and billions of tax payer dollars for a fight (Iraq) that really wasn't a "good fight". The he suggested Henican's solution of placing economic and political pressure was not enough of a solution. Apparently he doesn't think the new talks with Iran is enough either. No, what he is advocating for is attacking Iran. Another war. Just so everyone understands how utterly irresponsible this idea is let me spell it out for you. This means more tax payer dollars going to a war in the middle. This means being involved in three wars, the most the United States has ever been involved. This means losing thousands of more lives for cause that is essentially hypocritical (we have nuclear weapons as well). After all that, you want to talk about our government having fiscal responsibility? You willing to spend more than a trillion dollars on a third war but your willing to spend $900 billion on health care? Give me a break.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

3 reasons why Republicans won't make a comeback in 2010





Note: I wrote this as a op-ed article in the New University. It will be published next week.


Although it seemed President Barrack Obama's honeymoon popularity would never end, his glow has finally ceased to exist. Since March, President Obama has dropped 50 percent in his approval rating--the largest drop of an American President in the history of polling. However, it is not just the President who is suffering in the polls, Congress is too. According to Quinnipiac University Poll, congressional Democrats have been declining in their approval ratings, dropping more than 13 points since May. Some major Republican leaders such as Sen. Mitchell McConnell believe that the Democrat's free fall in ratings means a shimmer of hope for Republicans in 2010. However, that notion is about as crazy as the notion of "death panels".

Yes, it is true, President Obama is far from the untouchable realm he was in during the election. Yes, it is true, Democrats have less than been effective despite a heavy majority in Congress. Yes, it is true Democratic approval ratings as a whole have dropped constantly since May. Yet, despite all of this, the Republicans won't make a comeback in 2010 due to four simple reasons.
The first is that the health care debate has overshadowed other aspects of the administration, and it has shown in the ratings. However, sooner or later the debate is going to end, and the focus will shift to other important aspects of his administration (i.e the economy, Iraq, cap and trade). So much of the media's attentions has been focus on the gruesome health care debate, nobody seems to have noticed the economy is on the road to recovery, and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the rate at which people are losing jobs are declining. Ultimately a huge factor in whether Democrats get re-elected is the economy, and from the looks of it, the economic trends will continue to rise in 2010.

The second reason is that, recently, the republicans have shown themselves to be still be akin to the Bush Administration. Lets face it, the Bush Administration made some pretty serious mistakes, especially on the issue of national security. The last thing republicans need is to relate their policies, in any regard, to the Bush Administration. While John McCain did an effective job of that in the campaign, the Republicans have taken a step backwards. Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, a trusted republican voice on homeland security stated on the Rachel Maddow Show, he didn't regret going to war to Iraq. In fact, he failed to acknowledge there was a flaw in the policy makers who drew us into war. As Maddow correctly noted, Americans need to believe won't make the serious mistakes of the Bush/Cheney administration, and unless the republicans begin to acknowledge the mistakes, and separate themselves from it, they will not get their credibility back. This goes for all issues, national security, the economy, energy, everything.

Finally, the third and most important reason, is that republicans are operating on a unsustainable model of politics. Crazy politics. A large contributor to the democratic decline in approval ratings is how difficult the republicans have made it to get anything done. The Republicans have gone about the philosophy stop any bill at any means --including lying, and distortion. While this may have provided a favorable shift in ratings for a time being, Republicans still have not fared well in the polls against Democrats. According to a recent poll by CNN approval ratings for the GOP are at least 10 points below Democrats on almost every major issue, except terrorism.

More importantly however, the Republican mindset of block any Democratic bill at all costs, will eventually ware thin on the American public. This new mindset has forced the republican party to distance itself from moderate, intellectual, conservatism. For the sake of a few numbers in the polls, republicans as a whole have moved towards the extreme right, embracing, encouraging, and in some cases promoting the rhetoric and false claims of extreme conservative pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Betsy McCaughey. Even Republicans who are considered to be moderate, such as Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty have endorsed radical notions of seccession and "death panels". If a moderate, low-key, Republican is endorsing succeeding from the union because of health reform, what message is being sent to the American public about the Republican part?

While it is true these extreme notions and views may have caused a hiccup for those on the left, the extreme right still only makes up of only a small minority of the American population. The American people can only believe, and tolerate, a certain amount of far-fetched notions and radical rhetoric--a threshold the Republicans are dangerously close to.

That being said, Democrats have made some mistakes, giving an opportunity for Republicans to make ground in the polls. For that to happen, moderation and rational thought needs to return to the GOP. During the later years of the Cold War Ronald Reagan, perhaps unintentionally, started a conservative intellectual movement to bring the republican rhetoric to moderation-- that same moderation and intelligence needs to return to the Republican party if they even have a prayer making significant ground 2010. That means Sarah Palin needs to stop writing on her facebook, that means the Republican party needs to reprimand Joe Wilson instead of endorse him, that means the GOP has to know its contradictory to call Obama a Nazi and Socialist at the same time. Plain and simple, the GOP cannot continue to move in the anti-intellectual direction they are headed.

However, if things continue as they are, the Republican party will eventually lose its credibility amongst voters. Essentially, the GOP will forever become the party that cried wolf.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Stop writing on your facebook, Sarah Palin.



It has been eight years since 9/11 and every year the tragedy has been incorporated into politics more and more-- an action that in my opinion is pretty unavoidable, and reprehensible. 9/11 should not be dragged in to politics with claims of un-Americanism. I realize that the face I am blogging about this topic, in a way, contributing to 9/11 being exploited, lately I came across something connecting 9/11 and health care which was astonishing.

It all started with my good friend, Sarah Palin. Palin, once again inexplicably writing on her facebook, attacked President Obama on his health care speech. Not because of death panels, not for illegal immigrants, not for abortions....but because he disrespected 9/11 victims. I apologize for anyone who spit out their coffee on their keyboard. Here is the controversial, if you can call it that, statement:
add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars
That is the quote Palin was referring to in the Health Care speech. She claimed it was "demonizing" 9/11 victims for having too high of a price tag. First, of all, the Iraq war is independent of 9/11, Ms. Palin. Second of all, the comparision was not to set a price tag on the wars, but rather put the costs of the Health Care in perspective to other actions the United States have more than afforded to take. Third of all, to debate the future of this country, and its spending in wars abroad is not an affront to 9/11 victims, it is a legitamite debate that deals with real lives in the military and the economy. What's an affront to 9/11, Ms. Palin, is you bringing in 9/11 in a debate of health care.

The defense of liberalism






For as long as President Obama has been in the public eye, he has refused to criticize the conservative movement or the republican party as whole. Never has he spoken about an issue on ideological terms, defending or attacking one side of the political spectrum or another. He has, despite not receiving the same gracious courtesy from his critics and despite pressure from his own identifying party, stayed steadfastly above the fray.

That is, until the end of his speech last night. For the first time ever--since this President has been in the eye of the American public--he has offered up a defense of liberalism. But when relentless badgering and distortions of his own ideological views, constant nagging from his identfied party, and an agenda full of issues that boils down to essence of the liberal/conservative debate has failed to stagger his stead fast mentality, what possibly did?

Here is the inspiring, emotional, defensive and beautiful letter Ted Kennedy wrote to President Obama. A letter that was so influencial, President Obama did something so unprecendeted for him, it has caused the media a stir.

May 12, 2009

Dear Mr. President,

I wanted to write a few final words to you to express my gratitude for your repeated personal kindnesses to me — and one last time, to salute your leadership in giving our country back its future and its truth.

On a personal level, you and Michelle reached out to Vicki, to our family and me in so many different ways. You helped to make these difficult months a happy time in my life.

You also made it a time of hope for me and for our country.

When I thought of all the years, all the battles, and all the memories of my long public life, I felt confident in these closing days that while I will not be there when it happens, you will be the president who at long last signs into law the health care reform that is the great unfinished business of our society. For me, this cause stretched across decades; it has been disappointed, but never finally defeated. It was the cause of my life. And in the past year, the prospect of victory sustained me — and the work of achieving it summoned my energy and determination.

There will be struggles — there always have been — and they are already under way again. But as we moved forward in these months, I learned that you will not yield to calls to retreat — that you will stay with the cause until it is won. I saw your conviction that the time is now and witnessed your unwavering commitment and understanding that health care is a decisive issue for our future prosperity. But you have also reminded all of us that it concerns more than material things; that what we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.

And so because of your vision and resolve, I came to believe that soon, very soon, affordable health coverage will be available to all, in an America where the state of a family's health will never again depend on the amount of a family's wealth. And while I will not see the victory, I was able to look forward and know that we will — yes, we will — fulfill the promise of health care in America as a right and not a privilege.

In closing, let me say again how proud I was to be part of your campaign — and proud as well to play a part in the early months of a new era of high purpose and achievement. I entered public life with a young president who inspired a generation and the world. It gives me great hope that as I leave, another young president inspires another generation and once more on America's behalf inspires the entire world.

So, I wrote this to thank you one last time as a friend — and to stand with you one last time for change and the America we can become.

At the Denver Convention where you were nominated, I said the dream lives on.

And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.

With deep respect and abiding affection,

(Ted)

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Bipartisan Speech, Partisan Session



While the speech was a glamorous one, the behavior in congress was hardly the same case. It was evident the wear and tear from the brutal month of August has taken it's effect on congress. The joint-session was clearly divided by partisan lines, and efforts to reach out across these lines were not evident in either party--excluding the President of course. Yet, while democrats showed their partisanship in the traditional way, by clapping and handing out standing ovations every time the President said something reasonable moving, which in Obama's case was every other sentence. Out of everyone in the democratic congress, my favorite was Nancy Pelosi, who wore a gleaming smile on her face over every word Obama spoke, struggling to contain herself from clapping or standing. Of course, if you watched the speech, you realize she didn't do too fairly with her restraint. On the other hand, she did get one hell of a work out from how any ovations she gave.

While, the democratic partisanship was rather conventional, and humorous, the GOP was a different story entirely. Their partisanship was hardly conventional, and it wasn't humorous. It was hilarious. It made the whole session out to be like a bunch of teenagers in a fight.

There was of course most notably, Sen. Joe Wilson who shouted "You Lie!" in middle of the President's speech, and proceeded to distract himself from the speech and of the glaring eyes of Pelosi and the left--and even the right, with his blackberry. Some of the older members of congress, like Rep. Rosa DeLauro, claimed she had never seen anything like that in her years of congress. Unfortunately, it didn't stop there for Wilson, he has been reprimanded by both sides of the isle non-stop, and his opponent in the 2010 election raised over 100,000 dollars in less than half a day due to Wilson's outburst. Who would of thought two words, two three letter words, uttered at probably the most inopportune time, could cost an election, and possibly a career.

But while Wilson, may be the most outrageous, and doomed, of the partisan efforts, there was still plenty more inappropriate behavior to go around the GOP. From what, I, and most of you who watched the speech live could see, the Republican Party was holding up signs and a stack of papers. The signs were from Republican members such as Louie Gohmert that read "What Bill", "What Plan?", as if he were campaigning for a high school election. The stack of papers were apparently a reference that the Republican Party had a proposed bill--apparently indicating President Obama had not in fact taken their suggestions. Why we haven't heard about these suggestion until they were waved around in the President's face is beyond me. But it seems the President has some apologizing to do--after all, he hasn't really considered the plan of the GOP; a plan they had for a substantial...five minutes. And of course, the partisan nature of the session could be most seen in the discontent faces of the GOP, when ever they weren't texting of course.

If you watched live that's about how partisan it got, however, the Huffington Post reported even more efforts to be uncivil. After the President debunked the "death panel" claim, one republican mumbled loudly enough to be heard at the floor, " Read the Bill!". When the President said he had no interest of putting insurance companies out of business, he got a loud "HA!" from the right side of the isle. Then of course there was the normal, heavy sighing, agitated whispering, and groans at the presidents claims--something that actually is conventional partisanship.

Just how partisan was this session? Well, aside from Obama's speech, the two most bi-partisan moments in the whole joint-session were: John McCain giving his trademark thumbs up to President Obama after he credited McCain with an idea proposed in the bill; The Republican party hooting and hollering, and stomping on the floor as if they were cheering on their team at the Super Bowl, after the President said he was considering the mal-practice reforms the GOP had advocated for.

Woo, bi-partisanship!

Speech To Congress: Standing Ovations, Moving Words, and Screaming Congressman




Yes, it seems the joint-session health care speech to congress was all it was hyped up to be. We saw a reemergence of President Obama as he was during the election, we saw Nanci Pelosi get an amazing workout standing up every other sentence, we saw angry Republicans waiving papers around angrily, we even saw the topic of tomorrows news as Congressman Joe Wilson showed some lack of class.

The speech obviously lived up to expectations in hype but did President Obama live up to expectations in his speech?

Our poll said 37 percent of you wanted him to be clear on the public option, another 37 percent said you wanted him to explain how he will pay for this plan, 11 percent of you wanted him to be emphatic and emotional about the strifes of the current system, and 14 percent of you wanted him to stress a bi-partisan effort. Lets take those one at a time:

Pubic Option: President Obama did, in fact advocate for a public option. And he did so forcefully. He explained the benefits of a public option, such as healthy competition and affordable insurance for everyone. He also dispelled any rumors that went along with it, such as a government take of health care. Obama clearly stated that the notion of the government taking over health care is not true. He made sure the public, and congress, knew that it would only be a option, he even quoted the Congressional Budget Committee in its estimate that only 5 percent of Americans would sign up. However, Obama, eased up a bit and did what I hoped he wouldn't do. He claimed the public option was not a necessity for health reform. While he was still adamant about the option he claimed that he would go for anything that brought costs down. Which is all good and well except for that fact it gives those opposed to reform leeway to move away fro a public option. Nothing really will bring down costs as well as a public option--and any leeway given to move away from a public option is will risk the vote of those on the far left.

Paying for the plan- Obama really scored well with the blue dogs and progressives by outlining how he is going to pay for the plan. When it came time to talk about costs, he cut right to the chase. The first thing he said probably was effective enough to win over a majority of Blue Dog democrats. He said, he will not add a dime to the deficit. Clear. Simple. Truth? Yes. He gave proof, finally. Obama stressed the idea there would be a provision in the bill that would cut spending if the savings anticipated from the reform did not materialize. Boom. There was the left jab. Obama again stresses the savings he will get the inefficiencies of medicare and medicaid, but this time goes on to claim that the rest of the plan will be paid for through the revenues of the drug and insurance companies who will stand to see millions of new customers. Another jab. Think its over? No. Obama is relentless. The reform will charge a fee for insurance companies most expensive policies, not only reducing costs, but providing the capital to pay for reform. There is the right hook. The Blue Dogs are staggering...they are backing down. But here comes the knockout.
Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.
Ding Ding Ding! That ladies and gentleman is knockout. The Blue Dogs doubt are conquered. So what makes this really a knockout? Because those same centrist wing Blue Dogs voted for the Iraq and Afghanistan War, and the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. So, they should be complaining about costs any longer.

The current system: This one is easy. Obama was tugging on heartstrings from the get go with two heart breaking stories of people who were denied insurance and suffered a high price for it. Check it out:

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

Another woman, from Texas, was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size.

That is heartbreaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

As Obama delivered these heartbreaking stories, Nanci Pelosi was fighting to stay sitting in her chair. But pathos wasn't enough. Obama went on, forcefully, to describe what will happen if we will maintain the status quo--and the he wont stand for it. Case closed.

Bipartisanship: Though this definitely wasn't on my agenda, it was on some of yours, and it was on his. President Obama made huge efforts to be bi-partisan and despite the largely partisan nature of the session, most notably from the right, he earned a thumbs up from John McCain for his bi-partisan efforts. All in all, he reached over to the isle include provisions that the Republican party advocated on mal-practice issues, incorporated John McCain's idea, and even gave leeway, much to my disdain, on the public option.

All in all, it was a great speech, aside from the public option part. He may not of hit a grand slam...but at the very least its a home run with two on base.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Transcript: Obama's address to congress

In case you missed President Obama's congress.... here is the full transcript:


Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, and the American people:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month, credit was frozen, and our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is still many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them.

Until -- until those -- until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive. Until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.

That it our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we've taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

Now, I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on the path to recovery.

I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came here to build a future. So...

So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future, and that is the issue of health care.

I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.

It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform.

And ever since, nearly every president and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell, Sr., in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge year after year, decade after decade, has led us to the breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed and can't afford it since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.

Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover.

We are the only democracy, the only advanced democracy on Earth, the only wealthy nation that allows such hardship for millions of its people.

There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.

In other words, it can happen to anyone.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem for the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today.

More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance, too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

Another woman, from Texas, was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size.

That is heartbreaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend one- and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages.

It's why so many employers, especially small businesses, are forcing their employers -- employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely.

It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally, like our automakers, are at a huge disadvantage.

And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it, about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined.

Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

Nothing else.

Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how. Now, there are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would -- where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody.

On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have said -- I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.

And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the several -- past several months. During that time, we've seen Washington at its best and at its worst. We've seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week.

That has never happened before.

Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses, hospitals, seniors' groups, and even drug companies -- many of whom opposed reform in the past.

And there is agreement in this chamber on about 80 percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.

Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do.

Now's the time to deliver on health care.

Now's the time to deliver on health care.

The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals.

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.

It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge -- not just government, not just insurance companies, but everybody, including employers and individuals.

And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans, and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan.

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the V.A., nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.

Let me -- let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition.

As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most.

They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime.

We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of- pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick.

And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies.

Because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.

That makes sense. It saves money, and it saves lives.

That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan: more security and more stability.

Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you...

... if you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage. We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.

Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves.

Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we'll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need.

And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned.

This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have preexisting medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill.

This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign; it's a good idea now, and we should all embrace it.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.

The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits.

If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors.

And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can't be achieved.

That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.

Likewise -- likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers.

There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.

But...

But we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.

Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part. And while there remains some significant details to be ironed out, I believe...

(LAUGHTER)

... I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance; an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage; and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole.

Still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months, I realize -- I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight, I want to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.

Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie plain and simple.

Now...

Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

(UNKNOWN): That's a lie.

(AUDIENCE BOOING) (ph)

That's not true.

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system.

Now, as proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly- sponsored insurance option, administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight here.

My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there's choice and competition. That's how the market works.

Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company.

And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it.

All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable.

And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that, but an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.

Now, let me -- let me be clear.

Let me be clear, it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government, and they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option, but they won't be. I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects.

But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

Now, it is...

It's -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles.

To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it.

The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.

And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example -- for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan.

These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that, if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.

And -- and I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public, and that's how we pay for this plan.

Now, Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future.

I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future -- period.

I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promise don't materialize.

Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for, from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy.

I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care don't make us any healthier. That's not my judgment. It's the judgment of medical professionals across this country.

And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, I want to speak directly to seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years.

That's how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. And that...

That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.

The only...

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies...

... subsidies that do everything to pad their profits, but don't improve the care of seniors.

And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.

Now, these steps will ensure that you -- America's seniors -- get the benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pockets for prescription drugs.

That's what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut -- especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past...

... and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program.

That will not happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody.

We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average.

So the commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system -- everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Now, much...

Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers.

And this reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money -- an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts.

And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run.

Now, finally, many in this chamber, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the costs of health care.

[Cheering]

Now -- there you go.

[Cheering]

There you go.

Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So -- so -- so I'm proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know...

... I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think it's a good idea, and I'm directing my secretary of health and human services to move forward on this initiative today.

Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.

Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

Now, this is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight -- Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it.

I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out. And I will not...

And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time; not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result.

We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed -- the ones who suffer silently and the ones who shared their stories with us at town halls, in e-mails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.

In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, his amazing children, who are all here tonight.

And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform -- "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it -- would finally pass.

He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things."

"What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom, and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and, yes, sometimes angry debate. That's our history.

For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their minds, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government. But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here -- people of both parties -- know that what drove him was something more.

His friend, Orrin Hatch, he knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend, John McCain, knows that. They worked together on a patients' bill of rights. His friend, Chuck Grassley, knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy's passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience -- the experience of having two children stricken with cancer.

He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick. And he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance, what it'd be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent, "There is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it."

That large-heartedness, that concern and regard for the plight of others is not a partisan feeling. It's not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character.

Our ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together, that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play. And an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress.

In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it.

In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down.

They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.

But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited.

And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter -- that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

That was true then. It remains true today.

I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road, to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that is not what this moment calls for.

That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard.

I still believe...

... I still believe that we can act when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things and that here and now we will meet history's test, because that's who we are. That is our calling. That is our character.

Thank you. God bless you and may God bless the United States of America.